1 Kings 6:1-38

The Building Of The Temple And Its Specifications (1 Kings 6:1-38 ).

The description of the building of the Temple, and its specifications, are now given in order to bring out the glory of Solomon, and the glowing picture (untainted by the later reality) suggests that the whole was taken from the original source. It was common for such information to be found in the records kept by kings of the ancient Near East, for their temples were an important aspect of their reigns, and thus there is no need to look for a source outside the court records. The overall emphasis is on the materials used, the measurements, and the techniques.

Being mainly designed by the Phoenicians it was, as we would expect, similar to neighbouring temples, although having the addition of a Most Holy Place, following the pattern of the Tabernacle. Thus the porch led in to the Holy Place, an elongated room, which itself led up to the Most Holy Place which was designed as a perfect cube. An almost parallel design was found at Ebla, in Syria, dating to the third millennium BC. A further example of a similar, but smaller, tripartite shrine was discovered at Tell Tainat on the Orontes (9th century BC), although that had an altar in the inner room. A late bronze age tripartite shrine was also discovered at Hazor constructed with timber between the stone courses.

One outstanding feature of Solomon’s Temple was that it was coated with gold. It was a display of Solomon’s great wealth. It is, however, an interesting indication of Solomon’s lack of spiritual perception that he did not follow the pattern laid down for the Tabernacle whereby the closer men came to the Most Holy Place, the more precious the metal that was in use. That indicated to men, as they moved from bronze, to silver, to gold, that they were, as it were, moving gradually out of their mundane world closer into His presence until at last they approached the very curtain behind which was the Ark of YHWH. It was a reminder that man was what he was, earthly and mundane, and that God was the God of Heaven, and that a purifying process must take place before we could come face to face with Him. But in Solomon’s Temple all was gold. God had simply become a ‘national treasure’. Yes, He was valued. But enclosed in His own little box.

From a literary viewpoint the passage itself follows a clear plan which seeks to bring out its important message. It opens and closes with a record of the dates involved, which form an inclusio, and are a reminder that we are dealing with the genuine history of men, and it centres round a confirming word from YHWH demanding obedience to His covenant. Indeed without such obedience all that the Temple was supposed to indicate meant nothing. And in between we have the description of the building and decorating of the Temple, indicating man’s efforts on God’s behalf. The writer has already made clear the huge physical effort that has gone into the building of the Temple (1 Kings 5:13-17), and in 1 Kings 6:14-36 it is made clear the greatness of the wealth that was being poured into its decoration. The lesson that is being emphasised is clear. Whatever efforts we may put in, and however much wealth we may devote to God, if we do not live in obedience to him, all else is in vain. Being ‘religious’ is not sufficient. What God requires is personal response. Obedience is central. In the words of Samuel, ‘to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams’ (1 Samuel 15:22). This lesson that great effort and great giving is not in itself sufficient but must be centred on obedience explains why the writer divided up the description of the building of the Temple into two parts around the central covenant.

In this regard God’s words concerning the Temple can hardly be described as over-enthusiastic. Notice the rather unenthusiastic, ‘Concerning this house which you have built,’ and compare it with Nebuchadnezzar’s ‘Is this not great Babylon which I have built?’ (Daniel 4:30). The initiative for the Temple had come from men and not from YHWH, which was in total contrast to the Tabernacle (2 Samuel 7:5-7). And even in its building YHWH’s requirements had been disobeyed as we have already seen above. It was thus more a monument to Solomon’s great splendour, and to his spiritual superficiality, than to a genuine evidence of deep spirituality. Like Saul he was more into the externals than into genuine obedience, something which in both cases did not become apparent immediately.

The ordinary reader may feel somewhat bewildered at all the detail provided with regard to the construction and embellishment of the Temple, but we should learn from this important lessons. Firstly how interested God is in the details of life. he ensured that a record was made of all the attempts of men to please Him (‘and then shall every (believing) man have praise of God’ - 1 Corinthians 4:5), just as He keeps a record of our lives. Secondly of how important it is that we should devote our skills to worshipping Him as well as serving Him. It reminds us that both are important. How much time do we, for example, spend in planning and designing our own public and private worship so as to bring glory to Him?). Thirdly as a reminder of how generous we should be towards God, and of how we should never treat Him lightly. Fourthly that the Temple, at its best, was designed to lift up men’s hearts towards God and remind them of His glory, so that as we consider its detail we might bring glory to our God. It is equally as important for us that we do not get so absorbed in ‘the church’ that we fail to give Him the glory that is His due. Fifthly in that it was designed so as to demonstrate that all creation is important in the eyes of God, and that He created it for our benefit (even though we may misuse it). Sixthly in that it was demonstrating the presence of God among His people in splendour and glory, and lifting up their eyes towards Him. The danger came when they turned their eyes away from God to the Temple and gave it an importance beyond its deserving. Seventhly in that it stood as a guarantee of the fulfilment of all God’s promises concerning the rise of the Coming King.

This particular passage is divided into three main parts by three phrases, each of which is a reminder that the Temple was completed, a repetition which was typical of ancient literature. These phrases are as follows:

“So he built the house and finished it.” This ends the description of the building of the stonework (1 Kings 6:9).

“So Solomon built the house and finished it.” This follows the covenant made by YHWH. (1 Kings 6:14).

“So was he seven years in building it.” This concludes the whole (1 Kings 6:37).

In writings where the script continued unbroken such ‘breaks’ were vital in order to enable the reader to recognise when a change in the subject matter was taking place and a new point in the narrative was being reached.

We may analyse the whole as follows:

Analysis.

a The date of commencement of the work (1 Kings 6:1).

b The building of the main structure in stone (1 Kings 6:2-10).

c YHWH’s covenant with Solomon (1 Kings 6:11-14).

b The embellishment of the Temple with timber and its inner detail (1 Kings 6:15-36).

a The date when the Temple was finished (1 Kings 6:37).

Thus the whole is planted firmly in history, man’s efforts on God’s behalf are described, but central to all is the requirement for obedience to God and His covenant.

1 Kings 6:1 a ‘It came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt ---.’

The interpretation of these words is a decisive point in Biblical chronology. It does at first sight give the appearance of indicating an exact chronology, but if taken literally it would be the only place in Scripture where such a specific attempt at exact dating, covering so long a period, has been attempted, apart from Exodus 12:40-41. Indeed, speaking from a human point of view it is difficult to see who would have been in a position to be able to accurately arrive at this figure. Records were not meticulously kept before the time of the monarchy, and the periods covered by Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Saul, contain time periods so uncertain that no one could have pinpointed the length of time with such accuracy from them, even if they accepted the exact round numbers in Judges literally. Certainly many attempts have been made to do so since, but none of them have been successful, for they have always had to make (or ignore) uncertain assumptions concerning the time period of Joshua, the length of time to the first invasion of the land in Judges 3:8, and the length of the periods for Samuel and Saul. We may take a scholarly interest in such matters, but it is doubtful if the writer of Kings or his source did so.

It is true, of course, that God would have known how long the true period was, but the words are not shown as coming from the mouth of God nor are they put in the form of a prophetic announcement, and there is no indication given anywhere that the writer obtained special divine assistance in arriving at the figure. He appears rather to have made the statement almost matter-of-factedly on the basis of his own knowledge. In that case we may ask why did he do so, and what was the criteria on which he based his information?

A point that must be borne in mind in considering the matter is the way in which number words were used in ancient times. They were not times in which much stress was laid on mathematics and arithmetic. Numbers were a mystery to most people. Indeed most probably could not accurately use numbers beyond, say, twenty (even if that). Numbers were rather used in order to convey an impression, and many of what we see as number words (e.g. a thousand) also had a number of other different meanings (such as military unit, family unit, clan unit, work unit, etc.). This being so our question should rather therefore be, what impression was the writer trying to give?

A clue may perhaps be found in another reference which has in mind the period from the Exodus to Solomon and that is found in 1 Chronicles 6:0. Indicated there we have the list of ‘Priests’ from Aaron to the time of Solomon, and then from Solomon to the Exile. If we list the ‘Priests’ from Aaron to Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, who would succeed Zadok as Priest in the early days of Solomon, we have twelve names, and if we take a ‘generation’ to represent forty years that would give us four hundred and eighty years. Thus the writer may simply be intending to indicate that there were ‘twelve generations’ (12x40=480) between the coming out of Egypt and the commencement of the building of the Temple, which would in reality be considerably less than 480 years. And a connection with the High Priesthood would be a very fit way in which to date the growth of Israel’s faith to the point at which the Temple was built (which was as the men of the day would see it).

But we must then ask, why was the matter seen as being of such importance that such dating was required? The answer would appear to lie in the emphasis that is earlier laid on the fact that the Temple was being built by Solomon because at long last the land was at rest, with all its enemies having been dealt with. It was an indication that the period of wandering, and of having a temporary, travelling sanctuary, was considered to be over. Thus the ‘four hundred and eighty years’ indicated the period that had passed between the first deliverance from Egypt and the time at which Israel could say, ‘now at last we are permanently settled in the land and at rest, with all our enemies subdued.’ It was a moment of great satisfaction.

1 Kings 6:1

‘ And it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of YHWH.’

So after twelve generations from the coming out of Egypt, Solomon felt that things were so at rest that a permanent Temple could be built. The impression being given was that now at last Israel were finally settled in the land for good. But as we know, and as the writer knew, within a generation that vision would collapse, and a united Israel would be no more. It was a dream that would turn into a nightmare. Thus the positive note of the verse suggests that it was written before the crises that followed occurred, confirming that it was very early and part of the original source.

The date was seen as so important that the exact date is then given. It was in the month Ziv, which was the second month, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (somewhere around 960 BC). It was seen as a glorious month in history, for it was in this month Solomon began to build the house of YHWH. The final writer of Kings must, however, certainly have had in mind what the future of the Temple was. He would have known that that too was doomed even as it was being erected, and that a promising beginning would end in disaster. The dream would come to nothing because the injunction to Solomon in 1 Kings 6:12-13 would be ignored.

The word used for ‘moon period’ appears regularly in Genesis, Exodus, etc. The moon period Ziv occurs only in this chapter, and is explained as being the second moon period in the year. It is an indication of early date, for later the second month would be Iyyar. The dating from the beginning of the reign was a normal method of dating. Everything about this verse indicates its antiquity.