Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Kings 7:1 - 7:51
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ki_7:1-51
13, 14And king Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. He was a widow’s son of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work.
15For he cast two pillars of brass, of eighteen cubits high apiece; and a line of twelve cubits did compass either10 of them about. 16And he made two chapiters of molten brass, to set upon the tops of the pillars: the height of the one chapiter 17was five cubits, and the height of the other chapiter was five cubits: and nets of checker work [lace-work], and wreaths of chain-work, for the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars; seven11 for the one chapiter, and seven for the other chapiter. 18And he made the pillars [pomegranates], and two rows round about upon the one network, to cover the chapiters that were upon the top with pomegranates [top of the pillars]: and so did he for the other chapiter. 19And the chapiters that were upon the top of the pillars were of lily-work in the porch, four cubits. 20And the chapiters upon the two pillars had pomegranates also above, over against the belly which was by the network: and the pomegranates were two hundred in rows round about upon the other chapiter. 21And he set up the pillars in the porch of the temple: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin: and he set up the left pillar, and called the name thereof Boaz. 22And upon the top of the pillars was lily-work: so was the work of the pillars finished.
23And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other [from lip to lip]: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. 24And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. 25It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea 26was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. And it was an handbreadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
27And he made ten bases of brass: four cubits was the length of one base, and four cubits the breadth thereof, and three17 cubits the height of it. 28And the work of the bases was on this manner: they had borders [panels], and the borders [panels] were between the ledges: 29and on the borders [panels] that were between the ledges were lions, oxen, and cherubims: and upon the ledges there was a base above: and beneath the lions and oxen were certain additions made of thin work [were wreaths of hanging work]. 30And every base had four brazen wheels, and plates [axletrees] of brass: and the four corners thereof had undersetters [four feet thereof had shoulders]: under the laver were under-setters 31[the shoulders] molten, at the side of every addition [wreath]. And the mouth of it within the chapiter and above was a cubit: but the mouth thereof was round after the work of the base, a cubit and a half: and also upon the mouth of it were gravings with their borders [panels], foursquare, not round. 32And under the borders [panels] were four wheels; and the axletrees [holders] of the wheels were joined to [were in the base] the base: and the height of a wheel was a cubit and half a cubit. 33And the work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel: their axletrees, and their naves, and their felloes, and 34their spokes, were all molten. And there were four undersetters [shoulders] to the four corners of one base: and the undersetters [shoulders] were of the very base itself. 35And in the top of the base was there a round compass of half a cubit high: and on the top of the base the ledges [holders] thereof and the 36borders [panels] thereof were of the same. For [And] on the plates of the ledges [holders] thereof, and on the borders [panels] thereof, he graved cherubims, lions, and palm-trees, according to the proportion [room] of every one, and additions 37[wreaths] round about. After this manner he made the ten bases: all of them had one casting, one measure, and one size [form]. 38Then made he ten lavers of brass: one laver contained forty baths: and every laver was four cubits: and upon every one of the ten bases one Lamentations 1Ki_7:39 And he put five bases on the right side of the house, and five on the left side of the house: and he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward over against the south. 40And Hiram made the lavers [pots], and the shovels, and the basins.
So Hiram made an end of doing all the work that he made king Solomon for the house of the Lord [Jehovah]: 41the two pillars, and the two bowls of the chapiters that were on the top of the two pillars; and the two networks, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars; 42and four hundred pomegranates for the two networks, even two rows of pomegranates for one network, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters that were upon the pillars; 43and the ten bases, and ten lavers on the bases; 44and one sea, and twelve oxen under the sea; 45and the pots, and the shovels, and the basins: and all these vessels, which Hiram made to king Solomon for the house of the Lord [Jehovah], were of bright [burnished] brass. 46In the plain of Jordan did the king cast them, in the clay ground [compact soil] between Succoth and Zarthan. 47And Solomon left all the vessels unweighed, because they were exceeding many: neither was the weight of the brass found out.
48And Solomon made all the vessels that pertained unto the house of the Lord [Jehovah]: the altar of gold, and the table of gold, whereupon the shewbread was, 49and the candlesticks of pure gold, five on the right side, and five on the left, before the oracle, with the flowers, and the lamps, and the tongs of gold, 50and the bowls, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the spoons, and the censers of pure gold; and the hinges of gold, both for the doors of the inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, to wit, of the temple. 51So was ended all the work that king Solomon made for the house of the Lord [Jehovah]. And Solomon brought in the things which David his father had dedicated; even the silver, and the gold, and the vessels, did he put among the treasures of the house of the Lord [Jehovah].
[In this matter, Ewald (Gesch. iii. s. 339) expresses himself with some hesitation. He says that the palace was built probably upon the southerly continuation of the temple-mount, usually called Ophel, i.e., hill, hillock, or knob. In the recently published work, The Recovery of Jerusalem, the same view is urged upon pp. 222–3, and also upon p. 240 sq. The English and American explorers would seem at least to favor this supposition, and in the work just referred to, on p. 233 there is a plan showing approximately the rock on Mount Moriah, and there the palace is placed to the south of the temple, with the Tyropæon on one side, and the vale of Kedron on the other,—this being quite remote from the position assigned the palace by our author. Nor do I think that our author’s reasons for supposing it to have been built upon the northeast corner of Mount Zion sufficent to overthrow the general opinion.—E. H.]
1Ki_7:2. He built also the house of the forest of Lebanon, &c. This was the first of the various buildings composing the palace, therefore by no means a separate summer residence apart on Mount Lebanon (Dathe, Michaelis, and others). It was only given the name of Lebanon on account of the multitude of cedars standing alongside of each other. According to 1Ki_10:16 sq., and Isa_22:8, it seems to have served chiefly, if not altogether, as an armory; the Arabic says, “A house for his weapons.” The space, 100 cubits long and 50 broad, enclosed, as appears 1Ki_7:9, a thick stone wall thirty cubits high, but probably only upon three sides, as we shall presently show. The expression Upon four rows of cedar pillars is to be connected with words at the beginning: he built. The four rows of pillars stood along the surrounding wall, thus forming a peristyle which enclosed a court-yard. The expression èåּø says this plainly; for it cannot be understood differently, here, from 1Ki_7:4; 1Ki_7:18; 1Ki_7:20; 1Ki_7:24; 1Ki_6:36; Eze_46:23, where it everywhere means a row enclosing and running round a space. The text does not at all justify Keil’s supposition “that four rows of pillars stood on the longest sides of the building, but divided, so that but two rows were on each side;” there is no mention of the longest sides in the text. Weiss’ view is just as incorrect (Kostüm-kunde, i. s. 357), that is, that there was a row on each of the four sides of the building, four rows of pillars standing together. The number of the pillars is not given, but they could not have been few, as their appearance was that of a forest. It is not necessary, however, to suppose, with Thenius, that there were 400. They must have stood close together, and could not have been very thick, for the breadth of the peristyle did not exceed ten cubits, and enough room must have been left to pass comfortably between the pillars. The Vulgate translates explanatorily: quatuor deambulacra inter columnas cedrinas.—Beams of cedar were placed on the rows of pillars, and formed the foundation for the three-storied superstructure of cedar-wood, which rested against the stone wall, and was probably so joined to it that the beams which formed at the same time the ceiling of the lower part and the floor of the upper part of the building were inserted in it. Each of the three stories had öְìָòֹú , i.e. (1Ki_6:5; 1Ki_6:8 ; Eze_41:6) side-chambers. The numbers, forty-five, fifteen each row, have been supposed to refer to the immediately preceding òַîּåּãִéí by nearly all the commentators, who have been misled by the masoretic punctuation; but they were quite wrong. It is impossible that the pillars on which the three-storied structure. rested, could only have numbered forty-five, divided into three rows. They could not have supported a structure 100 cubits long and 50 broad. Neither could the building have been named “forest of Lebanon” from forty-five scattered pillars. Thenius, with whom Keil agrees, rightly refers the numbers to the äַöְּìָòֹú as the principal matter, which is further defined by the òַìÎäָòַîּåּãִéí , and translated, “and the chambers, forty-five in number, which were built upon the pillars, fifteen in each course, had also coverings of cedar-wood.” But if the forty-five rooms were so divided that each of the three surrounding rows of the story had fifteen, we are obliged to admit that the stories only covered three sides of the square space, since forty-five cannot be so divided into four parts as to make twice as many rooms on the two long sides of 100 cubits as on the two other sides of fifty cubits. On the other hand, the fifteen rooms of each of the three rows are very naturally and simply divided, if we imagine six on each long side and three on the rear side. In that case, either the colonnade and the three-storied structure that rested on it would not have continued over the front short side of the wall that surrounded the square space, and it must have been provided only with entrance-gates, or else this wall only enclosed three sides of the square, so that the building stood quite open in the front. The last is not admissible, because 1Ki_7:12 says that the whole palace was surrounded by a great court, which had a stone wall running around it, and also doubtless doors that could be shut.—The text itself says of the side-chambers, and light was against light in three ranks. The word îֶçֱæָä occurs only here, and does not mean the same as çַìּåֹï windows, but aspectus, prospectus. Towards the interior of the building the chambers stood open (Sept.: êáὶ ÷ῶñá ἐðὶ ÷ῶñáí ôñéóóῶò ), so that the view from each of the chambers in the rows over one another opened on the opposite one. This rather resembled a gallery, which was divided off by board partitions into single chambers. [Like boxes at the theatre.] The doors, which led from one room to another, were square (1Ki_7:5); where åְäַîְּææּåֹú is subjoined, we must either translate, with the posts, or, what seems better, read as Thenius åְäַîֶּçֱæåֹú , which also suits the repeated “light against light.” The entrances, as well as the front openings which stood opposite each other, were square; so says the Sept.: ôὰ èõñþìáôá êáὶ áἱ ÷ῶñáé ôåôñÜãùíïé . By ùָׁ÷ֶó we are to think, after the ùׁ÷ôéí in 1Ki_7:4, of the beams over the openings and doors. There is nothing decisive about the height of the rooms. Of the height of thirty cubits for the whole edifice, eight may have been for the colonnade, eighteen for the three stories, and four for the different ceilings (Then. and Keil). The entire arrangement of the building is still frequently met with in the East; a court surrounded by colonnade and galleries (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 466). Since, as already remarked, costly armor and weapons were preserved or displayed here, the inner space was used no doubt for assemblies of warriors, for the body-guard, &c.
1Ki_7:6-7. And he made a porch of pillars, &c. 1Ki_7:6-7 contain the account of the second building that belonged to the entire palace. It stood inward from the armory, and had two divisions, viz., the porch of pillars and the throne or hall of judgment. The measures, 60 cubits long and thirty broad, are generally thought to belong only to the porch of pillars, and older commentators have believed, from analogy with 1Ki_6:3, that because fifty cubits are the measure of the breadth of the armory, the length was to be understood as the breadth, and the breadth as the depth, as in the temple-porch; so that the porch of pillars must have immediately adjoined the armory. But the name àåּìָí contradicts this; its etymology does not signify (see on 1Ki_6:3) an adjoined rear part, but can only mean a fore-building. Besides, the porch of pillars itself had again a porch, so that it cannot have been immediately joined to the armory. The fifty cubits are to be wholly understood of the length. So we may describe the porch of pillars as “a colonnade,” running from the front to the rear, “probably roofed in, but open at the sides (Porticus), and leading to the porch of judgment” (Thenius, Keil). But the width of thirty cubits does not suit the length of fifty cubits, if it was only a passage to a building; it suits an independent structure alone. The armory, that was not in the least like a passage, resembled the fore-space of the temple, and other buildings; it was twice as long as it was broad. How, then, could a building, the breadth of which was three-fifths of its length, be a mere passage? If the porch of pillars were only a passage to the hall of judgment, it is inexplicable why the text gives only the size of the subordinate part, and says not a word about those of the main portion. All this forces us to the conclusion that the measure is that of the whole building, including, therefore, both divisions, the porch of pillars and porch of judgment. The latter must have been, then, the rear division, in which, like the debir of Jehovah’s house, the throne described (1Ki_10:18, sq.) stood; the former the front, a building of pillars in fact, where they who were admitted to the king’s audience assembled, or over whom he sat in judgment. This view explains why the porch of pillars had also a fore-porch and an entrance-space, such as a mere passage never has, but which is appropriate only to buildings. This fore-porch was no doubt an entrance-space, the roof of which was supported by two or four pillars, as the Targumists explain the word òָá , a threshold space, a “perron with steps” (Keil). If both divisions of the building are called àåּìָí , it is because it was the entrance building of the king’s peculiar residence. The concluding words of 1Ki_7:7 : covered with cedar from one side of the floor to the other, can mean only this: that the floor of the porch of pillars, as well as the floor of the porch of judgment, was covered with cedar. Keil explains: “from the lower floor to the upper, in so far, namely, over the porch of judgment as there were rooms built;” the floor of the latter being the ceiling of the hall of judgment. The existence of an upper structure is not, however, hinted at, and how could the text, instead of simply saying from the floor to the ceiling, speak of a floor without saying of what it was the floor. The Vulgate translates: a pavimento usque ad summitatem; the reading must have been different therefore, and as the Syriac has it thus also, Thenius supposes that instead of äַ÷ַּøְ÷ַò it originally stood äַ÷ּåֹøåֹú in the text, which is to be understood, as in 1Ki_6:15-16, of the beams of the roof. In this case the words might bear the meaning, which seems very admissible, that the porch walls were lined with cedar from the floor to the roof-beams.
1Ki_7:8. And his house where he dwelt, &c. Solomon’s dwelling-house and that of his wife were indeed separate houses, but formed together the third building in connection with the palace. This building had another court within the porch, i.e., behind the porch of judgment. Both dwellings were like unto this work, that is, they had walls of cedar-wood like the porch of judgment, and were splendidly and gorgeously made. The queen’s house was behind that of the king, according to the universal Eastern custom (Winer, R.-W.-B., i. s. 468); it is not only here, but also in 1Ki_9:24, expressly said, that it was built for Pharaoh’s daughter, not therefore for a harem (Thenius). The 700 wives and 300 concubines afterwards mentioned (1Ki_11:3) could scarcely have lived in the queen’s own house. Thenius gives the reason why the king’s and queen’s dwellings are not more accurately described: “because in most cases there was only access to the porch of judgment, and because audience of the king, even in the court of his residence, had probably become very difficult to obtain in Solomon’s reign.” But the reason was more likely that, whilst the armory and the porches of pillars and of judgment were uncommon buildings, the dwelling-house did not differ from ordinary dwellings in its architecture and furnishing, except in being more costly. It required, therefore, no minute description.
1Ki_7:9-12. All these were of costly stones, &c. What 1Ki_7:9-10 state, must be taken to refer to all three buildings that formed the palace. [Mr. T. O. Paine is of opinion that 1Ki_7:9-12 “are concerning the temple again—because the pillars are stone. In the house of the king they are cedar, 1Ki_7:2.” But this writer, after much pains-taking labor, does not satisfy.—E. H.] They could have been no mere wooden erections, but had walls of square stones, cut inside and outside (see on 1Kings 5:31) even unto the coping,i.e., “to the corner-stones on which the beams of the roof rested” (Keil). The Sept. has ἕùò ôῶí ãåßóùí , but ãåßóïí is the roof projection. Thenius thinks this was “the pinnacle-like protection of the flat roofs;” this edge, however, is nowhere called èְôָçåֹç , but îַòֲ÷ֶä (Deu_22:8). The words: on the outside toward the great court, mean, according to Thenius, “from the outside (front) to the great (rear) court.” But this îִçåּõ cannot mean something entirely different from the immediately preceding word. An “outer” court presupposes an “inner” one (1Ki_6:36), but not a rear one, and the inner could never be called “great,” in distinction from the outer one. The great court was evidently that which surrounded all the palace buildings (Ewald); and we must suppose that there was such an one even if not named here. All the buildings were formed of square stones from top to bottom, and the same even used outside too, even to the outer great court. Even the foundations, which were not seen outside, were made of these larger stones (1Ki_7:10). Lastly (1Ki_7:11), it is added that this great court had the same surrounding as the inner temple court, namely, three rows of stones and one of cedar (see on 1Ki_6:36). Keil and Le Clerc think the porch of the house to be (1Ki_7:12) the “columned- and throne-hall” of the palace, which had the same surrounding as the great court had. The text, however, mentions, besides the latter, only one court of the dwelling (1Ki_7:8), but says nothing about a third court around that porch. The words immediately preceding suggest scarcely anything else than the porch of Jehovah’s house; but as this had no court, the meaning must be, as with the court, which was within or before the porch. [So Bp. Horsley, after Houbigant, suggests that perhaps for åìçöø , we should read ëäçöø , like the inner court.—E. H.] Calmet only finds the similarity there in ut parietes mixtam lapidibus cedrum exhiberent.
1Ki_7:13-14. And the king. … and fetched Hiram. 1Ki_7:13. Comp 2Ch_2:13. According to this, Hiram was the son of a Tyrian, and of an Israelitish woman from the neighboring Dan, in the tribe of Naphtali, not, as the Rabbins say, an adopted son. His skill is described in the same words as that of Bezaleel in Exo_31:3 sq., only the addition, “filled with the spirit of God” is wanting. The art of casting brass is very ancient; the making of this metal, which “has a peculiar red color and strong lustre, and is of considerable hardness” (Rosenmüller, Alterthumsk., IV., i. s. 156), was much earlier understood than that of iron (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 90). In what now follows we have only a description of the vessels that were added to those of the tabernacle; the others are merely named. The Chronicles alone mention the altar of burnt-offering (II. 1Ki_4:1).
1Ki_7:15-20. And he cast two pillars of brass. 1Ki_7:15-22. Comp. 2Ch_3:15-17; 2Ch_4:12 sq.;2Ki_25:17; Jer_52:21 sq. Each of these pillars,i.e., the shafts, was eighteen cubits high and twelve in circumference, was four fingers thick, and hollow within (Jer_52:21). As the Chronicles alone, differently from all other passages, gives thirty-five cubits as the height, this number is “evidently formed by changing the sign éç = 18, into ìä = 35” (Keil). [The conjecture of Abarbinel, that the chronicler gives the sum-total of the height of the two pillars, is gravely adopted by Bp. Patrick on the place.—E. H.] The chapiters were cast separately, and then placed on the shafts; each of the former was five cubits high (1Ki_7:16), and had, as 2Ch_4:12 relates, an upper and lower part. ëֹúֶøֶú sometimes denotes the entire capital (1Ki_7:16), sometimes the upper (1Ki_7:19) and sometimes the lower part (1Ki_7:17-18; 1Ki_7:20). The upper part was lily-work (1Ki_7:19; 1Ki_7:22), i.e., in the form of a full-blown lily-cup. As ùׁåּùַׁï means only lily, Thenius has no grounds for supposing it to be the lotus, because there were pillar capitals in Egyptian buildings which had the form of the lotus-flower. The lotus-flower does not once occur in the entire Old Testament, but the lily very often, for it was common in Palestine, and grows without cultivation (Winer, R.-W.-B., ii. s. 28). The molten sea had also the same form (1Ki_7:26). The four cubits (1Ki_7:19) are not the measure of the diameter of the lily-work (Thenius), but of its height, which was much more important for the form of the entire capital, than the diameter, which was easily discoverable from the given circumference of the pillar. [Bp. Horsley takes the view which Thenius has adopted. He translates, “and the chapters that were upon the top of the pillars (were) in a socket ( áàìåí ) of the shape of a lily of four cubits,” and adds, the four cubits are to be understood, I think, of the general breadth of the lily, &c.—E. H.] And it is the more impossible to doubt that this upper part of the capital was the largest and principal part, as 1Ki_7:22 expressly repeats at the close of the whole description: “and upon the top of the pillars was lily-work.” Some think it should be three instead of four cubits high as in 1Ki_7:19, but they have no grounds but the uncertain passage 2Ki_25:17, where there was very probably a change of ä = 5 into â = 3. The lower part of the capital, which was only one cubit, is not very clearly described. It was made of checker or net-work (1Ki_7:17), pomegranates (1Ki_7:18), and a belly (1Ki_7:20). Instead of the last ( áֶèֶï ) in 1Ki_7:41-42; and in 2Ch_4:12-13, âֻּìָּä occurs, i.e., arch, swelling (see Gesenius, W. B., an âָּìַì ). This arching was ìְòֵáֶø , i.e., on the other side of the net-work (1Ki_7:20), therefore not on it or over it, but behind or under it. In so far as the net-work lay over or upon it, it could, as seen from outside, be described as lying beyond it (Keil). The net-work consisted of seven wires ( âְּãִéìִéí ); it was chain-work, the wires being plaited like a chain, woven crosswise together, thus forming a lattice-work or net. It is not that they hung down like chains (Gesenius). Possibly the text in 1Ki_7:17 may not be wholly above suspicion, but Thenius undertakes a daring and unjustifiable critical operation when he blots out chain-work, chiefly because the Sept. does, and reads ùְׂáָáָä for ùִׂáָòָä twice, and then translates: “and he made two lattices or trellis-wires to cover the capitals that (were) on the tops of the pillars, one for one and one for the other capital.” Lastly, the pomegranates, of which there were 200, 100 in a row (1Ki_7:20), were, no doubt, in a row above, and a row below the net-work, and thus served for a border to the latter. According to Jer_52:23, 96 of the 100 pomegranates were øøּçַä , which means neither “open to the air,” i.e., uncovered (Böttcher, Thenius), nor dependentia (Vulgate), or “hanging free” (Ewald), but only “windwards” (Hitzig), i.e., turned to the four quarters of the heavens, as øåּçַ in Eze_42:16-18 (comp. Eze_37:9); four pomegranates marked the places where each two quarters of the heavens met. The text says nothing of pedestals for the pillars; but it would scarcely have passed over so important a part of the pillars had they existed.
1Ki_7:21. And he set up the pillars, &c. There have been, and still are to this day, two opinions in sharp contrast one with the other as to the precise place where the two pillars were erected. According to one, they supported the roof of the porch, which stood quite open at the front (see Meyer, Merz), or the projection of the entrance leading to it (Ewald, Thenius); according to the other, they stood alone, before the porch, and without supporting anything (Stieglitz, Kugler, Schnaase, Winer, Keil). After repeated investigation of the subject, I find it impossible to subscribe to either opinion. Against the first there are the following objections: (a) The pillars were brazen, and begin the list of all the metal articles, which were first finished by the peculiarly skilful artisan Hiram, after the building of the temple was completed (1Ki_6:14; 1Ki_6:37-38). If they had been designed to bear up the roof of the porch or the projection of its entrance, they could not have been vessels, but necessary integral parts of the building; but as this was “finished” without them, and as supporting pillars of brass are never found in stone and wooden buildings; these pillars, which were works of art, could not have had an architectural but only a monumental character, and this is shown by the names attached to them. Stieglitz truly says: “It was their separate position alone which gave these pillars the impressive aspect they were designed to wear, and the significant dignity with which they increased the grandeur of the whole, while they shed light upon its purpose.” (b) The entire height of the pillars was (with their capitals) twenty-three cubits; but that of the porch was either twenty or thirty cubits (see on 1Ki_6:3). In the first case the pillars must have been too high, in the latter too low, to bear up the porch-roof; for even if they had pedestals, these could not have been seven cubits high, (c) As the text does not mention any portal to the porch, still less does it say anything of any “projection” over the same, which was borne up by the pillars (Thenius), or of any “beam” joining the pillars above, on which there was another structure, or “decoration” (Ewald). The appeal to Amo_9:1 : “Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake,” is quite out of place, for ñִôִּéí never mean the projections of buildings, but the thresholds (Jdg_19:27; 2Ki_12:10; Isa_6:4). Neither can anything be proved from Ezekiel’s vision (Eze_40:48), for the two pillars are not once named in it. The Sept. indeed mentions a ìÝëáèñïí ἐð ’ ἀìöïôÝñùô ôῶí óôὺëùí , in 1Ki_7:20, but this was quite gratuitous; they do not translate 1Ki_7:20 at all, but give a completely different one, a mere gloss, of which the Hebrew text does not contain a word. We must conclude, then, that they stood separately. But in respect now of the other opinion, that they were placed in front of the porch, the áָּàåּìָí in 1Ki_7:19 contradicts that, as does also ìְàֻìָí in 1Ki_7:21. However we may understand 1Ki_7:19, which is certainly obscure, áְּàåּìָí cannot be translated, “in that manner, or according to the porch” (Keil), which would be equivalent to ëָàåּìָí , which Raschi accepts, and which means “that the lily-work was on the pillar-capitals as well as on the porch.” Now there is not one word about the lily-work on the porch. Still less can áָּàåּìָí mean ìִôְðֵé úָàåּìָí , but only in the porch. Further, ìְàֻìָí cannot be translated: “before the porch” (Luther), or “at the porch” (Keil), i.e., in front, but only, for the porch. As the molten sea and the bases were for the outer court, the golden altar, candlestick, and shewbread for the house, so the two pillars were for the porch, and stood in it as the former stood in the court and the house. The Sept. give in 1Ki_7:15 : êáὶ ἐ÷þíåõóå ôïὺò äýï óôýëïõò ôῷ áἰëὰì ôïῦ ïἵêïõ , and translate, 1Ki_7:21 : êáὶ ἔóôçóå ôïὺò óôýëïõò ôïῦ áἰëὰì ôïῦ íáïῦ . With this 2Ch_3:13; 2Ch_3:17 fully agrees; it says he made ìִôְðֵé äַáַּéִú two pillars, … and placed the pillars òַìÎôְּðֵé äַäֵéáָì . For if they were in the porch, they must have stood immediately before the house, that is, before the principal compartment. But it says nowhere that he placed them before the porch. If the latter were thirty cubits high, as most think, the pillars could have stood free inside, as their monumental character required.
1Ki_7:21-22. And called the name thereof, &c. Thenius justly remarks: “There can be nothing more improbable than that pillars standing at the entrance to God’s house should have been named after the donor, or their architect (Gesenius); and it is impossible to understand the assertion, ‘that they were no doubt named at their erection and dedication, after men much liked at that time, perhaps some of Solomon’s young sons’ (Ewald).” But Thenius’ own assertion does not seem less improbable; namely, that “the pillars, which apparently bore up the entire building of the temple (?) had the characters éָáִéï áָּòֹæ , i.e., He (the Lord) founds (or: may He found) with strength, engraved, or formed in the casting, and that the people read these words, which should be taken together (?), separately, and … gave them as names to the pillars.” Aside from every other consideration, it is not, he had inscribed éëéï áòæ on the two pillars; but: he called the name of the one at the right éëéï , and called the name of the one at the left áòæ ; so these were two distinct “names,” and not a sentence of connected words. We have no reason to change áֹּòַæ to éָëִéï ; áָּòֹï means rather: statuit, fundavit, and is used about the founding and establishing of the kingdom, the throne, and the sanctuary (1Ki_6:19; Ezr_3:3; 2Sa_7:12; 2Ch_17:5). áֹּòַæ is composed of òַï , strength, power, firmness (Gen_49:3), and áåֹ , i.e., in Him, Jehovah. The name means exactly the same as in Isa_45:24, áַּéäåָֹä … òֹæ , a thought often occurring in the Old Testament (Psa_28:7-8; Psa_46:2; Psalms 62 (7) 8; Psa_86:6; Psa_140:7; Isa_49:5; Jer_16:19). The first name denotes the founding and establishing of the central sanctuary, in contrast with the tabernacle; the second denotes the firmness and stability of the same. Simonis (Onom., s. 430, 460): Stabiliet templum, in illo (Domino) robur.
1Ki_7:23-26. And he made a molten sea, &c. Comp. 2Ch_4:2-5. The name éָí only means the great quantity of water that the vessel contained. Latini ejusmodi vasa appellant lacus (Castel.). The 10 cubits denote the diameter, 30 the circumference, not certainly the mathematical proportion, but very near it, for we must reckon 9 cubits and rather more than half a cubit for the diameter, for 30 cubits of circumference. The 5 cubits are for the depth of the vessel, which was not cylindrical, as some old pictures represent, but, according to 1Ki_7:26, was shaped like a lily, with an edge curved outwards, and widening out considerably lower down. It could only hold 2,000 baths of water (1Ki_7:26) with a form like that, as Thenius (Stud. u. Kritiken, 1846, I.) has proved. Chronicles, on the contrary, gives 3,000 baths (2Ch_4:5), but this is a confusion of the signs á and â (Keil); it is also a mistake of the pen when 1Ki_7:3 gives ô÷øéí instead of ô÷òéí . The latter does not mean coloquinths, but flower-buds (see above, on 1Ki_6:29). The two rows must have been pretty close together, under the edge of the vessel. The position of the 12 oxen is remarked especially, but nothing said of their size or height. Thenius thinks they must have been as high as the vessel at least; this would make the whole vessel 10 cubits high. It is impossible to say whether the feet of these oxen rested on the floor of the court, as on a brazen plate (Keil), or whether they stood in a basin. As the priests had only to wash their hands and feet, the vessel was provided (so the rabbinical traditions say) with faucets for letting out the water. It is very improbable that the water came from the mouths of the oxen, as many suppose.
1Ki_7:27-39. And he made ten bases of, &c. The description of these vessels, 1Ki_7:27-39, is involved in much more obscurity than that of the two brazen pillars. All the pains which the latest commentators have spent upon it have not cleared it up fully, because the text (under consideration) is no longer the original one; the old translations are widely different from it, and do not agree together. The insertions also which we have admitted into our translation, following now Thenius, and now Keil, do not claim to have solved the exegetical riddle. Above all, it is necessary to realize what the object of these vessels was. 2Ch_4:6 says that the priests “washed such things as they offered for the burnt-offering,” i.e., those parts of the sacrificial animal which were placed on the altar to be burnt, as ordered in Lev_1:9 (comp. Eze_40:38). Hence it appears that the basin which held the water for washing was the chief thing in that complicated vessel, and all the other parts only made for the sake of that one part. The altar of burnt-offering of the temple was 10 cubits high (2Ch_4:1); a step for the priests to stand on, when performing their functions, was much more needed in this altar than in that of the tabernacle, which was only 3 cubits high (Exo_27:1-5). Now, in order to perform the washing of the parts for sacrifice at the altar itself, without descending, the basins must, on the one hand, have stood high, and higher than the altar-step, and on the other, have been movable also, so that they could have easily been brought backwards and forwards, filled or emptied. So we see that a wheelwork was needed for the high basins or lavers. The basins, bases, and wheelwork were then the component parts of the vessel. The basins (lavers), being the simplest part, are the least explicitly described in 1Ki_7:38. The word áִéּåֹø occurs oftenest, for the basins of the tabernacle (Exo_30:18; Exo_30:28; Exo_31:9, &c.); these were not cylindrical, as is well known, but shaped more like a kettle; and nowhere else is a vessel described which has the form of a pot or jug. It appears from Zec_12:6, that a fire-basin (pan) was of a flatter shape than a kettle, and had at least the form of a cooking-pot, as Züllig thinks (die Cherubimwagen, s. 79, 94). The measure 4 cubits can only be understood, like 1Ki_7:31, to apply to the diameter (Thenius), and not to the depth. Thenius reckons the 40 baths at 12 eimer and 16 kannen, Dresden measure. [Without a parade of decimals, in the rough as one may say, the Dresden kanne is about one quart (+). Seventy-two kannen are one eimer, i.e., seventy-two quarts. 72×12=864 quarts. To these must be added 16 quarts, and the whole amount is 880 quarts or 220 gallons. If however any one wishes to work out the sum, it may be well to add that 1 kanne = 0.937 liter, and 1 liter = 1.0567 quart (wine-measure).—E. H.] In respect of the second main part of the vessel, the base îְëåֹðָç , so much is certain, that it was a four-cornered box, which consisted of strong, edge-bands on the top and on the bottom, along, the sides, as well as at the corners: into which the walls (or panels) were introduced, and were held by these edge-bands as in a frame. Figures were engraved on these walls (panels, îִñְâְּøåֹú ): lions, oxen, and cherubim (according to Josephus, distributed in three different fields). The box had also 4 feet ôְòָîåֹú (1Ki_7:30), at the 4 corners, no doubt; with which it stood upon the axle-trees of the wheel work. It is very difficult to form an adequate and just view of the 4 undersetters, áְּúֵôֹú , which are named in 1Ki_7:30 with the feet, and in 1Ki_7:34 with the wheel work; they must have projected certainly from the feet, but it is uncertain in what manner they were connected with the box, and what they bore—whether indeed they bore anything. The box seems to have been open at the bottom, but it had an arched covering at the top (1Ki_7:35) with a round ornament, a crown áֹúֶøֶú (1Ki_7:31) on which the basin was placed. But the nature of the hands or holders éָãåֹú and their relation to the arched cover and the crown, is obscure. They must have been rather broad, as the figures were engraved upon them as well as on the cover (1Ki_7:35-36). It is equally difficult to say where and how the borders mentioned in 1Ki_7:29-30; 1Ki_7:36, ìéåֹú , were put on. According to 1Ki_7:29 they were îַòֲùֵׂä îåֹøָã , by which Thenius, appealing to the îִ÷ְìָòåֹú in 1Ki_7:31, and åַéְôַúַּç in 1Ki_7:36, understands “work of cutting in, i.e., sunken work;” but if the text meant this, why did it not make use of the identical expressions? The specific word must denote something specific; it remains only to take the usual translation, “hanging work” (Vulgate: dependentia), “which certainly does not mean festoons hanging free, and waving in the air” (Keil); îåֹøָã means a declivity (hanging) in a local sense (comp. Jos_7:5; Jos_10:11; Jer_48:5). According to 1Ki_7:29 the borders were on the edge-frames above as well as under the carved work upon the side walls of the box or chest, for áֵּï cannot be here, as Keil has it, a substantive, “and upon the ledges there was a base above,” but only an adverb (De Wette, Thenius, and others), as in 1Ki_7:18. But we cannot with certainty ascertain the meaning of “at the side of every addition” (wreath) at the end of 1Ki_7:30. [Bp. Horsley, “at the side of every addition.” Rather “each over-against a compound figure.” The shoulder-pieces (instead of “undersetters”) went just so far down within the base as to be on a level with the compound figures on the outside.”—E. H.] The “additions (wreaths) round about” in 1Ki_7:36 are the same as mentioned in 1Ki_7:29. The third main part, i.e., the wheels, differed so far from wheels of ordinary vehicles that their axle-trees were not immediately under the box or chest, but under its feet, so that the edges moved completely under the box, and the carved work on its sides was not hid by the wheels (1Ki_7:32). But it is impossible to determine the relation of the hands or holders of the wheels to the feet of the box and to the shoulder-pieces (1Ki_7:30). The description of the wheels begun in 1Ki_7:30 is continued in 1Ki_7:32-34; but 1Ki_7:31 treats of the upper part of the box, which is further described in 1Ki_7:35-36; strictly speaking, therefore, 1Ki_7:31 should stand immediately before 1Ki_7:35-36, or else 1Ki_7:31; 1Ki_7:35-36 immediately before 1Ki_7:30. Fortunately the whole of the difficult section from 1Ki_7:27-39 does not treat of a main integral part of the temple, and not even of one of the principal vessels, but only of one that is subordinate and secondary. Its description, therefore, obscure as it is, may be regarded as sufficient, at least as far as concerns its purpose. The best drawings that have been made of this vessel are those of Thenius (Commentar, taf. III., fig. 4), and Keil (Archüologie, I., taf. 2, fig. 4); and the most defective of all, whether ancient or modern, that of Unruh (das Alte Jerusalem, Fig. 11).
1Ki_7:40-47. And Hiram made the lavers, &c. 1Ki_7:40. The first part of this verse forms a kind of independent section, for the lavers, shovels, and basins did not belong to the bases, but were, like the latter, utensils of the altar of burnt-offering. The lavers were for carrying away water, &c., the shovels for removing the ashes, the basins for catching the blood that spouted from the sacrifice (Exo_27:3; Num_4:14). It is remarkable that the text never names the chief vessel of all, the altar of burnt-offering; for it was made anew at the same time (2Ch_4:1), and upon a larger scale. Perhaps it was not made by Hiram, who only executed the more artistic brass-castings, among which this altar could not be reckoned. The words, and so Hiram made an end of doing all the work, &c., begin the general list of all the vessels Hiram had made, the brass, from 1Ki_7:40-47, and the golden, from 1Ki_7:48-51. The former were all of bright brass ( îְîֹøָè ), i.e., it was polished after the casting, so that it shone like gold (see above, on 1Ki_7:13), but it was no actual aurichalcum (Vulgate); Josephus says, ÷áëêὸò ôὴí áὐãὴí ὅìïéïò ÷ñõóῷ êáὶ ôὸ êÜëëïò . The region between Succoth and Zarthan is mentioned as the place where the brass works were cast in the clay, i.e., in moulds of potters’ earth. Succoth (Jdg_8:5; Jos_13:27) lay beyond Jordan, not on the south side of Jabbok (Keil), but rather northwards, for it could not possibly have been very far from Zarthan, which 1Ki_4:12 places near Bethshean, on this side Jordan. Consequently the foundry must have been on this side too; Burkhardt says (Reise, II. s. 593) that the “soil is all marl, and the further shore has no hollows whatever.” Comparison of both places shows that they lay diagonally opposite, and there was no larger ground suitable for the brass foundry in this side of the valley above (or below) Zarthan (Keil). The quantity of brass was so great (comp. 1Ch_18:8), that it was not necessary to weigh it out carefully for each distinct vessel; and the weight of each cannot therefore be ascertained. åַéַּðַּç , 1Ki_7:47, does not mean: he laid them down, but he let them lie, i.e., he did not weigh them, as the following verses show.
1Ki_7:48-51. And Solomon made all thevessels … of gold. We are not to conclude from the subject, “Solomon,” that Hiram made only the brazen vessels (Thenius). As Hiram also knew how to work in gold (2Ch_2:13), it is far more likely that Solomon intrusted him also with the goldsmith’s work. The golden vessels are evidently only named, and not described, because they were made like those of the tabernacle (comp. Exo_30:1 sq.; Exo_25:23-40), only upon a larger scale. The addition in 2Ch_4:8 : “he made also ten tables, and placed them in the temple, five on the right side and five on the left,” is declared to be an error by modern interpreters; but we might just as reasonably strike out the account of the altar of burnt-offering, which is not given in our text. The account is so definite that it cannot be a pure invention; besides, soon after, in 1Ki_7:19, the plural äַùֻּׁìְçַðֹåú occurs, and it is said also in 1Ch_28:16 : “And (David gave to Solomon) by weight … gold for the tables of shewbread, for every table.” Now when 2Ch_29:18 mentions but one table, this is no contradiction (Thenius); for it says in 2Ch_13:11 : “and we burn, i.e., light, the golden candlestick every evening;” and yet, according to our text, there were 10 candlesticks. One asks, Why 10 tables? but we, on the other hand, ask, “Why 10 candlesticks, if only one were lighted? There is no ground for the opinion that the rest of the tables served for the purpose of resting the candlesticks upon them; for then there must have been 11 of them, and instead of being called tables of shewbread (1Ch_28:16) they must have been called tables of the candlesticks.—Which David had dedicated (1Ki_7:51). According to 2Sa_8:7-12; 1Ch_18:7-11, David had taken a q