Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 1 Kings 7:15 - 7:15
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
The brazen pillars of the porch (compare 2Ch 3:15-17). - He formed the two brazen pillars, which were erected, according to 2Ch 3:15, “before the (temple) house, i.e., in front of the hall of the temple. One was eighteen cubits high, and a thread of twelve cubits surrounded (spanned) the other pillar.” The statement of the height of the one pillar and that of the circumference of the other is to be understood as an abbreviated expression, signifying that the height and thickness mentioned applied to the one as well as to the other, or that they were alike in height and circumference. According to the Chronicles, they were thirty-five cubits long; which many expositors understand as signifying that the length of the two together was thirty-five cubits, so that each one was only 17 1/2 cubits long, for which the full number 18 is substituted in our text. But this mode of reconciling the discrepancy is very improbable, and is hardly in harmony with the words of the Chronicles. The number 35 evidently arose from confounding the numeral letters יח = 18 with לה = 35. The correctness of the number 18 is confirmed by 2Ki 25:17 and Jer 52:21. The pillars were hollow, the brass being four finger-breadths in thickness (Jer 52:21); and they were cast in the Jordan valley (1Ki 7:46).
1Ki 7:16
“And he made two capitals (כֹּתָרֹות), to set them on the heads of the pillars, cast in brass, five cubits the height of the one and of the other capital.” If, on the other hand, in 2Ki 25:17 the height of the capital is said to have been three cubits, this discrepancy cannot be explained on the supposition that the capitals had been reduced two cubits in the course of time; but the statement rests, like the parallel passage in Jer 52:22, upon an error of the text, i.e., upon the substitution of ג (3) for ה (5).
1Ki 7:17
“Plait (i.e., ornaments of plait), plait-work and cords (twist, resembling) chain-work, were on the capitals, which were upon the heads of the pillars, seven on the one capital and seven on the other capital.” Consequently this decoration consisted of seven twists arranged as festoons, which were hung round the capitals of the pillars.
1Ki 7:18
“And he made pomegranates, and indeed two rows round about the one twist, to cover the capitals which were upon the head of the pillars; and so he did with the other capital.” In the Masoretic text the words הָעַמּוּדִים and הָרִמֹּנִים are confused together, and we must read, as some of the Codd. do, in the first clause אֶת־הָרִמֹּנִים for אֶת־הָעַמּוּדִים, and in the middle clause הָעַמּוּדִים עַל־רֹאשׁ for הָרִמֹּנִים עַל־רֹאשׁ. This is not only required by the sense, but sustained by a comparison with 1Ki 7:19. The relation between the two rows of pomegranates and the plaited work is indeed not precisely defined; but it is generally and correctly assumed, that one row ran round the pillars below the plaited work and the other above, so that the plaited work, which was formed of seven cords plaited together in the form of festoons, was enclosed above and below by the rows of pomegranates. If we compare with this the further statements in 1Ki 7:41, 1Ki 7:42, 2Ch 3:16 and 2Ch 4:12-13, and Jer 52:23, הַכֹּתָרֹת is there more precisely designated הַכֹּתָרֹת גֻּלֹות, “bowls of the capitals,” from which it is evident that the lower portion of the capitals, to which the braided work was fastened, was rounded in the form of a pitcher or caldron. the number of the pomegranates on the two festoons is given at 400, so that there were 200 on each capital, and consequently each row contained 100 (2Ch 3:16); and according to Jer. (l.c.) there were 96 רוּחָה, “windwards,” and in all 100 on the braided work round about. רוּחָה, “windwards,” can hardly be taken in any other sense than this: in the direction of the wine, i.e., facing the four quarters of the heavens. This meaning is indisputably sustained by the use of the word רוּחַ, to denote the quarters of the heavens, in statements of the aspect of buildings (Eze 42:16-18), whereas there is no foundation whatever for such meanings as “airwards = uncovered” (Böttcher, Thenius), or hanging freely (Ewald).
(Note: It is hardly necessary to observe, that the expression רוּחַ שָׁאַף, to gasp for air, in Jer 2:24; Jer 14:6, does not warrant our giving to רוּחָה the meaning open or uncovered, as Böttcher supposes. But when Thenius follows Böttcher (Proben, p. 335) in adducing in support of this the fact “that the tangent, which is drawn to any circle divided into a hundred parts, covers exactly four of these parts,” the fact rests upon a simple error, inasmuch as any drawing will show that a tangent only touches one point of a circle divided into a hundred parts. And the remark of Böttcher, “If you describe on the outside of a circle of twelve cubits in circumference a hundred small circles of twelve-hundredths of a cubit in diameter, a tangent drawn thereupon will cover to the eye exactly four small circles, although mathematically it touches only one of them in one point,” is not correct according to any measurement. For if the tangent touches one of these smaller circles with mathematical exactness, to the eye there will be covered either three or five half circles, or even seven, but never four.)
1Ki 7:19-20
In 1Ki 7:19 and 1Ki 7:20 a second decoration of the capitals of the pillars is mentioned, from which we may see that the rounding with the chain-like plaited work and the pomegranates enclosing it did not cover the capital to the very top, but only the lower portion of it. The decoration of the upper part is described in 1Ki 7:19 : “And capitals, which were upon the top of the pillars, were (or, Hiram made) lily-work after the manner of the hall, four cubits.” The lily-work occupied, according to 1Ki 7:20, the upper portion of the capitals, which is here called כֹּתָרֹת, as a crown set upon the lower portion. It was lily-work, i.e., sculpture in the form of flowering lilies. The words אַמֹּות אַרְבַּע בָּאוּלָם are obscure. According to Böttcher and Thenius, בָּאוּלָם is intended to indicate the position of the pillars within the hall, so that their capitals sustained the lintel of the doorway. But even if בָּאוּלָם were rendered, within the hall, as it is by Böttcher, it is impossible to see how this meaning could be obtained from the words “capitals upon the head of the pillars lily-work within the hall.” In that case we must at least have “the pillars within the hall;” and בָּאוּלָם would be connected with הָעַמּוּדִים, instead of being separated from it by שׁוּשַׁן מַעֲשֵׂה. Even if we were to introduce a stop after שׁוּשַׁן and take בָּאוּלָם by itself, the expression “in (or at) the hall” would not in itself indicate the position of the pillars in the doorway, to say nothing of the fact that it is only in 1Ki 7:21 that anything is said concerning the position of the pillars. Again, the measurement “four cubits” cannot be understood, as it is by Thenius, as denoting the diameter of the capitals of the pillars; it must rather indicate the measure of the lily-work, that is to say, it affirms that there were four cubits of lily-work on the capitals, which were five cubits high, - in other words, the lily-work covered the four upper cubits of the capitals; from which it still further follows, that the plaited work which formed the decoration of the lower portion of the capitals was only one cubit broad or high. Consequently בָּאוּלָם cannot be understood in any other sense than “in the manner of or according to the hall,” and can only express the thought, that there was lily-work on the capitals of the pillars as there was on the hall. For the vindication of this use of בְּ see Ges. Lex. by Dietrich, s.v. בּ.
(Note: This is the way in which the earlier translators appear to have understood it: e.g., lxx ἕργον κρίνου κατὰ τὸ αὐλὰμ τεσσάρων πηχῶν (“lily-work according to the hall four cubits”); Vulg. Capitella... quasi opere lilii fabricata erant in porticu quatuor cubitorum; Chald. אַרְבַע אַמִּין עֹובַד שֹׁושַׁנְתָא לָקִיט בְוּלַמָּא (opus liliaceum collectum in porticu quatuor cubitorum); Syr. opus liliaceum idem fecit (Syr. wa-(ekad ke)set[a4wa4)) in porticu quatuor cubitis. These readings appear to be based upon the view supported by Rashi (בָּאוּלָם for כָּאוּלָם): lily-work as it was in the hall.)
There is no valid objection to the inference to which this leads, namely, that on the frontispiece of the temple-hall there was a decoration of lily-work. For since the construction of the hall is not more minutely described, we cannot expect a description of its decorations. - In 1Ki 7:20 a more precise account is given of the position in which the crowns consisting of lily-work were placed on the capitals of this columns, so that this verse is to be regarded as an explanation of 1Ki 7:19 : namely, capitals upon the pillars (did he make) also above near the belly, which was on the other side of the plait-work.” הַבֶּטֶן, the belly, i.e., the belly-shaped rounding, can only be the rounding of the lower portion of the capitals, which is called גֻּלָה in 1Ki 7:41, 1Ki 7:42. Hence הַשְּׂבָכָה לְעֵבֶר (Keri), “on the other side of the plaited work,” can only mean behind or under the plait, since we cannot suppose that there was a belly-shaped rounding above the caldron-shaped rounding which was covered with plaited work, and between this and the lily-work. The belly-shaped rounding, above or upon which the plaited work lay round about, might, when looked at from without, be described as being on the other side of it, i.e., behind it. In the second half of the verse: “and the pomegranates two hundred in rows round about on the second capital,” the number of the pomegranates placed upon the capitals, which was omitted in 1Ki 7:18, is introduced in a supplementary form.
(Note: Hermann Weiss (Kostümkunde, i. p. 367) agrees in the main with the idea worked out in the text; but he assumes, on the ground of monumental views, that the decoration was of a much simpler kind, and one by no means out of harmony with the well-known monumental remains of the East. In his opinion, the pillars consisted of “a shaft nineteen cubits in height, surrounded at the top, exactly after the fashion of the ornamentation of the Egyptian pillars, with seven bands decorated like plaited work, which unitedly covered a cubit, in addition to which there was the lily-work of five cubits in height, i.e., a slender capital rising up in the form of the calyx of a lily, ornamented with pomegranates.” Our reasons for dissenting from this opinion are given in the exposition of the different verses.)
1Ki 7:21
“And he set up the pillars at the hall of the Holy Place, and set up the right pillar, and called its name Jachin, and ... the left...Boaz.” Instead of הַהֵיכָל לְאוּלָם we have in 2Ch 3:15 הַבַּיִת לִפְנֵי, and in 2Ch 3:17 הַֽהֵיכָל עַל־פְּנֵי, “before the house,” “before the Holy Place.” This unquestionably implies that the two brazen pillars stood unconnected in front of the hall, on the right and left sides of it, and not within the hall as supporters of the roof. Nevertheless many have decided in favour of the latter view. But of the four arguments used by Thenius in proof that this was the position of the pillars, there is no force whatever in the first, which is founded upon Amo 9:1, unless we assume, as Merz and others do, that the words of the prophet, “Smite the capital, that the thresholds may shake, and break them (the capitals of the pillars), that they may fall upon the head of all,” refer to the temple at Jerusalem, and not, as Thenius and others suppose, to the temple erected at Bethel for the calf-worship. For even if the temple at Bethel had really had a portal supported by pillars, it would by no means follow that the pillars Jachin and Boaz in Solomon's temple supported the roof of the hall, as it is nowhere stated that the temple of Jeroboam at Bethel was an exact copy of that of Solomon. And even with the only correct interpretation, in which the words of Amos are made to refer to the temple at Jerusalem, the argument founded upon them in support of the position of the pillars as bearers of the hall rests upon the false idea, that the סִפִּים, which are shaken by the smiting of the capital, are the beams lying upon the top of the pillars, or the superliminaria of the hall. It is impossible to prove that סַף has any such meaning. The beam over the entrance, or upon the doorposts, is called מַשְׁקִוף in Exo 12:7, Exo 12:22-23, whereas סַף denotes the threshold, i.e., the lower part of the framework of the door, as is evident from Jdg 19:27. The words of the prophet are not to be interpreted architecturally, but to be taken in a rhetorical sense; “so that by the blow, which strikes the capital, and causes the thresholds to tremble, such a blow is intended as shakes the temple in all its joints” (Baur on Amo 9:1). “הַכַּפְתֹּור, a kind of ornament at the top of the pillars, and הַסִּפִּים, the thresholds, are opposed to one another, to express the thought that the building is to be shaken and destroyed a summo usque ad imum, a capite ad calcem” (Hengstenberg, Chrisol. i. p. 366 transl.). The other arguments derived from Eze 40:48 and Eze 40:49, and from Josephus, Ant. viii. 3, 4, prove nothing at all. From the words of Josephus, τούτων τῶν κιόνων τὸν μέν ἕτερον κατὰ τὴν δεξιὰν ἔστησε τοῦ προπυλαίου παραστάδα...τὸν δὲ ἕτερον κ.τ.λ., it would only follow “that the pillars (according to the view of Josephus) must have stood in the doorway,” if it were the case that παραστάς had no other meaning than doorpost, and προπύλαιον could be understood as referring to the temple-hall generally. But this is conclusively disproved by the fact that Josephus always calls the temple-hall πρόναον (l.c., and viii. 3, 2 and 3), so that προπύλαιον can only denote the fore-court, and παραστάς a pillar standing by itself. Consequently Josephus regarded the pillars Jachin and Boaz as propylaea erected in front of the hall. We must therefore adhere to the view expressed by Bähr (d. Tempel, p. 35ff.), that these pillars did not support the roof of the temple-hall, but were set up in front of the hall on either side of the entrance. In addition to the words of the text, this conclusion is sustained (1) by the circumstance that the two pillars are not mentioned in connection with the building of the temple and the hall, but are referred to for the first time here in the enumeration of the sacred vessels of the court that were made of brass. “If the pillars had formed an essential part of the construction and had been supporters of the hall, they would certainly have been mentioned in the description of the building, and not have been placed among the articles of furniture” (Schnaase); and moreover they would not have been made of metal like the rest of the vessels, but would have been constructed of the same building materials as the hall and the house, namely, of stone or wood (Bähr). And to this we may add (2) the monumental character of the pillars, which is evident from the names given to them. No architectural portion of the building received a special name.
(Note: Stieglitz (Gesch. der Baukunst, p. 127) aptly observes in relation to this: “The architect cannot subscribe to Meyer's view (that the pillars were supporters of the hall), since it was only through their independent position that the pillars received the solemn character intended to be given to them, and by their dignity subserved the end designed, of exalting the whole building and calling attention to the real purpose of the whole.”)
Jachin (יָכִין): “he establishes,” stabiliet templum (Simonis Onom. p. 430); and Boaz (בֹּעַז), ex עָז בֹּו in illo, sc. Domino, robur (Sim. p. 460). Kimchi has correctly interpreted the first name thus: “Let this temple stand for ever;” and the second, “Solomon desired that God would give it strength and endurance.” The pillars were symbols of the stability and strength, which not only the temple as an outward building, but the kingdom of God in Israel as embodied in the temple, received from the Lord, who had chosen the temple to be His dwelling-place in the midst of His people.
(Note: There is no necessity to refute the fanciful notion of Ewald, that these pillars, “when they were erected and consecrated, were certainly named after men who were held in estimation at that time, probably after the younger sons of Solomon,” and that of Thenius, that בָּעֹז יָכִין, “He (the Lord) establishes with strength,” was engraved upon them as an inscription.)
1Ki 7:22
In 1Ki 7:22 it is stated again that there was lily-work upon the head of the pillars, - a repetition which may be explained from the significance of this emblem of the capitals of the pillars; and then the words, “So was the work of the capitals finished,” bring the account of this ornament of the temple to a close.