1 Kings 6:1

EXPOSITION

SOLOMON 'S TEMPLE .—The preparations for the building of the Temple having been related in the preceding chapter, the historian now proceeds to describe the edifice. He begins his narrative with a precise statement of the date of its erection ( 1 Kings 6:1 ); then follows

The erection of this splendid sanctuary was no doubt the greatest event, both in Jewish and Gentile eyes, in the history of the Holy City. It made Jerusalem what it had not been till then, the religious capital. The stronghold of the Jebusites now became the shrine and centre of the Jewish system. We are not warranted, however, in believing that it shaped the name by which the city was known to the Greeks, ἱεροσολυμὰ (Jos; B. J. 6. 10) and ἱερὸν σαλομῶνος , being probably mere attempts to "twist Jerushalaim into a shape which should be intelligible to Greek ears" (Dict. Bib. 1:983).

We find a sufficient indication, however, of the profound importance which this undertaking assumed in Jewish eyes in the fact that four chapters of our history—and three of them of considerable length—are occupied with an account of the materials, proportions, arrangements, and consecration of this great sanctuary. To the historiographers of Israel it seemed meet that every measurement of the holy and beautiful house should be recorded with the greatest exactness, while the very vessels of service, "the pots and the shovels and the basons," were judged worthy of a place in the sacred page.

But these careful and detailed dimensions are not only proofs of the tender veneration with which the Jew regarded the Temple and its appointments; they are also indications and expressions of the belief that this house, so "exceeding magnifical," was for the Lord, and not for man. These exact measurements, these precise and symbolic numbers all]point to a place for the Divine Presence; they are "the first requisite for every space and structure which has a higher and Divine destination, and they impart thereto the signature of the Divine" (Bähr). Indeed the very names templum and τέμενος (= a space measured off) are in themselves in some sort attestations to the ancient belief that the dignity of a temple of the Most High God required that the length and breadth and height, both of the whole and of its component parts, should be carefully recorded. It is this consideration explains a peculiarity of Scripture which would otherwise cause some difficulty; viz; the detailed and repeated measurements, and the almost rabbinical minuteness, not only of our author, but of Ezekiel and of the Apocalypse. When a "man with a measuring reed" ( Ezekiel 40:8 , Ezekiel 40:5 ; Revelation 11:1 ; Revelation 21:15 ) appears upon the scene, we are to understand at once that the place is sacred ground, and that we are in the precincts of the temple and shrine of Jehovah.

At the same time it must be added here that, exact and detailed as is the description of this edifice, it is nevertheless so partial, and the account is, perhaps necessarily, so obscure as to leave us in considerable doubt as to what Solomon's Temple was really like. In fact, though "more has been written regarding the temple at Jerusalem than in respect to any other building in the known world" (Fergusson), the authorities are not agreed as to its broad features, while as to matters of detail they are hopelessly divided. On one point, indeed, until recently, there was a pretty general agreement, viz; that the house was "rectilinear and of box form." But it is now contended that this primary and fundamental conception of its shape is entirely at fault, and that its sloping or ridged roof would give it a resemblance to the ark or to a tent. Nor have we the materials to decide between these conflicting views; in fact, nothing perhaps but drawings would enable us to restore the temple with any approach to accuracy. "It is just as easy to pourtray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton as to reproduce a building in a way which shall correspond with reality when we have only a few uncertain remains of its style of architecture in our possession". And the difficulty is enhanced by the fact that the temple was sui generis. It was purely Jewish, so that no information as to its structure and arrangements can be derived from the contemporary architecture of Egyptians or Assyrians. In the absence of all analogies restoration is hopeless. It is well known that all the many and varied representations of different artists, based though they all were on the Scripture account ( Exodus 25:31-37 ) of the seven-branched candlestick, were found to be exceedingly unlike the original, when the true shape of that original was disclosed to the world on the Arch of Titus. It is equally certain that, were s true representation of the temple ever to be placed in our hands, we should find that it differed just as widely from all attempted "restorations" of the edifice, based on the scanty and imperfect notices of our historian and Ezekiel.

The mention of Ezekiel suggests a brief reference to the temple, which he describes with so much precision and fulness in his fortieth and following chapters. What is its bearing on the description we have now to consider? Is it an account of the temple as it actually existed in or before his time; is it a plan or suggestion for its restoration (Grotius), or is it wholly ideal and imaginary? The first view, which long found favour with commentators, and which has still some advocates, is now pretty generally abandoned. For while many of Ezekiel's measurements, etc; correspond exactly with those of our historian, and while it may be conceded, therefore, that this delineation has a historical basis, there are features in the narrative which can never have been realized in any building, and which prove the account to be more or less ideal. For example. The outer court of his temple ( Ezekiel 42:16-20 ) would cover not only the whole of Mount Moriah , but more than the whole space occupied by the entire city of Jerusalem, He speaks again of "waters issuing out from under the threshold" ( Ezekiel 47:1 ), and flowing down eastward to heal the pestilent waters of the Dead Sea, where a literal interpretation is manifestly impossible. And it is to be remembered that the prophet himself speaks of his temple as seen in vision ( Ezekiel 40:2 ; Ezekiel 43:2 , Ezekiel 43:8 ). The true account of this portraiture would therefore seem to be that, while it borrowed largely from the plan and proportions of Solomon's Temple, it was designed to serve as "the beau ideal of what a Semitic temple should be"

Two other authorities, whose accounts have a direct bearing on the sacred narrative, must be mentioned here Josephus and the Talmudic tract on the temple, called Middoth ( i.e; measures). Unfortunately, neither is of much avail for the illustration of the text we have now to consider. Josephus, too often unreliable, would seem to be especially so here. "Templum aedificat," says Clericus, "quale animo conceperat non quale legerat a Salomone conditum." "Inconsistency, inaccuracy, and exaggeration are plainly discoverable in the measurements given by Josephus". "Wherever the Mishna is not in accord with Josephus the measurements of the latter are untrustworthy". The writers of the Mishna, again, refer generally, as might be expected, to the temple of Herod, or confuse in their accounts the three temples of Solomon, Herod, and Ezekiel (Bähr). The student of temple architecture consequently derives but scant assistance in his work from the writings of uninspired historians.

Perhaps this is the proper place to remark on the close correspondence between temple and tabernacle.. In the first place, in plan and arrangement the two structures were identical. Each faced the east; each had three parts, viz; porch, holy place, and holy of holies, while the side chambers of the temple (verse 5) were analogous to the verandah formed by the projecting roof, or curtains, which ran round three sides of the tabernacle. Secondly, the measurements both of the whole edifice and of its component parts were exactly double those of the tabernacle, as the following table will show:—

Tabernacle cubits

Temple Cubits.

Entire length

40

80

Entire width

20

40

Entire height

15

30

Length of Holy Place

20

40

Width

10

20

Height

10

20

Length of Holy of Holies

10

20

Width

10

20

Height

10

20

Width of Porch

10

20

Depth

5

10

The only exception to this rule is that of the side chambers, which (on the lowest story) were but five cubits wide, i.e; they were identical in width with the verandah. It is held by some, however, that with the enclosing walls, they were ten cubits. If this were so, it follows that here again the same proportions are exactly preserved.

It will be clear from this comparison that the temple was constructed, not after any Egyptian or Assyrian model, but that it preserved the features and arrangement of the consecrated structure, the pattern of which was showed to Moses in the Mount ( Exodus 25:9 , Exodus 25:40 ; cf. Acts 7:44 ; Hebrews 8:5 ), so that when "David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch," etc; "and the pattern of all that he had by the spirit" ( 1 Chronicles 28:11 , 1 Chronicles 28:12 ), the same arrangement and similar proportions were consciously or unconsciously preserved. The temple differed from the tabernacle only so far as a large house necessarily differs from a small tent.

It is also to be observed that every dimension of the temple was either ten cubits—the holy of holies was a cube of ten cubits—or a multiple of ten, just as the dimensions of the tabernacle are either five cubits or multiples of five. Now this decimal arrangement can hardly have been accidental. Not only had the Jews ten fingers, but they had ten commandments, and a system of tenths or tithes, and this number, therefore, was to them, no doubt, the symbol of completeness, just as five was the sign of imperfection. The very dimensions, consequently, of the house are a testimony to the perfections of the Being to whose service it was dedicated.

Nor is the recurrence of the number three, though by no means so marked, to be altogether overlooked. Considering its Divine original—that it was made after the pattern of things in the heavens—it is not wholly unworthy of notice that the building "had three compartments.… Each of the three sides was flanked by an aisle formed of three stories, and the holy of holies was of three equal dimensions" (Wordsworth). And if we cannot follow him further and see any significance in the fact that the "length was 3 x 30 cubits, and the height 3 x 10," we may still remember that this house was built, though Solomon knew it not, to the glory of the Triune God. Bähr, however, who also shows at some length how "the number three is everywhere conspicuous in the building", accounts for it on the ground that "three is in the Old Testament the signature of every true and complete unit" ( Was drei Mal geschieht ist das rechte Einmal; was in drei getheilt ist ist eine wahre Einheit ) , so that practically three would signify here much the same as ten—it would stand as "the signature of the perfect unit, and so also of the Divine Being."

One remark more may be made here, viz; that in the temple or tabernacle we have the archetype of the Christian Church. The correspondence is so obvious as to strike the most casual observer. Porch, or steeple, nave, chancel, altar, side aisles, these have succeeded to, as they were suggested by, porch, temple of the house, oracle, mercy seat, side structure, of the Jewish sanctuary. Just as Christianity is built on the foundations of Judaism (see Homiletics), so has the Jewish temple furnished a model for the Christian; for, considering how closely the early Church fashioned itself after the pattern of Judaism, the resemblance can hardly be accidental.

And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt [This date has been the subject of much controversy, which cannot even now be considered as closed. Grave doubts are entertained as to its genuineness. Lord A. Hervey says it is "manifestly erroneous." Rawlinson considers it to be "an interpolation into the sacred text". And it is to he observed,

1 . that the LXX . reads 440 instead of 480 years—a discrepancy which is suspicious, and argues some amount of incertitude.

2 . Origen quotes this verse without these words (Comm. in S. Johann 1 Kings 2:20 ).

3 . They would seem to have been unknown to Josephus, Clem. Alex; and others.

4 . It is not the manner of Old Testament writers thus to date events from an era, an idea which appears to have first occurred to the Greeks temp. Thucydides (Rawlinson). It is admitted that we have no other instance in the Old Testament where this is done.

5 . It is difficult to reconcile this statement with other chronological notices both of the Old and New Testaments. For taking the numbers which we find in the Hebrew text of the books which refer to this period, they sum up to considerably more than 480 years. The time of the Judges alone comprises 410 years at the least. It should be stated, however, with regard to the chronology of the period last mentioned

6 . The chronology of Josephus—to which by itself, perhaps, no great weight is to be attached, agrees with St. Paul's estimate, and of course contradicts that of the text.

7 . Nor does it seem to be a valid argument for the retention of the suspected words, that "the precision of the statement is a voucher for its accuracy." (Bähr, who adds, "Not only is the whole number of the years given, but also the year of the reign of the king, and even the month itself," for the genuineness of the later date, " In the fourth year," etc; is not questioned.) The remark of Keil that the building of the temple marked a new and important epoch in the history of the chosen people, and so justified an exceptional reference to the birth or emancipation of the nation, though undoubtedly true, will hardly avail much against the considerations alleged above. On the whole, therefore, I confess to the belief that these words are the interpolation of a later hand (of which we shall find traces elsewhere), though it would, perhaps, be premature, with only the evidence now before us, to exclude them from the text. It is certainly noteworthy that such destructive critics as Ewald and Thenius are satisfied as to their genuineness], in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel [according to the chronology of Ussher, this was A.M. 3000], in the month Zif [ i.e; May. The word signifies splendour . The month was probably so called because of the brilliancy of its flowers (Gesen; Keil, al.)], which is the second month [This explanation is added because before the captivity the months (with the exception of Abib ) appear to have had no regular names, but were almost always designated by numbers. (See, e.g; Genesis 7:11 ; 2 Kings 25:1 ). Only four pre-captivity names are recorded, and of these three are mentioned in connexion with the building of the temple, viz; Zif here and in verse 37, Bul in verse 38, and Ethanim in 1 Kings 8:2 . It has hence been inferred that these names were not in general use, but were restricted to public documents, etc., a supposition which, if correct, would account for the facility with which the old appellations were superseded by post-captivity names. The later name for this month was Iyar (Targum on 2 Chronicles 30:2 )], that he began [not in Heb.] to build the house of [Heb. to] the Lord . [The chronicler mentions the site ( 2 Chronicles 3:1 ), "In Mount Moriah ....in the threshing floor of Ornan," etc. We know from the extensive foundations yet remaining that the preparation of the platform on which the temple should stand must have been a work of considerable time and labour, and see Jos; Ant. 8.3. 9, and Bell. Jud. 5.5.1. We can hardly be wrong in identifying the remarkable rock known as the Sakrah, over which the mosque of Omar ( Kubbet-es-Sakrah ) is built—the "pierced rock" of the Jerusalem Itinerary—with the threshing floor of Ornan. The reader will find an interesting paper on the site of the temple in "Scribner's Monthly," vol. 11. pp. 257-272. According to Mr. Beswick, whose measurements and conclusions it gives, the porch stood on the Sakrah. Mr. Conder, however, urges strong reasons for placing the Holy of Holies on the rock. We should then "see the Holy House in its natural and traditional position on the top of the mountain; we see the courts descending on either side, according to the present slopes of the hill; we find the great rock galleries dropping naturally into their right places; and finally, we see the temple, by the immutability of Oriental custom, still a temple, and the site of the great altar still consecrated [?] by the beautiful little chapel of the chain." But see Porteri. p. 125; Pal. Explor. p. 4, also pp. 342, 343; "Our Work in Palestine," chs. 8. and 9.; "Recovery of Jerusalem," Hebrews 12:1-29 ; etc. Quot viatores, tot sententiae. ]