a real manner to His people, and shows Himself to them as the covenant God, so that Israel may there worship Him and receive an answer to its prayers. The temple had therefore the same purpose as the tabernacle, whose place it took, and which it resembled in its fundamental form, its proportions, divisions, and furniture. As the glory of the Lord entered into the tabernacle in the cloud, so did it into the temple also at its dedication, to sanctify it as the place of the gracious presence of God (ch. viii.
the ancient temple area. They are probably to be referred to a period long antecedent to the days of Herod; for the labours of this splendour-loving tyrant appear to have been confined to the body of the temple and the porticos around the court. The magnitude of the stones also, and the workmanship, as compared with other remaining monuments of Herod, seem to point to an earlier origin. In the accounts we have of the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans, and its rebuilding by Zerubbabel under Darius, no mention is made of these exterior walls. The former temple was destroyed by fire, which would not affect these foundations; nor is it probable that a feeble colony of returning exiles could have accomplished works like these. There seems, therefore, little room for hesitation in referring them back to the days of Solomon, or rather of his successors, who, according to Josephus, built up here immense walls, ' immoveable for all time.' "
But however probable this assumption may be, the successors of Solomon cannot come into consideration at all, since Josephus says nothing of the kind, and the biblical accounts are not favourable to this conjecture. With the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon the might of the kings of Judah was broken; and the accounts of the new court which Jehoshaphat built, i.e. of the restoration of the inner court (2 Chron. xx. 5), and of the repairs of the temple by Joash (2 Kings xii. 5 sqq.; 2 Chron. xxiv. 4 sqq.) and Josiah (2 Kings xxii. 5 sqq.; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 8 sqq.), do not produce the impression that walls so costly or so large could have been built at that time. The statement of Josephus (I.e. de Bell. Jud. v. 5, 1) concerning the gradual extension of the levelled hill, has reference to the enlargement of the temple area towards the north, inasmuch as he adds to the words already quoted: 14 and cutting through the north wall, they took in as much as was afterwards occupied by the circumference of the whole temple." — If, therefore, the remains of the ancient wall which have been mentioned, with their stones of grooved edges, are of early Israelitish origin, we must trace them to Solomon; and this is favoured still further by the fact, that when Solomon had a magnificent palace built for himself opposite to the temple (see ch. vii. 1-12), he would assuredly connect the temple-mountain with Zion by a bridge. — Even J. Berggren (Bibel u. Josephus uber Jerus. u. d. hell. Grab.) thinks it probable that " the so-called remains of an arch in the western Haram wall may be, as Robinson at first indicated, a relic of that ancient and marvellous xystus bridge, with which the Davidic steps on the two steep sides of the valley of the Tyropceum, constructed for the purpose of going from Moriah to Zion or from Zion to Moriah, were connected."
10; 2 Chron. v. 14). The temple thereby became not only a visible pledge of the lasting duration of the covenant, by virtue of which God would dwell among His people, but also a copy of the kingdom of God, which received at its erection an embodiment answering to its existing condition at the time. As the tabernacle, with its resemblance to a nomad's tent, answered to the time when Israel had not yet found rest in the promised land of the Lord; so was the temple, regarded as an immoveable house, a pledge that Israel had now acquired its lasting inheritance in Canaan, and that the kingdom of God on earth had obtained a firm foundation in the midst of it. — This relation between the temple and the tabernacle will serve to explain all the points of difference which present themselves between these two sanctuaries, notwithstanding their agreement in fundamental forms and in all essential particulars. As a house or palace of Jehovah, the temple was not only built of solid and costly materials, with massive walls of square stones, and with floors, ceilings, walls, and doors of cedar, cypress, and olive woods — these almost imperishable kinds of wood — but was also provided with a hall like the palaces of earthly kings, and with side buildings in three stories in which to keep the utensils requisite for a magnificent ceremonial, though care was taken that these adjoining and side buildings were not attached directly to the main building so as to violate the indestructibility and perfectness of the house of God, but merely helped to exalt it and elevate its dignity. And the increased size of the inner rooms, whilst the significant forms and measures of the tabernacle were preserved, was also essentially connected with this. Whereas the length and breadth of the dwelling were doubled, and the height of the whole house tripled, the form of a cube was still retained for the Most Holy Place as the stamp of the perfected kingdom of God (see Comm. on Pent. vol. ii. p. 184), and the space was fixed at twenty cubits in length, breadth, and height. On the other hand, in the case of the Holy Place the sameness of height and breadth were sacrificed to the harmonious proportions of the house or palace, as points of inferior importance; and the measurements were thirty cubits in height, twenty cubits in breadth, and forty cubits in length; so that ten as the number of perfectness was preserved as the standard even here. And in order to exhibit still further the perfectness and glory of the house of God, the walls were not constructed of ordinary quarry- stone, but of large square stones prepared at the quarry, and the walls were panelled within with costly wood after the manner of the palaces of Hither Asia, the panelling being filled with carved work and overlaid with gold plate. And whereas the overlaying of the whole of the interior with gold shadowed forth the glory of the house as the residence of the heavenly King, the idea of this house of God was still more distinctly expressed in the carved work of the walls. In the tabernacle the walls were decorated with tapestries in costly colours and interwoven figures of cherubim; but in the temple they were ornamented with carved work of figures of cherubim, palms, and opening flowers. To the figures of cherubim, as representations of the heavenly spirits which surround the Lord of glory and set forth the psychical life at its highest stage, there are thus added flowers, and still more particularly palms, those " princes of the vegetable kingdom," which, with their fine majestic growth, and their large, fresh, evergreen leaves, unite within themselves the whole of the fulness and glory of the vegetable life; to set forth the sanctuary (probably with special reference to Canaan as the land of palms, and with an allusion to the glory of the King of peace, inasmuch as the palm is not only the sign of Palestine, but also the symbol of peace) " as a place that was ever verdant, abiding in all the freshness of strength, and enfolding within itself the fulness of life," and thereby to make it a scene of health and life, of peace and joy, a " paradise of God," where the righteous who are planted there flourish, and blossom, and bear fruit to old age (Ps. xcii. 13). And this idea of the house, as an immoveable dwellingplace of God, is in perfect harmony with the setting up of two colossal cherubim in the Most Holy Place, which filled the whole space with their outspread wings, and overshadowed the ark of the covenant, to show that the ark of the covenant with its small golden cherubim upon the Capporeth, which had journeyed with the people through the desert to Canaan, was henceforth to have there a permanent and unchangeable abode.
Vers. 1—12. Erection of the royal palace. — Ver. 1 is closely connected in form with ch. vi. 38, and contains a summary account of the building, which is more minutely described in vers. 2-12. " And Solomon built his house (his palace) in thirteen years, and finished (in that time) all his house." The thirteen years are to be reckoned after the completion of the temple in seven years, so that the two buildings were executed in twenty years (ch. ix. 10). The expression frl*a"73 is used, because the palace consisted of several buildings connected together; namely, (1) the house of the forest of Lebanon (vers. 2-5); (2) the pillar-hall with the porch (ver. 6); (3) the throneroom and judgment-hall (ver. 7); (4) the king's dwelling-house and the house of Pharaoh's daughter (ver. 8). That all these buildings were only different portions of the one royal palace, and the house of the forest of Lebanon was not a summer residence of Solomon erected on Lebanon itself, as many of the earlier commentators supposed, is indisputably evident, not only from the first verse when correctly interpreted, but also and still more clearly from the fact that when the buildings of Solomon are spoken of afterwards (see ch. ix. 1, 10, 15, and x. 12), we only read of the house of Jehovah and the house of the king, that is to say, of the temple and one palace. The description of the several portions of this palace is so very brief, that it is impossible to form a distinct idea of its character. The different divisions are given in vers. 1-8 in their natural order, commencing at the back and terminating with the front (ver. 8), and there then follows in vers. 9-12 the description of the stones that were used. — Vers. 2- 5. Tlie house of the forest of Lebanon. — This building — so named because it was built, so to speak, of a forest of cedar pillars — is called in the Arabic the (C house of his arms," because, according to ch. x. 17, it also served as a keeping-place for arms: " it is hardly to be regarded, however, as simply an arsenal, but was probably intended for other purposes also. He built it "a hundred cubits its length, fifty cubits its breadth, and thirty cubits its height, on four rows of cedar pillars, and hewn cedar beams (were) over the pillars." As the building was not merely a hall of pillars, but, according to ver. 3, had siderooms (pv^, cf. ch. vi. 5) above the pillars, the construction of it can hardly be represented in any other way than this, that the rooms were built upon four rows of pillars, which ran round all four sides of the building, which was 100 cubits long and fifty cubits broad in the inside, and thus surrounded the inner courtyard on all sides. Of course the building could not rest merely upon pillars, but was surrounded on the outside with a strong wall of hewn square stones (ver. 9), so that the hewn beams which were laid upon the pillars had their outer ends built into the wall, and were supported by it, so as to give to the whole building the requisite strength.1 — Ver. 3. " And roofing in (of) cedar was above over the side-rooms upon the pillars, five and forty; fifteen the row." |3D is to be understood of the roofing, as in ch. vi 15. (compare IQp, ch. vi. 15). The numbers "forty-five and fifteen the row " cannot refer to B^RByn, but must refer, as Thenius assumes, to ftJWfn as the main idea, which is more precisely defined by D'nrayn by. If we took it as referring to the pillars, as I myself have formerly done, we should have to assume that there were only galleries or pillar-halls above the lower rows of pillars, which is at variance with n'yjxn. There were forty-five side-rooms, therefore, built upon the lower rows of pillars, in ranges of fifteen each. This could only be done by the ranges of rooms being built, not side by side, but one over the other, in other words, by the forty-five side-rooms forming three stories, as in the side buildings of the temple, so that each
1 Thenius therefore supposes that " the lower part of the armoury formed a peristyle, a, fourfold row of pillars running round inside its walls and enclosing a courtyard, so that the Vulgate alone gives the true sense, quatuor deambulacra inter columnas cedrinas; " and he points to the court of the palace of Luxor, which has a double row of pillars round it. The number of pillars is not given in the text, but Thenius in his drawing of this building sets it down at 400, which would certainly present a forest-like aspect to any one entering the building. Nevertheless we cannot regard this assumption as correct, because the pillars, which we cannot suppose to have been less than a cubit in thickness, would have been so close to one another that the four rows of pillars could not have formed four deambulacra. As the whole building was only fifty cubits broad, and this breadth included the inner courtyard, we cannot suppose that the sides of the building were more than ten cubits deep, which would leave a breadth of thirty cubits for the court. If then four pillars, each of a cubit in thickness, stood side by side or one behind the other in a space of ten cubits in depth, the distance between the pillars would be only a cubit and a half, that is to say, would be only just enough for one man and no more to walk conveniently through. And what could have been the object of crowding pillars together in this way, so as to render the entire space almost useless? It is on this ground, probably, that Hermann Weiss assumes that each side of the oblong building, which was half as broad as it was long, was supported by one row, and therefore all the sides together by four rows of cedar pillars, and the beams of the same material which rested upon them. But this view is hardly a correct one; for it not only does not do justice to the words of the text, " four rows of pillars," but it is insufficient in itself, for the simple reason that one row of pillars on each side would not have afforded the requisite strength and stability to the three stories built upon them, even story had a " row" of fifteen side-rooms round it. This view receives support from ver. 4: " and beam-layers (Ds?p^, beams, as in ch. vi. 4) were three rows, and outlook against outlook three times; " i.e. the rows of side-rooms were built one over the other by means of layers of beams, so that the rooms had windows opposite to one another three times; that is to say, the windows looking out upon the court were so arranged in the three stories that those on the one side were vis a vis to those on the opposite side of the building. The expression in ver. 5, njno"7N PITTO ^io, " window over against window," compels us to take n?nD"?R in the sense of " opposite to the window" (?K, versus), and not, as Thenius proposes, " outlook against outlook," according to which?K is supposed to indicate that the windows were only separated from one another by slender piers. nJH?, which only occurs here, is different from |i?n, the ordinary window, and probably denotes a large opening affording a wide outlook. — Ver. 5. "And all the doorways and mouldings were square of beams" (^P*^ is an accusative of free subordination, denoting the material or the mode of execution; cf. Ewald, § 284, a, ft). "Square with a if we should not suppose the rooms in these stories to be very broad, since the further three rows of pillars, which "Weiss assumes in addition, according to ver. 3, as the actual supporters of the upper building, have no foundation in the text. The words "four rows of cedar pillars " do not absolutely require the assumption that there were four rows side by side or one behind the other on every side of the building; for the assertion that"^o does not denote a row in the sense of a straight line, but generally signifies a row surrounding and enclosing a space, is refuted by Ex. xxviii. 17, where we read of the four D'HID of precious stones upon the breastplate of the high priest. — Is it not likely that the truth lies midway between these two views, and that the following is the view most in accordance with the actual fact, namely, that there were four rows of pillars running along the full length of the building, but that they were distributed on the two sides, so that there were only two rows on each side? In this case a person entering from the front would sec four rows of pillars running the whole length of the building. In any case the rows of pillars would of necessity be broken in front by the entrance itself.
The utter uncertainty as to the number and position of the four rows of pillars is sufficient in itself to render it quite impossible to draw any plan of the building that could in the slightest degree answer to the reality. Moreover, there is no allusion at all in the description given in the text to either entrance or exit, or to staircases and other things, and the other buildings are still more scantily described, so that nothing certain can be determined with regard to their relative position or their probable connection with one another. For this reason, after studying the matter again and again, I have been obliged to relinquish the intention to illustrate the description in the text by drawings.
straight upper beam" (Thenius) cannot be the correct rendering of *)j5^ D%PT|. Thenius proposes to read nfntsni for nhTrsn^ after the reading aiykpai of the Seventy, who have also rendered HNTB in ver. 4 by x^Pa> a hroad space. It may be pleaded in support of this, that OW"! is less applicable to the doorposts or mouldings than to the doorways and outlooks (windows), inasmuch as, if the doorways were square, the square form of the moulding or framework would follow as a matter of course. D^nnan are both the doors, through which the different rooms were connected with one another, and also those through which the building and its stories were reached, of course by stairs, probably winding staircases, as in the side stories of the temple. The stairs were placed, no doubt, at the front of the building. The height given is thirty cubits, corresponding to that of the whole building (ver. 2). If we reckon the height of the lower pillars at eight cubits, there were twenty-two cubits left for the stories; and assuming that the roofing of each was one cubit in thickness, there remained eighteen cubits in all for the rooms of the three stories; and this, if equally distributed, would give an internal height of six cubits for each story, or if arranged on a graduated scale, which would probably be more appropriate, a height of seven, six, and five cubits respectively.
Vers. 6-8. The other "buildings. — Ver. 6. "And he made the pillar-hatt; fifty cubits its length, and thirty cubits its breadth, and a hall in front of them, and pillars and a threshold in front of them." With regard to the situation of this hall in relation to the other parts of the building, which is not precisely defined, we may infer, from the fact that it is mentioned between the house of the forest of Lebanon and the throne and judgment halls, that it stood between these two. The length of this building (fifty cubits) corresponds to the breadth of the house of the forest of Lebanon; so that, according to the analogy of the templehall (ch. vi. 3), we might picture to ourselves the length given here as running parallel to the breadth of the house of the forest of Lebanon, and might therefore assume that the pillar-hall was fifty cubits broad and thirty cubits deep. But the statement that there was a hall in front of the pillar-hall is irreconcilable with this assumption. We must therefore understand the length in the natural way, as signifying the measurement from back to front, and regard the pillar-hall as a portico fifty cubits long and thirty cubits broad, in front of which there was also a porch as an entrance. Dn*3S"?y, in front of them, i.e. in front of the pillars which formed this portico. The last words, " and pillars and threshold in front of them," refer to the porch. This had also pillars, probably on both sides of the doorway, which carried the roof; and in front of them was 2V, i.e., according to the Chaldee NnspD, the moulding or framework of the threshold, a threshold-like entrance, with steps. — Ver. 7. "And the throne-hall, where he judged, the judgment-hall, he made and (indeed) covered with cedar, from floor to floor." The throne-hall and the judgment-hall are therefore one and the same hall, which was both a court of judgment and an audience-chamber, and in which, no doubt, there stood the splendid throne described in ch. x. 18-20. But it is distinguished from the pillar-hall by the repetition of nj?y. It probably followed immediately upon this, but was clearly distinguished from it by the fact that it was covered with cedar ViPIPv? "W #£">£?£. These words are very obscure. The rendering given by Thenius, "panelled from the floor to the beams of the roof," is open to these objections: (1) that |CD generally does not mean to panel, but simply to cover, and that |SD T)$& in particular cannot possibly be taken in a different sense here from that which it bears in ver. 3, where it denotes the roofing of the rooms built above the portico of pillars; and (2) that the alteration of the second ypnpn into Jlhfpn has no critical warrant in the rendering of the Syriac, a fundamento ad eozlmn ejus usque, or in that of the Yulgate, a pavimento usque ad summitatem, whereas the LXX. and Chald. both read VPli^ *W. But even if we were to read nnipn, this would not of itself signify the roof beams, inasmuch as in ch. vi. 16 nVvgn or nnipn receives its more precise definition from the expression jaipn rriTfp (rriiip) in ver. 15. The words in question cannot have any other meaning than this: " from the one floor to the other," i.e. either from the floor of the throne-hall to the floor of the pillar-hall (described in ver. 6), or more probably from the lower floor to the upper, inasmuch as there were rooms built over the throne-room, just as in the case of the house of the forest of Lebanon; for VP^P may denote not only the lower floor, but also the floor of upper rooms, which served at the same time as the ceiling of the lower rooms. So much, at any rate, may be gathered from these words, with all their obscurity, that the throne-hall was not an open pillar-hall, but was only open in front, and was shut in by solid walls on the other three sides. —
Ver. 8. After (behind) the throne and judgment hall then followed the king's own palace, the principal entrance to which was probably through the throne-hall, so that the king really delivered judgment and granted audiences in the gate of his palace. " His house, where he dwelt, in the other court inwards from the (throne) hall was like this work," i.e. was built like the throne-hall; " and a (dwelling) house he made for the daughter of Pharaoh, whom Solomon had taken, like this hall." The construction of the dwelling-places of the king and queen cannot be ascertained from these words, because the hall with which its style is compared is not more minutely described. All that can be clearly inferred from the words, " in the other court inside the hall," is, that the abode of the king and his Egyptian wife had a court of its own, and when looked at from the entrance, formed the hinder court of the whole palace. The house of Pharaoh's daughter was probably distinct from the dwelling-place of the king, so that the palace of the women formed a building by itself, most likely behind the dwelling-house of the king, since the women in the East generally occupy the inner portion of the house. The statement that the dwelling-place of the king and queen formed a court by itself within the complex of the palace, warrants the further inference, that the rest of the buildings (the house of the forest of Lebanon, the pillar-hall, and the throne-hall) were united together in one first or front court. Vers. 9—12. "All these (viz. the whole of the buildings described in vers. 2—8) were costly stones, after the measure of that which is hewn, sawn with the saw within and without (i.e. on the inner and outer side of the halls and buildings), and from the foundation to the corbels, and from without to the great court." ninstpn^ the corbels, upon which the beams of the roof rest. The Sept. renders it ea>? rcov yeicrcov. Thenius understands by this the battlements which protected the flat roofs, and therefore interprets rrinstp as signifying the stone border of the roof of the palace. But <yecao<;, or yetcrcros, yelcraov, merely signifies the projection of the roof, and, generally speaking, every projection in a building resembling a roof, but not the battlement-like protection or border of the flat roof, which is called ngyo in Deut. xxii. 8. pn, the outside in distinction from the great court, can only be the outer court; and as Jwllfl "ivnn is no doubt identical with rnnNn nvn (ver. 8), and therefore refers to the court surrounding the king's dwelling-house, ^n is to be understood as relating to the courtyard or fore-court surrounding the front halls. — Vers. 10, 11. " And the foundation was laid with costly, large stones of ten and eight cubits (sc. in length, and of corresponding breadth and thickness). And above (the foundation, and therefore the visible walls, were) costly stones, after the measure of that which is hewn, and cedars." — Ver. 12. And (as for) the great court, there were round it three rows (i.e. it was formed of three rows) of hewn stones and a row of hewn cedar beams, as in the inner court of the house of Jehovah (see at ch. vi. 36) and the hall of the house. ^VD^ signifies " and so with the court," Vav serving as a comparison, as in Pro v. xxv. 3, 20, and frequently in Proverbs (see Dietrich in Ges. Lex. s.v. 1, and Ewald, § 340, b), so that there is no necessity for the un-Hebraic conjecture of Thenius, ^HfJ?. n^n onto in all probability refers not to the temple-hall, but to the pillar-hall of the palace, the surrounding wall of which was of the same nature as the wall of the great, i.e. the other or hinder, court.1
1 The situation of this palace in Jerusalem is not defined. Ewald supposes (Gesch. iii. p. 317) that it was probably built on the southern continuation of the temple -mountain, commonly called Opliel, i.e. Hill. But " nothing more is needed to convince us that it cannot have stood upon Ophel, than a single glance at any geographical outline of Ophel on one of the best of the modern maps, and a recollection of the fact that, according to Neh. iii. 26, 31, it was upon Ophel, where the king's palace is said to have stood, that the templesocagers and shopkeepers had their places of abode after the captivity" (Thenius). The view held by earlier travellers and pilgrims to Zion, and defended by Berggren (p. 109 sqq.), namely, that the ancient Solomonian and Asmonsean palaces stood upon Moriah on the western side of the temple, is equally untenable. For the xystus, above which, according to Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 3, the Asmonsean palace stood, was connected with the temple by a bridge, and therefore did not stand upon Moriah, but upon Zion or the oiva cro'A/f, since this bridge, according to Josephus, Bell. Jud. vi. 6, 2, connected the temple with the upper city. Moreover, it clearly follows from the passages of Josephus already noticed (p. 84 sq.), in which he refers to the substructures of the temple area, that the temple occupied the whole of Moriah towards the west, and extended as far as the valley of the Tyropceon, and consquently there was no room for a palace on that side. When Josephus affirms, therefore {Ant. viii. 5, 2), that Solomon's palace stood opposite to the temple (olvriKpvg 'i-^uv vaou), it can only have been built on the northeast side of Zion, as most of the modern writers assume (see W. Krafft, make these vessels king Hiram had sent to Solomon, at his request (2 Chron. ii. 6), a workman named Hiram of Tyre. Ver. 13 contains a supplementary remark, in which npsyfi must be rendered in the pluperfect (compare the remarks on Gen. ii. 19). King Solomon had sent and fetched Hiram from Tyre. This artisan bore the same name as the king, D"}*n or DiTn (ver. 40), in 2 Chron. ii. 13 BWI (Huram), with the epithet ^, i.e. my father, 3K being a title of honour equivalent to master or counsellor, as in Gen. xlv. 8. He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father was *"»X B^ i.e. a Tyrian by birth. According to 2 Chron. ii. 13, his mother was " of the daughters of Dan," i.e. of the tribe of Dan. Both statements may easily be united thus: she was a Danite by birth, and married into the tribe of Naphtali. When her husband died, she was married again as the widow of a Naphtalite, and became the wife of a Tyrian, to whom she bore a son, Hiram. This explanation is also adopted by Bertheau (on the Chronicles); and the conjecture of Lundius, Thenius, and others, that the mother was an Israelitish widow of the city of Dan in the tribe of Naphtali, which was quite close to Tyre, is less in harmony with the expression " of the daughters of Dan." n^'m &\ht « a brass-worker," refers to fcon (he), i.e. Hiram, and not to his father (Thenius). The skill of Hiram is described in almost the same terms as that of Bezaleel in Ex. xxxi. 3 sqq., with this exception, that Bezaleel's skill is attributed to his being filled with the Spirit of God, i.e. is described rather as a supernatural gift, whereas in the case of Hiram the more indefinite expression, " he was filled with wisdom, etc.," is used, representing it rather as a natural endowment. In the account given here, Hiram is merely described as a worker in brass, because he is only mentioned at the commencement of the section which treats of the preparation of the brazen vessels of the temple. According to 2 Chron. ii. 14, he was able to work in gold, silver, brass, iron, stone, wood, purple, etc. There is nothing improbable in this extension of his skill to wood and to
Toporjraphie Jerus. p. 114 sqq., and Berggr. p. 110). This is sustained not only by the probability that the Asmonrcans would hardly build their palace anywhere else than on the spot where the palace of the kings of Judah built by Solomon stood, but also by the account of the elevation of Joash to the throne in 2 Kings xi. and 2 Chron. xxiii., from which it is perfectly obvious that the royal palace stood upon Zion opposite to the temple.
the art of weaving. Bezaleel also combined in himself all these talents. Of course Hiram was merely a foreman or leader of these different branches of art; and he certainly did not come alone, but brought several assistants with him, who carried out the different works under his superintendence. — The enumeration of them commences with the pillars of the temple-hall.
Vers. 15—22. The brazen pillars of the porch (compare 2 Chron, iii. 15-17). — He formed the two brazen pillars, which were erected, according to 2 Chron. iii. 15, "before the (temple) house, i.e. in front of the hall of the temple. One was eighteen cubits high, and a thread of twelve cubits surrounded (spanned) the other pillar." The statement of the height of the one pillar and that of the circumference of the other is to be understood as an abbreviated expression, signifying that the height and thickness mentioned applied to the one as well as to the other, or that they were alike in height and circumference. According to the Chronicles, they were thirty-five cubits long; which many expositors understand as signifying that the length of the two together was thirty-five cubits, so that each one was only 17^- cubits long, for which the full number 18 is substituted in our text. But this mode of reconciling the discrepancy is very improbable, and is hardly in harmony with the words of the Chronicles. The number 35 evidently arose from confounding the numeral letters it = 1 8 with r6 = 35. The correctness of the number 18 is confirmed by 2 Kings xxv. 17 and Jer. Iii. 21. The pillars were hollow, the brass being four finger-breadths in thickness (Jer. Iii. 21); and they were cast in the Jordan valley (ver. 46). — Ver. 16. "And he made two capitals (nnnb)> to set them on the heads of the pillars, cast in brass, five cubits the height of the one and of the other capital." If, on the other hand, in 2 Kings xxv. 17 the height of the capital is said to have been three cubits, this discrepancy cannot be explained on the supposition that the capitals had been reduced two cubits in the course of time; but the statement rests, like the parallel passage in Jer. Iii. 22, upon an error of the text, i.e. upon the substitution of a (3) for n (5). — Ver. 17. * Plait (i.e. ornaments of plait), plait-work and cords (twist, resembling) chain-work, were on the capitals, which were upon the heads of the pillars, seven on the one capital and seven on the other capital." Consequently this decoration consisted of seven twists arranged as festoons, which were hung round the capitals of the pillars. — Ver. 18. " And he made pomegranates, and indeed two rows round about the one twist, to cover the capitals which were upon the head of the pillars; and so he did with the other capital." In the Masoretic text the words DHrayn and D^bnn are confused together, and we must read, as some of the Codd. do, in the first clause DtfcnrrnK for D^TOjrrn^ and in the middle clause D^TOPH vntrb}) for OTtaWl Vtirby. " This is not only required by the sense, but sustained by a comparison with ver. 19. The relation between the two rows of pomegranates and the plaited work is indeed not precisely denned; but it is generally and correctly assumed, that one row ran round the pillars below the plaited work and the other above, so that the plaited work, which was formed of seven cords plaited together in the form of festoons, was enclosed above and below by the rows of pomegranates. If we compare with this the further statements in vers. 41 and 42, 2 Chron. iii. 16 and iv. 12, 13, and Jer. lii. 23, niribn is there more precisely designated nnnbn nipa, « bowls of the capitals," from which it is evident that the lower portion of the capitals, to which the braided work was fastened, was rounded in the form of a pitcher or caldron. The number of the pomegranates on the two festoons is given at 400, so that there were 200 on each capital, and consequently each row contained 100(2 Chron. iii. 16); and according to Jer. (I.e.) there were 96 Hrtn, " windwards," and in all 1 0 0 on the braided work round about, nnnf " windwards," can hardly be taken in any other sense than this: in the direction of the wind, i.e. facing the four quarters of the heavens. This meaning is indisputably sustained by the use of the word Wl, to denote the quarters of the heavens, in statements of the aspect of buildings (Ezek. xlii. 1 6-1 8), whereas there is no foundation whatever for such meanings as " airwards = uncovered" (Bottcher, Thenius), or hanging freely (Ewald).1 — In vers. 1 9 and 20a second decoration of the capitals of the pillars
1 It is hardly necessary to observe, that the expression nn t|NK>, to gasp for air, in Jer. ii. 24, xiv. 6, does not warrant our giving to nim the meaning open or uncovered, as Bottcher supposes. But when Thenius follows Bottcher (Proben, p. 335) in adducing in support of this the fact " that the tangent, which is drawn to any circle divided into a hundred parts, covers exactly four of these parts," the fact rests upon a simple error, inasmuch as any drawing will show that a tangent only touches one point of a circle divided into a hundred parts. And the remark of Bottcher, " If you describe on the outside of a circle of twelve cubits in circumference a hundred small circles of twelve-hundredths of a cubit in diameter, a tangent drawn thereupon will is mentioned, from which we may see that the rounding with the chain-like plaited work and the pomegranates enclosing it did not cover the capital to the very top, but only the lower portion of it. The decoration of the upper part is described in ver. 1 9: * And capitals, which were upon the top of the pillars, were (or, Hiram made) lily- work after the manner of the hall, four cubits." The lily-work occupied, according to ver. 2 0, the upper portion of the capitals, which is here called l"^3, as a crown set upon the lower portion. It was lily-work, i.e. sculpture in the form of flowering lilies. The words riiDK V3")X Dtixii are obscure. Accordins to Bottcher and Thenius, E^sa is intended to indicate the position of the pillars within the hall, so that their capitals sustained the lintel of the doorway. But even if DTiNii were rendered, within the hall, as it is by Bottcher, it is impossible to see how this meaning could be obtained from the words " capitals upon the head of the pillars lily- work within the hall." In that case we must at least have " the pillars within the hall;" and DTiNli would be connected with DH^yn, instead of being separated from it by \ww) n^TO. Even if we were to introduce a stop after |B*iB> and take D71K3 by itself, the expression " in (or at) the hall" would not in itself indicate the position of the pillars in the doorway, to say nothing of the fact that it is only in ver. 2 1 that anything is said concerning the position of the pillars. Again, the measurement "four cubits" cannot be understood, as it is by Thenius, as denoting the diameter of the capitals of the pillars; it must rather indicate the measure of the lily-work, that is to say, it affirms that there were four cubits of lily-work on the capitals, which were five cubits high, — in other words, the lily-work covered the four upper cubits of the capitals; from which it still further follows, that the plaited work which formed the decoration of the lower portion of the capitals was only one cubit broad or high. Consequently D^ifcQ cannot be understood in any other sense than "in the manner of or according to the hall," and can only express the thought, that there was lily-work on the capitals of the pillars as there was on the hall. For the vindication of this use of 2 cover to the eye exactly four small circles, although mathematically it touches only one of them in one point," is not correct according to any measurement. For if the tangent touches one of these smaller circles with mathematical exactness, to the eye there will be covered either three or five half circles, or even seven, but never four.
see Ges. Lex, by Dietrich, s.v. 3-1 There is no valid objection to the inference to which this leads, namely, that on the frontispiece of the temple-hall there was a decoration of lily-work. For since the construction of the hall is not more minutely described, we cannot expect a description of its decorations. — In ver. 20a more precise account is given of the position in which the crowns consisting of lily- work were placed on the capitals of the columns, so that this verse is to be regarded as an explanation of ver. 1 9: namely, capitals upon the pillars (did he make) also above near the belly, which was on the other side of the plait- work." JD3H, the belly, i.e. the belly-shaped rounding, can only be the rounding of the lower portion of the capitals, which is called nk in vers. 41, 42. Hence nM&n "Ui6 (Keri), "on the other side of the plaited work," can only mean behind or under the plait, since we cannot suppose that there was a belly-shaped rounding above the caldron-shaped rounding which was covered with plaited work, and between this and the lily-work. The belly-shaped rounding, above or upon which the plaited work lay round about, might, when looked at from without, be described as being on the other side of it, i.e. behind it. In the second half of the verse: " and the pomegranates two hundred in rows round about on the second capital," the number of the pomegranates placed upon the capitals, which was omitted in ver. 18, is introduced in a supplementary form.2 — Ver. 21. " And
1 This is the way in which the earlier translators appear to have understood it: e.g., LXX. tpyov xpivov zoctoc to ecvT^oc/^ rtaaupuv ttyixuv ("lily-work according to the hall four cubits"); Vulg. Capitella... quasi opere HUi fabricata erant in porticu quatuor cubitorum; Chald. t^p*) Wl3£^ *12S]} fEK ]}2")H NDTIfcO {opus liliaceum collectum in porticu quatuor cubitorum)] Syr. opus liliaceum idem fecit (]r> ^rr>|*^ t*-iVn) in porticu quatuor cubitis. These readings appear to be based upon the view supported by Kashi (D^N3 for dSiN3): lily-work as it was in the hall.
2 Hermann Weiss (Kosliimkunde, i. p. 367) agrees in the main with the idea worked out in the text; but he assumes, on the ground of monumental views, that the decoration was of a much simpler kind, and one by no means out of harmony with the well-known monumental remains of the East. In his opinion, the pillars consisted of "a shaft nineteen cubits in height, surrounded at the top, exactly after the fashion of the ornamentation of the Egyptian pillars, with seven bands decorated like plaited work, which unitedly covered a cubit, in addition to which there was the lily-work of five cubits in height, i.e. a slender capital rising up in the form of the calyx of a lily, ornamented with pomegranates." Our reasons for dissenting from this opinion are given in the exposition of the different verses.
he set up the pillars at the hall of the Holy Place, and set up the right pillar, and called its name Jachin, and... the left... Boaz." Instead of h^nn nhvb we have in 2 Chron. iii. 15 *3f& ttWt and in ver. 17 famp \3B-fy, "before the house," " before the Holy Place." This unquestionably implies that the two brazen pillars stood unconnected in front of the hall, on the right and left sides of it, and not within the hall as supporters of the roof. Nevertheless many have decided in favour of the latter view. But of the four arguments used by Thenius in proof that this was the position of the pillars, there is no force whatever in the first, which is founded upon Amos ix. 1, unless we assume, as Merz and others do, that the words of the prophet, " Smite the capital, that the thresholds may shake, and break them (the capitals of the pillars), that they may fall upon the head of all," refer to the temple at Jerusalem, and not. as Thenius and others suppose, to the temple erected at Bethel for the calf-worship. For even if the temple at Bethel had really had a portal supported by pillars, it would by no means follow that the pillars Jachin and Boaz in Solomon's temple supported the roof of the hall, as it is nowhere stated that the temple of Jeroboam at Bethel was an exact copy of that of Solomon. And even with the only correct interpretation, in which the words of Amos are made to refer to the temple at Jerusalem, the argument founded upon them in support of the position of the pillars as bearers of the hall rests upon the false idea, that the B^p, which are shaken by the smiting of the capital, are the beams lying upon the top of the pillars, or the superliminaria of the hall. It is impossible to prove that *)? has any such meaning. The beam over the entrance, or upon the doorposts, is called ^?^V in Ex. xii. 7, 22, 23, whereas *|? denotes the threshold, i.e. the lower part of the framework of the door, as is evident from Judg. xix. 27. The words of the prophet are not to be interpreted architecturally, but to be taken in a rhetorical sense; " so that by the blow, which strikes the capital, and causes the thresholds to tremble, such a blow is intended as shakes the temple in all its joints" (Baur on Amos ix. 1). " ninssn^ a kind of ornament at the top of the pillars, and D^sdh, the thresholds, are opposed to one another, to express the thought that the building is to be shaken and destroyed a summo usque ad imum, a capite ad calcem " (Hengstenberg, Christol. i. p. 366 transl.). The other arguments derived from
Ezek xl. 48 and 49, and from Josephus, Ant. viii. 3, 4, prove nothing at all. From the words of Josephus, rovrcov tcov taovcov tov fiev erepov Kara rr\v Be^tav earrjae rov irpoirvXatov irapaardSa... rov Be erepov, k.t.X., it would only follow " that the pillars (according to the view of Josephus) must have stood in the doorway," if it were the case that rrapao-rds had no other meaning than doorpost, and rrpoirvkaiov could be understood as referring to the temple-hall generally. But this is conclusively disproved by the fact that Josephus always calls the templehall irpovaov {I.e., and viii. 3, 2 and 3), so that irpoirvXaiov can only denote the fore-court, and rrapaard<; a pillar standing by itself. Consequently Josephus regarded the pillars Jachin and Boaz as propylcca erected in front of the hall. We must therefore adhere to the view expressed by Bahr (d. Tempel, p. 35 sqq.), that these pillars did not support the roof of the temple-hall, but were set up in front of the hall on either side of the entrance. In addition to the words of the text, this conclusion is sustained (1) by the circumstance that the two pillars are not mentioned in connection with the building of the temple and the hall, but are referred to for the first time here in the enumeration of the sacred vessels of the court that were made of brass. " If the pillars had formed an essential part of the construction and had been supporters of the hall, they would certainly have been mentioned in the description of the building, and not have been placed among the articles of furniture " (Schnaase); and moreover they would not have been made of metal like the rest of the vessels, but would have been constructed of the same building materials as the hall and the house, namely, of stone or wood (Bahr). And to this we may add (2) the monumental character of the pillars, which is evident from the names given to them. No architectural portion of the building received a special name.1 Jachin (P?J): " he establishes," stdbiliet Umplnm (Simonis Onom. p. 430); and Boaz (TV*2), ex iy to in illo, sc. Domino, robur (Sim. p. 460). Kimchi has correctly interpreted the first name thus: " Let this temple
1 Stieglitz (Gesch. der Baukunst, p. 127) aptly observes in relation to this: 11 The architect cannot subscribe to Meyer's view (that the pillars were supporters of the hall), since it was only through their independent position that the pillars received the solemn character intended to be given to them, and by their dignity subserved the end designed, of exalting the whole building and calling attention to the real purpose of the whole."
stand for ever;" and the second, " Solomon desired that God would give it strength and endurance." The pillars were symbols of the stability and strength, which not only the temple as an outward building, but the kingdom of God in Israel as embodied in the temple, received from the Lord, who had chosen the temple to be His dwelling-place in the midst of His people.1 — In ver. 22 it is stated again that there was lily-work upon the head of the pillars, — a repetition which may be explained from the significance of this emblem of the capitals of the pillars; and then the words, " So was the work of the capitals finished," bring the account of this ornament of the temple to a close.
Vers. 23-26. TJie brazen sea (cf. 2 Chron. iv. 2-5). — " He made the molten sea — a water-basin called DJ {mare) on account of its size — ten cubits from one upper rim to the other," i.e. in diameter measured from the upper rim to the one opposite to it, " rounded all round, and five cubits its (external) height, and a line of thirty cubits encircled it round about," i.e. it was thirty cubits in circumference. The Chethib mp is to be read njjj here and in Zech. i. 16 and Jer. xxxi. 39, for which the Keri has \\>T in all these passages. '"Tip or ljj means a line for measuring, which is expressed in ver. 15 by Din. The relation of the diameter to the circumference is expressed in whole numbers which come very near to the mathematical proportions. The more exact proportions would be as 7 to 22, or 113 to 355. — Yer. 24. And colocynths (gourds) ran round it under its brim, ten to the cubit, surrounding the sea in two rows; the colocynths " cast in its casting," i.e. cast at the same time as the vessel itself. Instead of D^jJS, gourds (see at ch. vi. 18), we find n*OT E^P?, figures of oxen, in the corresponding text of the Chronicles, and in the last clause merely "h^n, an evident error of the pen, D'npa being substituted by mistake for D^pD, and afterwards interpreted D'npn nim. The assumption by which the early expositors removed the discrepancy, namely, that they were casts of bullocks' heads, is not to be thought of, for the simple reason that D'npa signifies oxen and not the heads of oxen. How far apart the two rows of gourd-like ornaments were, it is impossible
1 There is do necessity to refute the fanciful notion of Ewald, that these pillars, " when they were erected and consecrated, were certainly named after men who were held in estimation at that time, probably after the younger sons of Solomon," and that of Thenius, that tyn Py, " He (the Lord) estab- to decide. Their size may be estimated, from the fact that there were ten within the space of a cubit, at a little over two inches in diameter. — Ver. 25. This vessel stood (rested) upon twelve brazen oxen, three turning to the north, three to the west, three to the south, and three to the east, " and the sea above upon them, and all their backs (turned) inwards f i.e. they were so placed that three of their heads were directed towards each quarter of the heavens. The size of the oxen is not given; but we must assume that it was in proportion to the size and height of the sea, and therefore about five cubits in height up to the back. These figures stood, no doubt, upon a metal plate, which gave them a fixed and immoveable position (see the engraving in my bill. Archdol. Taf. iii. fig. 1). — Ver. 26. "And its thickness (i.e. the thickness of the metal) was a handbreadth" = four finger-breadths, as in the case of the brazen pillars (see at ver. 1 5), " and its upper rim like work of a goblet (or of a gobletrim, i.e. bent outwards), lily-blossom," i.e. ornamented with lilyflowers. It held 2000 baths; according to the Chronicles, 3000 baths. The latter statement has arisen from the confusion of: (3) with 1 (2); since, according to the calculation of Thenius, the capacity of the vessel, from the dimensions given, could not exceed 2000 baths. This vessel, which took the place of the laver in the tabernacle, was provided for the priests to wash themselves (2 Chron. iv. 6), that is to say, that a supply of water might be kept in readiness to enable the priests to wash their hands and feet when they approached the altar to officiate, or were about to enter the Holy Place (Ex. xxx. 18 sqq.). There were no doubt taps by which the water required for this purpose was drawn off from the sea.1 — The artistic form of the vessel corresponded to its sacred purpose. The rim of the basin, which rose upwards in the form of a lily, was intended to point to the holiness and loveliness of that life which issued from the sanctuary. The twelve oxen, on which it rested, pointed to the twelve tribes of Israel as a priestly nation, which cleansed itself
1 For the different conjectures on this subject, see Lundius, jud. Heiligthiimer, p. 356. Thenius supposes that there was also a provision for filling the vessel, since the height of it would have rendered it a work of great labour and time to fill it by hand, and that there was probably a pipe hidden behind the figures of the oxen, since, according to Aristeas, histor. LXX. lnterp., Oxon. 1692, p. 32 (also Eusebii praep. evang. ix. 38), there were openings concealed at the foot of the altar, out of which water was allowed to run at certain seasons for the requisite cleansing of the pavement of the court from here in the persons of its priests, to appear clean and holy before the Lord. Just as the number twelve unquestionably suggests the allusion to the twelve tribes of the covenant nation, so, in the choice of oxen or bullocks as supporters of the basin, it is impossible to overlook the significance of this selection of the first and highest of the sacrificial animals to represent the priestly service, especially if we compare the position of the lions on Solomon's throne (ch. x. 20).
Vers. 27-39. The Brazen Stands and their Basins.1 — He made ten stands of brass, each four cubits long, four cubits broad, and three cubits high. rri:bD, stands or stools (Luther), is the name given to these vessels from their purpose, viz. to serve as supports to the basins which were used for washing the flesh of the sacrifices. They were square chests cast in brass, of the dimensions given. — Vers. 28, 29. Their work (their construction) was the following: they had nri-ipp, lit. surroundings, i.e. panels or flat sides, and that between D^Sf, commissures, i.e. frames or borders, which enclosed the sides, and were connected together at the angles; and upon the panels within the borders (there were figures of) lions, oxen, and cherubim. The statement in Josephus, that each centre was divided into three compartments, has nothing to support it in the biblical text, nor is it at all probable in itself, inasmuch as a division of this kind would have rendered the figures placed upon them insignificantly small. " And upon the borders was a base above." |3 is a noun, and has been rendered correctly by the Chaldee **???, basis. The meaning is, above, over the borders, there was a pedestal for the basin upon the chest, which is more fully described in ver. 31. To takei? as an adverb does not give a suitable sense. For if we adopt the rendering, and upon the corner borders (or ledges) likewise above (De Wette and Ewald), — i.e. there were also figures of lions, oxen, and cherubim upon the corner borders, the blood of the sacrifices; and there is still a fountain just in the neighbourhood of the spot on which, according to ver. 39, the brazen sea must have stood (see Schultz's plan); and in the time of the Crusaders there was a large basin, covered by a dome supported by columns (see Robinson, Pal. i. 446). But even if the later temple was supplied with the water required by means of artificial water-pipes, the Solomonian origin of these arrangements or designs is by no means raised even to the rank of probability.
1 The description which follows will be more easily understood by comparing with it the sketch given in my biblische Archaologie, Taf. iii. fig. 4.
— it is impossible to tell what the meaning of 3M30 can be, to say nothing of the fact that on the corner borders there could hardly be room for such figures as these. This last argument also tells against the rendering adopted by Thenius: " and upon the corner borders, above as well as below the lions and oxen, (there were) wreaths; " in which, moreover, it is impossible to attach any supportable meaning to the |3. When, on the other hand, Thenius objects to our view that the pedestal in question is spoken of for the first time in ver. 31, and that the expression "above the corner borders (ledges) " would be extremely unsuitable, since the pedestal in question was above the whole stand j the former remark is not quite correct, for ver. 3 1 merely contains a more minute description of the character of the pedestal, and the latter is answered by the fact that the pedestal derived its strength from the corner borders or ledges. " And below the lions and oxen were wreaths, pendant work" rri v, here and at ver. 36, is to bo explained from njl/ in Prov. i. 9 and iv. 9, and signifies twists or wreaths. *niD *&$? is not "work of sinking," i.e. sunken work (Thenius), which never can be the meaning of "HiD, but pendant work, festoons, by which,, however, we cannot understand festoons hanging freely, or floating in the air. — Ver. 30. " Every stool had four brazen wheels and brazen axles, and the four feet thereof had shoulder-pieces; below the basin were the shoulder-pieces cast, beyond each one (were) wreaths." The meaning is that the square chests stood upon axles with wheels of brass, after the style of ordinary carriage wheels (ver. 33), so that they could be driven or easily moved from one place to another; and that they did not rest directly upon the axles, but stood upon four feet, which were fastened upon the axles. This raised the chest above the rim of the wheels, so that not only were the sides of the chest which were ornamented with figures left uncovered, but, according to ver. 32, the wheels stood below the panels, and not, as in ordinary carriages, at the side of the chest. With regard to the connection between the axles and the wheels, Gesenius (Thcs. p. 972) and Thenius suppose that the axles were fastened to the wheels, as in the Eoman plaustra and at the present day in Italy, so as to turn with them; and Thenius argues in support of this, that D?v is to be connected not only with what immediately precedes, but also with VlD nt?n3. But this latter is unfounded; and the idea is altogether irreconcilable with the fact that the wheels had naves (Q,P^7, ver. 33), from which we must infer that they revolved upon the axles. The words DTO nbna vntoyQ njJSHKI are ambiguous. They may either he rendered, " and its four feet had shoulder-pieces," or, as Thenius supposes, "and its four feet served as shoulderpieces." nbys means stepping feet, feet bent out as if for stepping (Ex. xxv. 12). The suffix attached to vnoya refers to njiao, the masculine being often used indefinitely instead of the feminine, as in onj in ver. 28. Thenius compares these feet to the afia%67ro$e<; of the Greeks, and imagines that they were divided below, like fork-shaped upright contrivances, in which, as in forks, the wheels turned with the axles, so that the axle-peg, which projected outwards, had a special apparatus, instead of the usual pin, in the form of a stirrup-like and on the lower side hand-shaped holder (T), whicli was fastened to the lower rim of the i™3*?, and descended perpendicularly so as to cover the foot, and the general arrangement of the wheels themselves received greater strength in consequence. These feet, which were divided in the shape of forks, are supposed to be called nbna (shoulders), because they were not attached underneath at the edge of the stand, but being cast with the corner rims passed down in the inner angles, so that their uppermost portion was under the basin, and the lowest portion was under the stand, which we are to picture to ourselves as without a bottom, and projecting as a split foot, held the wheel, and so formed its shoulder-pieces. But we cannot regard this representation as either in accordance with the text, or as really correct. Even if on? ^t?r could in any case be grammatically rendered, " they served them (the wheels and axles) as shoulders," although it would be a very questionable course to take on <> in a different sense here from that which it bears in the perfectly similar construction in ver. 28, the feet which carried the stand could not possibly be called the shoulders of the wheels and their axles, since they did not carry the wheels, but the n^39- Moreover, this idea is irreconcilable with the following words: " below the basin were the shoulder-pieces cast." If, for example, as Thenius assumes, the mcchonah had a cover which was arched like a dome, and had a neck in the centre into which the basin was inserted by its lower rim, the shoulder-pieces, supposing that they were cast upon the inner borders of the chest, would not be below the basin, but simply below the corners of the lid of the chest, so that they would stand in no direct relation whatever to the basin. We must therefore give the preference to the rendering, which is grammatically the most natural one, " and its feet had shoulder-pieces," and understand the words as signifying that from the feet, which descended of course from the four corner borders of the chest down to the axles, 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. According to ver. 34, these shoulder-pieces were so cast upon the four corners of the chest, that they sprang out of it as it were, rriv t^K "OVp, opposite to each one were wreaths. Where these festoons were attached, the various senses in which ^yn is used prevent our deciding with certainty. At any rate, we must reject the alteration proposed by Thenius, of nv'b into nns j>, for the simple reason that nnsp tt^N in the sense of " one to the other" would not be Hebraic. — In ver. 3 1 we have a description of the upper portion of the mechonah, which formed the pedestal for the basin, and therewith an explanation of "»*3? n05?. " And the mouth of it (the basin) was within the crown and upwards with a cubit, and the mouth of it (the crown) was rounded, stand-work, a cubit and a half (wide), and on its mouth also there was engraved work, and its panels were square, not round." To understand this verse, we must observe that, according to ver. 35, the mechonah chest was provided at the top with a dome-shaped covering, in the centre of which there was an elevation resembling the capital of a pillar (ninan, the crown), supporting the basin, which was inserted into it by its lower rim. The suffix in VFB (its mouth) is supposed by Thenius to refer to the mechonah chest, and he questions the allusion to the basin, on the ground that this was so flat that a mouth-like opening could not possibly be spoken of, and the basins were never within the mechonah. But however correct these two remarks may be in themselves, they by no means demonstrate the necessity of taking V^fi as referring to the mechonah chest. For ns (the mouth) is not necessarily to be understood as denoting a mouthlike opening to the basin; but just as Ptfl *B in Ex. xxviii. 32 signifies the opening of the clothes for the head, i.e. for putting the head through when putting on the clothes, so may WB (its mouth) be the opening or mouth for the basin, i.e. the opening into which the basin fitted and was emptied, the water in the basin being let off into the mechonah chest through the headshaped neck by means of a tap or plug. The mouth was really the lower or contracted portion of the shell-shaped basin, which was about a cubit in height within the neck and upwards, that is to say, in all, inasmuch as it went partly into the neck and rose in part above it. The n*3 (the mouth thereof) which follows is the (upper) opening of the crown-like neck of the lid of the mechonah. This was rounded, \3~nwyp, stand-work, i.e., according to De Wette's correct paraphrase, formed after the style of the foot of a pillar, a cubit and a half in diameter. " And also upon the mouth of it (the mechonah) was carved work." The E3 (also) refers to the fact that the sides of the mechonah were already ornamented with carving. DrrrhapD, the panels of the crown-like neck (n<JJP) and its mouth (n*B) were square, like the panels of the sides of the mechonah chest. The fact that panels are spoken of in connection with this neck, may be explained on the assumption that with its height of one cubit and its circumference of almost five cubits (which follows from its having a diameter of a cubit and a half) it had stronger borders of brass to strengthen its bearing power, while between them it consisted of thinner plates, which are called fillings or panels. — In vers. 32, 33, the wheels are more minutely described. Every stool had four wheels under the panels, i.e. not against the sides of the chest, but under them, and HIT, hands or holders of the wheels, i.e. special contrivances for fastening the wheels to the axles, probably larger and more artistically worked than the linch-pins of ordinary carriages. These rtT were only required when the wheels turned upon the axles, and not when they were fastened to them. The height of the wheel was a cubit and a half, i.e. not half the height, but the whole. For with a half height of a cubit and a half the wheels would have been three cubits in diameter; and as the chest was only four cubits long, the hinder wheels and front wheels would almost have touched one another. The work (construction) of the wheels resembled that of (ordinary) carriage wheels; but everything about them (holders, felloes, spokes, and naves) was cast in brass. — In ver. 34 the description passes to the upper portion of the mechonah. " And he made four shoulder-pieces at the four corners of one (i.e. of every) stand; out of the stand were its shoulder-pieces." Aisna are the shoulder-pieces already mentioned in ver. 30, which were attached to the feet below, or which terminated in feet. They were fastened to the corners in such a way that they seemed to come out of them; and they rose above the corners with a slight inclination (curve) towards the middle of the neck or capital, till they came under the outer rim of the basin which rested upon the capital of the lid of the chest, so as to support the basin, which turned considerably outwards at the top. — Ver. 35. " And on the upper part of the stand (the mechonah chest) half a cubit high was rounded all round, and on the upper part were its holders, and its panels out of it. njpBPi CW is the upper portion of the square chest. This was not flat, but rounded, i.e. arched, so that the arching rose half a cubit high above the height of the sides. This arched covering (or lid) had HiT, holders, and panels, which were therefore upon the upper part of the »"I^3D. The holders we take to be strong broad borders of brass, which gave the lid the necessary firmness; and the fillings or panels are the thinner plates of brass between them. They were both H3DD, " out of it," out of the upper part of the mechonah, i.e. cast along with it. With regard to the decoration of it, ver. 36 states that " he cut out (engraved) upon the plates of its holders, and upon its panels, cherubim, lions, and palms, according to the empty space of every one, and wreaths all round." We cannot determine anything further with regard to the distribution of these figures. — Vers. 37, 38. " Thus he made the ten stools of one kind of casting, measure, and form, and also ten brazen basins (n^?), each holding forty baths, and each basin four cubits." In a round vessel this can only be understood of the diameter, not of the height or depth, as the basins were set upon (/V) the stands. n:i3E>rrpy ina "ris3 is dependent upon &Vl\: he made ten basins,... one basin upon a stand for the ten stands, i.e. one basin for each stand. If then the basins were a cubit in diameter at the top, and therefore their size corresponded almost exactly to the length and breadth of the stand, whilst the crown-like neck, into which they were inserted, was only a cubit and a half in diameter (ver. 31), their shape must have resembled that of widespreading shells. And the form thus given to them required the shoulder-pieces described in vers. 30 and 34 as supports beneath the outer rim of the basins, to prevent their upsetting when the carriage was wheeled about.1 — Ver. 39. And he put
1 The description which Ewald has given of these stands in his GescJiichtc, iii. pp. 311, 312, and still more elaborately in an article in the Gottingeit tin1 stands five on the right side of the house and five on the left; and the (brazen) sea he put upon the right side eastwards, opposite to the south. The right side is the south side, and the left the north side. Consequently the stands were not placed on the right and left, i.e. on each side of the altar of burntoffering, but on each side of the house, i.e. of the temple-hall; while the brazen sea stood farther forward between the hall and the altar, only more towards the south, i.e. to the south-east of the hall and the south-west of the altar of burnt-offering. The basins upon the stands were for washing (according to 2 Chron. iv. 6), namely, " the work of the burnt-offering," that is to say, for cleansing the flesh and fat, which were to be consumed upon the altar of burnt-offering. By means of the stands on wheels, they could not only easily bring the water required near to the priests who were engaged in preparing the sacrifices, but could also let down the dirty water into the chest of the stand by means of a special contrivance introduced for the purpose, and afterwards take it away. As the introduction of carriages for the basins arose from the necessities of the altar-service, so the preparation of ten such stands, and the size of the basins, was occasioned by the greater extension of the sacrificial worship, in which it often happened that a considerable number of sacrifices had to be made ready for the altar at the same time. The artistic work of these stands and their decoration with figures were intended to show that these vessels were set apart for the service of the sanctuary. The emblems are to some extent the same as those on the walls of the sanctuary, viz. cherubim, palms, and flowers, which had therefore naturally the same meaning here as they had there; the only difference being that they were executed there in gold, whereas here they were in brass, to correspond to the character of the court. Moreover, there were also figures of lions and oxen, pointing no doubt to the royal and priestly characters, which were combined,
Gelehrten Naclir. 1859, pp. 131-146, is not only obscure, but almost entirely erroneous, since he proposes in the most arbitrary way to make several alterations in the biblical text, on the assumption that the Solomonian stands were constructed just like the small bronze four-wheeled kettle-carriages (hardly a foot in size) which have been discovered in Mecklenburg, Steyermark, and other places of Europe. See on this subject G. C. F. Lisch, " iiber die ehernen Wagenbecken der Bronzezeit," in the Jahrbb. des Vereins f. Mecklenb. Geschichte, ix. pp. 373, 374, where a sketch of a small carriage of this kind is given.
according to Ex. xix. 6, in the nation worshipping the Lord in this place.
Vers. 40—51. Summary enumeration of the other vessels of the temple. — In ver. 40 the brazen vessels of the court are given. In vers. 41—47 the several portions of the brazen pillars, the stands and basins, the brazen sea and the smaller vessels of brass, are mentioned once more, together with notices of the nature, casting, and quantity of the metal used for making them. And in vers. 48-50 we have the golden vessels of the Holy Place. This section agrees almost word for word with 2 Chron. iv. 11— v. 1, where, moreover, not only is the arrangement observed in the previous description of the temple-building a different one, but the making of the brazen altar of burntoffering, of the golden candlesticks, and of the table of shewbread, and the arrangement of the great court (2 Chron. iv. 7—9) are also described, to which there is no allusion whatever in the account before us; so that these notices in the Chronicles fill up an actual gap in the description of the building of the temple which is given here. — Ver. 40a. The smaller brazen vessels. — Hiram made the pots, shovels, and bowls. nWan is a slip of the pen for flVVDn, pots, as we may see by comparing it with ver. 45 and the parallel passages 2 Chron. iv. 11 and 2 Kings xxv. 14. The pots were used for carrying away the ashes; *W?, the shovels, for clearing the ashes from the altar; nipnnsn were the bowls used for catching the blood, when the sacrificial animals were slaughtered: compare Ex. xxvii. 3 and Num. iv. 1 4, where forks and fire-basins or coal-pans are also mentioned. — Ver. 405 introduces the recapitulation of all the vessels made by Hiram. niiT rva, in the house of the Lord (cf. Ewald, § 300, b); in 2 Chron. iv. 11 more clearly, '« n\13; we find it also in ver. 45, for which we have in 2 Chron. iv. 16 njrp IV37, for the house of Jehovah. The several objects enumerated in vers. 41-45 are accusatives governed by TWV2* — Vers. 41-44, the brazen pillars with the several portions of their capitals; see at vers. 15-22. The inappropriate expression BHtsyn *2?"*^ (upon the face of the pillars) in ver. 42 is probably a mistake for 'yn *}&?$, " upon the two pillars," for it could not properly be said of the capitals that they were upon the surface of the pillars. — Ver. 43. The ten stands and their basins: see at vers. 27-37; ver. 44, the brazen sea: vid. vers. 23-26; lastly, ver. 45, the pots, etc., as at ver. 40. The Chethib hnxn is a mistake for npsn (Keri)} &$*? n^n3, of polished brass — accusative • of the material governed by nwy. — Ver. 46. "In the Jordan valley he cast them — in thickened earth between Succoth and Zarthan," where the ground, according to Burckhardt, Syr. ii. p. 593, is marly throughout. n?*J^f3 n?2??3, " by thickening of the earth," the forms beincj made in the ground by stamping together the clayey soil. Succoth was on the other side of the Jordan, — not, however, at the ford near Bethsean (Thenius), but on the south side of the Jabbok (see at Judg. viii. 5 and Gen. xxxiii. 17). Zarthan or Zereda was in the Jordan valley on this side, probably at Kurn Sartabeh (see at Judg. vii. 22 and Josh, iii 16). The casting-place must have been on this side of the Jordan, as the (eastern) bank on the other side has scarcely any level ground at all. The circumstance that a place on the other side is mentioned in connection with one on this side, may be explained from the fact that the two places were obliquely opposite to one another, and in the valley on this side there was no large place in the neighbourhood above Zarthan which could be appropriately introduced to define the site of the casting-place. — Ver. 47. Solomon left all these vessels of excessive number unweighed. na^ does not mean he laid them down (= set them up: Movers), but he let them lie, i.e. unweighed, as the additional clause, " the weight of the brass was not ascertained," clearly shows. This large quantity of brass, according to 1 Chron. xviii. 8, David had taken from the cities of Hadadezer, adding also the brass presented to him by Toi. — Vers. 48-50. The golden vessels of the Holy Place (cf. 2 Chron. iv. 19-22). The vessels enumerated here are divided, by the repetition of "WD nnj in vers. 49 and 50, into two classes, which were made of fine gold; and to this a third class is added in ver. 506 which was made of gold of inferior purity. As i^p nnt is governed in both instances by few*} as an accusative of the material, the ^\ (gold) attached to the separate vessels must be taken as an adjective. " Solomon made all the vessels in the house of Jehovah (i.e. had them which is proved to be apocryphal by the marvellous combination of the king's house and the house of God, though it is nevertheless regarded by Thenius as genuine, and as an interesting notice respecting certain pillars in the enclosure of the inner court of the temple, and in the king's palace!
made): the golden altar, and the golden table on which was the shew-bread, and the candlesticks... of costly gold (*ftSD: see at ch. vi. 20). TJie house of Jehovah is indeed here, as in ver. 40, the temple with its courts, and not merely the Holy Place, or the temple-house in the stricter sense; but it by no means follows from this that Dv3n"7|, " all the vessels," includes both the brazen vessels already enumerated and also the golden vessels mentioned afterwards. A decisive objection to our taking the bh (all) as referring to those already enumerated as well as those which follow, is to be found in the circumstance that the sentence commencing with tyfi\ is only concluded with ittD 3nr in ver. 49. It is evident from this that Dvsrrps is particularized in the several vessels enumerated from n3TD nx onwards. These vessels no doubt belonged to the Holy Place or temple-house only; though this is not involved in the expression * the house of Jehovah," but is apparent from the context, or from the fact that all the vessels of the court have already been enumerated in vers. 40-46, and were made of brass, whereas the golden vessels follow here. That these were intended for the Holy Place is assumed as well known from the analogy of the tabernacle. njnj n%3 ikw merely affirms that the vessels mentioned afterwards belonged to the house of God, and were not prepared for the palace of Solomon or any other earthly purpose. We cannot infer from the expression " Solomon made " that the golden vessels were not made by Hiram the artist, as the brazen ones were (Thenius). Solomon is simply named as the builder of the temple, and the introduction of his name was primarily occasioned by ver. 47. The "golden altar " is the altar of incense in the Holy Place, which is called golden because it was overlaid with gold-plate; for, according to ch. vi. 20, its sides were covered with cedar wood, after the analogy of the golden altar in the tabernacle (Ex. xxx. 1-5). " And the table, upon which the shew-bread, of gold." 2HT belongs to?n^OT, to which it stands in free subjection (vid. Ewald, § 2 8 7, h), signifying " the golden table." Instead of |n?$n we have rrtanptfn in 2 Chron. iv. 19 (the tables), because there it has already been stated in ver. 8 that ten tables were made, and put in the Holy Place. In our account that verse is omitted; and hence there is only a notice of the table upon which the loaves of shew-bread generally lay, just as in 2 Chron. xxix. 18, in which the chronicler does not contradict himself, as Thcnius fancies. The number ten, moreover, is required and proved to be correct in the case of the tables, by the occurrence of the same number in connection with the candlesticks. In no single passage of the Old Testament is it stated that there was only one table of shew-bread in the Holy Place of Solomon's temple.1 The tables were certainly made of wood, like the Mosaic table of shew-bread, probably of cedar wood, and only overlaid with gold (see at Ex. xxv. 23-30). " And the candlesticks, five on the right and five on the left, before the back-room." These were also made in imitation of the Mosaic candlestick (see Ex. xxv. 31 sqq.), and were probably placed not near to the party wall in a straight line to the right and left of the door leading into the Most Holy Place, but along the two longer sides of the Holy Place; and the same with the tables, except that they stood nearer to the side walls with the candlesticks in front of them, so that the whole space might be lighted more brilliantly. The altar of burntoffering, on the contrary, stood in front of and very near to the entrance into the Most Holy Place (see at ch. vi. 20). — In the following clause (vers. 495 and 50a) the ornaments of the candlesticks are mentioned first, and then the rest of the smaller golden vessels are enumerated, T")??, the flower- work, with which the candlesticks were ornamented (see Ex. xxv. 3 3). The word is evidently used collectively here, so that the &'$*?) mentioned along with them in the book of Exodus (I.e.) are included. A^l1, the lamps, which were placed upon the shaft and arms of the candlestick (Ex. xxv. 37). D!?p?E>r^ the snuffers (Ex. xxv. 38). rriap, basins in Ex. xii. 22, here probably deep dishes (Schalen). nfteTD, knives. ™p"J?9, bowls (Schalen) or cans with spouts for the wine for the libations; according to 2 Chron. iv. 8, there were a hundred of these made, T\\B3t small flat vessels,
1 Nothing can be learned from 2 Chron. xxix. 18 concerning the number of the vessels in the Holy Place. If we were to conclude from this passage that there were no more vessels in the Holy Place than are mentioned there, we should also have to assume, if we would not fall into a most unscientific inconsistency, that there was neither a candlestick nor a golden altar of incense in the Holy Place. The correct meaning of this passage may be gathered from the words of king Abiam in 2 Chron. xiii. 11: " We lay the shew-bread upon the pure table, and light the golden candlestick every evening;" from which it is obvious that here and there only the table and the candlestick are mentioned, because usually only one table had shew-bread upon it, and only one candlestick was lighted.
probably for carrying the incense to the altar, rrtnno, extinguishers; see at Ex. xxv. 38. — Ver. 50b. The nin'a were also of gold, possibly of inferior quality. These were either the hinges of the doors, or more probably the sockets, in which the pegs of the doors turned. They were provided for the doors of the inner temple, viz. the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. We must supply Vdv before ^/P..
All the vessels mentioned in vers. 48 and 49 belonged to the Holy Place of the temple, and were the same as those in the tabernacle; so that the remarks made in the Comm. on Ex. xxv. 30 and 39, and xxx. 1-10, as to their purpose and signification, apply to them as well. Only the number of the tables and candlesticks was ten times greater. If a multiplication of the number of these two vessels appeared appropriate on account of the increase in the size of the room, the number was fixed at ten, to express the idea of completeness by that number. No new vessel was made for the Most Holy Place, because the Mosaic ark of the covenant was placed therein (ch. viii. 4: compare the remarks on this at Ex. xxv. 10-22). — The account of the vessels of the temple is brought to a close in ver. 51: * So was ended all the work that king Solomon made in the house of the Lord; and Solomon brought all that was consecrated by his father, (namely) the silver and the gold (which were not wrought), and the vessels he placed in the treasuries of the house of Jehovah." As so much gold and brass had already been expended upon the building, it might appear strange that Solomon should not have used up all the treasures collected by his father, but should still be able to bring a large portion of it into the treasuries of the temple. But according to 1 Chron. xxii. 14, 16, and xxix. 2 sqq., David had collected together an almost incalculable amount of gold, silver, and brass, and had also added his own private treasure and the freewill offerings of the leading men of the nation (1 Chron. xxix. 7-9). Solomon was also able to devote to the building of the temple a considerable portion of his own very large revenues (cf. ch. x. 14), so that a respectable remnant might still be left of the treasure of the sanctuary, which was not first established by David, but had been commenced by Samuel and Saul, and in which David's generals, Joab and others, had deposited a portion of the gold and silver that they had taken as booty (1 Chron. xxvi 20-28). For it is evident that not a little had found its way into this treasure through the successful wars of David, from the fact that golden shields were taken from the generals of Hadadezer, and that these were consecrated to the Lord along with the silver, golden, and brazen vessels offered as gifts of homage by king Toi of Hamath, in addition to the gold and silver which David had consecrated from the defeated Syrians, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Amalekites (2 Sam. viii. 7, 11, 12; 1 Chron. xviii. 7, 10, ll).1
This solemn transaction consisted of three parts, and the chapter arranges itself in three sections accordingly: viz. (a) the conveyance of the ark and the tabernacle, together with its vessels, into the temple, with the words spoken by Solomon on the occasion (vers. 1-21); (b) Solomon's dedicatory prayer (vers. 22-53); (c) the blessing of the congregation, and the offering of sacrifice and observance of a feast (vers. 54-66). — The parallel account to this in 2 Chron. v. 2-vii. 10, in addition to certain minor alterations of words and constructions, intro-
1 The amazing extent to which this booty may possibly have reached, may be inferred from the accounts we have concerning the quantity of the precious metals in Syria in the Macedonian age. In the gaza regia of Damascus, Alexander found 2600 talents of gold and 600 talents of uncoined silver (Curt. hi. 13, 1G, cf. Arrian, ii. 11, 10). In the temple of Jupiter at Antioch there was a statue of this god of solid silver fifteen cubits high (Justin, xxxix. 2, 5. 6); and in the temple at Hierapolis there was also a golden statue (Lucian, de Dea Syr. § 31). According to Appian (Parth. 28, ed. Schweigh.), this temple was so full of wealth, that Crassus spent several days in weighing the vessels of silver and gold. And from the unanimous testimony of the ancients, the treasures of the palaces and temples of Asia in the earlier times were greater still. Of the many accounts which Bahr (Symbolik, i. p. 258 sqq.) and Movers (Phonizicr, ii. 3, p. 40 sqq.) have collected together on this subject, we will mention only a few here, the credibility of which cannot be disputed. According to Varro (in Plin. xxxiii. 15), Cyrus had taken 34,000 pounds of gold as booty after the conquest of Asia, beside the gold wrought into vessels and ornaments, and 500,000 talents of silver. In Susa, Alexander took 40,000, or, according to other accounts, 50,000, talents from the royal treasury; or, as it is still more definitely stated, 40,000 talents of uncoined gold and silver, and 9000 talents of coined dariks. Alexander had these brought to Ecbatana, where he accumulated 180,000 talents. Antigonus afterwards found in Susa 15,000 talents more in vessels and wrought gold and silver. In Persepolis, Alexander took 120,000 talents, and in Pasargada 6000 talents. For the proofs, see Movers, pp. 42, 43.
duced for the most part merely for the sake of elucidation, contains here and there, and more especially towards the end, a few deviations of greater extent, partly omissions and partly additions. But in other respects it agrees almost word for word with our account.
With regard to the time of the dedication, it is merely stated in ver. 2 that the heads of the nation assembled at Jerusalem to this feast in the seventh month. The year in which this took place is not given. But as the building of the temple was linished, according to ch. vi. 38, in the eighth month of the eleventh year of Solomon's reign, the dedication which followed in the seventh month cannot have taken place in the same year as the completion of the building. Ewald's opinion, that Solomon dedicated the building a month before it was finished, is not only extremely improbable in itself, but is directly at variance with ch. vii. 51. If we add to this, that according to ch. ix. 1-10 it was not till after the lapse of twenty years, during which he had built the two houses, the temple, and his palace, that the Lord appeared to Solomon at the dedication ot the temple and promised to answer his prayer, we must decide in favour of the view held by Thenius, that the dedication of the temple did not take place till twenty years after the building of it was begun, or thirteen years after it was finished, and when Solomon had also completed the building of the palace, which occupied thirteen years, as the LXX. have indicated at the commencement of ch. viii. 1 by the interpolation of the words, Kai iyeveTO a><? avvereXeae SaXcofjLcov tov ol/coSojjLfjcrcu tov oiK.ov Kvplou teal tov qIkov avToD fieTa ei/coai err}}
Vers. 1-21. The first act of the solemnities consisted (1) in the removal of the ark of the covenant into the Most Holy Place of the temple (vers. 1-11); and (2) in the words with which Solomon celebrated the entrance of the Lord into the new temple (vers. 12-21). — Vers. 1-11. Removal of the ark of the covenant into the temple. — This solemn transaction was founded entirely upon the solemnities with which the ark was conveyed in the time of David from the house of Obed-edom into the holy tent upon Zion (2 Sam vi. 1 2 sqq.; 1 Chron. xv.
1 From the whole character of the Alexandrian version, there can be no doubt that these words have been transferred by the LXX. from ch. ix. 1, and have not dropped out of the Hebrew text, as Thenius supposes.
2 sqq.). Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads oi' the tribes, the princes of the fathers' houses fipfefl ntotcn, contracted from rtann iva WfcM) of tlic Israelites, as representatives of the whole congregation, to himself at Jerusalem, to bring the ark of the covenant out of the city of David, i.e. from Mount Zion (see the Comm. on 2 Sam. vi. 16, 17), into the temple which he had built upon Moriah. (On the use of the contracted form of the imperfect /HpJ after W, see Ewald, § 233, h.) — Ver. 2. Accordingly " all the men of Israel (i.e. the heads of the tribes and families mentioned in ver. 1) assembled together to the king in the month Ethanim, i.e. the seventh month, at the feast." Gesenius explains the name E^nxn (in 5 5 codd. DWgn) as meaning " month of the flowing brooks," after [TPK in Prov. xiii. 1 5; Bottcher, on the other hand, supposes it to denote the equinox. But apart from other grounds, the plural by no means favours this. ISTor does the seventh month answer to the period between the middle of our September and the middle of October, as is supposed by Thenius, who founds upon this supposition the explanation already rejected by Bottcher, viz. " month of gifts;" but it corresponds to the period between the new moon of October and the new moon of November, -during which the rainy season commences in Palestine (Eob. Pal. ii. p. 96 sqq.), so that this month may very well have received its name from the constant flowing of the brooks. The explanation, " that is the seventh month," is added, however (here as in ch. vi. 1, 38), not because the arrangement of the months was a different one before the captivity (Thenius), but because different names came into use for the months during the captivity, 3nn is construed with the article: " because the feast intended was one that was wTell known, and had already been kept for a long time (viz. the feast of tabernacles)." The article overthrows the explanation given by Thenius, who supposes that the reference is to the festivities connected with the dedication of the temple itself. — Vers. 3, 4. After the arrival of all the eiders (i.e. of the representatives of the nation, more particularly described in ver. 1), the priests carried the ark and brought it up (sc. into the temple), with the tabernacle and all the holy vessels in it. The expression Bnx VV^t which follows, introduces as a supplementary notice, according to the general diffuseness of the early Hebrew style of narrative, the more precise statement that the priests and Levites brought up these sacred vessels. "Nfto ^n is not the tent erected for the ark of the covenant upon Zion, which can be proved to have been never so designated, and which is expressly distinguished from the former in 2 Chron. i. 4 as compared with ver. 3, but is the Mosaic tabernacle at Gibeon in front of which Solomon had offered sacrifice (ch. iii. 4). The tabernacle with the vessels in it, to which, however, the ark of the covenant, that had long been separated from it, did not belong, was probably preserved as a sacred relic in the rooms above the Most Holy Place. The ark of the covenant was carried by priests on all solemn occasions, according to the spirit of the law, which enjoined, in Num. iii. 31 and iv. 5 sqq., that the ark of the covenant and the rest of the sacred vessels should be carried by the Levites, after the priests had carefully wrapped them up; and the Levites were prohibited from directly touching them, on pain of death. When, therefore, the ark of the covenant was carried in solemn procession, as in the case before us, probably uncovered, this could only be done by the priests, more especially as the Levites were not allowed to enter the Most Holy Place. Consequently, by the statement in ver. 36, that the priests and Levites carried them (D£iN), viz. the objects mentioned before, we are to understand that the ark of the covenant was carried into the temple by the priests, and the tabernacle with its vessels by the Levites.1 — Ver. 5. " And king Solomon and the whole congregation, that had gathered round him, were with him before the ark sacrificing sheep and oxen in innumerable multitude." This took place while the ark of the covenant was carried up, no doubt when it was brought into the court of the temple, and was set down there for a time either within or in front of the hall. Then was this magnificent sacrifice " offered " there "in front of the ark" QtaWJ *xh)m — Ver. 6. After this sacrificing was ended, the priests carried the ark to its place, into the back-room of the house, into the Most Holy under the wings of the cherubim (already described in ch.
1 Instead of D'Onb in ver. 3, we have D^^n in 2 Chron. v. 4; and instead of Qs^m D*3ilbn in ver. 4, we have D51^n D^nbn, " the Levitical priests." These variations are to be attributed to inexactness in expression. For it is obvious that Thenius is wrong in his notion that the chronicler mentioned the Levites instead of the priests, from the simple fact that he states in ver. 7 that " the priests carried the ark," etc., in exact agreement with our account.
vi. 23 sqq.). The latter statement is explained in ver. 7. "For the cherubim were spreading out wings towards the place of the ark, and so covered (lit. threw a shade) over the ark and over its poles from above." If the outspread wings of the great cherubic figures threw a shade not only over the ark of the covenant, but also over its poles, the ark was probably so placed that the poles ran from north to south, and not from east to west, as they are sketched in my Archdologie. — Ver. 8. " And the poles were long, and there were seen their heads {i.e. they were so long that their heads were seen) from the Holy Place before the hinder room; but on the outside (outside the Holy Place, say in the porch) they were not seen." WW cannot be rendered: they had lengthened the poles, from which Kimchi and others have inferred that they had made new and longer carrying-poles, since the form of the tense in this connection cannot be the pluperfect, and in that case, moreover, the object would be indicated by riK as in ch. iii. 14; but Tl^? is used intransitively, " to be long," lit. to show length, as in Ex. xx. 12, Deut. v. 16, etc. The remark to the effect that the poles were visible, indicates that the precept of the law in Ex. xxv. 15, according to which the poles were to be left in the ark, was observed in Solomon's temple also. Any one could convince himself of this, for the poles were there " to this day." The author of our books has retained this chronological allusion as he found it in his original sources; for when he composed his work, the temple was no longer standing. It is impossible, however, to ascertain from this statement how the heads of the poles could be seen in the Holy Place, — whether from the fact that they reached the curtain and formed elevations therein, if the poles ran from front to back; or whether, if, as is more probable, they ran from south to north, the front heads were to be seen, simply when the curtain was drawn back.1 — Ver. 9. " There was nothing in the ark but the two tables of stone, which Moses had put there at Horeb, when Jehovah concluded the covenant with Israel." The intention of this remark is
1 The proof -which Thenius has endeavoured to give by means of a drawing of the correctness of the latter view, is founded upon untenable assumptions (see Bottcher, JShrenl. ii. p. 69). It by no means follows from the expression V31 ^3"Py that the heads of the poles were visible as far off as the door of the Holy Place, but simply that they could be seen in the Holy Place, though not outside.
also simply to show that the law, which enjoined that the ark should merely preserve the stone tables of the covenant (Ex. xxv. 1 6, xl. 20), had not been departed from in the lapse of time. "i^K before n*]3 is not a pronoun, but a conjunction: when, from the time that, as in Deut. xi. 6, etc. H"i3 without ft*®, signifying the conclusion of a covenant, as in 1 Sam. xx. 16, xxii. 8, etc. Horeb, the general name for the place where the law was given, instead of the more definite name Sinai, as in Deuteronomy (see the Comm. on Ex. xix. 1, 2).1 — Vers. 10, 11. At the dedication of the tabernacle the glory of Jehovah in the cloud filled the sanctuary, so that Moses could not enter (Ex. xl. 34, 35); and so was it now. When the priests came out of the sanctuary, after putting the ark of the covenant in its place, the cloud filled the house of Jehovah, so that the priests could not stand to minister. The signification of this fact was the same on both occasions. The cloud, as the visible symbol of the gracious presence of God, filled the temple, as a sign that Jehovah the covenant-God had entered into it, and had chosen it as the scene of His gracious manifestation in Israel. By the inability of the priests to stand, we are not to understand that the cloud drove them away; for it was not till the priests had come out that it filled the temple. It simply means that they could not remain in the Holy Place to perform service, say to offer an incense-offering upon the altar to consecrate it, just as sacrifices were offered upon the altar of burnt-offering after the dedicatory prayer (vers. 62, 63).2
1 The statement in Heb. ix. 4, to the effect that the pot of manna and Aaron's rod that budded were also to be found in the ark, which is at variance with this verse, and which the earlier commentators endeavoured to bring into harmony with it by forced methods of different kinds, simply rests upon an erroneous interpretation of nViyn "OD? in Ex. xvi. 33, 34, and Num. xvii. 25, which had become traditional among the Jews; since this merely affirms that the objects mentioned had been deposited in front of the testimony, i.e. in frout of the ark which contained the testimony, and not within it, as the Jews supposed. — Still less are De "Wette and others warranted in deducing from this verse an argument against the existence of the Mosaic book of the law in the time of Solomon, inasmuch as, according to the precept in Deut. xxxi. 26, the book of the law was not to be kept in the ark, but by the side of it, or near it.
2 Bertheau's opinion (on 2 Chron. v. 14), that the priests could not remain in the hall and in front of it on account of the cloud, namely, " the cloud of smoke, which, ascending from the sacrifices burned upon the altar of burntoffering, concealed the glory of the Lord," is decidedly erroneous. For the
The glory of the Lord, -which is like a consuming lire (Ex. xxiv. 17; Deut. iv. 24, ix. 3), before which unholy man cannot stand, manifested itself in the cloud. This marvellous manifestation of the glory of God took place only at the dedication; after that the cloud was only visible in the Most Holy Place on the great day of atonement, when the high priest entered it. — The Chronicles contain a long account at this place of the playing and singing of the Levites at these solemnities (vid. 2 Chron. v. 12-14).
Vers. 12-21. Solomon extols this marvellous proof of the favour of the Lord. — Ver. 12. Then spake Solomon, "Jehovah hath spoken to dwell in the darkness." u Solomon saw that the temple was filled with a cloud, and remembered that God had been pleased to appear in a cloud in the tent of Moses also. Hence he assuredly believed that God was in this cloud also, and that, as formerly He had filled the tabernacle, so He would now fill the temple and dwell therein " (Seb. Schmidt). 1DK 'U1 nrn\ which Thenius still renders incorrectly, " the Lord intends to dwell in the darkness," refers, as Eashi, C. a Lap., and others have seen, to the utterances of God in the Pentateuch concerning the manifestation of His gracious presence among His people, not merely to Lev. xvi. 2 (I will appear in the cloud), but also to Ex. xix. 9, where the Lord said to Moses, " I come to thee fjyn 3V2}" and still more to Ex. xx. 21 and Deut. iv. 11, v. 19, according to which God came down upon Sinai??")V3 Solomon took the word?&"}!? from these passages. That he meant by this the black, dark cloud which filled the temple, is perfectly obvious from the combination?Q"W.rn ijyn in Deut. v. 19 and iv. II.1 Solomon saw this word of Jehovah realized in