1 Kings · Chapter 6

V. 1. 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 splendor in his service. And God ordered it now, chiefly to be a shadow of good things to come.

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; Mæstlinus, 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 1 Kings 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, Exodus 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.

Verse 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.

Verse 1. In the four hundred and eightieth year. The Hebrew, the Chaldaic, and most of the Greek versions read as the English; yet some difficulties occur. Vide Poli in locum. The following summary seems to contain the chronology.

Moses in the desert — 40 —Numbers 14:33

Joshua in war and peace — 17 — Not named

The Judges — 299 — Usher’s chronology

Eli’s presidency — 40 — 1 Samuel 4:18

Samuel and Saul — 40

David — 40 — 1 Kings 2:11

Solomon — 4 — Solomon’s 4th year

—480 years.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

V. 2. The house-Properly so called, as distinct from all the walls and buildings which were adjoining to it; namely, the holy, and most holy place. Length-From east, to west. And this and the other measures may seem to belong to the inside from wall to wall. Cubits-Cubits of the sanctuary. Height-Namely, of the house: for the porch was one hundred and twenty cubits high, 2 Chronicles 3:4. So that all the measures compared each with other were harmonious. For sixty to twenty (the length to the breadth) is triple: or as three to one: and sixty to thirty (the length to the height) is double, or as two to one: and thirty to twenty (the height to the breadth) is one and an half, as three to two. Which are the proportions answering to the three great concords in music, commonly called, a twelfth, an eighth, and a fifth. Which therefore must needs be a graceful proportion to the eye, as that in music is graceful to the ear.

Verse 2. The length thereof was threescore cubits] A cubit, according to Bishop Cumberland, is 21 inches, and 888 decimals, or 1 foot, 9 inches, and 888 decimals.

(Yds. — Ft. — Inch.)

According to this, the length, 60 cubits, was — 36 — 1 — 5.28 The breadth, 20 cubits, was — 12 — 0 — 5.76

The height, 30 cubits, was 18 — 0 — 8.64

This constituted what was called the temple or house, the house of God, &c. But, besides this, there were courts and colonnades, where the people might assemble to perform their devotions and assist at the sacrifices, without being exposed to the open air. The court surrounded the temple, or holy place, into which the priests alone entered. Sometimes the whole of the building is called the temple; at other times that, the measurement of which is given above. But as no proper account can be given of such a building in notes; and as there is a great variety of opinion concerning the temple, its structure, ornaments, &c., as mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles, in Ezekiel, and by Josephus; and as modern writers, such as Vilalpandus, Dr. Lightfoot, and Dr. Prideaux, professing to be guided by the same principles, have produced very different buildings; I think it best to hazard nothing on the subject, but give that description at the end of the chapter which Calmet with great pains and industry has collected: at the same time, pledging myself to no particular form or appearance, as I find I cannot give any thing as the likeness of Solomon’s temple which I could say, either in honour or conscience, bears any affinity to it. For other particulars I must refer the reader to the three large volumes of Vilalpandus, Dr. Lightfoot’s Works, and to the Connections of Dr. Prideaux.

Verse 2. The house — Properly so called, as distinct from all the walls and buildings adjoining to it; namely, the holy and most holy place. Which King Solomon built for the Lord — For his worship and service; and wherein his divine presence might, as it were, dwell among them by a visible appearance. The length thereof was threescore cubits — From east to west; forty of which belonged to the holy place, and twenty to the most holy. And this and the other measures seem to belong to the inside from wall to wall. The cubit was that of the sanctuary, about a foot and a half. And the breadth thereof twenty cubits — The length and breadth of it were twice as much as those of the tabernacle, which in length was but thirty cubits, and in breadth but ten. And the height thereof thirty cubits — Just half of the length of the whole house. But this is to be understood of the holy place, for the holy of holies was only twenty cubits high, (verse 20,) and the porch was one hundred and twenty, 2 Chronicles 3:4. The height of the holy place, therefore, was three times the height of that part of the tabernacle. For this temple was to resemble a high tower having chambers in three stories, one above another. “All the measures,” says Poole, “compared each with other, were harmonious. For sixty to twenty (the length to the breadth) is triple; or as three to one: and sixty to thirty (the length to the height) is double; or as two to one: and thirty to twenty (the height to the breadth) is one and a half, or as three to two. Which are the proportions answering to the three great concords in music, commonly called a twelfth, an eighth, and a fifth. Which therefore must needs be a graceful proportion to the eye, as that in music is graceful to the ear.”

2. Zif (Iyar) May.

V. 3. The porch-In the front of, or entrance into the house, 2 Chronicles 3:4, being a portico, a walk or gallery, at one end of the building (from side to side.) And the measures of this were harmonious also. For twenty to ten (the length of the portico to the breadth of it) is double, or as two to one. And, if the height within, be the same with that of the house, that is thirty; it will be to the length of it, as three to two; and to its breadth, as three to one. Or, if we take in the whole height mentioned, 2 Chronicles 3:4, which is one hundred and twenty; there is in this no disproportion: being to its length as six to one; and to its breadth as twelve to one; especially when this height was conveniently divided into several galleries, one over another, each of which had their due proportions.

Verse 3. The porch before the temple — That is, in the front of, or entrance into the house, (2 Chronicles 3:4,) being a portico, a walk, or gallery, at the east end of the building, (from side to side.) And the measures of this were harmonious also. For twenty to ten (the length of the portico to the breadth of it) is double, or as two to one. And if the height within were the same with that of the house, that is, thirty, it was to the length of it, as three to two; and to its breadth, as three to one. Or, if we take in the whole height, mentioned 2 Chronicles 3:4, which is one hundred and twenty, there is in this no disproportion; (being to its length as six to one, and to its breadth as twelve to one;) especially as this height was conveniently divided into several galleries, one over another, all of which had their due proportions.

3. Sivan June.

V. 4. Narrow-Narrow outward, to prevent the inconveniences of the weather; widening by degrees inward, that so the house might better receive, and more disperse the light.

Verse 4. Windows of narrow lights.] The Vulgate says, fenestras obliquas, oblique windows; but what sort of windows could such be? The Hebrew is µymca µypqv ynwlj challoney shekuphim atumim, windows to look through, which shut. Probably latticed windows: windows through which a person within could see well; but a person without, nothing. Windows, says the Targum, which were open within and shut without. Does he mean windows with shutters; or, are we to understand, with the Arabic, windows opening wide within, and narrow on the outside; such as we still see in ancient castles? This sense our margin expresses. We hear nothing of glass or any other diaphanous substance. Windows, perhaps originally windore, a door to let the wind in, in order to ventilate the building, and through which external objects might be discerned.

Verse 4. Windows of narrow lights — Narrow without, to prevent the inconveniences of the weather, and widening by degrees inwardly, that the house might better receive, and more disperse, the light. The tabernacle had no light from without, and it appears by this the temple had not much.

4. Tammuz July.

V. 5. Against the wall-The beams of the chambers were not fastened into the wall, but leaned upon the buttresses of the wall. Chambers-For the laying the priests garments, and other utensils belonging to the temple, therein. Round about-On all the sides except the east, where the porch was; and except some very small passages for the light. And yet these lights might be in the five uppermost cubits of the wall, which were above all these chambers, for these were only fifteen cubits high, and the wall was twenty cubits high. Chambers-Galleries which encompassed all the chambers; and which were necessary for passage to them.

Verse 5. Against the wall of the house he built chambers — For the accommodation of the priests, when they were upon duty at the temple. Here they kept their clothes, the sacred vessels not in immediate use, and the treasures belonging to the temple. These chambers are said to have been built against or adjoining to the wall; for their beams were not fastened into the wall, but leaned upon the buttresses of the wall. Round about — On all the sides except the east, where the porch was, and except some very small passages for the light. And yet the lights might be in the five uppermost cubits of the wall, which were above all these chambers, for these were only fifteen cubits high, and the wall was twenty cubits high. And he made chambers round about — In the Hebrew, He made ribs; by which some understand galleries, which encompassed all the forenamed chambers, and were necessary for passages to them.

5. Ab August.

V. 6. Broad-On the inside, and besides the galleries mentioned above. Narrowed rests-Or, narrowings: as in our buildings the walls of an house are thicker, or broader at the bottom, and narrower towards the top: only these narrowings were in the outside of the wall, which at each of the three stories was a cubit narrower than that beneath it. And this is mentioned, as the reason of the differing breadth of the chambers; because the wall being narrower, allowed more space for the upper chambers. Not fastened-That there might be no holes made in the wall for fastening them; and that the chambers might be removed, if occasion were, without any inconvenience to the house.

Verse 6. The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad — In the inside, and besides the galleries mentioned above. It appears, by verse 10, that they were but five cubits high, and built over one another in three stories; increasing in breadth every story one cubit, by the contrivance which follows. For without in the wall he made narrowed rests — Or narrowings, or rebatements. That is, the wall, to which the chambers were joined, was, as walls generally are in our buildings, thicker or broader below, and narrower above. Only these narrowings were in the outside of the wall, which, at each of the three stories, was a cubit narrower than the part beneath it; so that there was more space for the breadth of the upper chambers, than of those beneath them. That the beams should not be fastened in the walls — That there might be no holes made in the wall for fastening them; and that the chambers might be removed, if occasion were, without any injury or inconvenience to the house.

6. Elul September.

V. 7. Made ready-Hewed, and squared, and fitted exactly according to the direction of the architect. Neither hammer, &c.-So it was ordered, partly for the ease and conveniency of carriage: partly, for the magnificence of the work, and commendation of the workmen’s skill and diligence: and partly, for mystical signification. And as this temple was a manifest type both of Christ’s church upon earth, and of the heavenly Jerusalem: so this circumstance signified as to the former, that it is the duty of the builders and members of the church, as far as in them lies, to take care that all things be transacted there with perfect peace and quietness; and that no noise of contention, or division, or violence, be heard in that sacred building: and for the latter, that no spiritual stone, no person, shall bear a part in that heavenly temple, unless he be first hewed, and squared, and made meet for it in this life.

Verse 7. The house-was built of stone] It appears that every stone was hewn and squared, and its place in the building ascertained, before it came to Jerusalem: the timbers were fitted in like manner. This greatly lessened the trouble and expense of carriage. On this account, that all was prepared at Mount Lebanon, there was neither hammer, axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the building; nothing except mallets to drive the tenons into the mortises, and drive in the pins to fasten them, was necessary: therefore there was no noise. But why is this so particularly marked? Is it not because the temple was a type of the kingdom of God; and the souls of men are to be prepared here for that place of blessedness? There, there is no preaching, exhortations, repentance, ears, cries, nor prayers; the stones must be all squared and fitted here for their place in the New Jerusalem, and, being living stones, must be built up a holy temple for a habitation of God through the Spirit.

Verse 7. The house — was built of stone made ready — Hewed and squared, and so fitted for their several uses and places, according to the direction of the architect, that they might be joined together without any other labour than the putting them one by or upon another. So that there was neither hammer nor axe, &c. — The stones were laid without any noise, there being nothing to be done but to join them together. Thus it was ordered, partly for the ease and convenience of carriage; partly for the magnificence of the work, and commendation of the workmen’s skill and diligence; and partly for mystical signification. And as this temple was a manifest type, both of Christ’s church upon earth, and of the heavenly Jerusalem; so this circumstance signified, as to the former, that it is the duty of the builders and members of the church, as far as in them lies, to take care that all things be transacted there with perfect peace and quietness; and that no noise of contention, or division, or violence, be heard in that sacred building; and for the latter, that no spiritual stone, no person, shall bear a part in that heavenly temple, unless he be first hewed, and squared, and made meet for it in this life.

7. Ethanim (Tisri) October.

V. 8. The door-That is, by which they entered to go up to the middle chamber or chambers; such as were in the middle story. Right side-That is, in the south-side, called the right side; because when a man looks towards the east, the south is on his right hand. There was another door on the left, or the north-side, leading to the chambers on that side. Winding stairs-Without the wall, leading up to the gallery out of which they went into the several chambers. Middle chamber-Or rather, into the middle story, or row of chambers; and so in the following words, out of the middle story: for these stair’s could not lead up into each of the chambers; nor was it needful, but only into the story, which was sufficient for the use of all the chambers.

Verse 8. The door for the middle chamber — That is, by which they entered to go up into the middle row of chambers; was in the right side — That is, in the south side, called the right side, because, when a man looks toward the east, the south is on his right hand. There was another door on the left, or the north side, leading to the chambers on that side. They went up with winding stairs — Without the wall, leading up to the gallery, out of which they went into the several chambers. Into the middle chamber — Or, rather, into the middle story, or row of chambers; and so in the following words, out of the middle story: for these stairs could not lead up into each of the chambers, nor was it needful, but only into the story, which was sufficient for the use of all the chambers.

8. Bul (Marcheshvan) November.

Verse 9. Covered the house with beams and boards of cedar.] The Eastern custom is very different from ours: we ceil with plaster, and make our floors of wood; they make their floors of plaster or painted tiles, and make their ceilings of wood. But it may not be improper to observe that, in ancient times, our buildings were somewhat similar. Westminster Hall is a proof of this.

Verses 9, 10. So he built the house, and finished it — That is, the walls of the house. And then he built chambers — There is nothing in the Hebrew for the word then, which being omitted, the sense is, that he here gives an account of the height of these chambers, as, verse 6, he did of the breadth. But it is very briefly; and we are to understand that those below, and those in the middle, and those above, were all of an equal height, namely, five cubits. So they were fifteen cubits in all, which was five less than the height of the house, for that was twenty cubits; otherwise there would have been no room for the windows, which, it is probable, were above all these chambers, in the top of the house.

9. Chisleu December.

V. 10. Built chambers-The Hebrew words may be properly rendered, He built a roof, a flat and plain roof, over all the house, according to the manner of the Israelitish buildings. The inner roof was arched, ver. 9, that it might be the more beautiful, but the outward roof was flat. Five cubits-Above the walls of the temple: that it might be a little higher than the arched roof, which it was designed to cover and secure. They rested-Heb. it rested, namely, the roof. Timber of cedar-Which rested upon the top of the wall, as the chambers, ver. 5, rested upon the sides of the wall.

Verses 9, 10. So he built the house, and finished it — That is, the walls of the house. And then he built chambers — There is nothing in the Hebrew for the word then, which being omitted, the sense is, that he here gives an account of the height of these chambers, as, verse 6, he did of the breadth. But it is very briefly; and we are to understand that those below, and those in the middle, and those above, were all of an equal height, namely, five cubits. So they were fifteen cubits in all, which was five less than the height of the house, for that was twenty cubits; otherwise there would have been no room for the windows, which, it is probable, were above all these chambers, in the top of the house.

10. Tebeth January.

Verse 11. The word of the Lord came to Solomon] Some think that this is the same revelation as that mentioned 1 Kings 9:2, &c., which took place after the dedication of the temple: but to me it appears different; it was a word to encourage him while building; to warn him against apostasy, and to assure him of God’s continued protection of him and his family, if they continued faithful to the grace which God had given.

Verses 11-13. The word of the Lord came to Solomon — By the prophet. If thou wilt walk in my statutes, &c. — Here God expresses the condition upon which his promise and favour is suspended; and, by assuring him thereof in case of obedience, he plainly intimates the contrary upon his disobedience. Thus he was taught, that all the charge he and the people were at, in erecting this temple, would neither excuse them from obedience to the law of God, nor shelter them from his judgments in case of disobedience. And I will dwell among the children of Israel — As I have done in the tabernacle. And will not forsake my people — But protect them in the good land I have given them.

11. Sebat February.

12. Adar March.

2. Length… threescore cubits — Reckoning the cubit at eighteen inches the length would be ninety feet. These dimensions are probably to be understood of the walls on the inside. See note on verse 10. Breadth… twenty — Thirty feet, just one third of the length. Height… thirty cubits — Forty-five feet, just half the length. Josephus says the height was sixty cubits, but most of his statements on the dimensions of buildings are untrustworthy. A comparison with Exodus 26:15-23 shows that the dimensions of the temple were exactly double those of the tabernacle. The latter, as described in Exodus 26 and 27, was the model after which David and Solomon planned the temple.

3. Porch — The vestibule, or entrance way, in front of the temple, marked A in plan. The height of the porch is not here given, but, according to 2 Chronicles 3:4, it was one hundred and twenty cubits, four times the height of the rest of the building, so as to form a sort of steeple or high tower in front. But the number one hundred and twenty is undoubtedly a corrupt reading. It was supported in the lower part by two massive brazen pillars (a a in plan) named respectively Jachin and Boaz, (see on chap. 7:15 and 2 Chronicles 3:17,) so that the whole front, with its pillars and ornamentation, must have presented a most imposing and splendid facade. The temple of the house — The temple, as thus distinguished from the house, is to be understood of the pronaos, or holy place (B in plan) before the oracle. Compare verses 16, 17. According to the breadth of the house — Rather, before the breadth of the house. That is, the length of the porch extended before the breadth of the house, and was precisely equal to it, namely, twenty cubits.

4. Windows of narrow lights — Septuagint, holes of concealed network. Vulgate, slanting windows. The Hebrew is, windows of closed bars; that is, of lattice work. They served both for ventilation and for light. The position of these windows is not stated, and we are left to infer that they were set wherever needed, and wherever they would help to enhance the architectural finish and beauty of the building. Hence they were probably both in the upper part of the main building and also in the side-chambers. Compare Ezekiel 40:16.

5. Against the wall — On the outside of the main building, as the sequel shows, and built up against it, as a lateral building, or lean-to. Chambers — The Hebrew word thus rendered, ([wxy, here and in verse 10 construed as masculine, and taken collectively, as the plural rendering shows, but feminine in verse 6, where it is rendered in the singular,) comes from a root signifying to spread out, as in spreading a couch, and is used in the sense of a couch or bed in Genesis 49:4; 1 Chronicles 5:1; Job 17:13; Psalm 63:7; 132:3. It is evidently here used as an architectural term, and designates a wing or side-building, containing three stories of chambers, and extending around three sides of the entire building, namely, on the south, west, and north. Rawlinson translates it a lean-to. Margin, floors. Perhaps the nearest equivalent in our language would be a wing. Against the walls — This expression is repeated, with walls in the plural, to introduce the more precise statement that the wing extended around the entire building; that is, the walls both of the temple and of the oracle. The oracle was the most holy place, the innermost apartment of the house. (C in plan.) See on verse 16. Its Hebrew name is rybd, Debir, derived by a number of scholars from rbd, to speak; hence the speaking place; the place where Jehovah spoke with his people. But Gesenius, Furst, and most recent critics, derive it from an Arabic root signifying to be behind; hence the hindmost or inner apartment; the adytum. It is often thus distinguished from the holy place before it, (B in plan,) in which case the latter is called, as here, the temple, (compare verses 3, 17,) “the house,” or “the greater house.” 2 Chronicles 3:5. Chambers — This is in the Hebrew a different word from that rendered chambers above. The margin gives the literal meaning, ribs, (tw[lx,) but there is little doubt that the word, as used here and in Ezekiel 41:6, means side-chambers — the different apartments into which the wings above described were partitioned. (c c c in plan.) The purpose which these side-chambers was designed to serve is nowhere stated in the Scriptures. According to Thenius, they were expensively furnished sleeping apartments for the priests. They may also have been used as store-rooms for depositing consecrated gifts and sacred relics.

6. The nethermost chamber — That is, the lower story of the wing, containing the first floor of side-chambers. Five… six… seven cubits broad — So, as in Ezekiel’s temple, there was an enlarging of these side-chambers upward, (Ezekiel 41:7,) so that those of the upper story were two cubits broader than those of the nethermost. This was caused, as is immediately stated, by the narrowed rests, or rebatements, (tw[rgm, used only here,) which he built around three sides of the house outside of and against the main wall. The addition by our translators of the walls and the beams is somewhat confusing. The latter half of this verse is as follows: For rebatements he gave to the house round about on the outside in order not to fasten in the walls of the house. That is, these rebatements were purposely built that the several stories of side-chambers, by resting on such ledges of exterior wall, might not in any way penetrate or detract from the strength and wholeness of the main wall of the temple. Mr. T.O. Paine, in his work on “Solomon’s Temple,” propounds a new and ingenious plan of the whole edifice by making these wings and side-chambers consist of galleries on the inside of the house, and supported on the outside by three rows of pillars, the pillars varying in height according to the several galleries. But one of his principal arguments is a misinterpretation of Ezekiel 41:7 by making the “enlarging upward” refer to the entire building rather than to the interior of the side-chambers. And his entire plan is open to many and insuperable objections, only a few of which we need here mention: 1.) It is difficult to conceive what purpose such open galleries served; and, so far as we can find, they have no counterpart nor analogy in ancient architecture. 2.) The making of the side-chambers a part of the entire visible interior conflicts with the obvious import of verses 5, 6, and 10 of this chapter, according to which they were built against the outside of the wall. 3.) Mr. Paine’s plan makes the walls more of a breastwork or substructure than a wall — a low enclosure running round the central part of the building, and not reaching half-way to the roof. Accordingly, the height of the walls was not thirty cubits, (as we naturally infer from verse 2,) and the width of the building was not, properly, twenty cubits, but varied with every gallery. 4.) Finally, the whole plan is chiefly drawn from the temple seen in vision by Ezekiel, (chap. xli,) and depends upon the assumption that that temple of vision was an exact pattern of Solomon’s temple that had been destroyed by the Chaldeans. This assumption, we think, Mr. Paine utterly fails to establish. It is a theory which is quite generally rejected by the most careful modern expositors, and is therefore, at best, too uncertain and unreliable a guide to a satisfactory restoration of the ancient temple.

7. Stone made ready before it was brought thither — Literally, Stone completed at the quarry; that is, hewn and shaped for the very spot it was known to be designed to occupy. Neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard — This further attests the consummate skill of the Sidonian builders. But this fact, so noticeable in itself, is also deeply symbolical. It indicates the silent but sure and mighty growth of the kingdom of Christ. In his personal ministry he did not cry nor lift up his voice in the street; and his Church, like the silent increase of the mustard seed, rises and spreads, and thus goes on to its completion, every day disclosing more and more the consummate skill and infinite wisdom of the Great Architect, “in whom all the building fifty framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord.” Ephesians 2:21.

8. The door for the middle chamber was in the right side — The middle chamber of the lower story is here meant. The right side of the house would be the south side, and is to be understood of a person facing the same way as the temple, namely, the east. So far as the scripture text gives us any information, this one door in the south side seems to have been the only entrance into all of the side-chambers. (D in plan.) They went up — That is, persons who entered the upper stories went up these stairs. Winding stairs — Marked s in plan. Middle — That is, the middle chamber of the middle story. Out of the middle into the third — Out of the middle chamber of the middle story into the middle chamber of the third story. So the staircase was not on the outside of the house, as is usual in the East, but on the inside. No mention is made of windows in the side-chambers, but this is naturally inferred from verse 4, where see note.

9. Covered the house — Made the roof, or covered with a roof, of beams and boards of cedar. On the durability of cedar roofs, see note on 1 Kings 5:6. The form or shape of the roof is left entirely uncertain. Many conclude, from the silence of the text, that, like Oriental buildings generally, its roof was flat. Others maintain, that, as it was modelled after the tabernacle, (compare Wisdom of Solomon, chapter 9:8,) its roof was a gable, like that of an ordinary tent.

10. Chambers… five cubits high — Literally, Five cubits its height; that is, each chamber or story was five cubits high from floor to ceiling. “Their flooring and roofing being added, they reached together to about eighteen or twenty cubits in height; so that there would be room for the windows of the temple to be opened out, like clear story windows, above them.” — Wordsworth. Rested on the house with timber of cedar — Rather, were fastened to (zja) the house by means of cedar beams set into the side-walls or rebatements described verse 6.

11. The word of the Lord came to Solomon — At first sight this and the next three verses seem like an interpolation, or a slightly changed form of what is stated 1 Kings 9:4, 5. But a closer study will show that this is the manner of the sacred writers. They seem ever conscious that they are writing sacred history, and so a communication of this kind, coming to Solomon during the building of the temple, must not be omitted, and is well introduced at this point, where the description turns from the outer to the inner walls.

V. 12. If-God expresses the condition upon which his promise and favour is suspended; and by assuring him thereof in case of obedience, he plainly intimates the contrary upon his disobedience. Thus he was taught, that all the charge he and the people were at, in erecting this temple, would neither excuse them from obedience to the law of God, nor shelter them from his judgments in case of disobedience.

Verses 11-13. The word of the Lord came to Solomon — By the prophet. If thou wilt walk in my statutes, &c. — Here God expresses the condition upon which his promise and favour is suspended; and, by assuring him thereof in case of obedience, he plainly intimates the contrary upon his disobedience. Thus he was taught, that all the charge he and the people were at, in erecting this temple, would neither excuse them from obedience to the law of God, nor shelter them from his judgments in case of disobedience. And I will dwell among the children of Israel — As I have done in the tabernacle. And will not forsake my people — But protect them in the good land I have given them.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

Verses 11-13. The word of the Lord came to Solomon — By the prophet. If thou wilt walk in my statutes, &c. — Here God expresses the condition upon which his promise and favour is suspended; and, by assuring him thereof in case of obedience, he plainly intimates the contrary upon his disobedience. Thus he was taught, that all the charge he and the people were at, in erecting this temple, would neither excuse them from obedience to the law of God, nor shelter them from his judgments in case of disobedience. And I will dwell among the children of Israel — As I have done in the tabernacle. And will not forsake my people — But protect them in the good land I have given them.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

14. Solomon built the house, and finished it — This verse need not be understood as a resuming of the description broken off at verse 10, but rather as referring to the word of the Lord as told in verses 12 and 13. In accordance with that word of encouragement and promise, Solomon went on to build and finish the sacred edifice.

V. 15. Walls-The name of a wall is not appropriated to stone or brick, because we read of a brazen wall, Jeremiah 15:20, and a wall of iron, Ezekiel 4:3. And that wall into which Saul smote his javelin, 1 Samuel 19:10, seems more probably to be understood of wood, than of stone; especially, considering that it was the room where the king used to dine. By this periphrasis, from the floor of the house, unto the walls of the ceiling, he designs all the side-walls of the house. Them-The side-walls of the house. Wood-With other kind of wood, even with fir; as appears from 2 Chronicles 3:5, wherewith the floor is here said to be covered. Floor-This is spoken only concerning the floor, because there was nothing but planks of fir; whereas there was both cedar and fir in the sides of the house, the fir being either put above, or upon the cedar; or intermixed with, or put between the boards or ribs of cedar: as may be gathered from, 2 Chronicles 3:5.

Verse 15. The walls of the ceiling] See Clarke’s note on “1 Kings 6:9”.

Verse 15. He built the walls within with boards of cedar — He wainscoted the house, as we now speak, with cedar. Both the floor of the house and the walls of the ceiling — Or, from the floor unto the ceiling; that is, from the bottom to the top. And he covered the floor with planks of fir — Or, with another sort of cedar, which was a great deal firmer and more lasting than fir. See 1 Kings 5:8.

15. The walls of the house within — The wainscot. The inside of the walls was panelled with cedar boards, so that no stone was visible within. Both the floor… and the walls — Rather, From the floor of the house to the walls of the ceiling. The side walls were wainscotted from bottom to top with cedar wood, and so too, apparently, the ceiling; but the floor was of fir planks. On the fir-tree, see 1 Kings 5:8.

V. 16. House-That is, the most holy place, which contained in length twenty cubits, which may be said to be on the sides Of the house, because this part took off twenty cubits in length from each side of the house, and was also twenty cubits from side to side, so it was twenty cubits every way. The oracle-the most holy place-The last words are added, to explain what he means by the word oracle, which he had not used before.

Verse 16. He built twenty cubits on the sides of the house — He speaks here of the most holy place, which contained in length twenty cubits, and might be said to be on the sides of the house, because it took off twenty cubits in length from each side of the house, and was also twenty cubits from side to side, so it was twenty cubits every way. He built them for it within, even for the oracle, the most holy place — The last words are added to explain what he means by the word oracle, which he had not used before: this was the most important of all the parts of the house, because here the divine glory was present, and from hence God gave answers when he was consulted, on which account it is termed the oracle.

16. Twenty cubits on the sides — Rather, From the two hinder sides; ytwkry, “the hindmost, last extreme space, which is conceived of as two hinder sides.” — Furst. The inner sanctuary was a perfect cube. See on verse 20. Both the floor and the walls — Here again it should be rendered from the floor to the walls; but the expression seems to imply that all the walls, (twryq) both of the sides and of the ceiling were covered with cedar boards. The oracle — rbd, the interior place, called also the most holy or holy of belies. The place of greatest sanctity, where the presence and glory of Jehovah were supposed to have their central throne on earth. (C in plan.) See on Exodus 26:33, 34. Here in the temple, as in the tabernacle, was set the ark. Verse 19.

V. 17. House-That is, the holy place. Temple-This is added, to restrain the signification of the word house, which otherwise notes the whole building. It-The oracle.

Verses 17, 18. The temple before it — The part of the house which was before the most holy place. In the Hebrew the words are, before my face, that is, before the place where the divine glory appeared. Was forty cubits long — Twice as long as the most holy place. The cedar of the house was carved — Cedar is here named, not to exclude all other wood, but stone only, as the following words show. Carved with knops — Or gourds, as it is 2 Kings 4:39, where the like word is translated gourds. And open flowers — Imitations of the flowers of the gourd, spread and full blown. All was cedar, there was no stone seen — That is, either all the house was covered with cedar, or all the carved work was of cedar.

17. The house, that is, the temple before it — The temple before the most holy place; the anterior part of the main building after partitioning off twenty cubits from the hinder end for the holy of holies. Was forty cubits long, and twenty wide, and thirty high, as stated in verse 2. (B in plan.)

V. 18. Cedar-Cedar is here named, not to exclude all other wood, but stone only; as the following words shew.

Verses 17, 18. The temple before it — The part of the house which was before the most holy place. In the Hebrew the words are, before my face, that is, before the place where the divine glory appeared. Was forty cubits long — Twice as long as the most holy place. The cedar of the house was carved — Cedar is here named, not to exclude all other wood, but stone only, as the following words show. Carved with knops — Or gourds, as it is 2 Kings 4:39, where the like word is translated gourds. And open flowers — Imitations of the flowers of the gourd, spread and full blown. All was cedar, there was no stone seen — That is, either all the house was covered with cedar, or all the carved work was of cedar.

18. Carved with knops — Or, gourds, as in margin, and as the kindred word is rendered in 2 Kings 4:39. The carving was an artificial imitation of wild gourds or cucumbers. Open flowers — Flowers in full bloom. Hence probably a carved imitation of festoons or garlands.

V. 19. Prepared-That is, adorned and fitted it for the receipt of the ark. Solomon made every thing new, but the ark. That with its mercy seat was still the same that Moses made. This was the token of God’s presence, which is with his people, whether they meet in tent or temple, and changes not with their condition.

Verse 19. The oracle he prepared] See the description of the temple at the end of this chapter. See Clarke “1 Kings 6:38”.

Verses 19, 20. And the oracle — Or, rather, the most holy place. He prepared — That is, he adorned and fitted it for the reception of the ark. Solomon made every thing new but the ark: that, with its mercy-seat, was still the same that Moses made. This was the token of God’s presence, which is with his people, whether they meet in tent or temple, and changes not with their condition. And the oracle in the forepart — That is, in the innermost part, before mentioned, which is called the forepart, because it was before him that entered into the house. And he overlaid it with pure gold — Not merely gilded it, but covered it with plates of gold. For the gold amounted to six hundred talents, as is said 2 Chronicles 3:8. And so covered the altar — That is, the altar of incense, with gold, chap. 7:48; 1 Chronicles 28:18.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

V. 20. Forepart-Which was in the inner part of the house, called in Hebrew, the forepart; not because a man first enters there, but because when a man is entering, or newly entered into the house, it is still before him. Covered-With gold, 1 Kings 7:48 1 Chronicles 28:18. The altar-The altar of incense.

Verses 19, 20. And the oracle — Or, rather, the most holy place. He prepared — That is, he adorned and fitted it for the reception of the ark. Solomon made every thing new but the ark: that, with its mercy-seat, was still the same that Moses made. This was the token of God’s presence, which is with his people, whether they meet in tent or temple, and changes not with their condition. And the oracle in the forepart — That is, in the innermost part, before mentioned, which is called the forepart, because it was before him that entered into the house. And he overlaid it with pure gold — Not merely gilded it, but covered it with plates of gold. For the gold amounted to six hundred talents, as is said 2 Chronicles 3:8. And so covered the altar — That is, the altar of incense, with gold, chap. 7:48; 1 Chronicles 28:18.

20. The oracle in the forepart — That is, the holy of holies on the inside measured twenty cubits each way. ynpl, here rendered in the forepart, may be taken as the construct state of mynp, surface, faces; and rendered, As to the faces (that is, the inside surface) of the oracle, twenty cubits was the length, etc. 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. And so covered — Better to leave out so, and the other words here supplied in the English version, and translate literally, covered the altar with cedar. The altar of incense for the tabernacle (see Exodus 30:1-10) was made of shittim wood, and overlaid with gold. This altar of Solomon was built, as is here stated, with cedar, and the cedar overlaid with plates of gold. Verse

22. We must not understand that this altar was in the oracle, but, as appears in verse 22, by or at the oracle; that is, on the outside and just in front of it. So Moses was commanded to “put it before the vail that is by the ark of the testimony.” Exodus 30:6. “The altar of incense is mentioned in connexion with the holy of holies,” says Wordsworth, “because the incense which was burnt upon it was offered before the vail, and with a view to the Divine Presence enshrined in the holy of holies, and had a special relation to the ark in the oracle. On this altar incense was offered morning and evening, the type of continual prayer.”

V. 21. House-Or, that house, the oracle. Partition-He made a veil, which was a farther partition between the holy, and the most holy; which veil did hang upon these golden chains. Before the oracle-In the outward part of the wall, or partition, which was erected between the oracle and the holy place; which is properly said to be before the oracle, there the veil was hung; and there the chains or bars, or whatsoever it was which fastened the doors of the oracle, were placed. It-The partition; which he here distinguisheth from the house, or the main walls of the house, which he had in the former part of this verse told us were overlaid with gold; and now he affirms much as of the partition.

Verse 21. So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold — Or, that house, the oracle, or the most holy place; which he made as sumptuous as he could. And he wade a partition by the chains of gold — The most holy place was separated from the sanctuary by a partition, before which there was a veil also, which hung upon golden chains. Thus, it seems, this passage is to be understood; for the partition itself did not depend upon chains. Or perhaps these golden chains hung down from the wall only for ornament. Before the oracle — In the outward part of the wall or partition which was erected between the oracle and the holy place; which is properly said to be before the oracle, for there the veil was hung, and there the bars, or whatsoever it was which fastened the doors of the oracle, were placed. He overlaid it with gold — Namely, the partition; which he here distinguisheth from the house, or the main walls of the house, which he had in the former part of this verse told us were overlaid with gold; and now he affirms as much of the partition.

21. The house within — The interior, or most holy place. Made a partition by the chains of gold — Literally, He made chains of gold pass through before the oracle; or, he made pass through by chains of gold before the oracle. The meaning is very doubtful. Thenius thinks the word vail has fallen out of the text, and by supplying it reads, he carried the vail by golden chains over before the oracle. Gesenius, Ewald, Keil, and Bahr take rb[y he made to pass through, in the sense of bolting, or fastening: He closed up or bolted by chains of gold before the oracle. “But then the question is, What was bolted? According to Calmer and others it was only the door of the oracle, 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, (Exodus 26:26,) and likewise represented the oracle as a barred, closed room.” — Bahr. Some suppose that the partition between the holy and the most holy place was made of cedar beams in the form of a network, and over the whole was hung the great vail mentioned 2 Chronicles 3:14. So the smell of the incense could easily pass from the altar into the oracle. He overlaid it — Overlaid the oracle — a repetition from the preceding verse.

V. 22. Whole house-Not only the oracle, but all the holy place. The altar-the altar of incense, which was set in the holy place close by the doors of the oracle. With gold-As before he overlaid it with cedar.

Verse 22. The whole house he overlaid with gold] It is impossible to calculate this expense, or the quantity of gold employed in this sacred building.

Verse 22. And the whole house he overlaid with gold — Not only the oracle, but all the holy place; and, as some think, even the chambers belonging to it. Also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold — That is, the altar of incense; thence called the golden altar; which was in the upper end of the sanctuary, near the entrance of the oracle. This he covered with cedar, (verse 20,) and now overlaid with gold.

22. The whole house he overlaid with gold — That is, the whole interior of the holy place and the most holy was overlaid with gold, like the boards of the tabernacle. Exodus 26:29. The prominence given to the golden covering of the various parts of the temple not only shows the exceeding expensiveness of the building, but also points in symbol to the excellence and preciousness of the Church of the living God. The whole altar — The entire outside of the altar, top, sides, and horns, as specified in Exodus 30:3. That was by the oracle — The golden altar of incense was placed directly in front of the vail that concealed the oracle from view, (Exodus 30:6,) and so might be said to belong to the oracle. Compare note on verse 20.

V. 23. Cherubim-Besides those two made by Moses, Exodus 25:18, which were of gold, and far less than these. The Heathens set up images of their gods, and worshipped them. These were designed to represent the servants and attendants of the God of Israel, the holy angels, not to be worshipped themselves, but to shew how great he is whom we worship.

Verse 23. Within the oracle he made two cherubims — These were different from, and much larger than those made by Moses, which were of solid gold, and arose out of each end of the mercy-seat, being of one piece with it, and looking one upon the other, Exodus 25:18, 19. But these made by Solomon were of olive-wood, or, as it is in the Hebrew, of tree of oil; many sorts of which wood there were besides olive; as pine, cedar, &c. The heathen set up images of their gods, and worshipped them. These cherubim were designed to represent the servants and attendants of the God of Israel, the holy angels; not to be worshipped themselves, but to show how great he is whom we worship.

Here it may be proper to note, that the word rybd, debir, (which our translation constantly renders oracle,) comes from rbd, dabar, which signifies to speak; because God, who dwelt between the cherubim of the ark in the Mosaic tabernacle, declared his mind from thence, when he was consulted by the high-priest with Urim and Thummim. And it still retained this name, though we never read of any answer by Urim and Thummim in this temple. It is highly probable that, upon their rejecting the government of God, and turning the theocracy into a human government by kings, God ceased to direct and govern them by that divine oracle. During the reign of David, indeed, there are some footsteps of it, their new government by kings being not well established. So that we may suppose there was a mixture of the theocracy still with it, as may be gathered from 2 Samuel 2:1, and 21:1. But after that there is not the least glimpse of it; but they inquired of God by the prophets, 1 Kings 22:3; 2 Kings 3:11, 20. And, what is very remarkable, in the days of Josiah, when the high-priest was sent by that king to inquire of God, he applied to Huldah the prophetess for that purpose: which is a demonstration that the answer by Urim and Thummim ceased when God’s government was cast off by them; to which that oracle properly appertained. And therefore in all these places it would be more properly rendered, the most holy place. For though the ark was placed there, no oracles or words of the Lord were given from thence.

23. Made two cherubim — 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 Ezekiel. Ezekiel 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. Ezekiel’s magnificent picture may have added somewhat to the form of the cherubim in the temple, but in all essential particulars they were doubtless substantially the same. The probable form of one of these cherubim is presented in the annexed cut, the eagle face being out of sight. It is evident from their great size that these cherubim were not substituted, as some have thought, for the old cherubim that stood upon the ends of the mercyseat, (Exodus 25:18,) for these stood ten cubits apart, while the mercyseat was only two and a half cubits long. These cherubim were therefore additional to the smaller and older ones on the ark, and overshadowed them by their vast wings, which reached across the entire oracle. The smaller cherubs looked towards each other over the mercyseat. (Exodus 25:20;) these greater ones stood with their faces towards the house, (2 Chronicles 3:13, margin;) that is, the human face, as chief and representative of all, looked towards the greater house, the holy place before the vail. Olive tree — Or, tree of oil, meaning, perhaps, the wild olive, whose wood is hard and solid, with a fine grain and a pleasing yellowish tint.

Verses 24-26. Were ten cubits — Whereas those of Moses were only so long as to cover the mercy-seat, which was but two cubits and a half in length. And the other cherub was ten cubits — So that they filled the whole breadth of the house, which was twenty cubits. The height — was ten cubits — That is, half as high as that most holy place, verse 20. For they stood on their feet upon the floor of it.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

Verses 24-26. Were ten cubits — Whereas those of Moses were only so long as to cover the mercy-seat, which was but two cubits and a half in length. And the other cherub was ten cubits — So that they filled the whole breadth of the house, which was twenty cubits. The height — was ten cubits — That is, half as high as that most holy place, verse 20. For they stood on their feet upon the floor of it.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

Verse 26. The height of the one cherub was ten cubits] Concerning the cherubs, their form, &c., see Clarke’s note on “Exodus 25:18”. The height of each cherub was about eighteen feet and three inches.

Verses 24-26. Were ten cubits — Whereas those of Moses were only so long as to cover the mercy-seat, which was but two cubits and a half in length. And the other cherub was ten cubits — So that they filled the whole breadth of the house, which was twenty cubits. The height — was ten cubits — That is, half as high as that most holy place, verse 20. For they stood on their feet upon the floor of it.

Ver. 26. One cherub was ten cubits, or more than eighteen feet. Those seen by Ezekiel were very large.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

Verse 27. He set the cherubims within the inner house — With their faces toward the sanctuary, so that they looked upon him that entered the oracle. They stretched forth the wings of the cherubims — Or, rather, the cherubims stretched forth their wings. So that the wing of one touched one wall, &c. — That is, they touched the south and north walls of the house. Whereas the wings of those cherubim that Moses made, stretched themselves from east to west. For they looked one upon the other over the mercy-seat. Their wings touched one another in the midst of the house — Where they must needs meet, being five cubits long on each side, and the house twenty cubits wide.

27. Their wings touched one another — They reached across the entire oracle, the two wings of each cherub covering a space ten cubits broad. Verse 24. “The wings were evidently fastened to the back, and placed close to one another upon the shoulder-blades, so that the small space between their starting-points is not taken into consideration in the calculation of their length.” — Keil.

Verses 28, 29. He overlaid the cherubims with gold — It must be observed, there were four cherubim in the most holy place of Solomon’s temple; two lesser made by Moses of massy gold, and two larger made by Solomon, overlaid with gold. Those made by Moses were part of the mercy-seat, and inseparable from it; these of Solomon seem to have spread their wings over it and them, being added only for the greater ornament of God’s house. He carved all the walls with figures of cherubims — As signs of the presence and protection of the angels vouchsafed by God to that place. And palm-trees — Emblems of that peace and victory over their enemies, which the Israelites duly serving God in that place might expect. Within and without — Within the oracle, and without it in the holy place. The floor of the house he overlaid with gold — That is, of the whole house, both within the oracle and without it, both of the most holy, and the holy place; which rendered it wonderfully splendid and magnificent.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

V. 29. Cherubim-As signs of the presence and protection of the angels vouch-safed by God to that place. Palm-trees-Emblems of that peace and victory over their enemies, which the Israelites duly serving God in that place might expect. Within and without-Within the oracle and without it, in the holy place.

Verses 28, 29. He overlaid the cherubims with gold — It must be observed, there were four cherubim in the most holy place of Solomon’s temple; two lesser made by Moses of massy gold, and two larger made by Solomon, overlaid with gold. Those made by Moses were part of the mercy-seat, and inseparable from it; these of Solomon seem to have spread their wings over it and them, being added only for the greater ornament of God’s house. He carved all the walls with figures of cherubims — As signs of the presence and protection of the angels vouchsafed by God to that place. And palm-trees — Emblems of that peace and victory over their enemies, which the Israelites duly serving God in that place might expect. Within and without — Within the oracle, and without it in the holy place. The floor of the house he overlaid with gold — That is, of the whole house, both within the oracle and without it, both of the most holy, and the holy place; which rendered it wonderfully splendid and magnificent.

Ver. 29. He carved cherubims, and palm trees, and open flowers; that is, flowers in full bloom. The supreme Being was understood to delight in woods, groves, gardens, and fountains. So a poet has said—Habitarunt Dii quoque sylvas. But the druids thought he preferred cairns, craggs, and mountain-tops. The prophet says, he prefers the heart of the contrite, and the man that trembles at his word.

29. Cherubim and palm trees and open flowers — Similar

ornamentation abounds on Assyrian and Persian monuments. It was not without its symbolical meaning. As the cherub represented the fulness of Divine life and power in the animal creation, so the palms and flowers represented the vegetable kingdom. Palms and flowers are ever suggestive of the richest fulness of life, prosperity, and joy. And so the worshippers that were permitted to enter the temple, and gaze upon the walls all covered with these figurative carvings, might ever be reminded that the God who had his special dwelling-place and worship there was not confined to temples, but filled the universe with his creative life and energy. The heaven and heaven of heavens could not contain him, and the whole earth was but his footstool; how, then, could Solomon’s temple hold him? His hand had made in actual creation all forms of life and being that were represented on the walls.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

V. 31. Fifth part-That is, four cubits in height or breadth, whereas the wall was twenty cubits.

Verse 31. The lintel and side-posts were a fifth part of the wall — The original text here is very obscure, there being nothing in it for the words, of the wall; but only, The lintel and side-posts were a fifth, which may be understood to signify, that they held the proportion of a fifth part of the doors. But some think the meaning is, that this gate was the fifth in number belonging to the house. The first, they say, was that which led into the court of the people; the second, that which led into the court of the priests; the third was the door of the porch; the fourth, that of the holy place; and this fifth, of the oracle, or most holy. And in this way they interpret a similar expression, (verse 33,) which we render a fourth part of the wall, the words, of the wall, being not in the Hebrew, they understand it of the fourth gate; namely, that of the holy place. But the most probable meaning is, as our translators have understood it to be, that the doors, including the lintel and side-posts, here mentioned, as well as the valves, took up a fifth part of the wall or partition, being four cubits in breadth.

31. The entering of the oracle — The doorway, or place of entrance. It appears that the oracle had no other opening than this. There was no other door, and there were no windows, for Jehovah would dwell in the thick darkness, (1 Kings 8:12,) and thereby indicate to his human worshippers that his ways and his being are past finding out. He makes darkness his pavilion to teach his worshippers the folly of thinking to find out the Almighty to perfection. The lintel — lya, pilaster. “The projection which always springing, pillar-like, out of adjacent recesses on both sides, fronts toward the space where is the entrance and through passage.” — Furst. It would be better, then, to render either the pilaster of the side-posts, or, with Keil, to attach side-posts to pilaster as an explanatory apposition — the pilaster, namely, the projecting side-posts. A fifth part — Of the doorway or entrance; not of the wall, as our translators have supplied. The meaning is, that the pilasters on each side of the doorway projected outward in bold relief, and took up one fifth of the passage between the side-posts.

Verse 32. The two doors also were of olive-tree — Or, The leaves of the doors; signifying what sort of doors they were, namely, folding-doors, as is more particularly observed verse 34. He carved upon them carvings of cherubims, &c., and overlaid them with gold — When the veil, which covered this whole partition, with the doors of it, was drawn aside to give entrance to the high-priest into the holy of holies on the great day of atonement, then these beautiful doors of olive-tree, thus overlaid with gold, and curiously engraved, were displayed to his view, and the view of such priests as might be in the holy place; but otherwise they were seldom seen, and never but by the priests only.

32. The two doors — The doors of the oracle seem to have been merely a double door, the two parts closing towards each other, and therefore not so complicated as the outer door of the temple. Verse 34. They moved on hinges of gold. 1 Kings 7:50. In Italy the church doors usually stand open, but the doorway in closed over with a heavy curtain, and such seems to have been the usage in the case of these doors to the oracle.

33. The door of the temple — The outer door leading from the porch into the holy place. A fourth part — Not of the wall, but of the doorway, as in verse 31. This outer door was probably considerably larger than the one leading to the oracle.

34. The two leaves — Herein the doors of the greater and outer room differed from those of the smaller and inner one. Each of the two doors was folding, so that one could enter by merely turning one of the folds or leaves, without opening the whole door.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TEMPLE, 1-38.

The first and greatest work of Solomon was the building of the temple. David had purposed in his heart to build such a house for Jehovah, and made vast preparations for it, but was divinely informed that the great enterprise was to be carried out not by himself, but by his son Solomon. 1 Chronicles 22:6-19; 28:10-21. The pattern was, in its principal parts, substantially a repetition of the tabernacle; but in its architectural details it was doubtless modelled, in some degree, after the great Phenician, Assyrian, Babylonian, and perhaps Egyptian temples of that age; drawing more or less from all these sources: for the science of architecture seems never to have received much attention among the Hebrews. Their fathers dwelt in tents; and long after their settlement in Canaan they continued to use the same style of dwellings, as something hereditary which they were loth to abandon. David called in the aid of Phenician architects and workmen in building his own palace on Zion, and Solomon did the same in building the temple. And to the Phenician artists we may reasonably believe were largely left the minor architectural designs and finish. But the great works of Phenician architecture have perished; and all present attempts at a complete restoration of the temple from supposed analogies in Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, or Egyptian monuments, are of doubtful value. Such analogies are of the first importance in the study of comparative architecture, and will greatly help in determining some of the principal parts of the temple; but a restoration of the whole edifice from those sources must be to a great extent conjectural. Our principal authority is the Hebrew text of the Scripture; and a careful study of this, together with the aid of comparative architecture, will enable us to present a substantially correct ground-plan, and some other important features, both of the temple and the palace of Solomon. Beyond this it seems not wise to go; for one might as well attempt to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to restore all the details of an ancient Jewish building from a mere verbal description compared with the remains of Persian, Assyrian, and Egyptian architecture — especially when the architects employed belonged to neither of these nations. The SITE of the temple was Ornan’s threshingfloor on Mount Moriah, where the angel of Jehovah had appeared to David. 2 Chronicles 3:1. There is no question but it stood somewhere within the present enclosure known as the Haram Area, but the exact part of this area has become a matter of dispute. Fergusson, Lewin, and Thrupp locate the temple in the southwest corner; but the older opinion, which seems to be confirmed by the most recent research and the nature of the ground, places it nearly on the site of the Haram esh Shereef, which occupies what must have been the rocky ridge of the ancient mountain. Captain Warren observes: “It seems incredible that the temple, a building which was so conspicuous, and which was to perform such an important part in the fortifications of the city, should have been placed down in a hole, or even along the sides of the hill, or anywhere except on the ridge, where there is just room enough for it to have stood.… It is well-known that threshingfloors in Palestine are so placed on the ridges of hills, or on the highest points, that, by exposure to every puff of wind, the corn and chaff may be separated.” — Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 245. See, also, note introductory to chap. 7.

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 Exodus 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 Acts 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:

1. Abib (Nisan) April.

V. 36. Inner court-The priests court, 2 Chronicles 4:9, so called, because it was next to the temple which it compassed. Cedar beams-Which is understood, of so many galleries, one on each side of the temple, whereof the three first were of stone, and the fourth of cedar, all supported with rows of pillars: upon which there were many chambers for the uses of the temple, and of the priests.

Verse 36. Three rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams.] Does not this intimate that there were three courses of stone, and then one course of timber all through this wall? Three strata of stone and one stratum of timber, and so on. If so, could such a building be very durable? This is also referred to in the succeeding chapter, 1 Kings 7:11; and as both the temple and Solomon’s house were built in the same manner, we may suppose that this was the ordinary way in which the better sort of buildings were constructed. Calmet thinks that to this mode of building the prophet alludes, Habakkuk 2:11: The stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it. But it should be observed that this was in the inner court, and therefore the timber was not exposed to the weather. The outer court does not appear to have been built stratum super stratum of stone and wood.

Verse 36. The inner court — That wherein the priests officiated, (2 Chronicles 4:9,) so called because it was next to the temple, which it encompassed. With three rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams — It is difficult to ascertain the precise meaning of the sacred historian here. He may be understood as speaking, either, 1st, Of the thickness of the wall, the three rows of stones being one within another, and the cedar innermost, as a lining to the wall. Or, 2d, Of the height of the wall, which was only three cubits high, that the people might see the priests sacrificing upon the altar, which was in their court; each row of stones being about a cubit, and, possibly, of a colour different from the rest, and all covered with cedar. Or, 3d, He is to be understood of so many galleries, one on each side of the temple, whereof the three first were stone, and the fourth of cedar, all supported with rows of pillars, upon which there were many chambers for the uses of the temple, and of the priests.

Ver. 36. Three rows of stone, and a row of cedar beams put across to support the floor, and shelter the worshippers from the solar rays and the rain. The stones used in the temple were all large.

36. The inner court — The temple was surrounded by a double court or enclosure, an inner and an outer. The outer was much larger than the inner court, but the exact size of each it is now impossible to decide. These courts seem also to have been called respectively the upper and the lower, (Jeremiah 36:10,) probably because the one occupied a higher terrace than the other, in 2 Chronicles 4:9, the outer is called the great court, and the inner the court of the priests. Three rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams — The precise meaning is obscure, but is usually understood of the enclosing wall of the inner court being so constructed that three layers of hewn stone were placed one upon another, and a row of cedar beams fastened on the top, either horizontally or in the form of a railing or balustrade. Perhaps, however, it is better to understand these layers of stone and cedar as forming the pavement of the inner court, and covering its entire area. This would have boon the natural way to elevate the platform of the inner court above that of the outer, (compare Jeremiah 36:10,) and thus, says Rawlinson, “the temple would be placed, like the Assyrian palaces, on an artificial platform; and the platform, being regarded as a part of the sacred building, would be constructed of the best material.”

Verses 37, 38. In the fourth year, &c. — This was mentioned verse 1, and is here repeated to subjoin, in the next words, how long the house was in building. In the eleventh year, in the month Bul — As the second month was called Zif, for the reason before given, so the eighth month was called Bul, which signifies to wither, because then the leaves of the trees began to wither and fall off, and the whole vegetable creation to droop and die. So he was seven years in building — “That is,” says Mr. Locke, “speaking in a round number, for he was seven years and six months; neither is this mode of speaking unusual in Scripture.” It is not strange that this work took up so much time; for though the temple, properly so called, was but a small edifice, yet the many courts, offices, chambers, and other buildings about it, above ground and below, made the whole a vast pile; and the exquisiteness of the art, and fewness of the artists that could be employed, made a longer time requisite. Indeed, all things considered, it must be acknowledged Solomon made an extraordinary despatch; for, if the building of Diana’s temple at Ephesus employed all Asia for two hundred years; and no fewer than three hundred and sixty thousand men were occupied for twenty years together in erecting one pyramid, as Pliny affirms, lib. 36, chap. 12, no reasonable man can wonder that this temple was seven years and a half in building. See Calmet, and Univ. Hist., vol. 4. octavo. Now let us see what this temple typifies:

1. Christ himself is the true temple. He himself spoke of the temple of his body: and in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead. In him all the Israel of God meet, and through him have access with confidence to God.

2. Every believer is a living temple, in whom the Spirit of God dwelleth: we are wonderfully made by the divine providence, but more wonderfully made anew by the divine grace; and as Solomon’s temple was built on a rock, so are we built on Christ.

3. The church is a mystical temple, enriched and beautified, not with gold and precious stones, but with the gifts and graces of the Spirit. Angels are ministering spirits, attending the church, and all the members of it, on all sides.

4. Heaven is the everlasting temple; there the church will be fixed, and no longer moveable: the cherubim there always attend upon the throne of glory. In the temple there was no noise of axes or hammers: every thing is quiet and serene in heaven. All that shall be stones in that building, must here be fitted and made ready for it; must be hewed and squared by the divine grace, and so made meet for a place in that temple.

37. The month Zif — See on verse 1.

V. 38. Seven years-It is not strange that this work took up so much time: for,

1. The temple properly so called, was for quantity the least part of it, there being very many and great buildings both above ground in the several courts, (for though only the court of the priests be mentioned, yet it is thereby implied, that the same thing was proportionably done in the others) and under ground.

2. The great art which was used here, and the small number of exquisite artists, required the longer time for the doing it. And if the building of Diana’s temple employed all Asia for two hundred years; and the building of one pyramid employed three hundred and sixty thousand men, for twenty years together; both which, Pliny affirms: no reasonable man can wonder that this temple was seven years in building. Now let us see what this temple typifies.

(1.) Christ himself is the true temple. He himself spoke of the temple of his body: and in him dwelt all the fullness of the godhead. In him all the Israel of God meet, and thro’ him have access with confidence to God.

(2.) Every believer is a living temple, in whom the spirit of God dwelleth. We are wonderfully made by the Divine Providence, but more wonderfully made anew by the Divine grace. And as Solomon’s temple was built on a rock, so are we built on Christ.

(3.) The church is a mystical temple, enriched and beautified, not with gold and precious stones, but with the gifts and graces of the spirit. Angels are ministering spirits, attending the church and all the members of it on all sides.

(4.) Heaven is the everlasting temple. There the church will be fixt, and no longer moveable. The cherubim there always attend upon the throne of glory. In the temple there was no noise of axes or hammers: every thing is quiet and serene in heaven. All that shall be stones in that building, must here be fitted and made ready for it; must be hewn and squared by the Divine grace, and so made meet for a place in that temple.

Verse 38. In the eleventh year-was the house finished] It is rather strange that this house required seven years and about six months to put all the stones and the timbers in their places, for we have already seen that they were all prepared before they came to Jerusalem; but the ornamenting, gilding, or overlaying with gold, making the carved work, cherubim, trees, flowers, &c., must have consumed a considerable time. The month Bul answers to a part of our October and November, as Zif, in which it was begun, answers to a part of April and May.

The dedication did not take place till the following year, the twelfth of Solomon, because then, according to Archbishop Usher, the jubilee happened.

So was he seven years in building it.] Properly seven years and six months; but the Scripture generally expresses things in round numbers. DIANA’S temple at Ephesus was one of the seven wonders of the world. It is said that almost all Asia was employed in the building of it for about two hundred years; but it was certainly more extensive than the temple at Jerusalem, for it may be justly questioned, notwithstanding the profusion of gold, silver, precious stones, &c., employed in the temple of Solomon, whether it cost any thing like the money expended on the temple of Diana. Pliny informs us, Hist. Nat., lib. xxxvi., cap. 12, that, in order to build one of the pyramids in Egypt, no less than three hundred and sixty thousand men were employed for the space of twenty years. But neither was the temple any such work as this. We may also observe that the temple was never intended to hold a vast concourse of people; it was only for the service of the Lord, and the priests were those alone who were employed in it. The courts, chambers, and other apartments, were far more extensive than the temple itself; it was never designed to be a place to worship in, but a place to worship at. There God was known to have a peculiar residence, and before him the tribes came, and the priests were a sort of mediators between him and the people. In short, the temple was to the Jews in the promised land what the tabernacle was to the Hebrews in the wilderness; the place where God’s honour dwelt, and whither the people flocked to pay their adoration.

“Solomon laid the foundation of the temple in the year of the world 2992, before Christ 1008, before the vulgar era, 1012; and it was finished in the year of the world 3000, and dedicated in 3001, before Christ 999, before the vulgar era 1003; 1 Kings 8:1 &c.; 2 Chronicles 5:1; 7:1; 8:1 &c. The place that was pitched on for erecting this magnificent structure was on the side of Mount Sion called Moriah. Its entrance or frontispiece stood towards the east, and the most holy or most retired part was towards the west. The author of the first book of Kings, and of the second of Chronicles has chiefly made it his business to describe the temple properly so called, that is the sanctuary, the sanctum, and the apartments belonging to them, as also the vessels, the implements, and the ornaments of the temple, without giving any description scarcely of the courts and open areas, which, however, made a principal part of the grandeur of this august edifice.

“But Ezekiel has supplied this defect by the exact plan he has delineated of these necessary parts. Indeed it must be owned that the temple as described by Ezekiel was never restored after the captivity of Babylon, according to the model and the mensuration that this prophet has given of it. But as the measures he sets down for the sanctum and the sanctuary are, within a small matter, the same as those of the temple of Solomon; and as this prophet, who was himself a priest, had seen the first temple; it is to be supposed that the description he gives us of the temple of Jerusalem is the same as that of the temple of Solomon.

“The ground-plot upon which the temple was built was a square of six hundred cubits, or twenty-five thousand royal feet; Ezekiel 45:1 &c. This space was encompassed with a wall of the height of six cubits, and of the same breadth. Beyond this wall was the court of the Gentiles, being fifty cubits wide. After this was seen a great wall, which encompassed the whole court of the children of Israel. This wall was a square of five hundred cubits. The court of Israel was a hundred cubits square, and was encompassed all round with magnificent galleries supported by two or three rows of pillars. It had four gates or entrances; one to the east, another to the west, a third to the north, and the fourth to the south. They were all of the same form and largeness, and each had an ascent of seven steps. The court was paved with marble of divers colours, and had no covering; but the people in case of need could retire under the galleries that were all round about. These apartments were to lodge the priests in, and to lay up such things as were necessary for the use of the temple. There were but three ways to come in, to the east, to the north, and to the south, and they went to it by an ascent of eight steps. Before, and over against the gate of the court of the priests, in the court of Israel, was erected a throne for the king, being a magnificent alcove, where the king seated himself when he came into the temple. Within the court of the priests, and over against the same eastern gate, was the altar of burnt-offerings, of twelve cubits square, according to Ezekiel 43:16, or of ten cubits high and twenty broad, according to 2 Chronicles 4:1. They went up to it by stairs on the eastern side.

“Beyond this, and to the west of the altar of burnt-offerings was the temple, properly so called, that is to say, the sanctuary, the sanctum, and the porch of entrance. The porch was twenty cubits wide and six cubits deep. Its gate was fourteen cubits wide. The sanctum was forty cubits wide and twenty deep. There stood the golden candlestick, the table of shew-bread, and the golden altar, upon which the incense was offered. The sanctuary was a square of twenty cubits. There was nothing in the sanctuary but the ark of the covenant, which included the tables of the law. The high priest entered here but once a year, and none but himself was allowed to enter. Solomon had embellished the inside of this holy place with palm trees in relief, and cherubim of wood covered with plates of gold, and in general the whole sanctuary was adorned, and as it were overlaid, with plates of gold.

“Round the sanctum and sanctuary were three stories of chambers, to the number of thirty-three. Ezekiel makes them but four cubits wide; but the first book of Kings, 1 Kings 6:6, allows five cubits to the first story, six to the second, and seven to the third.

“Since the consecration or dedication of the temple by Solomon in the year of the world 3001, this edifice has suffered many revolutions, which it is proper to take notice of here.

“In the year of the world 3033, before Christ 967, before the vulgar era 971, Shishak, king of Egypt, having declared war with Rehoboam, king of Judah, took Jerusalem, and carried away the treasures of the temple; 1 Kings 14:25, 26; 2 Chronicles 12:1-9.

“In 3146, Jehoash, king of Judah, got silver together to go upon the repairs of the temple; they began to work upon it in earnest in 3148, before Christ 852, before the vulgar era 856; 2 Kings 12:4, 5, and 2 Chronicles 24:7-9, &c.

“Ahaz king of Judah having called to his assistance Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria, against the kings of Israel and Damascus, who were at war with him, robbed the temple of the Lord of its riches to give away to this strange king, 2 Chronicles 28:21, 22, &c., in the year of the world 3264, before Christ 736, before the vulgar era 740, and not contented with this, he profaned this holy place by setting up there an altar like one he had seen at Damascus, and taking away the brazen altar that Solomon had made; 2 Kings 16:10-12, &c. He also took away the brazen sea from off the brazen oxen that supported it, and the brazen basons from their pedestals, and the king’s throne or oratory, which was of brass. These he took away to prevent their being carried away by the king of Assyria. Nor did he stop here, but carried his wickedness so far as to sacrifice to strange gods, and to erect profane altars in all the corners of the streets of Jerusalem; 2 Chronicles 28:24, 25. He pillaged the temple of the Lord, broke the sacred vessels, and, lastly, shut up the house of God. This happened in the year of the world 3264, before Christ 736, before the vulgar era 740, to his death, which happened in 3278, before Christ 722, before the vulgar era 726.

“Hezekiah, the son and successor of Ahaz, opened again and repaired the gates of the temple which his father had shut up and robbed of their ornaments; 2 Chronicles 29:3, 4, &c., in the year of the world 3278, before Christ 722, before the vulgar era 726. He restored the worship of the Lord and the sacrifices, and made new sacred vessels in the place of those that Ahaz had destroyed. But in the fourteenth year of his reign, 2 Kings 18:15, 16, in the year of the world 3291, before Christ 709, before the vulgar era 713, Sennacherib, king of Assyria, coming with an army into the land of Judah, Hezekiah was forced to take all the riches of the temple, and even the plates of gold that he himself had put upon the gates of the temple, and give them to the king of Assyria. But when Sennacherib was gone back into his own country, there is no doubt that Hezekiah restored all these things to their first condition. “Manasseh, son and successor of Hezekiah, profaned the temple of the Lord, by setting up altars to all the host of heaven, even in the courts of the house of the Lord; 2 Kings 21:4-7; 2 Chronicles 33:5-7; in the year of the world 3306, and the following years. He set up idols there, and worshipped them. God delivered him into the hands of the king of Babylon, who loaded him with chains, and carried him away beyond the Euphrates; 2 Chronicles 33:11, 12, &c.; in the year of the world 3328, before Christ 672, before the vulgar era 676. There he acknowledged and repented of his sins; and being sent back to his own dominions, he redressed the profanations he had made of the temple of the Lord, by taking away the idols, destroying the profane altars, and restoring the altar of burnt-offering, upon which he offered his sacrifices.

“Josiah, king of Judah, laboured with all his might in repairing the edifices of the temple, (2 Kings 22:4-6, &c.; 2 Chronicles 34:8-10; in the year of the world 3380, before Christ 620, before the vulgar era 624,) which had been either neglected or demolished by the kings of Judah, his predecessors. He also commanded the priests and Levites to replace the ark of the Lord in the sanctuary, in its appointed place; and ordered that it should not any more be removed from place to place as it had been during the reigns of the wicked kings, his predecessors, 2 Chronicles 35:3. “Nebuchadnezzar took away a part of the sacred vessels of the temple of the Lord, and placed them in the temple of his god at Babylon, under the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Judah; 2 Chronicles 36:6, 7, in the year of the world 3398, before Christ 602, before the vulgar era 606. He also carried away others under the reign of Jehoiachin, 2 Chronicles 36:10; in the year of the world 3405, before Christ 595, before the vulgar era 599. Lastly, he took the city of Jerusalem, and entirely destroyed the temple, in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the year of the world 3416, before Christ 584, before the vulgar era 588; 2 Kings 25:1-3, &c.; 2 Chronicles 36:18, 19.

“The temple continued buried in its ruins for the space of fifty-two years, till the first year of Cyrus at Babylon, in the year of the world 3468, before Christ 532, before the vulgar era 536. Then Cyrus gave permission to the Jews to return to Jerusalem, and there to rebuild the temple of the Lord, Ezra 1:1-3, &c. The following year they laid the foundation of the second temple; but they had hardly been at work upon it one year, when either Cyrus or his officers, being gained over by the enemies of the Jews, forbade them to go on with their work; Ezra 4:5; in the year of the world 3470, before Christ 530, before the vulgar era 534. After the death of Cyrus and Cambyses, they were again forbidden by the magian, who reigned after Cambyses, and whom the Scripture calls by the name of Artaxerxes; Ezra 4:7, 17, 18, &c.; in the year of the world 3483, before Christ 517, before the vulgar era 521. Lastly, these prohibitions being superseded, under the reign of Darius, son of Hystaspes, (Ezra 5:1; 6:14; Haggai 1:1, &c.; in the year of the world 3485, before Christ 515, before the vulgar era 519,) the temple was finished and dedicated four years after, in the year of the world 3489, before Christ 511, before the vulgar era 515, twenty years after the return from the captivity. “This temple was profaned by order of Antiochus Epiphanes in the year of the world 3837. The ordinary sacrifices were discontinued therein, and the idol of Jupiter Olympus was set up upon the altar. It continued in this condition for three years; then Judas Maccabeus purified it, and restored the sacrifice and the worship of the Lord, 1 Mac. iv. 36; in the year of the world 8840, before Christ 160, before the vulgar era 164. “Herod the Great undertook to rebuild the whole temple of Jerusalem anew, in the eighteenth year of his reign, and in the year of the world 3986; Joseph., Antiq., lib. xv., cap. 14. He began to lay the foundation of it in the year of the world 3987, forty-six years before the first passover of Jesus Christ, as the Jews observe to him by saying, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? John 2:20. This is not saying that Herod had employed six and forty years in building it; for Josephus assures us that he finished it in nine years and a half; Joseph., Antiq., lib. xv., cap. 14. But, after the time of this prince, they all continued to make some new addition to it; and the same Josephus tells us that they went on working upon it, even to the beginning of the Jewish war; Joseph., Antiq., lib. xx., cap. 8.

“This temple, built by Herod, did not subsist more than seventy-seven years, being destroyed in the year of the world 4073, of Christ 73, of the vulgar era 69. It was begun by Herod in 3987, finished in 3996, burnt and destroyed by the Romans in 4073.

“This temple of Herod was very different from that of Solomon, and from that which was rebuilt by Zerubbabel after the captivity. This is the description that Josephus has left us of it, who himself had seen it:— “The temple, properly so called, was built sixty cubits high, and as many broad; but there were two sides of front, like two arms or shoulderings, which advanced twenty cubits on each side, which gave in the whole front a hundred cubits wide, as well as in height. The stones made use of in this building were white and hard, twenty-five cubits long, eight in height, and twelve in width; Joseph., de Bell., lib. vi., p. 917.

“The front of this magnificent building resembled that of a royal palace. The two extremes of each face were lower than the middle, which middle was so exalted that those who were over against the temple, or that approached towards it at a distance, might see it, though they were many furlongs from it. The gates were almost of the same height as the temple; and on the top of the gates were veils or tapestry of several colours, embellished with purple flowers. On the two sides of the doors were two pillars, the cornices of which were adorned with the branches of a golden vine, which hung down with their grapes and clusters, and were so well imitated, that art did not at all yield to nature. Herod made very large and very high galleries about the temple, which were suitable to the magnificence of the rest of the building, and exceeded in beauty and sumptuousness all of the kind that had been seen before.

“The temple was built upon a very irregular mountain, and at first there was hardly place enough on the top of it for the site of the temple and altar. The rest of it was steep and sloping: Joseph., de Bell, lib. vi., p. 915, ekfid.; Antiq., lib. xv., c. 14. But when King Solomon built it, he raised a wall towards the east, to support the earth on that side; and after this side was filled up, he then built one of the porticoes or galleries. At that time this face only was cased with stone, but in succeeding times, the people endeavouring to enlarge this space, and the top of the mountain being much extended, they broke down the wall which was on the north side, and enclosed another space as large as that which the whole circumference of the temple contained at first. So that at last, against all hope and expectation, this work was carried so far that the whole mountain was surrounded by a treble wall. But, for the completing of this great work whole ages were no more than sufficient; and all the sacred treasures were applied to this use, that the devotion of the people had brought to the temple from all the provinces of the world. In some places these walls were above three hundred cubits high, and the stones used in these walls were some forty cubits long. They were fastened together by iron cramps and lead, to be able to resist the injuries of time. The platform on which the temple was built was a furlong square, or one hundred and twenty-five paces.” Thus far Calmet and Josephus.

I KINGS

Verses 37, 38. In the fourth year, &c. — This was mentioned verse 1, and is here repeated to subjoin, in the next words, how long the house was in building. In the eleventh year, in the month Bul — As the second month was called Zif, for the reason before given, so the eighth month was called Bul, which signifies to wither, because then the leaves of the trees began to wither and fall off, and the whole vegetable creation to droop and die. So he was seven years in building — “That is,” says Mr. Locke, “speaking in a round number, for he was seven years and six months; neither is this mode of speaking unusual in Scripture.” It is not strange that this work took up so much time; for though the temple, properly so called, was but a small edifice, yet the many courts, offices, chambers, and other buildings about it, above ground and below, made the whole a vast pile; and the exquisiteness of the art, and fewness of the artists that could be employed, made a longer time requisite. Indeed, all things considered, it must be acknowledged Solomon made an extraordinary despatch; for, if the building of Diana’s temple at Ephesus employed all Asia for two hundred years; and no fewer than three hundred and sixty thousand men were occupied for twenty years together in erecting one pyramid, as Pliny affirms, lib. 36, chap. 12, no reasonable man can wonder that this temple was seven years and a half in building. See Calmet, and Univ. Hist., vol. 4. octavo. Now let us see what this temple typifies:

1. Christ himself is the true temple. He himself spoke of the temple of his body: and in him dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead. In him all the Israel of God meet, and through him have access with confidence to God.

2. Every believer is a living temple, in whom the Spirit of God dwelleth: we are wonderfully made by the divine providence, but more wonderfully made anew by the divine grace; and as Solomon’s temple was built on a rock, so are we built on Christ.

3. The church is a mystical temple, enriched and beautified, not with gold and precious stones, but with the gifts and graces of the Spirit. Angels are ministering spirits, attending the church, and all the members of it, on all sides.

4. Heaven is the everlasting temple; there the church will be fixed, and no longer moveable: the cherubim there always attend upon the throne of glory. In the temple there was no noise of axes or hammers: every thing is quiet and serene in heaven. All that shall be stones in that building, must here be fitted and made ready for it; must be hewed and squared by the divine grace, and so made meet for a place in that temple.

38. The month Bul — According to Furst and Gesenius, the word Bul means rain; according to others, fruit, produce. Hence the rain-month, or fruit-month, corresponding with November. “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 with flowers but must end in fruit. ‘The harvest is the end of the world.’” Seven years — And six months, if we reckon more closely.

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. Matthew 7:13, 14.