Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Kings 6:1 - 6:38
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ki_6:1-38
5And against the wall of the house he built chambers round about, against the walls of the house round about, both of the temple and of the oracle: and he made chambers round about. 6The nethermost chamber was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad: for without in the wall of the house he made narrowed rests round about, that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house. 7And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building. 8The door for the middle chamber was in the right side of the house: and they went up with winding stairs into the middle chamber, and out of the middle into the third. 9So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of 10cedar. And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high: and they rested on the house with timber of cedar.
11, 12And the word of the Lord [Jehovah] came to Solomon, saying, Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in my statutes, and execute my judgments, and keep all my commandments to walk in them; then will I perform my word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: 13And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.
14So Solomon built the house, and finished it. 15And he built the walls of the house within with boards of cedar, both [from] the floor of the house, and [unto] the walls of the ceiling: and he covered them on the inside with wood, and covered the floor of the house with planks of fir. 16And he built twenty cubits on the sides of the house, both [from] the floor and [unto] the walls with boards of cedar: he even built them for it within, even for the oracle, even for the most holy place. 17And the house, that is, the temple before it, was forty cubits long. 18And the cedar of the house within was carved with knops and open flowers: all was cedar; there was no stone seen. 19And the oracle he prepared in the house within, to set there the ark of the covenant of the Lord [Jehovah]. 20And the oracle in the forepart was twenty cubits in length, and twenty cubits in breadth, and twenty cubits in the height thereof: and he overlaid it with pure gold; and so covered the altar which was of cedar [overlaid the altar with cedar.] 21So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold: and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle; and he overlaid it with gold. 22And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house: also the whole altar that was by the oracle he overlaid with gold.
23And within the oracle he made two cherubims of olive tree, each ten cubits high. 24And five cubits was the one wing of the cherub, and five cubits the other wing of the cherub: from the uttermost part of the one wing unto the uttermost part of the other were ten cubits. 25And the other cherub was ten cubits: both the cherubims were of one measure and one size [form]. 26The height of the one cherub was ten cubits, and so was it of the other cherub. 27And he set the cherubims within the inner house: and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubims, so that the wing of the one touched the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall; and their wings touched one another in 28the midst of the house. And he overlaid the cherubims with gold. 29And he carved all the walls of the house round about with carved figures of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, within and without. 30And the floor of the house he overlaid with gold, within and without.14
31And for the entering of the oracle he made doors of olive tree: the lintel and side-posts were a fifth part of the wall. 32The two doors also were of olive tree; and he carved upon them carvings of cherubims and palm trees and open flowers, and overlaid. them with gold, and spread gold upon the cherubims, and upon the palm trees 33So also made he for the door of the temple posts of olive tree, a fourth part of the wall. 34And the two doors were of fir tree: the two leaves of the one door were folding, and the two leaves of the other door were folding. 35And he carved thereon cherubims and palm trees and open flowers: and covered [overlaid] them with gold fitted upon the carved work.
36And he built the inner court with three rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams.
37In the fourth year was the foundation of the house of the Lord [Jehovah] laid, in the month Zif: 38and in the eleventh year, in the month But, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.
Besides the biblical accounts, we have from antiquity only that of Josephus (Antiq. viii. 3), of which, however, Le Clerc properly says: templum œdificat, quale animo conceperat, non quale legerat a Salomone conditum. As he is not wholly trustworthy about the transactions of his own time, he is still less in matters of antiquity; particularly “when he enters upon special descriptions, and claims to communicate detailed incidents, and measurements of heights and size, we are fully justified in doubting the accuracy of his statements” (Robinson’s Palestine, vol. 1. p. 277). In no instance does he deserve confidence when he does not agree with the biblical accounts, and that which he adds, as, e.g., the levelling of Moriah and the surrounding it with a wall, he did not derive from good ancient sources. Just as untrustworthy are the statements of the later rabbins (comp. Talmudischen Traktat Middoth, i.e., Measure, Maimonides, Jak. Jehuda Leo, and others), since they almost exclusively refer to the temple of Herod, which was very different from that of Solomon, and mingle both together, as also with that of Ezekiel.
The Christian literature respecting our temple is not insignificant. The older essays, from the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, like those of Villalpando, Lundius, B. Lamy, and others, embrace the Ezekilian and Herodian temples, without distinguishing sharply what belongs to the one or to the other. From the designs adduced by them, executed in Greco-Roman style, it is clear that their results are totally untenable. While, up to a given time, men believed that they must represent the temple to have been as grand and splendid as possible, in the period of the “illumination” (Aufklärung), they fell into the opposite extreme, and made it as small, unsightly, and insignificant as possible (J. D. Michaelis, Jahn, and others). But subsequently there has been a return to the historical, biblical account, and a simple adherence to it (Warnekros, Bauer, and others). The treatise composed by Hirt, simply in the interests of archaeology and art-history (Der Tempel Salomo’s mit drei Kupfertafeln, Berlin, 1809), gave occasion to later and more exact researches, in pure archæological and historico-æsthetic interests. Hereupon followed the Inquiries by J. Fr. Von Meyer (Bibeldeutungen, 1812, and Blätter für höhere Wahrheit, IX. and XI.); Stieglitz (Geschichte der Baukunst. Nürnberg, 1827); Grüneisen (Revision d. jungsten Forschungen üb. den Salom. Tempel. Kunstbl. 1831); Kopp (Der Tempel Salomo’s, Stuttgart, 1839, mit Abbild.); Keil (Der Tempel Salomo’s. Dorpat, 1839); Kugler (Kunstgesch., Berlin, 1841); Schnaase (Antiq. Bemerk. über den Salom. Tempel in der Gesch. der bild. Künste I., Düsseld. 1843); Romberg and Steeger (Gesch. der Baukunst. Leipzig, 1844); Merz (Bemerk. über den Tempel Salomo’s. Kunstbl. 1844); my treatise: Der Salom. Tempel mit Berücksicht. seines Verhältn. zur heil. Architektur überhaupt. Karlsruhe, 1848); Thenius (das vorexilische Jerusalem u. dessen Tempel, mit Abbild., im Commentar zu den Büchern der Könige. Leipzig. 1849); Winer (R.-W.-B. Tempel zu Jerusalem. Leipzig, 1848); Ewald (die heiligen und königlichen Bauten Salomo’s in der Gesch. Israels 3. Göttingen, 1853); Unruh (das alte Jerusalem und seine Bauwerke. Langensalza, 1861); Merz (Tempel zu Jerusalem in Herzogs R. Encyclopädie 15. Gotha, 1862).
[For the archæology and topography of the subject, see also Robinson’s Palestine, vol. i. p. 280–300. Barclay, J. T., The City of the Great King. Philadelphia, 1858. Walter Merriam Editor, The Recovery of Jerusalem, &c. by Capt. Wilson, R. E. and Capt. Warren, R. E. New York, Appleton & Co., 1871. Part I. 3.–8. and 12, also Part II—E. H.]
1Ki_6:2. And the house which king Solomon, &c. The place where the temple was built, was, according to 2Ch_3:1, Mount Moriah (comp. 2Sa_24:18 sq.), which our author presupposes as sufficiently known. [The uneven rock of Moriah had to be levelled, and the inequalities filled by immense substructions of “great stones,” “costly stones,” “hewed stones.” Stanley, Jewish Church.—E. H.] In 1Ki_6:2-10 the measurement and single portions of the structure are given. The measurements are determined according to the cubit, and indeed the older (2Ch_3:3), which Thenius reckons at one foot six inches Rhenish, and one foot four inches Paris, measure [= 1 foot six inches Eng. measure]. Here, and in all the subsequent statements, they refer to the interior spaces. The component parts of the structure are the house, the porch, and the “chambers round about” (Umbau). The first is the building proper, to which both others are attached as additional and subsidiary. The whole was situated according to the points of the compass. The front, or entrance-side, was towards the east, the rear wall was towards the west, the two sides towards the south and north (1Ki_7:39; Eze_8:16), which also was the position of the tabernacle (Exo_26:18 sq.;Exo_36:33 sq.). The main building, the house ( äַáַּéִú ), was built of thick stone walls (1Ki_6:6-7, and had within two compartments: the front is called in 1Ki_6:3 “the temple of the house” ( äֵéáַì äáַּéִú ), and the rear, in 1Ki_6:5, “the oracle” ( çַãְּáִéø ). The word äֵéëָì comes from the Arabic, to be large, high (2Ch_3:5), hence the front compartment was “the great house” ( äַáַּéִú äַâָּãåֹì ) in contradistinction with the rear, which was the shorter half, and also lower. The Vulg., after Jerome, translates the word ãְּáִéø by oraculum, i.e., oraculi sedes, and the Lex. Cyrilli explains the äáâὶñ of the Sept. by ÷ñçìáôéóôÞñéïí . It is, however, not derived from ãִּáֵø = to speak, but from ãָּáַø in its primary signification = to adjoin, to follow after (comp. Dietrich in Gesen.), and signifies, also, simply the compartment in the rear, following upon the large room. The windows which the house had (1Ki_6:4), were certainly placed high, where it overtopped the “chambers round about” (Umbau) with their three stories. How many windows there were, whether upon all the four sides of the house, or only upon three, or only upon the two length-walls, we do not gather from the text. The designs of Thenius and Keil place them all around the house, with the exception of the facade, where the porch was. Nor is the size of the windows given, but it is added ùְׁ÷ֻôִéí àֲèֻîִéí , i.e., “wide within, narrow without” (Luther, after the Chald.), but “windows with closed beams, i.e., windows the lattice of which could not he opened and shut at pleasure as in ordinary dwelling-houses, 2Ki_13:17; Dan_6:11” (Keil). The lattice consisted of strong cross-pieces, and not of wickerwork. The window-opening may have been, certainly, according to the account of the Chaldee and of the rabbins, inasmuch as the walls were very thick, wider on the inside than on the outside, as is the case in the windows of Egyptian buildings, and answers for the purposes of admitting light and air, and of letting off smoke, only there is nothing of it in the words of the text.
1Ki_6:3-4. And the porch before the temple of the house, &c. As the word àåּìָí comes from àåּì , i.e., to go before, it signifies also a projection: but we are not, as in 1Ki_7:6, where äָòַîּåּãִéí (pillars) is expressly added, to represent it as a portico or a colonnade. It stretched across the entire facade of the house, and its length was equal to the breadth of the house, viz., 20 cubits. Its breadth, i.e., its depth, measured 10 cubits. The text does not mention the height, but 2Ch_3:4 gives it at 120 cubits, which is certainly incorrect; for, as Thenius properly remarks, (1) “a structure of this sort could not have been designated as an àåּìָí , but must have been called a îִðְãַּì (tower); (2) the chimney-like proportions: 20, 10, 120, are not only inconsistent with (the notion of) the pylon of a temple, but are also statically impossible. [If it were but 10 cubits (15 feet) deep, it seems impossible that it could have been 120 cubits (180 feet) high: and the theory of Mr. Ferguson that the height refers to a “superstructure on the temple,” would make the temple itself a very grotesque building. See the art., however, on the Temple in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iv. New York, 1870.—E. H.] From these considerations we cannot, with justice, suppose the chronicler to be guilty of arbitrary exaggeration, but we must rather suspect the text of corruption, which is all the more probable, since the verse in question bears even elsewhere marks of corruption.” According to v. Meyer’s probable conjecture, instead of îֵàָä åְòֶùְׂøִéí , we should read: àîåú òùøéí , i.e., 20 cubits (in Eze_42:16 also, whether the reading be àîåú or îàéú is uncertain). The latter is adopted by the Syr., the Arab., and the Sept. (Cod. Alexand.). Thenius and Bertheau maintain, on the other hand, that as the house was 30 cubits high, the sign ì = 30 was originally in the text, but that through the obliteration of the upper portion of the letter it became ë = 20. And certainly, in behalf of the supposition that it was 30 cubits high, we may urge, in part, the absence of any statement of the height in our text, which is the more easily explicable if the height of the “porch” and of the temple were the same, and, in part, the circumstance that the side-building was 20 cubits high on the outside, consequently the “porch” would not have been especially distinctive or prominent had it been of the same height (Keil). That the “porch” had thick stone enclosure-walls with a wide entrance (Thenius), cannot be concluded from the obscure passage of Eze_41:26; still less is the view established that each side-wall had a window. To me it seems that the “porch” had only side-walls and a ceiling, but to have been entirely open in front, so that windows were unnecessary. The extremely inadequate description of the “porch,” contrasted with the very careful description of the house and of both its compartments, can only be founded in the fact that it did not belong especially, or as an integral part, to the sanctuary, but was only a subordinate addition thereto.
1Ki_6:5. And against the wall of the house he built, &c. The word éָöåּòַ comes from éָöַò sternere, to spread or strew something for a bed, and means literally stratum, a bed (Psa_63:6; Job_17:13). Symmachus renders it by êáôÜóôñùìá . So this building was very properly called, because it spread itself out against the lower half of the house 30 cubits high, and, as it were, lay upon it. éָöåּòַ is gen. com. and stands as collective masculine in 1Ki_6:5; 1Ki_6:10, of the whole of the side-structure (“chambers”), but it is feminine in 1Ki_6:6, when the single, or three stories of the same, one over the other, are mentioned (see Gesen. on the word). The àֶú before ÷ִéøåֹú is scarcely the sign of the accus., “reaching to the walls” (Keil), but a preposition, and defines more particularly the preceding òַì — ÷ִéø , as indeed both prepositions elsewhere are synonymous (comp. Psa_4:7 with Psa_67:2). If it can mean simply “in connection with the walls” (Thenius), then the statement is that (Umbau) “the chambers round about” were affixed to the walls. It went round the entire house, so that the two side-walls of the porch above stood free, and caused the latter to appear all the more distinctive. The three stories one above the other of this side-structure (1Ki_6:5), had each öְìָòåֹú , i.e., literally “ribs” [joists, so Bp. Horsley on the place.—E. H.], which can mean nothing else than that they were “divided by partitions into distinct compartments” (Merz). It comes to the same thing when Keil, who rejects “ribs” as the meaning, translates nevertheless “side-chambers.” According to Eze_41:6, where, however, the reading is not entirely certain, the number of these chambers was 1Kings 33: according to Josephus, with whom the moderns agree, there were 30—viz., 12 upon each side-wall of the house, and 6 upon the rear-wall.
1Ki_6:6 states how the entire side-structure (“chambers round about”) were built into the chief-structure, the house itself. The wall of the latter had, upon the outside, rests ( îִâְøָòåֹú , literally contractions, lessenings [“for he placed stays with retractions against the house.” Bp. Horsley.—E. H.]). It was thickest at the ground, and kept this thickness to the height of five cubits; then succeeded a rest (like a settle), which was one cubit broad. Then again, after an elevation of five cubits, there was another rest, one cubit broad; there was also another rest of like height and breadth. Upon these rests the ends of the beams, which served for the ceiling of each story, were laid, and had in them their support. The outer wall of the side-structure had no rests, but was built perpendicularly; hence, as our verse states, the uppermost story was one cubit broader (deeper) than the middle, and the middle again was one cubit broader than the lowermost. The wall also of the house must have been very thick below—at least four cubits, for its thickness above the side-structure, bearing in mind the rests, amounted certainly to one cubit. Thenius and Keil place the thickness at six cubits, but this seems unnecessary. The reason given for this mode of construction is, “ that the beams should not be fastened into the walls of the house” i.e., that the large, costly stones should remain whole and uninjured ( ùְׁìֵîָä ), that no holes should be cut into them for the purpose of inserting the ends of the ceiling-beams. 1Ki_6:7, which is a parenthesis, refers to this, and means that “all the stone-work had been so prepared in advance, that in the actual putting up of the building, stone-cutting was no longer necessary” (Thenius). According to 1Ki_6:8, the entire side-structure had but one door, which was placed on the south side: whether in the middle (Thenius) or at the foremost apartment near the porch (Ewald, Merz) is uncertain; probably the latter. That a door within the house opened into the side-structure, has been erroneously concluded from Eze_41:5. The walls of the house were nowhere broken through, and certainly the historical account knows nothing of such a door. The winding stairway obviously was within the side-structure. The word öֵìָò in 1Ki_6:8, and in Eze_41:5; Eze_41:9; Eze_41:11, is like éָöåּòַ in 1Ki_6:5; 1Ki_6:10, in the singular, and stands collectively for the whole of the side-chambers.—The text says nothing of the perpendicular outside wall of the side-structure. Thenius appeals to Eze_41:9 for the supposition that this was a stone-wall five cubits thick. In that case it would have been as thick as the side-chambers of the lower story were broad (1Ki_6:6): and why should the wall of these have been so thick? Then, too, the ceiling-beams of these chambers would, of necessity, have been inserted into these walls, which is inconsistent with 1Ki_6:7. Hence it seems to me much more probable that this exterior wall, as indeed the entire side-structure, which was only subordinate in any event, was built of cedar.—The text does not state the purpose or design of these “chambers round about.” They served for the preservation of temple utensils and temple stores (Keil), perhaps also of consecrated gifts (Ewald); but they were scarcely “expensively furnished bedrooms” (Thenius).
1Ki_6:9-10. And so he built the house, &c. In roofing, the building of the house was ended. But we must not, as many formerly, and even Hirt himself now, fancy a gable-roof. The silence of the text respecting its form allows us to presuppose that it was, as with all oriental buildings, a flat roof furnished with a parapet (comp. Deu_22:8). åַéִּáְּôֹּï is not, with Merz, to be understood of the wainscoting, but, with Keil, of the roofing, for the account of the former begins first at 1Ki_6:15. âֵּáִéí are not planks, as the word for the most part is translated, but beams, as such were certainly indispensable for roofing. ùְׂãֵøֹú are scarcely “hewn cedar-timbers” (Thenius), but boards which were laid upon the beams. The áàָøֲæָéִí refer to both the preceding. Without doubt this cedar covering was overlaid with firm flooring, perhaps even with stone slabs. Thenius very unnecessarily wishes âַּáִּéí to be read for âֵּáִéí , and then suggests “a flat roof vaulting” but in the ancient Orient there were never any arched roofs. In 1Ki_6:10 äַéָּöåּòַ is again collective, for, according to it, not the whole side-structure, but each of its three stories, was five cubits high inside. The mention of the side-structure here is in reference to the roofing. While 1Ki_6:9 speaks of the roofing of the house, 1Ki_6:10 states how it is related to that of the side-structure. Therefore the height is again mentioned, with the observation, “and he fastened the house with timber of cedar.” If Solomon be the subject with the preceding åַéִּáֶï (Thenius), or éָöåּòַ (Keil), the sense is: the roofing of the three stories (five cubits high each) of the side-structure was done with cedar timbers, which, with their ends, lay upon the rests of the walls of the temple, and likewise united the side-structure with the house, thus making it a complete whole. Entirely false is the translation: he covered the house with cedar-wood (Gesenius), as if the stonewalls were overlaid, upon the inside, with cedar, of which there is nowhere the slightest trace. That the roof of the side-structure, moreover, was horizontal, level, like that of the house itself, scarcely requires mention.
1Ki_6:11-19. And the word of the Lord came to Solomon, &c. The interruption of the description of the temple, by these verses, shows plainly that what is therein stated took place during the progress of the building. From 1Ki_9:2, comp. with 1Ki_3:5, it is clear that we have to think not of a revelation of Jehovah, but of a divine promise communicated through a prophet (perhaps Nathan), such as happened to David (2Sa_7:12 sq. and 1Ch_22:10), to which reference is made in 1Ki_6:12. Solomon thereby obtained the promise that Jehovah, as He had formerly dwelt among the people in a “tabernacle,” for the sign and pledge of the covenant established with Israel, would dwell in the house about to be built, and that the covenant-relation also should continue, if the king upon his part should keep the covenant, and walk in the ordinances of Jehovah. Such a promise necessarily encouraged and strengthened Solomon in his great and difficult undertaking, as it reminded and urged him to the performance of his sacred obligations.
1Ki_6:14-19. So Solomon built the house, &c. 1Ki_6:14 resumes the description of the building, which had been interrupted by 1Ki_6:11-13, and which from 1Ki_6:15 is applied to its interior. The overlaying of walls with wood, which again was covered with metal, and gold in particular, is an old Oriental custom, extending from Phœnicia to Judea (comp. Müller, Archœology, translated by John Leitch, p. 214 sq.; Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Künste, i. s. 160; Weiss, Kostümkunde, i. s. 365). The covering with gold was not mere gilding, but consisted of thin gold plates (Symb. des Mos. Kultus, i. s. 60). According to 2Ch_3:6, the walls also were adorned with precious stones, which is credible enough since these were expressly named amongst the objects which Solomon obtained in abundance from Ophir (1Ki_10:11), and it was the custom in the Orient to make use of them in buildings and utensils (comp. the same, s. 280, 294, 297).
1Ki_6:16 says explicitly and distinctly that the main space was separated from the Debir by a cedar wall; hence surely it is an error upon the part of Thenius when, by an appeal to Eze_41:3, he supposes, in place of this wall, a stone-wall two cubits thick covered with wood and gold. Even in the tabernacle of the covenant it was not a plank-wall (Exo_26:15), but a curtain merely (1Ki_6:33) which separated its two divisions from each other. Even the massively-constructed Herodian temple had no such wall, of which besides, the Rabbins, according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. i., 5, 5, 5), knew nothing (Lightfoot, Descrip. temp. Hieros., 1Ki_15:1). The cedar wall, for the rest, since it reached from the ground to the beams of the ceiling, must have been thirty cubits high. The addition “ ìְ÷ֹãֶùׁ äַ÷ֳּ to ìִãְáִéø shows the design of the latter, and proves that the ãְּáִéø does not mean oraculum or locutorium, for had it this signification, its object would have been denoted by the word itself, and no explanatory addition would have been necessary.—According to 1Ki_6:16-20 the two divisions of the house were of the following dimensions: the room at the farthest end took off from the entire length of the building (which was 60 cubits), twenty, and from its height (30 cubits), twenty. It was also, as is expressly stated in 1Ki_6:20, twenty cubits long, broad, and high, and consequently was a complete cube in shape. The front compartment was forty cubits long, twenty broad, and thirty high. For since its breadth and height are not given here (1Ki_6:17), it must have had the breadth and height of the house mentioned above (1Ki_6:2), otherwise, as in the case of the rear compartment, it would have been expressly noticed. That the front compartment was not only longer, but higher also, larger generally than the rear, its name even proves äֵéëָì (see above on 1Ki_6:2). It is hence decidedly incorrect when Kurtz and Merz suppose that the front compartment was only twenty cubits high, that over the entire house there was an upper room ten cubits high fitted up for the conservation of the reliques of the tabernacle of the covenant, and that this room is designated by what 2Ch_3:9 names äָòֲìִéåú , and which the Sept. renders by ôὸ ὑðåñῷïí . The following considerations make against this view: (1) How could one have reached this supposed upper chamber? Not from the side-structure, for the ceiling of its uppermost story did not reach to the floor of the supposed “upper room:” the thick walls of the house, moreover, had no door above the level of the side-structure. Just as little could one have reached it from the interior of the house, for in neither compartment was there a stairway which led thither: there was no opening in the ceiling. (2) The windows of the house (1Ki_6:4) were above the side-structure, which (the ceilings of the three stories being taken into the account) was certainly eighteen cubits high: there remained, therefore, the house being thirty cubits high, but twelve cubits for the windows. If now from these twelve cubits, ten are allowed for the upper room, what space remains for the windows, which certainly were not very small, and which were necessary to admit light and air into the house? (3) From the extremely abrupt words of the Chronicles, “And the alioth he covered with gold,” it follows only that alioth (upper chambers) were somewhere, but not where they were; and since the Chronicles in its abbreviated description says nothing of the entire side-structure with its stories and chambers, we have at least as much right, with Grüneisen, to suppose the alioth to be the chambers of the side-structure, as an upper room extending the length of the whole building, and which is nowhere else mentioned. The reliques of the tabernacle could easily have been preserved in the several chambers of the side-structure. [For the other view, see Art. Temple, above cited. But our author seems to me to have fully disposed of this doubtful matter. It would seem impossible from our author’s reasoning that there should have been a large upper chamber over the “holy place.”—E. H.] If now we must, according to all the accounts, regard the front compartment as thirty cubits high, the question still remains respecting its relation to the rear, which was but twenty cubits high. Stieglitz and Grüneisen are of the opinion that the rear compartment, viewed externally, was ten cubits lower than the front, which was the case also with Egyptian temples [and like the chancel in the so-called Gothic church.—E. H.]. But 1Ki_6:2 conflicts with this: it gives the height of the entire house at thirty cubits, and does not limit it to the front compartment. Apart from all other considerations, we cannot appeal to the adytum of the Egyptian temples, because it was not connected with the fore-temple, but was separated from it by chambers and passages, and was an independent structure (Müller, Archœology, p. 190 sq.; Leitch (German edit.) s. 258; Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Künste, i. s. 392). We must certainly assume that there was a room over the rear compartment ten cubits high. Böttcher thinks this was open in front and only having chains hanging as its partition (1Ki_6:21); in itself, “very improbable” this (Winer), and besides it is against 1Ki_6:16, according to which the cedar wall before the holy of holies went from the floor to the beams of the ceiling. Besides, 1Ki_6:20 does not say that the cedar wall was only twenty cubits high, but only brings into prominence the fact that on all its sides the holy of holies measured twenty cubits. As the room in question was inaccessible, Ewald rightly observes that it “had been left apparently entirely empty.” It had no especial design, and was what it was simply that the holy of holies might be a perfect cube. Upon this point more will be remarked farther on, in respect of the significance of the temple. For particular words on 1Ki_6:17-20, see above, Textual and Gram.
1Ki_6:20-22. And covered the altar, &c. And he overlaid the altar with cedar. Thus only should we translate the concluding words of the 20th verse, and not, with Le Clerc, J. D. Michaelis, and others—he overlaid the altar of cedar, namely, with gold like the rest. Apart from the fact that îִæְáֵּçַ is without the article, and not in the construct, the “gold” is first mentioned in the concluding words of the 22d verse. There the altar is more specifically referred to by àֲùֶׁø Î ìַãְּáִéø , which cannot mean “which belonged to the Debir,” in the sense that it stood within it; for the holy of holies was designed only as the receptacle of the ark of the covenant (1Ki_6:19), and never had an altar. The altar of incense in the holy place is meant. Its position was “in front of the curtain” ( ìִôְðֵé ) (Exo_40:26), i.e., “before the ark of the testimony” (Exo_40:5), and therewith also “before Jehovah” (Lev_16:12; Lev_16:18), enthroned above the ark. It stood also in special relation to the Debir. If now this altar were “overlaid” with cedar, we are shut up to the supposition that “the body of it was of stone” (Keil). But this was the peculiar, distinguishing feature of the altar of burnt-offering, which was required to be composed of earth or of stones (Exo_20:24-25), and the frame of which, consequently, was filled with the same material (comp. Symbol, des Mos. Kult., i. s. 481, 488). The much smaller altar of incense was a simple frame with a covering, which was wanting in the altar of burnt-offering (Exo_30:1-3). In distinction with the latter, it is named in Eze_41:22, “the altar of wood.” The body of it could not have been of stone. These difficulties disappear only through the translation of the Sept.: êáὶ ἐðïßçóå èõóéáóôÞñéïí êÝäñïõ . It read also åéַּòַùׂ instead of åַéְöַó , which Thenius holds to be genuine. In that case the absence of the article in îִæְáֵּçַ is explained, as well also as the concluding observation in 1Ki_6:22 : And the whole altar [of cedar] before the Debir, he overlaid with gold.
The words in 1Ki_6:21 are obscure and difficult: åַéְòַáֵּø (and he made a partition) by the chains of gold before the oracle (Debir). Thenius is of opinion that the subject here, viz., àֶúÎäַôָּøֹëֶú is omitted, and then translates, “he hung the curtain before the Debir with gold chains.” This curtain was before the door of the latter, and was hung in such a manner that it could be moved this way and that, “by means of golden chainlets each provided with an end-ring, upon a round stick upon which these rings were made to slide.” But this mysterious chain-work, as Winer names it, is by no means “forever explained and done with,” by this suggestion. For, according to it, the chief thing in the text, the mention of the curtain, is wanting. But no MS. nor any ancient version names this supposed missing object. And if any one wish to insert it, then must the words “and he overlaid it with gold” refer to the curtain; and this is impossible. Besides, the text says only “with chains,” and does not know anything either of end-rings or of round sticks, both of which are essential, and far more necessary than the “chainlet” for the sliding, this way and that, of the curtain. With De Wette, Gesenius, Ewald, and Merz, éòáø is to be translated, he bolted, as in Chaldaic òáøà means a bolt, and for áְøִéçִí , i.e., bolt (Exo_26:26), the Chaldee has òáøéï . But then the question is, what was bolted? According to Calmet and others, it was only the, door of the Debir, which had two leaves. But in that case it would have been necessary to take away the chains on the day of Atonement—a thing nowhere hinted at, and in itself highly improbable. Obviously the bolting chains were not a movable but a fixed contrivance running across the entire wall. They held together the parts of the wall made of cedar, like the bolts on the planks of the tabernacle (Exo_26:26), and likewise represented the Debir as a barred, closed room. A further argument for this: øúå÷åú comes from øú÷ , which means to bind, to chain together, and in Arabic to shut up, and the expression öָôåֹï the concealed, the closed, is used by Ezek. (1Ki_7:22) of the holy of holies. The supposition of v. Meyer and Grüneisen, that there was in the cedar wall an opening above the door, which like the capitals of the two brazen columns was covered (1Ki_7:15 sq.;2Ch_3:16) with a net or lattice-work, is just as untenable as that the chains served the purpose of decoration only (Jahn).—In 1Ki_6:22 all that had been said hitherto about the gilding, [done with thin plates and not with gold-leaf.—E. H.] is again brought together and emphasized. It is by no means declared by the expression “the whole house,” that the interior of the porch was gilt (Thenius): it refers only to the holy place and to the holy of holies, since the porch is explicitly distinguished from the house (Keil).
1Ki_6:23-28.—And within the oracle (Debir) he made two chambers, &c. The reason why olive-wood was used in the construction of these figures was owing to its firmness and durability. In Greece it was employed to make images of the gods (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 172). The etymology of the word ëְּøåּá is to this day so variously stated, that nothing reliable can be gathered from it respecting the form and shape of the cherubim. From Exo_25:18 sq. and Exo_37:7 sq., we gather only thus much—that the cherubim over the ark had two wings, and that their faces were opposite each other and directed towards the ark. Nor do we learn anything more from our text and from 2Ch_3:10-13. It is only said that each was ten cubits high, and that each of the wings measured five cubits; that they stood upon their feet, and that their faces were turned towards the house, i.e., towards the large compartment, and also how that those upon the ark of the covenant could have had but one face.
Ezekiel, on the other hand, in his vision of the throne of God and of the temple, gives something more definite. According to the first and tenth chapters the cherubim were çַéåֹú , i.e., æῶá , living creatures (not èῆñåò , wild beasts) with four wings and four faces. On the right side the faces were those of a man and of a lion, on the left those of a bull and of an eagle. The human element seems to have preponderated in their form (Eze_6:5). But according to Eze_41:18, the cherubim represented upon the walls and doors of the temple, between palm-trees, had but two faces, the one of a man and the other of a lion. The former were on the right side and the latter on the left. The apocalyptic vision of the throne, Rev_4:7, in which the four types of creatures composing the cherub are separated and stand round the throne, having six wings each, rests upon that of Ezekiel. From everything we have, it appears that the cherub was not a simple but a complex or collective being; and when he has now one, then two, then again four faces, or two, or four, or six wings; when, too, the four types of which he is composed are separated side by side, so we gather still farther that he had no unalterable, fixed form, but that one element or another was prominent or subordinate according to circumstances. In fact, one element might even disappear without any change in the fundamental idea attaching to the cherub. This has been questioned warmly by Riehm recently (De Natura et notione symbolica Cheruborum. Basil, 1864). He maintains that before the exile the cherub had a fixed form, viz., that of a man standing upright, with wings. The later description in Ezekiel’s vision is a departure from this characteristic and original form, and, for the sake of the “throne, chariot” moving towards the four quarters of the world, gives to the cherubim with it four faces, yet not four component parts. The three faces added to the original one human face by Ezekiel are borrowed from the grandest and strongest of creatures whether living on the earth or in the air. He was induced to do this probably by the Babylonian grouping together of animals which he had learned during the captivity. We remark against this: If any person, on the one hand, knew well enough the forms of the cherubim both in the tabernacle and in the temple, and would, on the other hand, adhere firmly to ancestral institutions and to priestly traditions, that person was Ezekiel, the son of a priest. How is it possible that this prophet, who was emphatically warned by the sight of the “images of the Chaldeans,” doubtless mythological (Eze_23:14), portrayed on the walls, should himself have been induced, by means of these, to alter completely the sacred cherub-form, and to have made to it arbitrary and self-appointed additions? Umbreit (Hesekiel, s. xii.) rightly says: “So far as the form of the cherubim is concerned, the prophet has certainly copied the original type of the temple, the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle floating in his imagination, with conscientious fidelity; but in particular instances he has enriched the idea by the addition of more complete features, without changing anything essentially.” The assertion that he gives to the cherub not a fourfold composition, but only four faces, is a mistake, take, for he gives to him the feet of a bull, the wings of an eagle, and the hands of a man (Eze_1:6-9); and in the passage 1Ki_10:14, which, indeed, in a critical respect is not free from suspicion, the word ëְøåּá stands for bull, so that many interpreters think that the bull is the prevailing element in the composition of the cherub. Besides, in every living creature the face is the chief thing, by which in fact it is recognized; and when Ezekiel gives to the cherub four faces, he signifies thereby that those four types of being unite therein. To delineate cherubim is consequently a hazardous business, because the form is not fixed; nor as yet is there anything perfectly satisfactory. The latest, by Thenius (tab. 3, fig. 7), is borrowed, almost painfully, from Egyptian sculptures. It is remarkable that the archæologists are forever finding the original of the cherub in Egypt, while neither the sphinx nor any other Egyptian complex creature presents the four types united in the cherub. On the other hand, Asiatic, and particularly Assyrian, images, exhibit all four together (comp. Neumann, die Stiftshütte, s. 68 sq.). Nevertheless the cherub is not a copy of these, but is the pure and specific product of Hebrew contemplation. Upon this, more, farther on.—The words of 1Ki_6:24 state that the four horizontally outstretched wings took in the entire breadth of the Debir (twenty cubits); that they also touched on the right and left, the north and south wall, and each other in the centre, while it presupposes that they (i.e., the wings) stood close to each other at the shoulder-blades. Under the outspread wings the ark of the covenant was placed, as 1Ki_8:6 plainly says; and it is hence an error when Ewald asserts that the cover of the ark was renewed, and in place of the old cherubim, those massive wooden and gilt were fastened upon it—a thing impossible, for they stood 10 cubits apart (1Ki_6:27), while the ark was 3½ cubits long (Exo_25:10).
1Ki_6:29-30.—And he carved all the walls of the house, &c. Comp. 1Ki_6:18. Keil and others understa