In the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had 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, he began to build Yahweh’s house.
Parallel Translations
-
In the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had 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, he began to build Yahweh’s house.
-
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.
-
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 Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (1)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (16)
Passages linked to 1 Kings 6:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- 2 Chronicles 3:1-2 Then Solomon began to build Yahweh’s house at Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where Yahweh appeared to David his father, which he prepared in the place that David had appointed, on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. He began to build in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign.
- Acts 7:47 But Solomon built him a house.
- 1 Kings 6:37 The foundation of Yahweh’s house was laid in the fourth year, in the month Ziv.
- 1 Chronicles 29:19 and give to Solomon my son a perfect heart, to keep your commandments, your testimonies, and your statutes, and to do all these things, and to build the palace, for which I have made provision.”
- 1 Peter 2:5 You also, as living stones, are built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
- Numbers 1:1 Yahweh spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying,
- Judges 11:26 Israel lived in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aroer and its towns, and in all the cities that are along the side of the Arnon for three hundred years! Why didn’t you recover them within that time?
- Zechariah 6:12-13 and speak to him, saying, ‘Yahweh of Armies says, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build Yahweh’s temple; even he shall build Yahweh’s temple; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule on his throne; and he shall be a priest on his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
- Zechariah 6:15 Those who are far off shall come and build in Yahweh’s temple; and you shall know that Yahweh of Armies has sent me to you. This will happen, if you will diligently obey Yahweh your God’s voice.” ’ ”
- John 2:19-21 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews therefore said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple! Will you raise it up in three days?” But he spoke of the temple of his body.
- 1 Corinthians 6:19 Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
- 2 Corinthians 6:16 What agreement does a temple of God have with idols? For you are a temple of the living God. Even as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk in them. I will be their God and they will be my people.”
- Ephesians 2:20-22 being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone; in whom the whole building, fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built together for a habitation of God in the Spirit.
- Colossians 2:7 rooted and built up in him, and established in the faith, even as you were taught, abounding in it in thanksgiving.
- Hebrews 9:11 But Christ having come as a high priest of the coming good things, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation,
- Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for the city which has the foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (24 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Whereby is meant the Temple and the Oracle.
Whereby is meant the Temple and the Oracle.
Which month containeth part of April and part of May.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 1Ki 6:1 And it came to pass in the…
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.
Read full note →
Were come out of the land of Egypt.] And so began to be a commonwealth, which since the last destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, they could never be again, but remain a dejected and despised people.
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 was the April moon, the second month of the sacred year. {Exo 12:2} It signifieth brightness; because the creatures begin then to be in their flourish. The Chaldee calleth it mensem aparitionis florum, the month of the displaying of flowers.
Which is the second month] For Abib, signifying the spring, was the first. {Exo 12:2; Exo 13:4} On the second day of this second month he began to build. {2Ch 3:2} Not on the sixth, as Calvisius saith, or on the eighth, as Capellus, or on the ninth and twentieth, as Scaliger.
He began to build.] Heb., He built: but this house was not built in a day. Sed fieri dicitur quod tentatur aut intenditur. Good beginnings are well interpreted in heaven, so they be well prosecuted. The place of this house is noted to be Mount Moriah. {2Ch 3:1} Plato {a} and Aristotle {b} observe that temples are most fitly built on mountains; ut eminus sint conspicua, that they may be seen afar off.
{a} Plat., lib. vii. De Leg.
{b} Arist., lib. vi. Polit.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain This chronological difficulty is too vast and comprehensive to…
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 Israel’s 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.
Read full note →
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 Jair’s 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 God’s help vindicate them in their several places.
In the fourth year of Solomon’s 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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Here, I. The temple is called the house of…
Here, I. The temple is called the house of the Lord (Kg1 6:1), 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 (Ch1 28:11, Ch1 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 (Sa2 12:20), 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 9:9. 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 (Ch1 22:14), 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.
Read full note →
III. The materials are brought in, ready for their place (Kg1 6:7), 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, Pro 24:27. 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 (Kg1 6:2, Kg1 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 (Kg1 6:4): 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 (Kg1 6:5, Kg1 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, Kg1 6:6. Let not the church's strength be impaired under pretence of adding to its beauty or convenience.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain And it came to pass in the four hundred…
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 Kg1 7:51;
Read full note →
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 Ch2 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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain The time when the temple was built, ver. 1.…
The time when the temple was built, ver. 1. The dimensions of it, ver. 2, 3. The windows, chambers, materials, doors, ver. 4-10. God's message to Solomon, ver. 11-13. The walls and flooring, ver. 14-18. The oracle and cherubim, ver. 19-30. The doors and inner court, ver. 31-36. How long it was building, ver. 37-38.
Four hundred and four score, &c. - Allowing forty years to Moses, seventeen to Joshua, two hundred 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 burnt by Nebuchadnezzar. It was thus deferred, because Israel had by their sins, made themselves unworthy of this honour: and because God would shew 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.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain In the four hundred and eightieth year from the…
CHAPTER VI
In the four hundred and eightieth year from the exodus, in the
Read full note →
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain 1Ki 6:1. In the four hundred and eightieth year…
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 Solomon’s 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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain In the four hundred and eightieth year - It…
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 Solomon’s 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.
Read full note →
(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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Eightieth year. This chronology meets with the approbation of…
Eightieth year. This chronology meets with the approbation of most people. See Usher. (Chap. xii.) Some, however, find a difficulty in reconciling it with Acts xiii. 20., which seems to attribute 450 years to the government of the judges. (Calmet) --- Septuagint have 440; Josephus 592, though Ruffin neglects the 90 in his version; Petau 520; Severus 582; Clement of Alexandria 566; Vossius 380; Cano 590; Serarius 680. --- Houbigant would read 350 in the Acts. But Capellus would add 200 here, &c. (Haydock) --- Second of the sacred year, corresponding with our April. Syriac, Chaldean styles it "of the splendour of flowers." (Menochius) --- The Hurons, and other nations of America, call this "the moon of plants;" the Flemings, "the month for mowing," Grasmaand. Our Saxon ancestors gave descriptive names to the months. See Verstegan. (Haydock) --- At first, the Hebrews only described the months by their order; "first, second," &c. In Solomon’s time we begin to find other names, taken from the Phenicians, (Scaliger) Chaldeans, (Grotius) or Egyptians. (Hardouin, the year 2993.) --- After the captivity, at least, Chaldean names were adopted; (Haydock) 1. Nisan; 2. Jar; 3. Sivan; 4. Tammus; 5. Ab; 6. Elul; 7. Tisri; 8. Marshevan; 9. Casleu; 10. Thebet; 11. Schebet; 12. Adar; (Calmet) 13. Veadar, the intercalary month, when requisite, according to the lunar system, which was not perhaps yet adopted. Each of these months generally corresponded with two of ours; Nisan with the end of March and the beginning of April, &c. Septuagint here take no notice of Zio, though they do, ver. 37. (Haydock) --- The temple was begun on Monday, May 21, in the year of the world 2992. (Usher) --- It was finished in the year of the world 3000, or in the following year, when it was solemnly dedicated. (Button.)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain B.—The accomplishment of the building of the Temple
B.—The accomplishment of the building of the Temple
1Ki_6:1-38
Read full note →
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 Solomon’s 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 Solomon’s 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 Ezekiel’s 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” (Hävernick, 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 Ezekiel’s 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 œdificat, 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” (Robinson’s 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” (Aufklärung), 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 Salomo’s mit drei Kupfertafeln, Berlin, 1809), gave occasion to later and more exact researches, in pure archæological and historico-æsthetic interests. Hereupon followed the Inquiries by J. Fr. Von Meyer (Bibeldeutungen, 1812, and Blätter für höhere Wahrheit, IX. and XI.); Stieglitz (Geschichte der Baukunst. Nürnberg, 1827); Grüneisen (Revision d. jungsten Forschungen üb. den Salom. Tempel. Kunstbl. 1831); Kopp (Der Tempel Salomo’s, Stuttgart, 1839, mit Abbild.); Keil (Der Tempel Salomo’s. Dorpat, 1839); Kugler (Kunstgesch., Berlin, 1841); Schnaase (Antiq. Bemerk. über den Salom. Tempel in der Gesch. der bild. Künste I., Düsseld. 1843); Romberg and Steeger (Gesch. der Baukunst. Leipzig, 1844); Merz (Bemerk. über den Tempel Salomo’s. Kunstbl. 1844); my treatise: Der Salom. Tempel mit Berücksicht. seines Verhältn. zur heil. Architektur überhaupt. Karlsruhe, 1848); Thenius (das vorexilische Jerusalem u. dessen Tempel, mit Abbild., im Commentar zu den Büchern der Könige. Leipzig. 1849); Winer (R.-W.-B. Tempel zu Jerusalem. Leipzig, 1848); Ewald (die heiligen und königlichen Bauten Salomo’s in der Gesch. Israels 3. Göttingen, 1853); Unruh (das alte Jerusalem und seine Bauwerke. Langensalza, 1861); Merz (Tempel zu Jerusalem in Herzogs R. Encyclopädie 15. Gotha, 1862).
[For the archæology and topography of the subject, see also Robinson’s Palestine, vol. i. p. 280–300. 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 II—E. 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 Böttcher 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 (40x12=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. 56–58), and Rösch (das Datum des Tempelbaues im Ersten Buche der Könige. Studien u. Kritiken, 1863, iv. s. 712–742) 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 (זו) 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 (Dörptische Beiträge, ii. s. 303 sq., and on Jdg_3:7), Tiele (Chronologie des A. T. s. 54), Werner (Rudelbach’s 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 (ὡς), 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 rulers—480 + 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 Rösch 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 פּ = 80 with מ = 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 Solomon’s 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 (הַבַּיִת), 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” (הֵיבַל הבַּיִת), and the rear, in 1Ki_6:5, “the oracle” (חַדְּבִיר). The word הֵיכָל comes from the Arabic, to be large, high (2Ch_3:5), hence the front compartment was “the great house” (הַבַּיִת הַגָּדוֹל) in contradistinction with the rear, which was the shorter half, and also lower. The Vulg., after Jerome, translates the word דְּבִיר by oraculum, i.e., oraculi sedes, and the Lex. Cyrilli explains the δαβὶρ of the Sept. by χρηματιστήριον. It is, however, not derived from דִּבֵר = to speak, but from דָּבַר 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 שְׁקֻפִים אֲטֻמִים, 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 אוּלָם comes from אוּל, i.e., to go before, it signifies also a projection: but we are not, as in 1Ki_7:6, where הָעַמּוּדִים (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 אוּלָם, but must have been called a מִנְדַּל (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 Smith’s 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. Meyer’s probable conjecture, instead of מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים, we should read: אמות עשרים, i.e., 20 cubits (in Eze_42:16 also, whether the reading be אמות or מאית 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 ל = 30 was originally in the text, but that through the obliteration of the upper portion of the letter it became כ = 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 יָצוּעַ comes from יָצַעsternere, to spread or strew something for a bed, and means literally stratum, a bed (Psa_63:6; Job_17:13). Symmachus renders it by κατάστρωμα. 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. יָצוּעַ 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 אֶת before קִירוֹת is scarcely the sign of the accus., “reaching to the walls” (Keil), but a preposition, and defines more particularly the preceding עַל—קִיר, 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 צְלָעוֹת, 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 30—viz., 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 (מִגְרָעוֹת, 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 below—at 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 (שְׁלֵמָה), 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 צֵלָע in 1Ki_6:8, and in Eze_41:5; Eze_41:9; Eze_41:11, is like יָצוּעַ 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). וַיִּבְּפֹּן 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. גֵּבִים are not planks, as the word for the most part is translated, but beams, as such were certainly indispensable for roofing. שְׂדֵרֹת are scarcely “hewn cedar-timbers” (Thenius), but boards which were laid upon the beams. The באָרֲזָיִם refer to both the preceding. Without doubt this cedar covering was overlaid with firm flooring, perhaps even with stone slabs. Thenius very unnecessarily wishes גַּבִּים to be read for גֵּבִים, and then suggests “a flat roof vaulting” but in the ancient Orient there were never any arched roofs. In 1Ki_6:10הַיָּצוּעַ 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 וַיִּבֶן (Thenius), or יָצוּעַ (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 Phœnicia to Judea (comp. Müller, Archœology, translated by John Leitch, p. 214 sq.; Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Künste, i. s. 160; Weiss, Kostümkunde, 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 “לְקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּ to לִדְבִיר shows the design of the latter, and proves that the דְּבִיר 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 הֵיכָל (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 הָעֲלִיות, and which the Sept. renders by τὸ ὑπερῷον. 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 Grüneisen, 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 author’s 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 Grüneisen 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 (Müller, Archœology, p. 190 sq.; Leitch (German edit.) s. 258; Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Künste, i. s. 392). We must certainly assume that there was a room over the rear compartment ten cubits high. Böttcher 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 others—he overlaid the altar of cedar, namely, with gold like the rest. Apart from the fact that מִזְבֵּחַ 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 אֲשֶׁר ־ לַדְּבִיר, 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” (לִפְנֵי) (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.: καὶ ἐποίησε θυσιαστήριον κέδρου. It read also ויַּעַשׂ instead of וַיְצַף, which Thenius holds to be genuine. In that case the absence of the article in מִזְבֵּחַ 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: וַיְעַבֵּר(and he made a partition) by the chains of gold before the oracle (Debir). Thenius is of opinion that the subject here, viz., אֶת־הַפָּרֹכֶת 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, יעבר is to be translated, he bolted, as in Chaldaic עברא means a bolt, and for בְרִיחִם, i.e., bolt (Exo_26:26), the Chaldee has עברין. 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 Atonement—a 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: רתוקות comes from רתק, which means to bind, to chain together, and in Arabic to shut up, and the expression צָפוֹן the concealed, the closed, is used by Ezek. (1Ki_7:22) of the holy of holies. The supposition of v. Meyer and Grüneisen, 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 כְּרוּב 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 much—that 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 חַיוֹת, i.e.,ζῶα, living creatures (not θῆρες, 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 Ezekiel’s 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 כְרוּב 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 archæologists 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 Stiftshütte, 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 it—a thing impossible, for they stood 10 cubits apart (1Ki_6:27), while the ark was 3½ 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 מִקְלַעַת “basso-relievo,” Vulgate cœlaturœ eminentes, which, however, cannot be established by the word itself. For although קָלַע 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 פִּתּוּחֵי from פָּתַח to break open, to open, then to furrow, to plough (Isa_28:24); פִּתּוִּחים 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_6:36וַיְפַתַּח, and this agrees with קָלַע, 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 man’s 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 Judœa 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, פְּקָעִים also, which is regarded generally as synonymous with פַקֻּעֹת, 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 פַּקֻּעֹת 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 פָּקַע does not mean simply to burst, but also circumire, in hiphil conglomerare, circumagere, and פקעתinvolucrum, glomus, globus, so also פקיעאglomus, fasciculus convolutus vel colligatus (Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. et Talm., p. 1790). In its intimate connection with פְטוּרֵי צִצִים, will פְּקָעִים 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 פטורי = “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_6:20מִלִּפְנִים can be referred only to the Debir, and not to the interior of the whole house, consequently by לַחִיצוֹן 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 הָאַיִל מְזוּזוֹת חֲמִּשִּׁית: “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 מֵאֵת רְבִעִית, 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. Böttcher 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 אַיִל here means the entrance-wall, still חֲמִשִּׁית 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 עַד־תֹּם 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.
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
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. כְּרֻתֹת 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 Phœnicians (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 Phœnician. But since all adequate descriptions of Phœnician buildings, and all memorials, such as are still extant in Egypt, are wanting, we know nothing of the distinguishing peculiarity of Phœnician architecture, which certainly, since the material employed was chiefly wood, must have differed essentially from the much later Græco-Roman, and especially from the Egyptian, which made use exclusively of hard stone (Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Künste, i. s. 238, 249). The older drawings, therefore, in Græco-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 Phœnician workmen, but Egyptian, whom he could have easily procured from his royal father-in-law. The most recent drawings by Thenius and Keil (bibl. Archœologie) 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 (זְבֻל), 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 Jehovah’s 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 Jehovah’s 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 שְׁכִינָה from שָׁכַן 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 הָעֵדוּת, 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 Himself—“that 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 him”—the 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, טִקְדָשׁ (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. זבול stands for the temple in 1Ki_8:13; 2Ch_6:2 : for heaven in Isa_63:15. מכון שׁבת 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. מעון = temple in Psa_76:9; = heaven in 2Ch_30:27; Deu_26:15; Jer_25:30; Psa_68:6. קדשׁ היכל = 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 (משבן) of God, and lays down this proposition: “The house of the sanctuary which is below (מטן) is built after the house of the sanctuary which is above (מעלן)” (comp. the places in Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr., p. 1213). The apocalyptic σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, 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 תַּבְנִית( ὑπόδειγμα and σκιὰ τῶν ἐπουρανίων, Heb_8:5), and showed to Moses how he must make and arrange the earthly sanctuary (τὸ ἅγιον κοσμικόν, Heb_9:1) in order that it might be a figure of the σκηυὴ ἡ ἀληθηνὴ οὐ χειροποίητος, 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, 336–338).
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 מִקְדָּשׁ, 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 degree—it 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 Son—the 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-place—the 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 הֵיכָל. 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 חֵיכַל יְהֹיָה, or simply הֵיכָל, 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., Solomon’s (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 הֵיכַל, i. e., a king’s 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 building—an הֵיכָל.
(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 אֹהֶל־מוֹעֵד (Exo_29:42; Exo_29:44; Exo_27:21; Exo_40:22), or מוֹעֵד 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.: καὶ ποιήσεις αὐλἢν τῇ σκηνῇ). 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 Jehovah’s 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 Ezekiel’s temple, and of the apocalyptic σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ (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 them—a 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 God’s 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 γυώρισμα, that it is κατοικτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ. 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 heaven”—the 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 Jehovah—dwelling and self-revealing, the holy of holies—had 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: τετράγωνος; εὐστοθὴς ἑδραῖος (Grotius, Vitringa, Hävernick). 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 opposites—the 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” [gestühle, 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-stätte), which differ from each other by way of degree—forecourt, 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 length—the 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 furniture—candlesticks, 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 Jehovah’s 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 Hävernick 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 σκηνὴ τοῦ θεοῦ 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 together—cherubim, 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; Schöttgen, 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 הַחַיּוֹת, 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 הַחַיָּה, 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 τὰ ζῶα over-against God τῷ ζῶντι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, 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. Linnæus 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. 444–579; 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 צִיץ, i.e., flower (Exo_28:36). The budding of Aaron’s 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 עַמּוּדִים, 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 (כָבוֹד) 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. Müller (Archœologie 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 ἀξόανα 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. Müller, Archœ., 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. Künste, i. s. 393, 424). Quite the reverse holds in respect of the dwelling of Jehovah, the plan of which is in the highest degree simple—an 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 Phœnician workmen, occasion has been found to institute a comparison with Phœnician 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 Phœnician, 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.; Müller, Archœol., Eng. trans. p. 214). The little that we know of the Phœnician 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 author’s 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 Phœnician, it bore the impress of the Phœnician 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 Phœnician 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 Phœnician 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. 225–236. 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 (’Ισραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα, 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 σκιὰ τῶν μελλόντων or τῶν ἐπουρανίων (Heb_8:5; Heb_10:1). The perfect first appeared, when the time was fulfilled, in Him who was the σῶμα in contrast with the σκιᾷ, 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, σωματικῶς (Col_2:9). He is the λόγος, the true revelation of God, and in Him is life and light: He dwelt among us (ἐσκήνωσε), and we beheld His glory, (δόξα, i.e., כָבוֹד) 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 ’Ισραὴλ κατὰ σάρκα 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 God’s 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 temple—porch, holy place, holy of holies, and the side-structure—it 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 men’s 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 men’s 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 God’s 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 eightieth—for 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. א, A, B, C, etc., adopt the reading which places the words καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα after, instead of before, the clause ὡς ἕτεσιν τετρακοσίοις καὶ πεντήκοντα, 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 בֹנֵי, builders, into בְנֵי, sons.
[3]1Ki_6:2.—[The missing אַמָּה 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.—[חַלֹּנֵי שְׁקֻפִים אֲטֻמִים. 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. שְקֻפִים means only beams, cross-pieces; and אֲטֻמִים from, אָטַם, to shut close, means closed, and so fixed.
[5]1Ki_6:5.—For the k’tib יָצוּעַ the k’ri has in each case יָצִיַע, which is doubtless right, since the word has here another than the usual sense (Thenius).—Bähr. [Keil considers that the masc. form denotes the whole wing of these stories; the fœm. the single story of this wing.
[6]1Ki_6:7.—[אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה מַסָּע נִבְנָה was built of “all unviolated stones of the quarry.” Keil.
[7]1Ki_6:8.—In place of הַתִּיֹכנָח must necessarily be read (cf. 1Ki_6:6) הַתַּחְתֹּנָה, as Eze_41:7 stands, and the Targum and the Sept. have read (Böttcher, Ewald, Merz., Thenius).—Bähr. [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 11–14.
[9]1Ki_6:15.—The true reading, according to 2Ch_3:7, is here as in 1Ki_6:16 קוֹרוֹת [beams] not קִירוֹת [walls] (Thenius, Keil).—Bähr. [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 author’s conception of the construction of the הֵיכָל 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 לפני 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 דְּבִיר 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 בְתוֹךְ is hence to be understood that the Debir was between the Heehel and the side structure. The difficult words וְלִפְנֵי הַדְּבִיר, 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 לפני, with Kimchi, for the noun לפנים, occurring also in 1Ki_6:29=the inner, inward. With סָגוּר, the same gold is designated which in Exo_25:11 sq. is called טָהוֹר, and in 2Ch_3:8 טוֹב (Vulg.: purissimum).—Bähr.
[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 cœtera.—F. G.]
[16]1Ki_6:34.—Instead of קלעים must here necessarily be read, with the Sept., צלעים, which stands immediately before.—Bähr.
[17][See on this verse Lachmann‘s 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 (Solomon’s 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 author’s exposition is the better.—E. H.]
[19][Upon these substructions, see Robinson and “The Recovery of Jerusalem,” as above.—E. H.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 1. Four hundred and eightieth year — From this…
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. (40x12=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:
Read full note →
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Ch. 1Ki_6:1-10. Commencement and dimensions of Solomon’s Temple (2Ch_3:1-2)
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.
Read full note →
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 Ἰάρ 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.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) In the fourth year.—This date, given with marked…
(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 Josephus’s 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 fâcie 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 Solomon’s 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.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain SOLOMON"S TEMPLE. The preparations for the building of the…
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 (ver. 1); then follows
(1) a description of the shape, size, and arrangement of the exterior (vers. 2-10), and
Read full note →
(2) a detailed account of its internal fittings and adornments (vers. 15-35). The promise made to Solomon during its erection finds a place in vers. 1113; while the vessels, etc., used in the Temple service are described in ch. 7. A parallel though briefer account, and one differing considerably in itsarrangement, 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, JIerosoluma (Jos., B. J. 6. 10) and JIeron Salomwnov (Eupolemus in Euseb. Praep. Ev. 9:34; see Stanley, "Jewish Church," 2. p. 193), 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 history and three of them of considerable length are 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 (as Bahr has well shown, Symbolik, 1. pp. 127, 128) 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" (Bahr). Indeed the very names templum and temenov (=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" (Romberg and Steger, quoted in Bahr, "Bibelwerk," p. 49). 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" (Fergusson, Dict. Bib. 3. p. 1460. In a paper in the "Contemporary Review," vol. 27, p. 978, Fergusson adopts the idea that it was designed to serve as a basis for the future restoration of the temple.)
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" (Conder, "Handbook to Bible," p. 868). "Wherever the Mishna is not in accord with Josephus the measurements of the latter are untrustworthy" (ib. p. 869). 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 (Bahr). 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. (See Fergusson, Dict. Bib. 3. p. 1455). 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 (ver. 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:
(Temple Cubits).
Entire length (80)
Entire width (40)
Entire height (30)
Length of Holy Place (40)
Width (20)
Height (20)
Length of Holy of Holies (20)
Width (20)
Height (20)
Width of Porch (20)
Depth (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 cubits the holy of holies was a cube of ten cubits or 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 (Symbol der Vollendung und Vollkommenheit. Bahr, Symbolik, 1. p. 175), just as five was the sign of imperfection (ib. pp. 183-187). 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 original that it was made after the pattern of things in the heavens it 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. Bahr, however, who also shows at some length how "the number three is everywhere conspicuous in the building" (p. 54), 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 ten it 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.
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 (pace Keil: "The correctness of the number 480 is now pretty generally admitted") as closed. Grave doubts are entertained as to its genuineness. Lord A. Hervey (Dict. Bib. vol. 2. p. 22) says it is "manifestly erroneous." Rawlinson considers it to be "an interpolation into the sacred text" (p. 515). And it is to he observed,
1. that the LXX reads 440 instead of 480 years a discrepancy which issuspicious, and argues some amount of incertitude.
2. Origen quotes this verse without these words (Comm. in S. Joh_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 noticesboth 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 numbers 20, 40, and the like and 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 (kai metaoiv kaikonta edwken kritav k.t.l.) But Lachmann, on the authority of A, B, C (and we may add a), considers the received text to be corrupt, and would place kai meta tauta after penthkonta. 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 stand and it is to be noticed that the reigns of the Judges, including Samuel, sum up exactly to the period mentioned by St. Paul, 450 years the interval between the Exodus and the erection of the temple cannot well have been less than 99 or 100 years longer, i.e. , 580 Josephus makes it 592 instead of 480 years.
1. The chronology of Josephus to which by itself, perhaps, no greatweight is to be attached, agrees with St. Paul"s estimate, and of course contradicts that of the text.
2. Nor does it seem to be a valid argument for the retention of thesuspected words, that "the precision of the statement is a voucher for its accuracy." (Bahr, 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 ver. 37, Bul in ver. 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. (Dict. Bib. if. 416) 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_1:5:5.1. We can hardly be wrong in identifying the remarkable rock known asthe Sakrah, over which the mosque of Omar (Kubbet-es-Sakrah) is built the "pierced rock" of the Jerusalem Itinerary with 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 ("Tent Work," pp. 187-9) 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," ch. 12. , etc. Quot viatores, tot sententiae.
HOMILIES BY A. ROWLAND.
Ver. 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 (ch. 8) 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) there dedicated things were laid before the. (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 work the 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 vers. 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.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain He began to build the house of the Lord.
1Ki_6:1-14
He began to build the house of the Lord.
Read full note →
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.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain 1Ki_6:1. Began to build the house of the Lord—The…
THE BUILDING OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE
CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.—
Read full note →
1Ki_6:1. Began to build the house of the Lord—The 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. Cubits—The 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 הַבַּיִת 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” הֵיכַל הַבּיִכ and the “oracle” (1Ki_6:6) in the rear, הַדְּביר
1Ki_6:4. Windows—Of their number, situation, and shape or size no information is given, none therefore possessed. With narrow lights—Probably lattices.
1Ki_6:5. Chambers round about—On three sides of the “house” there were chambers in three stories.
1Ki_6:11. And the word of the Lord came to Solomon—i.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,” לִפְנַי, and the rear, measuring twenty cubits square, “the most holy place,” דְּבּיר
1Ki_6:18. Knops and open flowers—Bitter gourds and opened buds.
1Ki_6:21. He made a partition by the chains of gold—i.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 gold—i.e., the entire interior of the holy place, and the altar, and the holy of holies.
1Ki_6:23. Two cherubim of olive tree—These כְרוּבִים 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 without—lit., from within to without, מִלִּפְנִיְם וְלַחיצוֹן 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 folding—It 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 Solomon’s 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 Jehovah’s 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 assail—this 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 Christ’s body, which is His church? And what is the temple of God’s 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 Temple—the glory of its prime, the humiliation of its decay; its disasters, its transformations, its demolition—it 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 Creator’s 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 standing—materials 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 workman’s 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 God’s. 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, surely—without 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 conqueror’s shout, the wrangler’s curse, and the worldling’s 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 cottager’s hut, or in that poor man’s 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 virtues—justice, wisdom, fortitude, and temperance; or the four faculties in the soul—rational, irascible, concupiscible, and conscience; or the four chief passions—joy, 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 Trinity—the 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 life—the 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 manifested—whether 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 man—has 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; man’s 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 Spirit’s 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 Christ’s 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 Men’s 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 God’s Israel in our day. We have entered Solomon’s 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 God’s 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 men’s 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 rooms—the 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 character—an 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 is—a 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 man—a mind in a mind, intellect in intellect, reason in reason, will in will?
I. The erection of the Temple was God’s 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 character—that 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. God’s 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 mercy—mercy 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 peace—peace between man’s intellect and truth, between man’s will and holiness, peace between man’s desires and God’s 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 inspiration—“This 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 God’s 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.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain 1Ki 6:7
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.
Read full note →
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.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Construction of the Temple
The Construction of the Temple
In shape the Temple was a rectangular hall 60 x 20 x 30 cubits (a cubit being about 18 inches). On its E. face it had a porch (forming an entrance) which extended across the whole front and added 10 cubits to the length of the building (1Ki_6:3). The height of this is given in 2Ch_3:4 as 120 cubits; but such a measurement is out of all proportion to the others, and is probably an error (one of the MSS of the LXX substitutes 20 cubits). On three sides of the house were built a number of chambers (Josephus says 30) in three storeys (1Ki_6:5, 1Ki_6:10), intended for the accommodation of the priests and for storing things required for the Temple services: cp. 2Ki_11:2-3; Neh_13:4-5 (of the Second Temple). The beams that supported the cielings of these storeys rested on ledges in the outer face of the Temple wall formed by successive reductions of its thickness (1Ki_6:6). Above the topmost row of chambers the Temple wall was pierced with windows of narrow lights (RV 'windows of fixed lattice work,' i.e. which could not be opened like most lattices), resembling the clerestory of a modern cathedral. In the interior, the building was divided by a partition (see 1Ki_6:16) into two apartments, the larger (to the E.) being called the Holy Place, and the smaller (to the W.) being styled the Oracle or Most Holy Place, which bore to one another the same relation as the nave and chancel of our own churches.
Read full note →
Solomon's Temple resembled in general plan the Tabernacle as described in Exodus 25-27, its length and breadth being exactly double. In idea, it was, like the Tabernacle, the dwelling-place of the God of Israel (see 1Ki_8:18, and cp. Exo_25:8), wherein He received, and held communion with, His worshippers (2Ki_19:14., cp. Exo_33:7). But it differed from most other sanctuaries of antiquity in containing no image; so that though the conception of divine worship had not yet become independent of locality or material oblations (see Joh_4:21-24), the conception of the Deity Himself was purely spiritual.
In the Holy of Holies (the Presence chamber of the Divine King) there was nothing except the ark (containing the Decalogue), the cover of which was regarded as the throne of the Lord, who was thought of as seated between the cherubim that overshadowed it (2Ki_19:15). In the Holy Place there were situated the Altar of Incense and the Table of Shewbread. In the court before the House stood the Altar of Burnt Offerings and the several vessels used by the priests in their ablutions (1Ki_7:23.).
1. The four hundred and eightieth year] The sum of the periods mentioned or implied in the previous books since the exodus much exceeds this figure. The real length of the interval is uncertain, and the number of years here indicated is probably not based on historic records but is a conventional expression for twelve generations (a generation being reckoned at 40 years). Approximately the date of the commencement of the Temple may be put at 973 b.c. The month Zif] In early times the Hebrew year ended and began in the autumn (see Exo_23:10; Exo_34:22), but at a later period the beginning of the year was in the spring, and Zif, which corresponded to our April-May, became the second month. It was subsequently called Iyyar.
2. The house] The Temple was built on the N. of the hill upon which Zion, 'the city of David,' stood, there being an ascent from the latter to the former (see 1Ki_8:1). Its site had originally been occupied by Araunah's threshing-floor (2Ch_3:1). For its position relative to the rest of Solomon's buildings see on 1Ki_7:9.
8. The middle chamber] LXX has 'the lowest chamber,' which the sense requires.
The right side] the S.
9. Covered the house] Roofed or cieled it. Whether the roof was flat or gable-shaped is uncertain, though, as houses were generally flat-topped, this was probably no exception.
12. Concerning this house, etc.] The erection of the Temple was an external and material indication of Solomon's allegiance to the Lord; but to obtain the Almighty's continued favour, it was necessary besides to submit his life and conduct to the control of God's moral laws.
Which I spake unto David] see 2Sa_7:13. God renewed to Solomon the promises made to his father on condition of his obedience.
15. Both the floor, etc.] mg. 'from the floor of the house unto the walls,' etc., i.e. from top to bottom.
16. He built.. on the sides, etc.] RV 'he built.. on the hinder part,' etc. This, as appears from a comparison of the measurements given in 1Ki_6:2 and 1Ki_6:17, does not mean that the Most Holy Place (or Oracle) was an additional structure built on the rear of the house, but that it was an apartment formed within the house (cp. 1Ki_6:19) at its W. end by the erection of a partition made with boards of cedar. As its length, breadth and height were each 20 cubits (1Ki_6:20), its form internally was a perfect cube, though externally it was perhaps of the same elevation as the rest of the buildings.
18. Knops] i.e. knobs, and so in 1Ki_7:24. RM has 'gourds,' implying that the ornaments intended, which were carved in relief, were globular in shape, resembling pumpkins.
20. The oracle in the forepart] better, 'the oracle within.' The altar] i.e. the altar of incense: for its situation see 1Ki_7:22.
21. Made a partition, etc.] RV 'drew chains of gold across before the oracle,' i.e. across the entrance that led from the Holy Place into the Most Holy. But 2Ch_3:14 mentions a veil, and the translation should perhaps be 'drew a veil before the oracle by means of chains of gold.'
22. By the oracle] The altar was not actually within the oracle but near it.
23. Cherubims] These were large winged figures of composite character, perhaps with four faces, those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle (Eze_1:10), or with the face of an ox only (to which the term 'cherub' seems to have strictly applied: cp. Eze_10:14 with Eze_1:10). They represented God's chariot (cp. Psa_18:10), and perhaps symbolised certain of the divine attributes (power, celerity, etc.). The original conception (as Psa_18:10-14 suggests) was probably derived from a storm-cloud: see on Exo_25:18.
27. The inner house] i.e. the Oracle or Most Holy Place.
29. Palm trees] Figures of these are frequent on the Assyrian monuments. Within and without] i.e. within and without the dividing partition between the Holy and Most Holy Place, so that both chambers are meant.
31. The lintel] According to some 'the pilasters,' small pillars projecting from the surface of the side posts. A fifth part] mg. 'five-square,' i.e. the top of the door was pentagonal in form. The words 'of the wall' are not in the original.
32. The two doors] i.e. two leaves, forming a single door.
33. A fourth part] mg. 'four-square.' The head of the door was square: see on 1Ki_6:31.
34. The two doors] The door of the Holy Place consisted of two halves, but each half had two leaves.
36. The inner court] This was the court before the house (1Ki_8:64), open to the air, and was surrounded by a fence of stone surmounted by a row, or paling, of cedar beams. It was on a higher level than the 'great court' of 1Ki_7:12, and is called in Jer_36:10; 'the upper court.'
38. The month Bul] Corresponding to October-November. As this was the eighth month and the Temple was begun in the second, the time actually occupied in its construction was, in strictness, 7 1/2 years.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain the house of the Lord
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
Read full note →
(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.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain CHAPTER 6The Description of the Temple
CHAPTER 6The Description of the Temple
1. The date of the beginning of the building (1Ki 6:1)
Read full note →
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, Solomon’s 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 temple’s 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 mason’s, 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 Father’s house above where God dwells. The chambers or dwellings round about remind us of the words of our Lord: “In my Father’s 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 Solomon’s 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 God’s 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.”
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Building Itself
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, this exact chronological statement serving as a guide and norm for the solution of all problems concerned with the fixing of time in that period of Israel’s history, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Zif, corresponding roughly to our May, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord, evidently on the very day of the new moon.
Read full note →
v. 2. And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof, of the main building, of the Sanctuary proper, was threescore cubits, inside measure, the cubit used in this case being either eighteen or twenty-one inches in length, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits.
v. 3. And the porch, a sort of entrance-hall, before the Temple of the house, twenty cubits was the length thereof, it was as long as the Sanctuary was wide, according to the breadth of the house; and ten cubits was the breadth thereof, its depth, before the house.
v. 4. And for the house he made windows of narrow lights, set apparently near the ceiling, with a wide opening on the inside, but gradually becoming narrower toward the outside, and covered with heavy screens, or grilles.
v. 5. And against the wall of the house, leaning against the Sanctuary, as it were, he built chambers round about, wings flanking the main building, both of the temple, the Holy Place, and of the oracle, the Most Holy Place; and he made chambers round about, ribs, or joints, which divided the wings into distinct compartments.
v. 6. The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad, and the middle, the second story, 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, literally, "he provided lessening to the house round about outside," that is, the wall was recessed or made thinner for each succeeding story of the outer structure, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house, for the fine, costly stones of the Temple proper were to remain whole and uninjured, that no holes should be cut into them for the purpose of inserting the ends of the ceiling-beams.
v. 7. And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither, hewn and prepared according to careful measurements at the quarries, so that there was neither hammer nor ax nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was in building.
v. 8. The door for the middle chamber, the side-structure, or wings, was in the right side of the house, on the south side; and they went up with winding stairs into the middle chamber, inside the side-structure, and out of the middle into the third.
v. 9. So he built the house and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar. This was the roof-construction, a flat roof, whose cedar-beams were covered with cedar-boards, as the roof proper.
v. 10. And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high, for each story; and they rested on the house with timber of cedar, whose ends, resting upon the top of the walls of the Temple, served to unite the side structure with the main building.
v. 11. And the word of the Lord came to Solomon, probably through one of the prophets, saying,
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, that contained in the wonderful Messianic promise, 2Sa 7:13;
v. 13. and I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel. The eternal confirmation and establishment of the throne of David included the living of Jehovah among His people, presupposed this, in fact. "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. " (Lange. )
v. 14. So Solomon built the house and finished it, under the inspiration of this promise. The Temple of Solomon is a type of the great Temple of the New Testament, the Christian Church. There Jehovah lives in the midst of His people, through His Word and Spirit. But only those who truly believe and live a life of faith are citizens with the saints and of the household of God.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 General Information:
General Information:
The narrator lists the dimensions of the temple.
Read full note →
Solomon began to build
Solomon would have commanded his workers to do the building. AT: "Solomon commanded his workers to begin building" (See: Metonymy)
480th ... fourth
These are the ordinal forms of 480 and 4. (See: Ordinal Numbers)
in the month of Ziv, which is the second month
"Ziv" is the name of the second month of the Hebrew calendar. It is during the last part of April and the first part of May on Western calendars. (See: Hebrew Months and Ordinal Numbers and How to Translate Names)
sixty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and thirty cubits high
"60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high." A cubit is 46 centimeters. This can be written used modern measures. AT: "27.6 meters long, 9.2 meters wide, and 13.8 meters high" (See: Numbers and Biblical Distance)
translationWords
Solomon
temple
Yahweh
year
people group
Israel
Egypt
reign
king
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 6:1–8:66 The building of the Temple and palace complex…
6:1–8:66 The building of the Temple and palace complex and the celebration of the Temple dedication are central to the 1 Kings account of Solomon’s era. The Temple, erected to glorify God, was Israel’s most important building, so the writer of 1 Kings carefully recorded details of its construction.
6:1 Solomon’s fourth year was about 967 BC. Treating the number 480 as representing calendar years yields a date of about 1446 BC for Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Those who view the number as symbolic (12 generations times 40 years each) suggest that the Exodus occurred at a later date, around 1270 BC (see Exodus Book Introduction, “The Date of the Exodus”).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.