Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadPulpit Commentary - 1 Kings 7:1 - 7:51
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Ki_7:1
But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years [There is no contrast implied between the time spent upon the temple and that occupied in the building of the palace, as the word "but" seems to suggest. The close connexion which exists in the original is interrupted by the division of chapters. In 1Ki_6:38 we read, "So was he seven years in building it." 1Ki_7:1 then proceeds, "And he was building his own house thirteen years." The much longer period occupied in the erection of the royal palace is easily accounted for. In the first place, the buildings were much larger, and the undertaking altogether was a much more extensive one (1Ki_7:2). Then, though seven years only were consumed in the actual building of the temple, yet preparations for the work had been made, both by David and Solomon, for a long time beforehand. Lastly, a special force of labourers would appear to have been employed on the temple, while it is probable that they wrought at the palaces in greatly diminished numbers. So that the longer period spent over his own house does not argue selfishness or worldliness on Solomon's part. On the contrary, it speaks well for his piety that he built the temple first and urged on that sacred work with so much vigour. The thirteen years date from the completion of the seven years of 1Ki_6:38. That is to say, the building of the temple and palace together occupied twenty years, as is expressly stated in 1Ki_9:10. It is therefore one of Stanley's reckless statements that the palace "was commenced at the same time as the temple, but not finished till eight years afterwards"], and he finished all his house. [By Solomon's "house" we are not to understand his private palace, or residence proper, alone (see 1Ki_9:8), but a range of palaces, more or less connected including the "house of the forest of Lebanon" (1Ki_9:2), "the porch of pillars" (1Ki_9:6), the throne-room or judgment hall (1Ki_9:7), his own house and the house of Pharaoh's daughter (1Ki_9:8). That all these are comprehended under the term "house" is evident from 1Ki_9:1, 1Ki_9:10, 1Ki_9:15; 1Ki_10:12, where Solomon's buildings are always spoken of as two, viz; "the house of the Lord" and the "king's house."
The situation of this string of palaces is by no means certain. Josephus says it stood over against (or opposite) the temple, which is highly probable; but this still leaves the question of site open, for the palace would be justly described as ἄντικρυς ἔχων ναὸν , whether it stood west or south of the sanctuary. Ewald places it on the opposite ridge of Ophel, i.e; on the south prolongation of the temple mount; while Fergusson, Bähr, etc; locate it on the northeast side of Zion, on the opposite side of the Tyropoean valley, and overlooking it and the whole city of David. Recent explorations seem to favour Ewald's view. See "Recovery of Jerusalem," pp. 319 sqq, and "Our Work in Palestine," p. 159 sqq. When we remember that the very site of Zion is disputed, it will not surprise the reader that questions of this kind should be involved in uncertainty. And when it is further considered that the accumulated debris of Jerusalem at one point reaches a depth of 120 feet, it will be readily understood what obstacles stand in the way of their settlement.]
1Ki_7:2
He built also [Heb. and he built. The A.V. rendering almost contradicts the view just advanced, viz; that the house of the forest of Lebanon was part of "all the house" (verse 1)] the house of the forest of Lebanon [so called, not because it was a summer residence in Lebanon, as some have supposed, nor yet merely because it was built of Lebanon cedar, but because it displayed, a perfect thicket or forest ( éÇòÇø ) of cedar pillars]; the length thereof was one hundred cubits [the temple proper was 60], and the breadth thereof fifty cubits [The temple was but 20. It does not follow that this space of 100 x 50 cubits was all roofed in, for it would seem as if the house was built round a courtyard. Rawlinson remarks that a roof of 75 feet is "much greater than is ever found in Assyria." But it is by no means certain that there was any such roof here], and the height thereof thirty cubits [the same as the temple], upon four rows of cedar pillars [How these were disposed of, or what was their number, it is impossible to say. Thenius says they were 400, but this is pure conjecture. The description is so meagre and partial that it is impossible to form a correct idea of the building. The remark made above (Heb_6:1-20. Introd. Note) as to the temple applies with still greater force to the palaces. "There are few tasks more difficult or puzzling than the attempt to restore an ancient building of which we possess nothing but two verbal descriptions; and these difficulties are very much enhanced when one account is written in a language like Hebrew, the scientific terms in which are, from our ignorance, capable of the widest latitude of interpretation, and the other, though written in a language of which we have a more definite knowledge, was composed by a person who could never have seen the building he was describing"], with cedar beams [ ëÀøËúåÉú , cut or hewn beams] upon the pillars. [This palace, according to Fergusson, was "the great hall of state and audience" and the principal building of the range. But if it was this, which is very doubtful, for the throne was in the hall of judgment (1Ki_5:7), it would seem to have served other purposes besides that of an audience-chamber. Among other things, it was certainly an armoury (1Ki_10:17. cf. Isa_22:8). The Arab. Verses calls it "the house of his arms." Possibly it was also the residence of the bodyguard (cf. 1Ki_14:28 with 1Ki_10:17). Bähr observes that the arrangement of the palaces accords with the Jewish conceptions of the kingly office. The first, the armoury, represents him in his militant character (1Sa_8:20), the second in his judicial function (1Sa_8:5, 1Sa_8:6; 2Sa_15:4; 1Ki_3:9), while the third shows him in his private capacity.]
1Ki_7:3
And it was covered [or roofed] with cedar above [cf. 1Ki_6:9, 1Ki_6:15] upon the beams [ öÀìÈòåÉú lit; ribs, the word used in 1Ki_6:5 of the side chambers, and in 1Ki_6:34 (in the masculine) of the leaves of the doors], that lay on forty-five pillars, fifteen in a row. [Rawlinson, al. are much exercised to reconcile this statement with that of 1Ki_6:2, which speaks of four rows, But the explanation is very simple, viz; that the "forty-five, fifteen in a row" does not refer to the pillars but to the side chambers or compartments (A.V; "beams"). The description is so very loose and general that positive statements are out of place, but the meaning certainly appears to be this, that there was a roofing of cedar over the side chambers (which rested upon the pillars mentioned in 1Ki_6:2) forty-five in number, fifteen in a row. It is true the Masoretic punctuation is against this view. It is also clear that the LXX. understood the numbers forty-five and fifteen to refer to the pillars, for they have essayed to cut the knot by reading three rows instead of "four rows," in 1Ki_6:2. Similarly the Arab. in 1Ki_6:3 reads sixty instead of forty-five; obviously another desperate attempt to solve the difficulty by a corruption of the text. But the solution suggested above is so simple and natural that we can hardly be wrong in adopting it. Bähr says positively that forty-five pillars could not have supported a structure 100 cubits by 50 cubits, "nor could the building have been named ' forest of Lebanon' from forty-five scattered pillars." It would follow hence, that there were side chambers only on three sides of the building, as was the case in the temple. And if (as has been inferred from 1Ki_6:4, 1Ki_6:5) a three-storied structure is here described; if, that is to say, the forty-five chambers were divided fifteen to a tier or story, it is highly probable that they would be distributed six to each long side and three to the rear (Bähr). This arrangement—a court surrounded by a colonnade and galleries—is still found in the East; as all travellers know. And in its favour it may be said that it is such as to have been suggested by the plan of the temple. The ground plan is the same, with this difference, that a courtyard occupies the place of the temple proper.]
1Ki_7:4
And there were windows [ ùÀÑ÷ËôÄéí same word as in 1Ki_6:4, i.e; beams or lattices. Keil understands, beam layers; and Bähr, ubergelegte Balken. The LXX. has πλευρῶν ] in three rows [or tiers. All we can say is that there is a possible reference to three stories formed by the three rows of beams], and light [lit; outlook. îÆçÀæÈä probably means a wide outlook. LXX. χῶρα , aspectus, prospectus] was against light in three ranks [Heb. three times. The meaning is that the side chambers were so built and arranged that the rooms had their windows exactly vis-a-vis in each of the three stories. Josephus explains, θυρώμασι τριγλύφοις , windows in three divisions, but this is no explanation of the words "light against light," etc. Fergusson understands the three outlooks to mean, first, the clerestory windows (that there was a clerestory he infers from Josephus Ant; 7.5. 2), who describes this palace as "in the Corinthian manner," which cannot mean, he says, "the Corinthian order, which was not then invented, but after the fashion of a Corinthian oecus, which was a hall with a clerestory");
(2) a range of openings under the cornice of the walls; and
(3) a range of open doorways. But all this is conjecture.
1Ki_7:5
And all the doors and posts [For îÀæåÌæÉú roF[ s posts, Thenius would read îÆäÀæåÉú outlooks, after 1Ki_7:4, which seems a natural emendation, especially as the LXX. has χῶραι . We should then get the sense of "doors and windows "] were square of beam. [The word translated "windows" in 1Ki_7:4; the proper rendering is beam, and the meaning apparently is that all these openings were square in shape. Nothing is said about the height of the rooms, and as the commentators are not agreed whether there was one story or three, that can obviously be only matter of conjecture. Rawlinson, who thinks of but one hall, with three rows of windows, supposes, after Houbigant, that one row was placed in a wall which ran down the middle of the apartment. Such an arrangement, he observes, was found by Layard at Nimrud.]
1Ki_7:6
And he made a porch of pillars [Heb. the porch of pillars. This was no doubt a covered colonnade, i.e; it had a roof but no sides. The pillars were its only walls. But here the question presents itself, Was this porch the vestibule of the house of the forest of Lebanon, just described? From the correspondence between its width and that of this palace, Rawlinson infers that it was (cf. 1Ki_6:2, 1Ki_6:3). Bähr believes it to have been the porch or entrance to the hall of judgment mentioned in the next verse, while Fergusson again assigns it an independent position, separate from either. The term porch ( àåÌìÈí ), the meaning of which is surely determined by its use in Heb_6:1-20; almost implies that it must have served as the entrance or vestibule to some building. But the size, and the fact that it had itself a porch (see below), favour the idea that it was an independent structure, though Rawlinson shows that "most of the Persepolitan porches had small pillared chambers at some little distance in front of them," and refers to the Egyptian propylaea. Keil argues that this pillar hall, as he calls it, stood between the house of the forest of Lebanon and the judgment hall. Bähr, as remarked above, sees in it the anterior part of the judgment hall, which latter, he adds, bore to it the same relation that the oracle did to the temple house. He observes that as the ark was in the oracle, so the throne (1Ki_10:18) found a place in the hall of judgment. This structure, therefore, with its porch, mentioned presently, would reproduce the main features of the temple arrangement. We see, consequently, that both the house of the forest of Lebanon and the porch of pillars followed in their outline the ground plan of the temple. Nor is this at all surprising, considering that all these edifices probably had the same architect or designer]; the length thereof was fifty cubits [the length, i.e; according to the view last advanced of the two divisions of the building, viz; the porch of pillars and the porch of judgment. But the correspondence of the length (or width—the same word is used of the width of the temple porch 1Ki_6:3) of this porch with the width of the house of the forest of Lebanon is, to say the least, remarkable, and suggests that after all it may have been the porch of that building. If so, the resemblance to the temple would be still more striking], and the breadth [depth?] thereof thirty cubits: and the porch [Heb. a porch] was before them [i.e; the pillars. The words can only mean that a smaller porch stood before the porch of pillars, or colonnade]: and the other [omit] pillars [i.e; the pillars of the minor vestibule or fore porch] and the thick beam [Heb. threshold] were before them. [The broad threshold, approached by steps, and the pillars which it supported, together with the roof which covered them, formed the front part and approach to the larger porch or colonnade.]
1Ki_7:7
Then he made a porch [or the porch] for the throne where he might Judge [i.e; it was at once audience chamber (throne room, 1Ki_10:18) and court of justice], even the porch of judgment [Stanley remarks that this "porch, or gate of justice, still kept alive the likeness of the old patriarchal custom of sitting in judgment at the gate." He then refers to the "gate of justice" at Granada and the "Sublime Porte "at Constantinople. It is, perhaps, not quite so certain that "this porch was the gem and centre of the whole empire," or that because it was so much thought of a similar but smaller porch was erected for the queen (1Ki_7:8)]: and it was covered with cedar from one side of the floor to the other. [Heb. from the floor to the floor, as marg. Gesenius understands these words to mean, "from one floor to the other," i.e; to the cieling (the floor of the other story); in other words, the walls from bottom to top. So the Vulg; a pavimento usque ad summitatem, and Syr; a fundamento ad coelum ejus usque, which have led Thenius to suggest the reading òÇã ÷ÌåÉøåÉú (unto the beams) instead of òÇãäÇ÷ÇÌøÀ÷Çò . Keil thinks the ceiling served as the floor of an upper story, built over the porch of judgment, but, as Bähr observes, no such upper story is even hinted at elsewhere. It seems to me that, on the whole, the A.V. rendering is to be retained, the meaning being that the whole space, both of wall and cieling, from one side of the floor to the opposite side, was covered with cedar.]
1Ki_7:8
And his house where he dwelt [i.e; his private residence. Not to be identified with the" house" of 1Ki_7:1. The term is here expressly restricted to his dwelling house. There it as clearly includes all the several palaces] had [or was. The "court" is apparently in apposition to "his house." The words in italics, here as elsewhere, merely darken the sense] another [Heb. the hinder] court within [For the use of îÄáÅÌéú ìÀ = within, compare 1Ki_6:16; Num_18:7, and see Gesen; Thesaur. 1:193] the porch, which was of the like work [i.e; the walls were covered with cedar. The reference is clearly to materials, adornment, etc; not to size]. Solomon made also an house for Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had taken to wife [Heb. he made also a house for … whom Solomon had taken, i.e; married], like unto this porch. [This would seem to have been the private residence of the queen, not the harem where all the wives and concubines (1Ki_11:3) were collected. It was evidently distinct from and behind the residence of the king, an arrangement which still prevails in Eastern palaces.]
1Ki_7:9
All these [i.e.buildings ,palaces] were of costly [or precious; cf. 1Ki_5:1-18 :31 and 1Ki_5:10, 1Ki_5:11] stones, according to the measures of hewed stones [lit; of squaring or hewing, same word in 1Ki_5:1-18 :31 (Hebrews), 1Ki_6:36, and Isa_9:9, etc. All the stones in these several buildings were shaped to certain specified dimensions], sawed with saws [ âÈÌøÇø is obviously an onomatopoetic word, like our saw. Gesenius cites σαίρω , serro, etc. The Egyptians, whose saws were apparently all single handed, do not seem to have applied this instrument to stone, but part of a double-handed saw was found at Nimrud. That saws were in common use and were made of iron is implied in 2Sa_12:31], within and without [It is not quite clear whether the meaning is that the two surfaces exposed to view, one within and the other without, the building were shaped with saws, or that the inner and hidden surface of the stone was thus smoothed as well as the exposed parts], even from the foundation unto the coping [or corbels. It is generally agreed (Gesen; Keil, Bight) that the reference is to the "projecting stones on which the beams rest," though Thenius would understand battlements (Deu_22:8) to be intended. But for these a different word is always used, and the LXX γεῖσος signifies the projection of the roof, not an erection upon it], and so on the outside toward the great court [i.e; the pavement of the court was of sawed stones (see 2Sa_12:12).]
1Ki_7:10
And the foundation was of costly stones, even great stones [Bähr says, "Even the foundations which from without were not seen, were composed of these great stones." But the meaning evidently is that the foundation stones were larger than those reared upon them], stones of ten cubits [i.e; ten cubits long, and of proportionate width, etc.], and stones of eight cubits. [The foundations of the palaces, consequently, were much less than those of the temple platform, some of which would measure 16 cubits. See note on 1Ki_5:17.]
1Ki_7:11
And above [i.e; upon the foundation stones just described] were costly stones, after the measures of hewed stones [It is implied here that the stones of the superstructure were less than those of the foundation. It is also implied that the former were more carefully smoothed and. faced than the latter] and cedars. [Heb. cedar.]
1Ki_7:12
And the great court round about [The palace, again like the temple, had two courts. The lesser is referred to in 1Ki_7:8, and was enclosed among the buildings. The great court probably surrounded the entire structure] was [enclosed by a wall] with three rows of hewed stones, and a row of cedar beams [The latter formed the coping. The wall of the court of the palace thus resembled that of the temple. See on 1Ki_6:36. In all these coincidences we have tokens of the same designing hand], both for the inner court of the house of the Lord. [This sudden digression from the court of the palace to the temple is suspicious, and suggests either a mistranslation or corruption of the text. The historian evidently meant to say that the wall of the court, in its three rows of stones and its cedar coping, resembled the inner court of the temple; and, according to some grammarians (Gesen; Ewald), this meaning may well be conveyed by the text as it stands, å in Hebrew serving sometimes to institute a comparison (Pro_25:3, Pro_25:12, Pro_25:20; Pro_26:14, etc.) "As in the court," etc. But the instances just cited, being proverbs or apophthegms, are not strictly parallel with our text. It seems better, on the whole, however, to retain the text in this sense than to replace. å by , ë reading ëìçöø or ëçöø for åìçöø . ëäçöø (Horsley) is quite inadmissible, as the constr, case never has the art.], and for the porch of the house. [It is almost impossible to decide whether the porch of judgment (1Ki_6:7) or the porch of the temple is here meant. The immediate context favours the latter. But this does not seem to have had any court or enclosing wall other than the inner court. Rawlinson decides for the porch of judgment, "which," he says, "had a planking of cedar over the stone pavement" (1Ki_6:7). But 1Ki_6:7 (where see note) rather excludes than in-eludes the pavement. The reference is probably to the "court within the porch," mentioned in 1Ki_6:8.]
After this brief account of the royal palaces, the author proceeds to mention the vessels, etc; used in the temple service, prefacing his description by a few words respecting the great Tyrian artist, by whom they were for the most part cast, and possibly designed also.
1Ki_7:13
And king Solomon sent [rather, had sent (2Ch_2:13)] and fetched Hiram out of Tyre. [This is our historian's brief version of the transaction which is recorded in 2Ch_2:7-14. He has not mentioned before (1Ki_5:6) Solomon's request for a master builder. Hiram, like his namesake the king, is elsewhere (2Ch_2:18; 2Ch_4:11, 2Ch_4:16) called Huram or Hirom (verse 40). See note on 1Ki_5:1. In the first of these passages the king calls him "Huram my father" (see note there); in the last he is designated "Huram his father." The title "Ab" (cf. Gen_45:8, 41, 43; 2Ki_2:12; 2Ki_5:13; 2Ki_6:21; cf. 1Ki_8:9) shows the high esteem in which he was held. It can hardly be, as some have supposed, a proper name. It may signify "counsellor," or master, i.e; master builder. The Tyrians evidently regarded him with some pride.]
1Ki_7:14
He was a widow's son of the tribe of Naphtali [In 2Ch_2:14 he is described as the "son of a woman of the daughters of Daniel" The discrepancy is only apparent. For in the first place it is not absolutely necessary to understand by Dan the tribe of that name. It may well refer to the town, formerly Leshem (Jos_19:47), or Laish (Jdg_18:7, Jdg_18:27), colonised by the Danites, and thenceforward bearing their name (verse 29), which was situated within the borders of Naphtali. If, however, it is preferred to see in the "daughters of Dan" a tribal reference, we may suppose (with Keil, al.) that the woman was originally a Danite, but became, through her first husband, "of the tribe of Naphtali." But the first explanation is the more simple and obvious], and his father was a man of Tyre [i.e; Hiram was the son (not stepson, or adopted son, as the Rabbins) of a mixed marriage. In earlier times Laish had but little intercourse with the Zidonians (Jdg_18:28). It is nowhere stated that the inhabitants were of Phoenician extraction; nor can it be justly inferred from this passage], a worker in brass [or copper. Brass is a compound of copper and zinc; but ðÀçùÆÑú originally and strictly signifies a pure metal (Deu_8:9; Deu_33:25, etc.; Job_28:2). There were copper mines in Palestine, and the art of working this metal was known at a very remote period. In later times the word sometimes denoted brass ( χαλκός ), or copper-bronze Ca mixture of copper and tin). Cf. Jer_6:28. From 2Ch_2:14 we learn that Hiram was "skilful to work in gold and in silver in brass, in iron, in stone, and in timber," etc. From the mention of brass only in this passage, and in verse 45, it has been somewhat hastily concluded that "the work that he personally did for Solomon" was "limited to works in brass" (Rawlinson). It is, perhaps, safer to say that brass only is mentioned here, because the following section treats exclusively of the brazen ornaments, etc; of the sanctuary (Keil). It would almost seem, however (see note on verse 48), as if he was not employed to make the vessels of gold. Nor does this supposition really contradict the statement made below, viz; that he wrought all Solomon's work]: and he was filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning [or knowledge, as the same word is rendered Exo_31:3, where similar language is used of Bezaleel. It is noticeable, however, that the words "filled with the spirit of God," used of the Hebrew, are not applied to the Tyrian workman] to work all works in brass. And he came to king Solomon [probably with a considerable number of assistants], and wrought all his work.
1Ki_7:15
For he cast two pillars of brass [The process of casting, as practised by the ancients, receives considerable illustration from the paintings of Thebes], of eighteen cubits high apiece [Heb. eighteen cubits was the height of the one column. This was the height of the shaft (cf. 2Ki_25:17; Jer_52:21). To this must be added the capital (verses 16, 19), which measured five (or, according to some, nine) cubits, and probably the pedestal. The pillars were hollow, the metal being four finger breadths thick (Jer_52:21). In 2Ch_3:15 the height is given as thirty-five cubits—a discrepancy which has been variously explained. According to some writers (e.g; Abravanel, Movers, Wordsworth), this represents the total length of the two pillars (each pillar consequently being 17.5 cubits)—an idea which, perhaps, finds some slight support in the word employed àøÆêÀ length. Here it is ÷åÉîÈä height. By others it has been supposed that the total height of base, column, and capital was thirty-five cubits, which, if not incredible, is very improbable. Others think it a part of that systematic reduplication of the heights of edifices by the chronicler, of which we have already had an instance in 2Ch_6:1-42. (where see note). But the true explanation would seem to be that, by a clerical error, thirty-five ( ìä ) has been substituted in the text for eighteen ( éç ). So Keil and Bähr]: and a line [or thread] of twelve cubits did compass either of them [Heb. the second column] about. [It must not be supposed, from the fact that the height of the one column is given, and the circumference of the other, that they were dissimilar in height and breadth or girth. There has probably been an accidental abbreviation of the full expression, "Eighteen cubits was the height of the one pillar, and eighteen cubits was the height of the other pillar; and a line of twelve cubits compassed the one pillar, and a line of twelve cubits compassed the other pillar." It is just possible, however, that the peculiarity results from the actual system of measurement employed in this case. As they were castings, it would be needless to measure both pillars, and so the length may have been ascertained from the first, and the breadth from the second. The columns would thus be about twenty-seven feet high, and about six feet in diameter.]
1Ki_7:16
And he made two chapiters [or capitals] of molten [Heb. poured] brass, to put upon the tops [Heb. heads] of the pillars: the height of the one chapiter was five cubits, and the height of the other chapiter was five cubits [In 2Ki_25:17 the height is given as three cubits; but this is obviously a clerical error. See 2Ch_3:15; Jer_52:22. A much more important question is whether the chapiter ( ëÉúÆøÆú same word, akin to ëÆúÆø , crown) of four cubits mentioned in Jer_52:19 is to be understood as a part of this chapiter, or something additional and superposed, the entablature, e.g. The former appears the more probable. See note on Jer_52:19. But it is not a fatal objection to the latter view that it would make the entire chapiter, or both members, nine cubits high; no less, that is, than one-half the length of the shaft. No doubt to modern ideas this appears wholly disproportionate; but a double chapiter, bearing the same proportion to the shaft, is found in some of the buildings of Persepolis. From the expression of verses 41, 42, "the bowls of the chapiters" (cf. 2Ch_4:12, 2Ch_4:13; Jer_52:23), and the word "belly" ( áÆÌèÆï ) in Jer_52:20, we gather that the chapiters were bowl shaped, or bellied out something like the so called "cushion capital" in Norman architecture.
1Ki_7:17
And nets [Gesen; lattice; Keil, plait. "It seems almost in vain to try and speculate on what was the exact form of the decoration of these celebrated pillars. The nets of checker work, and wreaths of chain work, etc; are all features applicable to metal architecture; and though we know that the old Tartar races did use metal architecture everywhere, and especially in bronze, from the very nature of the material, every specimen has perished, and we have now no representations from which we can restore them" (Fergusson, Dict. Bib. l.c.)] of checker work [the Hebrew repeats the word: nets of network, or plaits of work of plait], and wreaths [or cords, twisted work, i.e; festoons] of chain work [the wreathed or twisted festoon probably resembled a chain], for [or, to, i.e; were on] the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars; seven for the one chapiter, and seven for the other chapiter [The LXX. having hero δίκτυον , it is clear that the text they had read ùáëä "a net," and not ùáòä "seven." Some, accordingly, would read, "a net for the one chapiter, and a net," etc. But there is no sufficient reason for the change. "This decoration consisted of seven twists arranged as festoons, which were hung round the capitals of the pillars" (Keil). The comparison with "chain work" was probably suggestd by the fact that the intertwined threads, which crossed and recrossed each other, bore a rough resemblance to the links of a chain.
1Ki_7:18
And he made the pillars [There is evidently a confusion of the text here. Probably we should read, with some MSS. äøîðéí , the pomegranates (so LXX.), instead of äòîåãéí , or rather, we should transpose the two words, reading pomegranates where the Masoretic text has pillars, and vice versa. "The pomegranate was one of the commonest ornaments of Assyria.… It is doubtful whether a symbolical meaning was attached to it, or whether it was merely selected as a beautiful natural form" (Rawlinson). Wordsworth characteristically sees in its many ripe seeds, "an expressive emblem of fruitfulness in good works." According to Bähr, it is an image of the law or covenant of Jehovah, and the seeds represent the separate commands. In the tabernacle it was pourtrayed in works of divers colours on the hem of the robe of the ephod (Exo_28:33, Exo_28:34; Exo_39:24). All the Scripture notices of this fruit prove its great abundance in Palestine (Num_13:23; Jos_15:32; Jos_21:25 ;—in the two last passages it appears as the name of a town—Son_4:3, Son_4:13; Son_8:2; Joe_1:12; Hag_2:9, etc.) It was also well known to the Egyptians (Num_20:5)], and [or even] two rows round about upon the one network ["The relation between the two rows of pomegranates and the plaited work is not clearly defined, but it is generally and correctly assumed that one row ran round the pillars below the plaited work and the other above" (Keil). The pomegranates, one hundred in number in each row (2Ch_3:16), four hundred in all (2Ch_4:13; Jer_52:23), would thus form a double border to the chain work], to cover the chapiters that were upon the top, with pomegranates [rather, on the top of the pillars, as the transposition mentioned above and the sense require]; and so did he for the other chapiter.
1Ki_7:19
And the chapiters that were upon the top of the pillars [It is difficult to believe that these words, which are identical with those in 1Ki_7:16, 1Ki_7:17,1Ki_7:18, can refer to a different—a second and superposed capital (Rawlinson), or to the entablature (Fergusson)] were of lily work [i.e; bassirelievi in imitation of flowering lilies. Probably the bowl-shaped chapiter was treated as a fullblown lily, just as the capitals of Egyptian pillars took the form of the lotus. The molten sea was similarly treated (1Ki_7:26). The lily ( ùÑåÌùÇÑï ), from ùÑåÌùÑ ), to be white), was undoubtedly an emblem of purity. Bähr observes that it may justly be named "the flower of the promised land," and that as the lotus was the religious flower of the Indian and Egyptian religions, so was the lily of the Jewish] in the porch [These words, áÈÌàåÌìÈí , are very obscure. Keil understands" as in the hall" (cf. κατὰ τὸ αὐλὰμ , LXX.) But that idea would have been expressed by ëÈàåÌìÈí , and nothing is said elsewhere about any lily work in the porch (Bähr). Ewald, too, thinks the decoration of the porch is referred to, and holds that a description of this lily work must once have preceded this statement, though it is now wanting. Thenius, al. suppose them to refer to the position of the pillars within the porch, and the "four cubits" mentioned presently, they take to indicate the diameter of the capitals. Wordsworth would render "inside or toward the porch," and understands that the lily work was only on the inside of the pillars. It is, perhaps, impossible to arrive at any certain conclusion], four cubits. [This may either mean that of five cubits (which was the height of the entire capital), four, and these the upper four (1Ki_7:22), were covered with lily work, while one cubit at the bottom of the capital was ornamented with chain-work or festeons—we can hardly believe that nets, chains, and lily work were all combined in the same space, or it may refer to the position of the pillars in the portico.]
1Ki_7:20
And the chapiters upon the two pillars had pomegranates [Instead of the italics, Keil would supply Hiram made, but it is doubtful whether this is any improvement. We have already heard more than once that he made the chapiters. It is better to supply projected or were, as in the preceding verse. This verse is extremely obscure; but its design appears to be to explain how the bowl of the chapiter projected above its base] also above [i.e; above the neck, or lowest cubit, on which was the net and chain work], over against [ îÄìÀÌòËîÇÌú with two prefixes is a rare form] the belly [or "bowl" (1Ki_7:41)] which was by [Heb. beyond, on the other side of, i.e; as it appeared to a spectator standing below] the network: and the pomegranates were two hundred in rows [This agrees with the total of four hundred, as given in verse 42, and in 2 Chronicles, and with the "hundred round about" (i.e; the number in each row) mentioned in Jer_52:23. We gather from this latter passage that ninety-six out of the hundred faced the four quarters, for this is apparently the meaning of øåÌçÈä , windwards; see Eze_42:16-18, not that the pomegranates could be "set in motion by the play of the wind," as Ewald confidently affirms. The remaining four pomegranates, of course, occupied the four corners. The necessary inference from this statement, viz; that this part of the capital was foursquare, seems to have escaped the notice of the commentators] round about upon the other chapiter. [Some words have evidently dropped out of the Hebrew here, as in Eze_42:15. The text, no doubt, originally stood "two hundred in rows round about the one chapiter, and two hundred in rows round about upon the other chapiter." There has been no intentional compression that is not the genius of the Semitic languages—but an accidental omission, occasioned by the recurrence of almost identical words.
1Ki_7:21
And he set up the pillars in the porch [We are now confronted by the much vexed questions,
(1) What was the position, and
(2) what the purpose, of these two columns?
Were they in the porch, or before it? And were they architectural or monumental? Did they support the roof of the porch, or were they isolated and detached, after the manner of obelisks? I incline to the opinion of Bähr, that they stood in the porch, but that they formed no part of the building, i.e; that they were not for any structural use, but simply for ornament. This appears to me, on the whole, to result from the following considerations:
(1) The language used favours a position within the porch. We have here ìÀàËìÈí (="at or in the porch," perhaps for the porch, as Bähr), and in 1Ki_7:19 (where see note) áÈÌàåÌìÈí . And with this agree the expression of the Chronicles "before ( ìÄôÀâÅé ) the house," and "before ( òÇìÎôÀÌðÅé ) the temple" (2Ch_3:15, 2Ch_3:17). The pillars would, however, be "before the temple," whether they stood within or in front of the porch, and it may be safely allowed that the language of the historian is not decisive one way or the other. The prepositions of the text, however, seem to lend some support to Bähr's view.
(2) We know that the Phoenicians used isolated metal columns as sacred ornaments, so that Hiram would be familiar with such a mode of ornamentation" (Rawlinson). "Whenever in coins or histories we get a representation of a Phoenician temple, it always has a pillar or pillars standing within or before it" (Stanley).
(3) It is extremely doubtful whether these columns, twenty-three feet in height, were adapted to serve as supports to the roof of the porch. The height of the latter has been variously estimated at twenty, thirty, and sixty cubits, and whichever estimate is preferred, the columns would appear to be of an unsuitable altitude. Fergusson says they were "appropriate to support the roof of the porch," but then he conceives the columns to be in all twenty-seven cubits high (see on 1Ki_7:19), and allows the remaining three cubits for the slope of the roof). But, as we cannot be certain either of the height of the porch or of the column, this is an argument of which very little can be made.
(4) If the pillars were part of the building, they would almost certainly have been of the same material, i.e; wood or stone. Their metallic composition is certainly an argument for their monumental character. It can hardly be alleged in favour of this view, however, that they are mentioned amongst the vessels or articles of furniture, for the historian might fittingly describe the pillars here, as being the principal of the "works in brass" which Hiram wrought, even if they did form the supports of the roof of the porch. Nor are we justified, considering the extreme brevity and the partial character of the description of the temple, in affirming that they would have been mentioned in connexion with the building, had they formed part of the edifice.
(5) The remark of Stieglitz (cited by Bähr) that "it was their separate position alone which gave these pillars the impressive aspect they were designed to wear," lends some little support to this view. So also does
(6) The fact that these columns and these alone, received special names. "No architectural portion of the building received a name" (Keil). But this argument, again, is not too unduly pressed, for to some it may seem that the names they bore would have a special propriety and an enhanced significance, if the columns contributed to the strength and stability of the edifice. The question, therefore, is one of considerable complexity, the more so, as it is maintained that it would be almost impossible to construct a roof thirty feet in width without some such pillars to support the beam (Fergusson); but the balance of evidence appears to favour the view that Jachin and Boaz were monuments erected in the porch, to dignify the sanctuary, and to symbolize the power and eternity of the Being to whom it was dedicated]: and he set up the right pillar, and called the name thereof Jachin [i.e; he shall establish, as marg. The name expressed the belief that God would preserve and protect the new lane. It is true that a Jachin is mentioned (1Ch_9:10; 1Ch_24:17), as head of the 21st course of priests in the reign of David, while a Boaz was one of Solomon's ancestors, but the columns could hardly be named after them, or an private persons. Ewald suggests that they were named after "some favourites of the time, perhaps young sons of Solon on." The idea of Thenius that these names were engraved upon the pillars is not wholly improbable, though of course it finds no support in the text] and he set up the left pillar [the left as one faced them from the house. The right hand is identified with the south in 1Ki_7:39], and called the name thereof Boaz. [Marg. in it is strength. Probably "in Him, i.e; God, is its strength" (cf. Isa_45:24). The thought of Jachin, "He will establish," is thus continued; and the two pillars pointed alike to the God of Israel as the true support and upholder of His sanctuary. The LXX. interpretation of these two names, Κατόρθωσις and Ἰσχός (2Ch_3:17), success and strength, though very far from literal, preserves their fundamental ideas.
1Ki_7:22
And upon the top of the pillars was lily work [a repetition, in the Hebrew manner, of 1Ki_7:19. The "lily work," which probably involved two things,
(1) that the capital had a rude resemblance to a "full blown lily cup" (Bähr), and
(2) that representations of the leaf of the lily ere pourtrayed upon it, was a not unfitting finial to the column, as it formed a sort of crown or chaplet upon it. The two pillars would thus resemble two giant plants, the column answering to the stalk, the capital to the flower. The ideas of architecture, it is well known, have very frequently been derived from the vegetable kingdom.
1Ki_7:23
The writer now passes on to describe the brazen vessels made by Hiram for the temple use. And he made a [Heb. the] molten sea [so called on account of its unprecedented size and capacity. It was designed, like the laver of brass in the tabernacle (Exo_30:18-20), to contain the water necessary for the ablutions of the priests. For its size and shape see below], ten cubits from the one brim to the other [Heb. from his lip to his lip] round all about [i.e; circular], and his height was five cubits [this was the depth of the vessel, exclusive of its foot or base]: and a line of thirty cubits did compass It round about. [The historian obviously uses round numbers when he speaks of the diameter as ten and the circumference as thirty cubits. If the diameter was exactly ten, the circumference would of course be about 31.5 cubits. But the sacred writers seldom aim at precision.
1Ki_7:24
And under the brim of it round about [The edge of the laver was curved outwards (1Ki_7:26)] there were knops [see note on 1Ki_6:18. The text of 2Ch_4:3, á÷øéí ("the similitude of oxen"), is obviously a clerical error for ô÷òéí (Keil), hut whether ãîåú is an interpolation may well be doubted. Keil thinks it was introduced to explain the mention of oxen] compassing [Heb. surrounding, some word] it, ten in a cubit [It does not follow from this that each gourd or knop was "a little over two inches in diameter " (Keil), for they may not have been in close contact, and, moreover the cubit was probably 18 inches], compassing the sea round about : the ]mops were cast in two rows, when it was cast. [Lit; two rows; the knops were cast in its casting. The "brass," of which the laver was composed, had been taken by David from the cities of Hadarezer (1Ch_18:8; 1Sa_8:8, LXX.)]
1Ki_7:25
It stood [Heb. standing] upon twelve oxen [The import of the number twelve is well explained by. Bähr, Symbolik, 1:201 sqq. Like seven, it is compounded out of three and four. But the primary reference here is to the twelve tribes], three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east [So the tribes in the camp formed a square round the tabernacle, three on each side—east, south, west, and north (Num_2:1-34.)]: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward. [.The same regard of the cardinal points has been noticed in the pomegranates on the capitals of the two columns. See note on verse 20. Keil says the feet of the oxen no doubt rested on a metal plate, so that they were fixed and immoveable; but this lacks proof. The oxen would be immovable in any case, owing to the weight of the metal and the water. All conjectures as to the height and size of the oxen are necessarily of little value.
1Ki_7:26
And it was a handbreadth thick [i.e; three inches], and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup [Heb. and his lip like the work of the lip of a cup, i.e; curved outwards], with flowers of lilies [lit; "a blossom of lily." Keil understands "ornamented with lily flowers," but the strict interpretation the "lily blossom" being in apposition to "cup"—requires us to refer the words to the shape rather than to the ornamentation of the laver. The lip was curved like a lily]: it contained two thousand [In Chronicles and by Josephus the number is given as 3000. This may have resulted, as Keil thinks, from confounding â and á but it is suspicious that so many of the numbers of the Chronicles are exaggerations. The common explanation of the discrepancy, viz; that it held 2000 baths "when filled to its ordinary height, but when filled to the brim 3000" (Wordsworth), appears to me hardly ingenuous] baths. ["The data for determining the value of the bath or ephah are both scanty and conflicting". Josephus, the only authority on the subject, says that it equalled the Attic metretes (about 8.5 gals.), but it is very doubtful whether he was "really familiar with the Greek measures" (ib.) At any rate, if this statement is correct, his other statement as to the shape of the laver must be altogether erroneous, since 2000 baths would equal 17,000 gals; and a hemispherical laver could not possibly have contained more than 10,000. The attempt has been made, on the assumption that the sea was a hemisphere, as Josephus affirms, to calculate from its capacity the value of the bath, which in that case would be about four gallons. But there is good reason for doubting whether the laver was hemispherical—such a shape would be ill adapted to its position on the backs of oxen—and some have maintained that it was cylindrical, others that, like the laver of the tabernacle, it had a foot (Exo_30:18) or basin. The prevailing opinion of scholars, however, appears to be that it was 30 cubits in circumference only at the lip, and that it bellied out considerably below. While the shape, however, must remain a matter of uncertainty, we are left in no doubt as to its purpose. It was "for the priests to wash in" (2Ch_4:6)—not, of course, for immersing their whole persons, but their hands and feet (Exo_30:19, Exo_30:21). The priests (after Exo_3:5; Jos_5:15, etc.) ministered barefoot. It was, according to Rabbinical tradition, provided with taps or faucets (Bähr). It has, however, been held by some that the water issued forth (as in the Alhambra) from the lions' mouths. It is probable that a basin of some sort was attached to it. Whether the laver was filled by the hand or by some special contrivance, it is quite impossible to say. We know that provision was made for storing water hard by. The present writer was privileged in 1861 to explore the great reservoir, the Bähr el Khebir, still existing underneath the Haram area, at a time when very few Europeans had seen it. The water was probably brought from Solomon's pools at Bethlehem, though "a fountain of water exists in the city and is running unto this day, far below the surface". Tacitus mentions the fens perennis aquae and the piscinae cisternaeque servandis imbribus.
1Ki_7:27
And he made ten bases [or stands, îÀëåÉðåÉú , from ëåÌï , erectus stetit. The description of both the bases and the layers which they supported (1Ki_7:27-39) is extremely obscure. We know, however, that the bases (as the name implies) were simply stands or pediments for the lavers] of brass; four cubits was the length of one base and four cubits the breadth thereof; and three cubits the height of it [they were rectangular, or box shaped, six feet square and four and a half feet high.
1Ki_7:28
And the work of the bases was on this manner [Heb. and this the work of the base]: they had borders [ îÄñÀâÀÌøÉú (from ñÈâÇø , clausit) means strictly enclosings, i.e; sides, forming the stand. They were panels, because of the borders or ledges [mentioned presently, but this was the accident of their construction. The translation "border" gives a totally wrong impression], and the borders were between the ledges [Heb. the sides were between the borders, i.e; were enclosed by ledges or frames.
1Ki_7:29
And on the borders [panels] that were between the ledges were lions [i.e; figures or bas-reliefs of lions], oxen, and cherubims ["The lion and the ox are the two animal forms which occur most frequently in Assyrian decoration" (Rawlinson). They have also found a place through the cherubim, in the symbolism of Christianity]: and upon the ledges there was a base above [i.e; there was a pedestal or stand ( ëÅï ; see 1Ki_7:31) of some sort for the laver upon the square basis]: and beneath the lions and oxen were certain additions [Heb. wreaths, festoons, ìÄåÀéÈä . (cf. Pro_1:9), corona] made of thin work. [Heb. pensile or hanging work, îåÉøÈã from éÈøÇã descendit; Vulgate, dependentia. It would seem that on the panel, beneath the figures of animals, etc; were sculptured hanging festoons of flowers.
1Ki_7:30
And every base had four brazen wheels [As the lavers were used for washing "such things as they offered for burnt offering" (2Ch_4:6), and consequently would require to be continually emptied and refilled, they must of necessity be moveable, so that they could be taken, now to the sea, or other reservoir, now to the altar], and plates [Heb. axles] of brass: and the four corners [Heb. feet; ôÇÌòÇí signifies step, thence foot, and is here used of artificial feet. These were, no doubt, at the four corners, and served to raise the stand above the wheels, so that the foliage, etc; was not hidden] thereof had undersetters [Heb. shoulders. "The bearings of the axle" (Gesen.) must be meant. The bases had four feet, which apparently terminated in a sort of socket or fork, into which the axletrees were inserted]: under the laver were under setters [Heb. the shoulders] molten [or cast], at the side of every addition. [Lit; opposite to a man (i.e; each) were wreaths. The explanation of Keil is that "from the feet; there ascended shoulder pieces, which ran along the outside of the chest and reached to the lower part of the basin, which was upon the lid of the chest, and, as shoulders, either supported or helped to support it." He thus understands the "shoulder" to extend from the foot, or axletree, to the bottom of the laver. But it seems quite as likely that these shoulders were within the stand; that they started from its upper corners, i.e; "from under the laver" (as in the Hebrew), passed down along its inner angles, and emerged below—the stand may well have had no bottom—in the shape of feet or forks, which rested on the axletrees, and supported both stand and ]aver. Over against this internal shoulder blade or support was placed externally a wreath. But Bähr despairs of arriving at any just and adequate understanding of this arrangement, and, in the absence of drawings, it is perhaps hopeless that we shall ever interpret the words with certainty.]
1Ki_7:31
And the mouth of it [Heb. his mouth. I incline, with Keil, to think the mouth of the laver just mentioned ( ëÄéÉø masc.) is referred to rather than the stand (Thenius), which would require a fern. suffix] within the chapiter [By this we are, perhaps, to understand a round ornament, resembling the capital of a pillar, which stood in the centre of the dome-shaped covering (see verse 35) of the stand, and on which the laver rested (so Keil, Bähr). Rawlinson says, "No commentator has given a satisfactory explanation of this passage "]: and above [Heb. upwards] was a cubit [i.e; the neck or foot of the laver measured uniformly one cubit, in width apparently]: but the mouth [Heb. and her mouth, fern. This last mentioned mouth is probably the mouth of the capital (fern.) The neck or mouth of the laver would appear to have been fitted into the mouth of the crown-shaped pedestal] was round after the work of the base [Heb. stand work, ëÅï here fixes the meaning of the word in verse 29, i.e; it decides it to be the substantive (Keil, after Chald.), not the adverb (as Thenius, Bähr, al.