Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Vers. 23-30. Solomon'' s accession and DavioVs death, with a statement as to the length of his reign and the sources of the history. — Vers. 23-25. The remarks on Solomon's accession and reign contained in these verses are necessary to the complete conclusion of a history of David's reign, for they show how David's wishes for his son Solomon, whom Jahve chose to be his successor, were fulfilled. On H1PP KMvJJ see the commentary on xxviii. 5. "??D, he was prosperous, corresponds to the hope expressed by David (xxii. 13), which was also fulfilled by the submission of all princes and heroes, and also of all the king's sons, to King Solomon (ver. 24). There can hardly, however, be in these last words a reference to the frustrating of Adonijah's attempted usurpation of the throne (cf. 1 Kings i. 15 ff.). jnj nnn T=to submit. But this meaning is not derived (Rashi) from the custom of taking oaths of fidelity by clasping of hands, for this custom cannot be certainly proved to have existed among the Israelites; still less can it have arisen from the ancient custom mentioned in Gen. xxiv. 2, 9, xlvii. 29, of laying the hand under the thigh of the person to whom one swore in making promises with oath. The hand, as the instrument of all activity, is here simply a symbol of power. — Ver. 25. Jahve made Solomon very great, by giving him the glory of the kingdom, as no king before him had had it.?b is to be taken along with &6, nullns, and does not presuppose a number of kings before Solomon; it involves only more than one. Before him, Saul, Ishbosheth, and David had been kings, and the kingship of the latter had been covered with glory.— Ver. 26-30. Hnfef^fa by (as in xi. 1, xii. 38), referring to the fact that David had been for a time king only over Judah, but had been recognised at a later time by all the tribes of Israel as king. The length of his reign as in 1 Kings ii. 11. In Hebron seven years; according to 2 Sam. v. 5, more exactly seven years and six months. — Ver. 28. On liM] *Hf^ c^- 1 Kings iii. 13, 2 Chron. xvii. 5. — Ver. 29. On the authorities cited see the Introduction, p. 30 ff. 'm foaforia Dy goes with &W& D3PI: the acts of David... are written... together with his whole reign and his power, and the times which went over him. BWJ, the times, with their joys and sorrows, as in Ps. xxxi. 16, Job xxiv. 1. The kingdoms of the lands (cf. 2 Chron. xii. 8, xvii. 10, xx. 29) are the kingdoms with which the Israelites under David came into contact, — Philistia, Edom, Moab, Amnion, Aram.

jf HE kingship of Solomon centres in the building of the temple of the Lord, and the account of that begins in chap. ii. with a statement of the preparations which Solomon made for the accomplishment of this great work, so much pressed upon him by his father, and concludes in chap. vii. with the answer which the Lord gave to his consecrating prayer in a vision. In chap, i., before the history of the temple building, we have an account of the sacrifice at Gibeon by which Solomon inaugurated his reign (ver. 1-13), with some short notices of his power and riches (vers. 14-17); and in chap. viii. and ix., after the temple building, we have summary statements about the palaces and cities which he built (viii. 1-11), the arrangement of the regular religious service (vers. 12-16), the voyage to Ophir (vers. 17 and 18), the visit of the queen of Sheba (ix. 1-12), his riches and his royal magnificence and glory (vers. 13-28), with the concluding notices of the duration of his reign, and of his death (vers. 29, 30). If we compare with this the description of Solomon's reign in 1 Kings i.-xi., we find that in the Chronicle not only are the narratives of his accession to the throne in consequence of Adonijah's attempted usurpation, and his confirming his kingdom by punishing the revolter (1 Kings chap. i. and ii.), of his marriage to the Egyptian princess (iii. 1 and 2), his wise judgment (iii. 16-28), his public officers, his official men, his royal magnificence and glory (1 Kings iv. 1-v. 14), omitted, but also the accounts of the building of his palaco (1 Kings vii. 1-12), of his idolatry, and of the adversaries who rose against him (1 Kings xi. 1-40). On the other hand, the description of the building and consecration of the temple is supplemented by various important details which are omitted from the first book of Kings. Hence it is clear that the author of the Chronicle purposed only to portray more exactly the building of the house of God, and has only shortly touched upon all the other undertakings of this wise and fortunate king.

Vers. 1-13. The sacrifice at Gibeon, and the theophany. — Vers. 1-6. When Solomon had established himself upon his throne, he went with the princes and representatives of the congregation of Israel to Gibeon, to seek for the divine blessing upon his reign by a solemn sacrifice to be offered there before the tabernacle. Ver. 1 forms, as it were, the superscription of the account of Solomon's reign which follows. In *W1 P}^5! = Solomon established himself in his kingdom, i.e. he became strong and mighty in his kingdom, the older commentators saw a reference to the defeat of Adonijah, the pretender to the crown, and his followers (1 Kings ii.). But this view of the words is too narrow; we find the same remark made of other kings whose succession to the throne had not been questioned (cf. xii. 13, xiii. 21, xvii. 1, and xxi. 4), and the remark refers to the whole reign, — to all that Solomon undertook in order to establish a firm dominion, not merely to his entry upon it. With this view of the words, the second clause, " his God was with him, and made him very great," coincides. God gave His blessing to all that Solomon did for this end. With the last words cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 25.

We have an account of the sacrifice at Gibeon (vers. 7-13) in 1 Kings iii. 4-15 also. The two narratives agree in all the main points, but, in so far as their form is concerned, it is at once discernible that they are two independent descriptions of the same thing, but derived from the same sources. In 1 Kings iii. the theophany — in our text, on the contrary, that aspect of the sacrifice which connected it with the public worship — is more circumstantially narrated. While in 1 Kings iii. 4 it is briefly said the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, our historian records that Solomon summoned the princes and representatives of the people to this solemn act, and accompanied by them went to Gibeon. This sacrifice was no mere private sacrifice, — it was the religious consecration of the opening of his reign, at which the estates of the kingdom were present as a matter of course. " All Israel " is defined by a the princes over the thousands..., the judges, and all the honourable;" then?IOfe*"?5r is again taken up and explained by the apposition rriasn »65>fcH: to all Israel, viz. the heads of the fathers'-houses.? is to be repeated before H?*n. What Solomon said to all Israel through its representatives, is not communicated; but it may be gathered from what succeeds, that he summoned them to accompany him to Gibeon to offer the sacrifice. The reason why he offered his sacrifice at the riD3? i.e. place of sacrifice, is given in ver. 3 f. There the Mosaic tabernacle stood, yet without the ark, which David had caused to be brought up from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem (1 Chron. xiii. and xv f.). In v F?H3 the article in 2 represents the relative ^"x-i^ori!3 pan -K5to DfpD3; cf. Jud. v. 27, Euthi. 16,1

Kings xxi. 19; see on 1 Chron. xxvi. 28. Although the ark was separated from the tabernacle, yet by the latter at Gibeon was the Mosaic altar of burnt-offering, and on that account the sanctuary at Gibeon was Jahve's dwelling, and the legal place of worship for burnt- offerings of national -theocratic import. " As our historian here brings forward emphatically the fact that Solomon offered his burnt-offering at the legal place of worship, so he points out in 1 Chron. xxi. 28-xxx. 1, how David was only brought by extraordinary events, and special signs from God, to sacrifice on the altar of burnt-offering erected by him on the threshing-floor of Oman, and also states how he was prevented from offering his burnt- offering in Gibeon" (Berth.). As to Bezaleel, the maker of the brazen altar, cf. Ex. xxxi. 2 and xxxvii. 1. Instead of DB>, which most manuscripts and many editions have before V.r?? and which the Targ. and Syr. also express, there is found in most editions of the 16th century, and also in manuscripts, DK*, which the LXX. and Vulgate also read. The reading DP is unquestionably better and more correct, and the Masoretic pointing DB>, posuit, has arisen by an undue assimilation of it to Ex. xl. 29. The suffix in iHBhT does not refer to the altar, but to the preceding word mrp; cf. OWN ^T], 1 Chron. xxi. 30, xv. 13, etc. — Vers. 7-13. The theophany, cf. 1 Kings iii. 5-15. In that night, i.e. on the night succeeding the day of the sacrifice. The appearance of God by night points to a dream, and in 1 Kings xxxv. 15 we are expressly informed that He appeared in a vision. Solomon's address to God, vers. 8-10, is in 1 Kings v. 6-10 given more at length. The mode of expression brings to mind 1 Chron. xvii. 23, and recurs in 2 Chron. vi. 17, 1 Kings viii. 26. JHO, with Pathach in the second syllable, elsewhere JTO (vers. 11, 12), occurs elsewhere only in Dan. i. 4, 17, Eccles. x. 20. — Vers. 11 and 12. The divine promise. Here "Wfi is strengthened by the addition ^p33? treasures (Josh. xxii. 8; Eccles. v. 18, vi. 2). tibtp'n 1W, utjudicare possis. In general, the mode of expression is briefer than in 1 Kings iii. 11-13, and the conditional promise, " long life " (1 Kings iii. 14), is omitted, because Solomon did not fulfil the condition, and the promise was not fulfilled. In ver. 13 HEap is unintelligible, and has probably come into our text only by a backward glance at ver. 3, instead of n»3Pi» which the contents demand, and as the LXX. and Vulgate have rightly translated it. The addition, " from before the tabernacle," which seems superfluous after the preceding "from the Bamah at Gibeon," is inserted in order again to point to the place of sacrifice at Gibeon, and to the legal validity of the sacrifices offered there (Berth.). According to 1 Kings iii. 15, Solomon, on his return to Jerusalem, offered before the ark still other burnt-offerings and thank-offerings, and prepared a meal for his servants. This is omitted by the author of the Chronicle, because these sacrifices had no ultimate import for Solomon's reign, and not, as Then, supposes, because in his view only the sacrifices offered on the ancient brazen altar of burnt-offering belonging to the temple had legal validity. For he narrates at length in 1 Chron. xxi. 18, 26 ff. how God Himself directed David to sacrifice in Jerusalem, and how the sacrifice offered there was graciously accepted by fire from heaven, and the threshing-floor of Araunah thereby consecrated as a place of sacrifice; and it is only with the purpose of explaining to his readers why Solomon offered the solemn burnt-offering in Gibeon, and not, as we should have expected from 1 Chron. xxi., in Jerusalem, that he is so circumstantial in his statements as to the tabernacle. The last clause of ver. 13, u and he was king over Israel," does not belong to the section treating of the sacrifice at Gibeon, but corresponds to the remark in 1 Kings iv. 1, and forms the transition to what follows.

Vers. 14-17. Solomons chariots, horses, and riches. — In order to prove by facts the fulfilment of the divine promise which Solomon received in answer to his prayer at Gibeon, we have in 1 Kings iii. 16—28 a narrative of Solomon's wise judgment, then in chap. iv. an account of his public officers; and in chap. v. 1-14 the royal magnificence, glory, and wisdom of his reign is further portrayed. In our Chronicle, on the contrary, we have in vers. 14-17 onlv a short statement as to his chariots and horses, and the wealth in silver and gold to be found in the land, merely for the purpose of showing how God had given him riches and possessions. This statement recurs verbally in 1 Kings x. 26-29, in the concluding remarks on the riches and splendour of Solomon's reign; while in the parallel passage, 2 Chron. ix. 13-28, it is repeated in an abridged form, and interwoven with other statements. From this we see in how free and peculiar a manner the author of the Chronicle has made use of his authorities, and how he has arranged the material derived from them according to his own special plan.1 For the commentary on this section, see on 1 Kings x. 26-28. — Vers. 14, 15, with the exception of one divergence in form and one in matter, correspond word for word to 1 Kings x. 26 and 27. Instead of £H^, he led them (Kings), there stands in ver. 15, as in ix. 25, the more expressive word orV3sl, " he laid them" in the chariot cities; and in ver. 15 nn-jrnfiKi is added to *]D3PrnK while it is omitted from both 1 Kfrms x. 27 and also 2 Chron. ix. 27. It is, however, very suitable in this connection, since the comparison " like stones" has reference to quantity, and Solomon had collected not only silver, but also gold, in quantity. — Vers. 16, 17 coincide with 1 Kings x. 28, 29, except that Rip? is used for mpo, and WCF}} rbyr\\ is altered into Ajp Mttfft. For the commentary on these verses, see 1 Kings x. 28 f.

The account of these is introduced by i. 18: " Solomon thought to build." "i£K with an infinitive following does not signify here to command one to do anything, as e.g. in 1 Chron. xxi. 17, but to purpose to do something, as e.g. in 1 Kings v. 19. For rtW DB&, see on 1 Kings v. 17. iraW> rva, house for his kingdom, i.e. the royal palace. The building of this palace is indeed shortly spoken of in ii. 11, vii. 11, and viii. 1, but is not in the Chronicle described in detail as in 1 Kings vii. 1-12.

1 The assertion of Thenius on 1 Kings x. 26 ff., that he found this section in his authorities in two different places and in different connections, copied them mechanically, and only towards the end of the second passage remarked the repetition and then abridged the statement, is at once refuted by observing, that in the supposed repetition the first half (ix. 25, 26) does not at all agree with 1 Kings x. 20, but coincides with the statement in 1 Kings v. 6, 7.

With chap. ii. 1 begins the account of the preparations which Solomon made for the erection of these buildings, especially of the temple building, accompanied by a statement that the king caused all the workmen of the necessary sort in his kingdom to be numbered. There follows thereafter an account of the ne^otiations with King Hiram of Tyre in regard to the sending of a skilful architect, and of the necessary materials, such as cedar wood and hewn stones, from Lebanon (vers. 2-15); and, in conclusion, the statements as to the levying of the statute labourers of Israel (ver. 1) are repeated and rendered more complete (vers. 16, 17). If we compare the parallel account in 1 Kings v. 15-32, we find that Solomon's negotiation with Hiram about the proposed buildings is preceded (ver. 15) by a notice, that Hiram, after he had heard of Solomon's accession, had sent him an embassy to congratulate him. This notice is omitted in the Chronicle, because it was of no importance in the negotiations which succeeded. In the account of Solomon's negotiation with Hiram, both narratives (Chron. vers. 2-15 and 1 Kings v. 16-26) agree in the main, but differ in form so considerably, that it is manifest that they are free adaptations of one common original document, quite independent of each other, as has been already remarked on 1 Kings v. 15. On ver. 1 see further on ver. 16 f.

Vers. 2-9. Solomon, through his ambassadors, addressed himself to Huram king of Tyre, with the request that he would send him an architect and building wood for the temple. On the Tyrian king Huram or Hiram, the contemporary of David and Solomon, see the discussion on 2 Sam. v. 11. According to the account in 1 Kings v., Solomon asked cedar wood from Lebanon from Hiram; according to our account, which is more exact, he desired an architect, and cedar, cypress, and other wood. In 1 Kings v. the motive of Solomon's request is given in the communication to Hiram, viz. that David could not carry out the building of the proposed temple on account of his wars, but that Jahve had given him (Solomon) rest and peace, so that he now, in accordance with the divine promise to David, desired to carry on the building (vers. 17-19). In the Chron. vers. 2-5, on the contrary, Solomon reminds the Tyrian king of the friendliness with which he had supplied his father David with cedar wood for his palace, and then announces to him his purpose to build a temple to the Lord, at the same time stating that it was designed for the worship of God, whom the heavens and the earth cannot contain. It is clear, therefore, that both authors have expanded the fundamental thoughts of their authority in somewhat freer fashion. The apodosis of the clause beginning with "iKfc? is wanting, and the sentence is an anacolouthon. The apodosis should be: "do so also for me, and send me cedars." This latter clause follows in vers. 6, 7, while the first can easily be supplied, as is done e.g. in the Vulg., by sic fac mecum. — Ver. 3. " Behold, I will build." ^n with a participle of that which is imminent, what one intends to do. v K^ipn?, to sanctify (the house) to Him. The infinitive clause which follows (T'D|pnp 'U1) defines more clearly the design of the temple. The temple is to be consecrated by worshipping Him there in the manner prescribed, by burning incense, etc. WteO rnbj?, incense of odours, Ex. xxv. 6, which was burnt every morning and evening on the altar of incense, Ex. xxx. 7 f. The clauses which follow are to be connected by zeugma with Tlpjpnp, i.e. the verbs corresponding to the objects are to be supplied from ^Dpn: " and to spread the continual spreading of bread" (Ex. xxv. 30), and to offer burntofferings, as is prescribed in Num. xxviii. and xxix. rVH riNT DjiJ&, for ever is this enjoined upon Israel, cf. 1 Chron. xxiii. 31. — Ver. 4. In order properly to worship Jahve by these sacrifices, the temple must be large, because Jahve is greater than all gods; cf. Ex. xviii. 11, Deut. x. 17. — Ver. 5. No one is able (nis "ivy as in 1 Chron. xxix. 14) to build a house in which this God could dwell, for the heaven of heavens cannot contain Him. These words are a reminiscence of Solomon's prayer (1 Kings viii. 27; 2 Chron. vi. 18). How should I (Solomon) be able to build Ilim a house, scil. that He should dwell therein? In connection with this, there then comes the thought: and that is not my purpose, but only to offer incense before Him will I build a temple. TOp"? is used as pars pro toto, to designate the whole worship of the Lord. After this declaration of the purpose, there follows in ver. 6 the request that he would send him for this end a skilful chief workman, and the necessary material, viz. costly woods. The chief workman was to be a man wise to work in gold, silver, etc. According to chap. iv. 11-16 and 1 Kings vii. 13 ff., he prepared the brazen and metal work, and the vessels of the temple; here, on the contrary, and in ver. 13 also, he is described as a man who was skilful also in purple weaving, and in stone and wood work, to denote that he was an artificer who could take charge of all the artistic work connected with the building of the temple.. To indicate this, all the costly materials which were to be employed for the temple and its vessels are enumerated. \)™: the later form of flJfWj deep-red purple, see on Ex. xxv. 4. '^3, occurring only here, vers. 6, 13, and in iii. 14, in the signification of the Heb. W w5^, crimson or scarlet purple, see on Ex. xxv. 4. It is not originally a Hebrew word, but is probably derived from the Old-Persian, and has been imported, along with the thing itself, from Persia by the Hebrews, n???, deep-blue purple, hyacinth purple, see on Exe xxv. 4. CPfTiria runs, to make engraved work, and Ex. xxviii. 9, 11, 36, and xxxix. 6, of engraving precious stones, but used here, as rttfJS"l?3j ver. 13, shows, in the general signification of engraved work in metal or carved work in wrood; cf. 1 Kings vi. 29. DtoagrrDJ depends upon Jnfety?: to work in gold..., together with the wise (skilful) men which are writh me in Judah. P?5 T^? quos comparavitj cf. 1 Chron. xxviii. 21, xxii. 15. — Ver. 7. The materials Hiram was to send were cedar, cypress, and almrmmim wood from Lebanon. D^wK, ver. 7 and ix. 10, irrstead of D^DPK, 1 Kings x. 11, probably means sandal wood, which was employed in the temple, according to 1 Kings x. 12, for stairs and musical instruments, and is therefore mentioned here, although it did not grow in Lebanon, but, according to ix. 10 and 1 Kings x. 11, wTas procured at Ophir. Here, in our enumeration, it is inexactly grouped along with the cedars and cypresses brought from Lebanon. — Ver. 8. The infinitive P?"!TO cannot be regarded as the continuation of rri"D7 nor is it a continuation of the imperat. v n?v (ver. 7), with the signification, " and let there be prepared for me" (Berth.). It is subordinated to the preceding clauses: send me cedars, which thy people wTho are skilful in the matter hew, and in that my servants will assist, in order, viz. to prepare me building timber in plenty (the 1 is explic). On ver. 8b cf. ver. 4. The infin. abs. &02n js usec{ adverbially: a wonderfully " (Ew. § 280, c). In return, Solomon promises to supply the Tyrian workmen with grain, wine, and oil for their maintenance, — a circumstance which is omitted in 1 Kings v. 10; see on ver. 14. fc^tphp is more closely defined by OW? Wb?, and p is the introductory?: " and behold, as to the hew:ers, the fellers of trees." 2Dn? to hew (wood), and to dress it (Deut. xxix. 10; Josh. ix. 21, 23), would seem to have been supplanted by 3Vn, which in vers. 1, 17 is used for it, and it is therefore explained by DW rn:p. « I will give wheat ni3D to thy servants" (the hewers of wood). The word rri3D gives no suitable sense; for u wheat of the strokes," for threshed wheat, would be a very extraordinary expression, even apart from the facts that wheat, which is always reckoned by measure, is as a matter of course supposed to be threshed, and that no such addition is made use of with the barley. H13D is probably only an orthographical error for 3"><?3'P, food, as may be seen from 1 Kings v. 25.

Vers. 10—15. The answer of King Hiram; cf. 1 Kings v. 21-25. — Hiram answered 3rD3j in a writing, a letter, which he sent to Solomon. In 1 Kings v. 21 Hiram first expresses his joy at Solomon's request, because it was of importance to him to be on a friendly footing with the king of Israel. In the Chronicle his writing begins with the congratulation: because Jahve loveth His people, hath He made thee king over them. Cf. for the expression, ix. 8 and 1 Kings x. 9. He then, according to both narratives, praises God that He has given David so wise a son. ^^% ver. 11, means: then he said further. The praise of God is heightened in the Chronicle by Hiram's entering into Solomon's religious ideas, calling Jahve the Creator of heaven and earth. Then, further, S^n i? is strengthened by rD*JM ysfa TjS^ having understanding and discernment; and this predicate is specially referred to Solomon's resolve to build a temple to the Lord. Then in ver. 12 f. he promises to send Solomon the artificer Huram-Abi. On the title ^ my father, i.e. minister, counsellor, and the descent of this man, cf. the commentary on 1 Kings vii. 13, 14. In ver. 13 of the Chronicle his artistic skill is described in terms coinciding; with Solomon's wish in ver. 6, only heightened by small additions. To the metals as materials in which he could work, there are added stone and wood work, and to the woven fabrics pin (byssus), the later word for Bfef; and finally, to exhaust the whole, he is said to be able 'nD"P3 3feTO, to devise all manner of devices which shall be put to him, as in Ex. xxxi. 4, he being thus raised to the level of Bezaleel, the chief artificer of the tabernacle. *p*?9D~&? is dependent upon nib'rp, as in ver. 6. The promise to send cedars and cypresses is for the sake of brevity here omitted, and only indirectly indicated in ver. 15. In ver. 14, however, it is mentioned that Hiram accepted the promised supply of grain, wine, and oil for the labourers; and ver. 15 closes with the promise to fell the wood required in Lebanon, and to cause it to be sent in floats to Joppa (Jaffa), whence Solomon could take it up to Jerusalem. The word T?>'? " need," is a aira^ Xey. in the Old Testament, but is very common in Aramaic writings. rinbD^ "floats," too, occurs only here instead of nVTjM, 1 Kings v. 23, and its etymology is unknown. If we compare vers. 12-15 with the parallel account in 1 Kings v. 22-25, we find that, besides Hiram's somewhat verbose promise to fell the desired quantity of cedars and cypresses on Lebanon, and to send them in floats by sea to the place appointed by Solomon, the latter contains a request from Hiram that Solomon would give him Drp, maintenance for his house, and a concluding remark that Hiram sent Solomon cedar wood, while Solomon gave Hiram, year by year, 20,000 kor of wheat as food for his house, i.e. the royal household, and twenty kor beaten oil, that is, of the finest oil. In the book of Kings, therefore, the promised wages of grain, wine, and oil, which were sent to the Tyrian woodcutters, is passed over, and only the quantity of wheat and finest oil which Solomon gave to the Tyrian king for his household, year by year, in return for the timber sent, is mentioned. In the Chronicle, on the contrary, only the wages or payment to the woodcutters is mentioned, and the return made for the building timber is not spoken of; but there is no reason for bringing these two passages, which treat of different things, into harmony by alterations of the text. For further discussion of this and of the measures, see on 1 Kino;s v. 22.

In vers. 1G and 17 the short statement in ver. 1 as to Solomon's statute labourers is again taken up and expanded. Solomon caused all the men to be numbered who dwelt in the land of Israel as strangers, viz. the descendants of the Canaanites who were not exterminated, " according to the numbering pED occurs only here) as his father David had numbered them." This remark refers to 1 Chron. xxii. 2, where, however, it is only said that David commanded the stran£ers to be assembled. But as he caused them to be assembled in order to secure labourers for the building of the temple, he doubtless caused them to be numbered; and to this reference is here made. The numbering gave a total of 153,000 men, of whom 70,000 were made bearers of burdens, 80,000 2¥n? i.e. probably hewers of stone and wood "ins i.e. on Lebanon, and 3600 foremen or overseers over the workmen, EyrrriN TDyn?, to cause the people to work, that is, to hold them to their task. With this cf. 1 Kings v. 29 f., where the number of the overseers is stated at 3300. This difference is explained by the fact that in the Chronicle the total number of overseers, of higher and lower rank, is given, while in the book of Kings only the number of overseers of the lower rank is given without the higher overseers. Solomon had in all 550 higher overseers of the builders (Israelite and Canaanite), — cf. 1 Kings ix. 23; and of these, 250 were Israelites, who alone are mentioned in 2 Chron. viii. 10, while the remaining 300 were Canaanites. The total number of overseers is the same in both accounts — 3850; who are divided in the Chronicle into 3600 Canaanitish and 250 Israelitish, in the book of Kings into 3300 lower and 550 higher overseers (see on 1 Kings v. 30). It is, moreover, stated in 1 Kings v. 27 f. that Solomon had levied a force of 30,000 statute labourers from among the people of Israel, with the design that a third part of them, that is, 10,000 men, should labour alternately for a month at a time in Lebanon, looking after their own affairs at home during the two following months. This levy of workmen from among the people of Israel is not mentioned in the Chronicle.

The description of the building begins with a statement of the place where and of the time when the temple was built (iii. 1, 2). Then follows an account of the proportions of the building, a description of the individual parts, commencing on the outside and advancing inwards. First we have the porch (vers. 3, 4), then the house, i.e. the interior apartment or the holy place (vers. 5-7), then the holiest of all, and cherubim therein (vers. 8-13), and the veil of partition between the holy place and the most holy (ver. 14). After that we have the furniture of the court, the pillars of the porch (vers. 15-17), the brazen altar (iv. 1), the brazen sea (iv. 2-&), the ten lavers (ver. G), the furniture of the holy place, candlesticks and tables (vers. 7, 8), and of the two courts (vers. 9, 10), and finally a summary enumeration of the brazen and golden utensils of the temple (vers. 11, 12). The description in 1 Kings vi. and vii. is differently arranged; the divine promise which Solomon received while the building was in progress, and a description of the building of the palace, being inserted: see on 1 Kings vi. and vii.

Chap. iii. The building of the temple. — Vers. 1-3. The statements as to the place where the temple was built (ver. 1) are found here only. Mount Moriah is manifestly the mountain in the land of Moriah where Abraham was to have sacrificed his son Isaac (Gen. xxii. 2), which had received the name npton, i.e. a the appearance of Jahve," from that event. It is the mountain which lies to the north-east of Zion, now called Plaram after the most sacred mosque of the Mohammedans, which is built there; cf. Rosen, das Haram von Jerusalem, Gotha 1866. 't? PJijOJ YkTK is usually translated: u which was pointed out to David his father." But n^o has not in Niphal the signification " to be pointed out," which is peculiar to the Hophal (cf. Ex. xxv. 40, xxvi. 30, Deut. iv. 35, etc.); it means only " to be seen," "to let oneself be seen," to appear, especially used of appearances of God. It cannot be shown to be anywhere used of a place which lets itself be seen, or appears to one. We must therefore translate: a on mount Moriah, where He had appeared to David his father." The unexpressed subject miT is easily supplied from the context; and with T^tf irn5 « on the mountain where," cf. ^\s; tfpaa> Gen. xxxv. 13 f., and Ew. § 331, c, 3. fon 1KW is separated from what precedes, and connected with what follows, by the Athnach under VP?R, and is translated, after the LXX., Vulg., and Syr., as a hyperbaton thus: u in the place where David had prepared," soil, the building of the temple by the laying up of the materials there (1 Chron. xxii. 5, xxix. 2). But there are no- proper analogies to such a hyperbaton, since Jer. xiv. 1 and xlvi. 1 are differently constituted. Berth, therefore is of opinion that our text can only signify, " which temple he prepared on the place of David," and that this reading cannot be the original, because pn occurs elsewhere only of David's activity in preparing for the building of the temple, and " place of David" cannot, without further ceremony, mean the place which David had chosen. He Avould therefore transpose the words thus: Wj P^C1 1?to Dffl?3. But this conjecture is by no means certain. In the first place, the mere transposition of the words is not sufficient; we must also alter ttfpDS into ttfp&?j to Set tne required sense; and, further, Bertheau's reasons are not conclusive. pan means not merely to make ready for (zurusten), to prepare, but also to make ready, make (bereiten), found e.g. 1 Kings vi. 10, Ezra iii. 3; and the frequent use of this word in reference to David's action in preparing for the building of the temple does not prove that it has this signification here also. The clause may be quite well translated, with J. J. Rambach: " quam domum prceparavit (Salomo) in loco Davidis." The expression " David's place," for "place which David had fixed upon," cannot in this connection be misunderstood, but yet it cannot be denied that the clause is stiff and constrained if we refer it to nin'1 irnTitf. We would therefore prefer to give up the Masoretic punctuation, and construe the words otherwise, connecting j^n "165W with the preceding thus: where Jahve had appeared to his father David, who had prepared (the house, i.e. the building of it), and make 'l Dip03, with the following designation of the place, to depend upon nfa!W as a further explanation of the 'on ina? viz. in the place of David, i.e. on the place fixed by David on the threshingfloor of the Jebusite Oman; cf. 1 Chron. xxi. 18. — In ver. 2 rto??rn is repeated in order to fix the time of the building. In 1 Kings vi. 1 the time is fixed by its relation to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. ^$3, which the older commentators always understood of the second day of the month, is strange. Elsewhere the day of the month is always designated by the cardinal number with the addition of B^jnp or D^, the month having been previously given. Berth, therefore considers *J#3 to be a gloss which has come into the text by a repetition of wn, since the LXX. and Vulg. have not expressed it. — Yer. 3. "And this is Solomon's founding, to build the house of God;" i.e. this is the foundation which Solomon laid for the building of the house of God. The infin. Hoph. IDtfl is used here and in Ezra iii. 11 substantively. The measurements only of the length and breadth of the building are given; the height, which is stated in 1 Kings vi. 2, is omitted here. The former, i.e. the ancient measurement, is the Mosaic or sacred cubit, which, according to Ezek. xl. 5 and xliii. 13, was a handbreadth longer than the civil cubit of the earlier time; see on 1 Kings vi. 2.

Vers. 4-7. The porch and the interior of the holy place. — Ver. 4. The porch which was before (i.e. in front of) the length (of the house), was twenty cubits before the breadth of the house, i.e. was as broad as the house. So understood, the words give an intelligible sense.?P*tfl with the article refers back to T>NPl in ver. 3 (the length of the house), and *JB /JJ in the two denning clauses means "in front:" but in the first clause it is "lying in front of the house," i.e. built in front; in the second it is (< measured across the front of the breadth of the house."1 There is certainly either a corruption of the text, or a wrong number in the statement of the height of the porch, 120 cubits; for a front 120 cubits high to a house only thirty cubits high could not be called DTiN; it would have been a THJB, a tower. It cannot with certainty be determined whether we should read twenty or thirty cubits; see in 1 Kings vi. 3. He overlaid it (the porch) with pure gold; cf. 1 Kings vi. 21. — Vers. 5—7. The interior of the holy place. Ver. 5. The "great house," i.e. the large apartment of the house, the holy place, he wainscotted with cypresses, and overlaid it with good gold, and carved thereon palms and garlands, nan from nan to cover, cover over, alternates with the synonymous H35J in the signification to coat or overlay with wood and gold. &j&F\ as in Ezek. xli. 18, for Ilhta, 1 Kings vi. 29, 35, are artificial palms as wall ornaments. tlSltihW are in Ex. xxviii. 14 small scroll-formed chains of gold wire, here spiral chain-like decorations on the walls, garlands of flowers carved on the wainscot, as we learn from 1 Kings vi. 18. — Ver. 6. And he garnished the house with precious stones for ornament (of the inner sides of the walls); cf. 1 Chron. xxix. 2, on which Bahr on 1 Kings vi. 7 appositely remarks, that the ornamenting of the walls with precious stones is very easily credible, since among the things which Solomon brought in quantity from Ophir they are expressly mentioned (1 Kings x. 11), and it was a common custom in the East so to employ them in buildings and in vessels; cf. Symbolik des mos. Cult. i. S. 280, 294, 297. The gold was from D*p3- This, the name of a place rich in gold, does not

1 There is consequently no need to alter the text according to 1 Kings vi. 3, from which passage Berth, would interpolate the words "y^y TV^n VJS hy ism n?3N3 between tjQ-^y and "nnsn and thereby get the signifi- cation: "and the porch which is before the house, ten cubits is its breadth before the same, and the length which is before the breadth twenty cubits." But this conjecture is neither necessary nor probable. It is not necessary, for (1) the present text gives an intelligible sense; (2) the assertion that the length and breadth of the porch must be stated cannot be justified, if for no other reason, for this, that even of the main buildings all three dimensions arc not given, only two being stated, and that it was not the purpose of the author of the Chronicle to give an architecturally complete statement, his main anxiety being to supply a general idea of the splendour of the temple. It is not probable; because the chronicler, if he had followed 1 Kings vi. 3, would not have written VJEr^JJ but n^n "OQ-^V and instead of!pfcil would have written telfcO to correspond with ism.

elsewhere occur, and has not as yet been satisfactorily explained. Gesen. with Wilson compares the Sanscrit parvam, the first, foremost, and takes it to be the name of the foremost, i.e. eastern regions; others hold the word to be the name of some city in southern or eastern Arabia, whence Indian gold was brought to Palestine. — In ver. 7 the garnishing of the house with gold is more exactly and completely described. He garnished the house, the beams (of the roof), the thresholds (of the doors), and its walls and its doors with gold, and carved cherubs on the walls. For details as to the internal garnishing, decoration, and gilding of the house, see 1 Kings vi. 18, 29, and 30, and for the doors, vers. 32-35.

Vers. 8—14. The most holy place, ivith the figures of the cherubim and the veil; cf. 1 Kings vi. 19-28. — The length of the most holy place in front of the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, consequently measured in the same way as the porch (ver. 4); the breadth, i.e. the depth of it, also twenty cubits. The height, which was the same (1 Kings vi. 20), is not stated; but instead of that we have the weight of the gold which was used for the gilding, which is omitted in 1 Kings vi., viz. 600 talents for the overlaying of the walls, and 50 shekels for the nails to fasten the sheet gold on the wainscotting. He covered the upper chambers of the most holy place also with gold; see 1 Chron. xxviii. 11. This is not noticed in 1 Kings vi. — Vers. 10 if. The figures of the cherubim are called Q*9?£¥ n^^7 sculpture work. The air. \ey. D^JJX comes from TO, Arab. AU, formavit, finxit, and signifies sculptures. The plur. ^SVI, a they overlaid them," is indefinite. The length of the wings was five cubits, and the four outspread wings extended across the whole width of the most holy place from one wall to the other. The repetition of the clauses "in«n anan... intfn t)» (vers. 11, 12) has a distributive force: the top of one wing of each cherub reached the wall of the house, that of the other wing reached the wins of the other cherub standing by. In the repetition the masc. ^30 alternates with the fem. TOft, being construed in a freer way as the principal gender with the fem. *|J3, and also with ^^\ adhcerehat, in the last clause. — In ver. 12 Bertheau would strike out the word *M? because it does not suit D*KHB, which occurs in 1 Chron. xxviii. 18, 2 Chron. v. 8, 1 Kings viii. 7, in the transitive signification, M to stretch out the wings." But nothing is gained by that, for we must then supply the erased word after D^Knia again. And, moreover, the succeeding clause is introduced by Dni, just because in the first clause the wings, and not the cherubim, were the subject. We hold the text to be correct, and translate: u the wings of these cherubim were, for they stretched them out, twenty cubits." nni refers to D'OVian. They stood upon their feet, consequently upright, and were, according to 1 Kings vi. 26, ten cubits high. "And their faces towards the house," i.e. turned towards the holy place, not having their faces turned towards each other, as was the case with the cherubim upon the Capporeth (Ex. xxv. 20). — Ver. 14. The veil between the holy place and the most holy, not mentioned in 1 Kings vi. 21, was made of the same materials and colours as the veil on the tabernacle, and was inwoven with similar cherub figures; cf. Ex. xxvi. 31. |W ^3 as in ii. 13. 5? ty, to bring upon; an indefinite expression for: to weave into the material.

Vers. 15-17. The two brazen pillars before the house, i.e. before the porch, whose form is more accurately described in 1 Kings vii. 15-22. The height of it is here given at thirty- five cubits, while, according to 1 Kings vii. 15, 2 Kings xxv. 17, Jer. lii. 21, it was only eighteen cubits. The number thirty-five has arisen by confounding n11 = 18 with i"P = 35; see on 1 Kings vii. 1 6. niKfn (air. Xey.) from HD^ overlay, cover, is the hood of the pillar, i.e. the capital, called in 1 Kings vii. 16 ff. rnnb? crown, capita], five cubits high, as in 1 Kings vii. 16. — Ver. 16. "And he made little chains on the collar (Halsreife), and put it on the top of the pillars, and made 100 pomegranates, and put them on the chains." In the first clause of this verse, ^^?7 " in (on) the most holy place," has no meaning, for the most holy place is not here being discussed, but the pillars before the porch, or rather an ornament on the capital of these pillars. We must not therefore think of chains in the most holy place, which extended thence out to the pillars, as the Syriac and Arabic seem to have done, paraphrasing as they do: chains of fifty cubits (i.e. the length of the holy place and the porch). According to 1 Kings vii. 17-20 and ver. 41 f., compared with 2 Chrori. iv. 12, 13, each capital consisted of two parts. The lower part was a circumvolution (Wulst) covered with chain-like net-work, one cubit high, with a setting of carved pomegranates one row above and one row below. The upper part, or that which formed the crown of the capital, was four cubits high, and carved in the form of an open lily-calyx.

In our verse it is the lower part of the capital, the circumvolution, with the chain net-work and the pomegranates, which is spoken of. From this, Bertheau concludes that TM must signify the same as the more usual n5?^> Yl7" " *ne lattice-work which was set about the top of the pillars, and served to fasten the pomegranates," and that -PTD has arisen out of TilTB by a transposition of the letters. ^T$ (chains) should be read here. This conjecture so decidedly commends itself, that we regard it as certainly correct, since W} denotes in Gen. xli. 42, Ezek. xvi. 11, a necklace, and so may easily denote also a ring or hoop; but we cannot adopt the translation " chains on a ring," nor the idea that the ronb\ since it surrounded the head of the pillars as a girdle or broad ring, is called the ring of the pillars. For this idea does not agree with the translation u chains in a ring," even when the}' are conceived of as u chain-like ornaments, which could scarcely otherwise be made visible on the ring than by open work." Then the chain-like decorations were not, as Bertheau thinks, on the upper and under border of the ring, but formed a net-work which surrounded the lower part of the capital of the pillar like a ring, as though a necklace had been drawn round it. T2"J consequently is not the same as n??;^? but rather corresponds to that part of the capital which is called n?3 (rife) in 1 Kings vii. 14; for the T\m& served to cover the rife, and were consequently placed on or over the fife, as the pomegranates were on the chains or woven work, npsn denotes the curve, the circumvolution, which is in 1 Kings vii. 20 called fttlin, a broad-arched band, bulging towards the middle, which formed the lower part of the capital. This arched part of the capital the author of the Chronicle calls T31? ring or collar, because it may be regarded as the neck ornament of the head of the pillar, in contrast to the upper part of the capital, that consisted in lily-work, i.e. the ball wrought into the form of an open lily-calyx (n").rp). — Ver. 17. As to the position of the pillars, and their names, see on 1 Kings vii. 21.

Chap. iv. 1-lla. The sacred furniture and the courts of the temple. — Vers. 1-G. The copper furniture of the court. Ver. 1. The altar of burnt-offering. Its preparation is passed over in 1 Kings vi. and vii., so that there it is only mentioned incidentally in connection with the consecration of the temple, viii. 22, 54, and IX. 25. It was twenty cubits square (long and broad) and ten cubits high, and constructed on the modol of the Mosaic altar of burnt-offering, and probably of brass plates, which enclosed the inner core, consisting of earth and unhewn stones; and if we may judge from Ezekiel's description, chap, xliii. 13-17, it rose in steps, as it were, so that at each step its extent was smaller; and the measurement of twenty cubits refers only to the lowest scale, while the space at the top, with the hearth, was only twelve cubits square; cf. my Bibl. Archceol. i. S. 127, with the figure, plate iii. fin;. 2. — Vers. 2-5. The brazen sea described as in 1 Kin^s vii. 23-26. See the commentary on that passage, and the sketch in my Archceol. i. plate iii. fig. 1. The differences in substance, such as the occurrence of ^nj>2 and 1?^<?i ver. 3, instead of CTfJS and D^jjan, and 3000 baths instead of 2000, are probably the result of orthographical errors in the Chronicle. TOJ in ver. 5 appears superfluous after the preceding P7~9, and Berth, considers it a gloss which has come from 1 Kings into our text by mistake. But the expression is only pleonastic: " receiving baths, 3000 it held;" and there is no sufficient reason to strike out the words. — Ver. 6. The ten lavers which, according to 1 Kings vii. 38, stood upon ten brazen stands, i.e. chests provided with carriage wheels. These stands, the artistic work on which is circumstantially described in 1 Kings vii. 27-37, are omitted in the Chronicle, because they are merely subordinate parts of the lavers. The size or capacity of the lavers is not stated, only their position on both sides of the temple porch, and the purpose for which they were designed, "to wash therein, viz. the work of the burntoffering (the flesh of the burnt-offering which was to be burnt upon the altar) they rinsed therein," being mentioned. For details, see in 1 Kings vii. 38 f. and the figure in my Arcliccol. i. plate iii. fig. 4. Occasion is here taken to mention in a supplementary way the use of the brazen sea. — Vers. 7-9. The golden furniture of the holy place and the courts. These three verses are not found in the parallel narrative 1 Kings vii., where in ver. 3% the statement as to the position of the brazen sea (ver. 10 of Chron.) follows immediately the statement of the position of the stands with the lavers. The candlesticks and the table of the shew-bread are indeed mentioned in the summary enumeration of the temple furniture, 1 Kings vii. 48 and 49, as in the corresponding passage of the Chronicle (vers. 19 and 20) they again occur; and in 1 Kings vi. 36 and vii. 12, in the description of the temple building, the inner court is spoken of, but the outer court is not expressly mentioned. No reason can be given for the omission of these verses in 1 Kings vii.; but that they have been omitted or have dropped out, may be concluded from the fact that not only do the whcle contents of our fourth chapter correspond to the section 1 Kings vii. 23-50, but both passages are rounded off by the same concluding verse (Chron. v. 1 and 1 Kings li.). — Ver. 7. He made ten golden candlesticks Dtpa^BS, according to their right, i.e. as they should be according to the prescript, or corresponding to the prescript as to the golden candlesticks in the Mosaic sanctuary (Ex. xxv. 31 ff.). BBKfo is the law established by the Mosaic legislation.— Ver. 8. Ten golden tables, corresponding to the ten candlesticks, and, like these, placed five on the right and five on the left side of the holy place. The tables were not intended to bear the candlesticks (Berth.), but for the shew-bread; cf. on ver. 19 and 1 Chron. xxviii. 16. And a hundred golden basins, not for the catching and sprinkling of the blood (Berth.), but, as their connection with the tables for the shew-bread shows, wine flagons, or sacrificial vessels for wine libations, probably corresponding to the niaj?3JD on the table of shew-bread in the tabernacle (Ex. xxv. 29). The signification, wine flagons, for B*FJj9j is placed beyond a doubt by Amos vi. 6. — Ver. 9. The two courts are not further described. For the court of the priests, see on 1 Kings vi. 36 and vii. 12. As to the great or outer court, the only remark made is that it had doors, and its doors, i.e. the folds or leaves of the doors, were overlaid with copper. In ver. 10 we have a supplementary statement as to the position of the brazen sea, which coincides with 1 Kings vii. 39; see on the passage. In ver. 11a the heavier brazen (copper) utensils, belonging to the altar of burntoffering, are mentioned: nn^p? pots for the removal of the ashes; Dsy!> shovels, to take the ashes out from the altar; and ^nP?j basins to catch and sprinkle the sacrificial blood. This half verse belongs to the preceding, notwithstanding that Huram is mentioned as the maker. This is clear beyond doubt, from the fact that the same utensils are again introduced in the summary catalogue which follows (ver. 16).

Vers. 116-22. Summary catalogue of the temple utensils and furniture. — Vers. 116-18. The brass work wrought by Huram. — Ver. 19-22. The golden furniture of the holy place and the gilded doors of the temple. This section is found also in 1 Kings vii. 406-50. The enumeration of the things wrought in brass coincides to a word, with the exception of trifling linguistic differences and some defects in the text, with 1 Kings vii. 406-

47. In ver. 12 ftVthan] TOSH is the true reading, and we should so read in 1 Kings vii. 41 also, since the TOl, circumvolutions, are to be distinguished from the riiinb, crowns; see on iii. 16. In ver. 14 the first nby is a mistake for "W, the second for rwy,

Kings ver. 43; for the verb T&V is not required nor expected, as the accusative depends upon niSPJD, ver. 11, while the number cannot be omitted, since it is always given with the other things. In ver. 16 ™>XQ is an orthographic error for rtfpJH?; cf. ver. 11 and 1 Kings vii. 44. Qnv3"P3"nxi is surprising, for there is no meaning in speaking of the utensils of the utensils enumerated in ver. 12— 16c. According to 1 Kings vii. 45, we should read rb&n D^rrb m. As to WK, see on ii. 12. pn» W'ra is accusative of the material, of polished brass; and so also D"ibp 'nj? 1 Kings vii. 45, with a similar signification. In reference to the rest, see the commentary on 1 Kings vii. 40 ff. — Vers. 19—22. In the enumeration of the golden furniture of the holy place, our text diverges somewhat more from 1 Kings vii. 48-50. On the difference in respect to the tables of the shew-bread, see on 1 Kings vii. 48. In ver. 20 the number and position of the candlesticks in the holy place are not stated as they are in 1 Kings vii. 49, both having been already given in ver. 7. Instead of that, their use is emphasized: to light them, according to the right, before the most holy place (BQBTMJ as in ver. 7). As to the decorations and subordinate utensils of the candlesticks, see on 1 Kin^s vii. 49. To 2l"ir ver. 21 (accus. of the material), is added nnr nmp WT^ " that is perfect gold." fy?P, which occurs only here, is synonymous with????, perfection. This addition seems superfluous, because before and afterwards it is remarked of these vessels that they were of precious gold ("MD ^rtj), and it is consequently omitted by the LXX., perhaps also because HipDD was not intelligible to them. The words, probably, are meant to indicate that even the decorations and the subordinate utensils of the candlesticks (lamps, snuffers, etc.) were of solid gold, and not merely gilded. — Ver. 22. TnlBTDj knives, probably used along with the snuffers for the cleansing and trimming of the candlesticks and lamps, are not met with among the utensils of the tabernacle, but are here mentioned (Chron. and Kings), and in 2 Kings xii. 14 and Jer. Iii. 18, among the temple utensils. Along with the HiplTOj sacrificial vessels (see on ver. 8), in 1 Chron. xxviii. 17 niJJTDj forks of gold, are also mentioned, which are not elsewhere spoken of. Among the utensils of the tabernacle we find only DOTD of brass, flesh-forks, as an appurtenance of the altar of burnt-offering (Ex. xxvii. 3, xxxviii. 3, Num. iv. 14; ef. 1 Sam. ii. 13 f.), which, however, cannot be intended here, because all the utensils here enumerated belonged to the holy place. What purpose the golden forks served cannot be determined, but the mention of golden knives might lead us to presuppose that there would be golden forks as well. That the forks are not mentioned in our verse does not render their existence doubtful, for the enumeration is not complete: e.g. the Hiss, 1 Kings vii. 50, are also omitted. rri33? vessels for the incense, and rnnriD, extinguishers, as in 1 Kings vii. 50. Instead of vrnJTH JVnn nn^? " and as regards the opening (door) of the house, its door-leaves," in 1 Kincrs vii. 50 we have Ivan ninrp nharo, "and the hinges of the door-leaves of the house." This suggests that nriD is only an orthographical error for nhb; but then if we take it to be so, we must alter vrririTn into WrtflTP. And, moreover, the expression IVan nhbj door-hinges of the house, is strange, as Diss properly denotes a recess or space between, and which renders the above-mentioned conjecture improbable. The author of the Chronicle seems rather himself to have generalized the expression, and emphasizes merely the fact that even the leaves of the doors in the most holy place and on the holy place were of gold; — of course not of solid gold; but they were, as we learn from hi. 7, overlaid with gold. This interpretation is favoured by the simple 3HT being used without the predicate "MD. To the sing, nnia no objection can be made, for the word in its fundamental signification, " opening," may easily be taken collectively. — Chap. v. 1 contains the conclusion of the account of the preparation of the sacred utensils as in 1 Kings vii. 51, and with it also the whole account of the building of the temple is brought to an end. The 1 before t|D3rrDK and 3Hjn"nK corresponds to the Lat. ct — et, both — and also. As to David's offerings, cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 10 and 11; and on the whole matter, compare also the remarks on 1 Kings vii. 51.

This solemnity, to which Solomon had invited the ciders and heads of all Israel to Jerusalem, consisted in four acts: (a) the transfer of the ark into the temple (v. 2-vi. 11); (0) Solomon's dedicatory prayer (vi. 12-42); (c) the solemn sacrifice (vii. 1-10 and (d) the Lord's answer to Solomon's prayer (vii. 11—22). I the first two acts the temple was dedicated by the king and t congregation of Israel to its holy purpose; by the two last it w consecrated by Jahve to be the dwelling-place of His name, we compare our account of this solemnity with the account giv in the book of Kings, we find that they agree in their main su stance, and for the most part even verbally coincide. Only, the Chronicle the part performed by the priests and Levites described more in detail; and in treating of the third act, inste of the blessing spoken by Solomon (1 Kings viii. 54-61), we ha in Chron. vii. 1-3 a narrative of the devouring of the sacrific by fire from heaven.

Chap. v. 2-vi. 11. The first part of the celebration was t transfer of the ark from Mount Zion to the temple (v. 2-1^ and in connection with this we have the words in which Solomi celebrates the entry of the Lord into the new temple (vi. 1-11 This section has been already commented on in the remarks < 1 Kings viii. 1-21, and we have here, consequently, only to s down briefly those discrepancies between our account and th other, which have any influence upon the meaning. — In ver. 3 t name of the month, E^n^n rnsn (Kings ver. 2), with which t supplementary clause, " that is the seventh month," is the connected, is omitted, so that we must either change Bhnn in ^nn3? or supply the name of the month; for the festival is n the seventh month, but was held in that month. — Ver. 4. Inste; of BT5?, we have in 2 Kings B^n^L1, the priests bare the ark; ai since even according to the Chronicle (ver. 7) the priests bare t ark into the holy place, we must understand by BJJfP such Levit were also priests. — In ver. 5, too, the words E*pn D^nbn are inexa< and are to be corrected by Kings ver. 4, ^1^) E^i^n. For ev< if the Levitic priests bare the ark and the sacred utensils of tl tabernacle into the temple, yet the tabernacle itself (the plan! hangings, and coverings of it) was borne into the temple, to preserved as a holy relic, not by priests, but only by Levites. TJ conj. i before D^n has probably been omitted only by a copyi: wTho was thinking of D^Sn D^ron (Josh. iii. 3, Deut. xvii. 9, 1 etc.). — In ver. 8 ^B?p is an orthographical error for *3bj1, 1 Kin, viii. 7; cf. 1 Chron. xxviii. 18, Ex. xxv. 20. — In ver. 9, tc jhsn-jp has probably come into our text only by a copyist's mi take instead of vyTP (Kings ver. 8).— Ver. 10. 10} 1PK, wl had given, i.e. laid in, is not so exact as B^ T3H "itW (Kings ver. 9), but may be justified by a reference to Ex. xl. 20. — Vers. 116-13(2 describe the part which the priests and Levitical singers and musicians took in the solemn act of transferrin!! the ark to the temple, — a matter entirely passed over in the narrative in Kings viii. 11, which confines itself to the main transaction. The mention of the priests gives occasion for the remark, ver. 116, " for all the priests present had sanctified themselves, but the courses were not to be observed," i.e. the courses of the priests (1 Chron. xxiv.) could not be observed. The festival was so great, that not merely the course appointed to perform the service of that week, but also all the courses had sanctified themselves and co-operated in the celebration. In reference to the construction 11D0 p#, cf. Ew. § 321, b. — Ver. 12. All the Levitic singers and musicians were also engaged in it, to make the festival glorious by song and instrumental music: " and the Levites, the singers, all of them, Asaph, Heman, and Jeduthun, and their sons and brethren, clad in byssus, with cymbals, psalteries, and harps, stood eastward from the altar, and with them priests to 120, blowing trumpets." The p before D^3 and the following noun is the introductory p: "as regards." On the form Dm^TiD, see on 1 Chron. xv. 24; on these singers and musicians, their clothing, and their instruments, see on 1 Chron. xv. 17-28 and chap. xxv. 1-8. — Ver. 13a runs thus literally: " And it came to pass, as one, regarding the trumpeters and the singers, that they sang with one voice to praise and thank Jahve." The meaning is: and the trumpeters and singers, together as one man, sang with one voice to praise. ^S3 is placed first for emphasis; stress is laid upon the subject, the trumpeters and singers, by the introductory p; and PIJPI is construed with the following infinitive (TO^np): it was to sound, to cause to hear, for they were causing to hear, where p c. injin. is connected with n\i? as the participle is elsewhere, to describe the circumstances; cf. Ew. § 237. But in order to express very strongly the idea of the unisono of the trumpet-sound, and the singing accompanied by the harpplaying, which lies in inN3, 1J1K Snp is added to V'nvnb. By 'i;i?ip D^irai all that was to be said of the song and music is drawn together in the form of a protasis, to which is joined *T3ni Np9> tne apodosis both of this latter and also of the protasis which was interrupted by the parenthesis in ver. 11: " When the priests went forth from the holy place, for... (ver. 11), and when they lifted up the voice with trumpets and with cymbals, and the (other) instruments of song, and with the praise of Jahve, that He is good, that His mercy endureth for ever (cf. 1 Chron. xvi. 34), then was the house filled with the cloud of the house of Jahve." The absence of the article before |JV requires us thus to connect the rnPP Jfa at the close of the verse with ]W (stat. constr.\ since the indefinite jjy (without the article) is not at all suitable here; for it is not any cloud which is here spoken of, but that which overshadowed the glory of the Lord in the most holy place. — Ver. 14, again, agrees with 1 Kings viii. 6, and has been there commented upon, chap. vi. 1-11. The words with which Solomon celebrates this wondrous evidence of divine favour, entirely coincide with the narrative in 1 Kings viii. 12-21, except that in ver. 5 f. the actual words of Solomon's speech are more completely given than in 1 Kings viii. 16, where the words, a and I have not chosen a man to be prince over my people Israel, and I have chosen Jerusalem that my name might be there," are omitted. For the commentary on this address, see on 1 Kings viii. 12-21.

Chap. vi. 12-42. Solomon's dedicatory prayer likewise corresponds exactly with the account of it given in 1 Kings viii. 22-53 till near the end (vers. 40—42), where it takes quite a different turn. Besides this, in the introduction (ver. 13) Solomon's position during the prayer is more accurately described, it being there stated that Solomon had caused a high stage pi5?, a basinlike elevation) to be erected, which he ascended, and kneeling, spoke the prayer which follows. This fact is not stated in 1 Kings viii. 22, and Then, and Berth, conjecture that it has been dropped out of our text only by mistake. Perhaps so, but it may have been passed over by the author of the books of Kings as a point of subordinate importance. On the contents of the prayer, which begins with the joyful confession that the Lord had fulfilled His promise to David in reference to the building of the temple, and proceeds with a request for a further bestowment of the blessing promised to His people, and a supplication that all prayers made to the Lord in the temple may be heard, see the Com. on 1 Kings viii. 22 ff. The conclusion of the prayer in the Chronicle is different from that in 1 Kings viii. There the last supplication, that the prayers might be heard, is followed by the thought: for they (the Israelites) are Thy people and inheritance; and in the further amplification of this thought the prayer returns to the idea with which it commenced. In the narrative of the Chronicle, on the other hand, the supplications conclude with the general thought (ver. 40): " Now, my God, let, I beseech Thee, Thine eyes be open, and Thine ears attend unto the prayer of this place " (i.e. unto the prayer spoken in this place). There follows, then, the conclusion of the whole prayer, — a summons to the Lord (ver. 41 f.): " And now, Lord God, arise into Thy rest, Thou and the ark of Thy strength; let Thy priests, Lord God, clothe themselves in salvation, and Thy saints rejoice in good! Lord God, turn not away the face of Thine anointed: remember the pious deeds of Thy servant David." B^Dn as in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 32, xxxv. 26, and Neh. xiii. 14. On this Thenius remarks, to 1 Kings viii. 53: " This conclusion is probably authentic, for there is in the text of the prayer, 1 Kings viii., no special expression of dedication, and this the summons to enter into possession of the temple very fittingly supplies. The whole contents of the conclusion are in perfect correspondence with the situation, and, as to form, nothing better could be desired. It can scarcely be thought an arbitrary addition made by the chronicler for no other reason than that the summons spoken of, if taken literally, is irreconcilable with the entrance of the cloud into the temple, of which he has already given us an account." Berth, indeed thinks that it does not thence follow that our conclusion is authentic, and considers it more probable that it was introduced because it appeared more suitable, in place of the somewhat obscure words in 1 Kings viii. 51-53, though not by the author of the Chronicle, and scarcely at an earlier time. The decision on this question can only be arrived at in connection with the question as to the origin of the statements peculiar to the Chronicle contained in chap. vii. 1-3. If we consider, in the first place, our verses in themselves, they contain no thought which Solomon might not have spoken, and consequently nothing which would tend to show that they are not authentic. It is true that the phrase nia^j? ^pJTK occurs only here and in vii. 15, and again in Ps. cxxx. 2, and the noun Htf instead of nrwp is found only in Esth. ix. 16-18 in the form nfa; but even if these two expressions be peculiar to the later time, no further conclusion can be drawn from that, than that the author of the Chronicle has here, as often elsewhere, given the thoughts of his authority in the language of his own time. Nor is the relation in which vers. 41 and 42 stand to Ps. cxxxii. 8-10 a valid proof of the later composition of the conclusion of our prayer. For (a) it is still a question whether our verses have been borrowed from Ps. cxxxii., or the verses of the psalm from our passage; and (b) the period when Ps. cxxxviii. was written is so doubtful, that some regard it as a Solomonic psalm, while others place it in the post-exilic period. Neither the one nor the other of these questions can be determined on convincing grounds. The appeal to the fact that the chronicler has compounded the hymn in 1 Chron. xv. also out of post-exilic psalms proves nothing, for even in that case it is at least doubtful if that be a correct account of the matter. But the further assertion, that the conclusion (ver. 42) resembles Isa. lv. 3, and that recollections of this passage may have had some effect also on the conclusion (ver. 41), is undoubtedly erroneous, for TH *jpn in ver. 42 has quite a different meaning from that ^Yhich it has in Isa. lv. 3. There in "Hon are the favours granted to David by the Lord; in ver. 42, on the contrary, they are the pious deeds of David, — all that he had done for the raising and advancement of the public worship (see above). The phrase '131 flDlp, " Arise, O Lord God, into Thy rest," is modelled on the formula which was spoken when the ark was lifted and when it was set down on the journey through the wilderness, which explains both nw? and the use of 10^?, which is formed after Plh«3j Num. x. 36. The call to arise into rest is not inconsistent with the fact that the ark had already been brought into the most holy place, for HD^ip has merely the general signification, " to set oneself to anything." The idea is, that God would now take the rest to which the throne of His glory had attained, show Himself to His people from this His throne to be the God of salvation, endue His priests, the guardians of His sanctuary, with salvation, and cause the pious to rejoice in His goodness. VDfe* nitsn is generalized in Ps. cxxxii. 9 into «in\ 'a *JB:i#n, to turn away the face of any one, i.e. to deny the request, cf. 1 Kings ii. 16.

Chap. vii. 1-22. The divine confirmation of the dedication of the temple. — Vers. 1-10. The consecration of the sacrificial service by fire from heaven (vers. 1-3), and the sacrifices and festival of the people (vers. 4-10). — Vers. 1-3. At the conclusion of Solomon's prayer there fell fire from heaven, which devoured the burnt-offering and the thank-offering, and the glory of the Lord filled the house, so that the priests could not enter the house of Jahve. The assembled congregation, when they saw the fire and the glory of the Lord descend, bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement, and worshipped God to praise. Now since this narrative is not found in 1 Kings viii. 54 ff., and there a speech of Solomon to the whole congregation, in which he thanks God for the fulfilment of His promise, and expresses the desire that the Lord would hear his prayers at all times, and bestow the promised salvation on the people, is communicated, modern criticism has rejected this narrative of the Chronicle as a later unhistorical embellishment of the temple dedication. il If we turn our attention/' says Berth, in agreement with Then., ato chap. v. 11-14, and compare chap. v. 14 with our second verse, wre must maintain that our historian found that there existed two different narratives of the proceedings at the dedication of the temple, and received both into his work. According to the one narrative, the clouds filled the house (1 Kings viii. 10, cf. 2 Chron. v. 11-14); and after this was done Solomon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which we find in 1 Kings viii.; according to the other narrative, Solomon uttered the prayer, with the conclusion which we find in Chron., and God thereafter gave the confirmatory signs. Now we can hardly imagine that the course of events was, that the glory of Jahve filled the house (chap. v. 14); that then Solomon spoke the words and the prayer in chap. vi.; that while he uttered the prayer the glory of Jahve again left the house, and then came down in a way manifest to all the people (chap. vii. 3), in order to fill the house for a second time." Certainly it was not so; but the narrative itself gives no ground for any such representation. Not a word is said in the text of the glory of Jahve having left the temple during Solomon's prayer. The supposed contradiction between chap. v. 14 and the account in chap. vii. 1-3 is founded entirely on a misinterpretation of our verse. The course of events described here was, as the words run, this: Fire came down from heaven upon the sacrifices and devoured them, and the glory of the Lord filled the house; and this is in ver. 3 more exactly and precisely repeated by the statement that the people saw the fire and the glory of Jahve descend upon the house. According to these plain words, the glory of Jahve descended upon the temple in the fire which came down from heaven. In the heavenly fire which devoured the sacrifices, the assembled congregation saw the glory of the Lord descend upon the temple and fill it. But the filling of the temple by the cloud when the ark was brought in and set in its place (v. 14) can be without difficulty reconciled with this manifestation of the divine glory in the fire. Just as the manifestation of the gracious divine presence in the temple by a cloud, as its visible vehicle, does not exclude the omnipresence of God or His sitting enthroned in heaven, God's essence not being so confined to the visible vehicle of His gracious presence among His people that He ceases thereby to be enthroned in heaven, and to manifest Himself therefrom; so the revelation of the same God from heaven by a descending fire is not excluded or set aside by the presence of the cloud in the holy place of the temple, and in the most holy. We may consequently quite well represent to ourselves the course of events, by supposing, that while the gracious presence of God enthroned above the cherubim on the ark made itself known in the cloud which filled the temple, or while the cloud filled the interior of the temple, God revealed His glory from heaven, before the eyes of the assembled congregation, in the fire which descended upon the sacrifices, so that the temple was covered or overshadowed by His glory. The parts of this double manifestation of the divine glory are clearly distinguished even in our narrative; for in chap. v. 13, 14 the cloud which filled the house, as vehicle of the manifestation of the divine glory, and which hindered the priests from standing and serving (in the house, i.e. in the holy place and the most holy), is spoken of; while in our verses, again, it is the glory of God which descended upon the temple in the fire coming down from heaven on the sacrifices, and so filled it that the priests could not enter it, which is noticed.

Since, therefore, the two passages involve no contradiction, the hypothesis of a compounding together of discrepant narratives loses all standing ground; and it only remains to determine the mutual relations of the two narratives, and to answer the question, why the author of the book of Kings has omitted the account of the fire which came down from heaven upon the sacrifices, and the author of the Chronicle the blessing of the congregation (1 Kings viii. 54-61). From the whole plan and character of the two histories, there can be no doubt that in these accounts we have not a perfect enumeration of all the different occurrences, but only a record of the chief things which were done. The authority made use of by both, however, doubtless contained both the blessing of the congregation (1 Kings viii.

55-G1) and the account of the fire which devoured the sacrifices (2 Chron. vii. 2, 3); and probably the latter preceded the blessing spoken by Solomon to the congregation (Kings). In all probability, the fire came down from heaven immediately after the conclusion of the dedicatory prayer, and devoured the sacrifices lying upon the altar of burnt-offering; and after this had happened, Solomon turned towards the assembled congregation and praised the Lord, because He had given rest to His people, of which the completion of the temple, and the filling of it with the cloud of the divine glory, was a pledge. To record this speech of Solomon to the congregation, falls wholly in with the plan of the book of Kings, in which the prophetic interest, the realization of the divine purpose of grace by the acts and omissions of the kings, is the prominent one; while it did not lie within the scope of his purpose to enter upon a detailed history of the public worship. We should be justified in expecting the fire which devoured the sacrifices to be mentioned in the book of Kings, only if the temple had been first consecrated by this divine act to be the dwelling-place of the gracious presence of God, or a sanctuary of the Lord; but such significance the devouring of the sacrifices by fire coming forth from God did not possess. Jahve consecrated the temple to be the dwelling-place of His name, and the abode of His gracious presence, in proclaiming His presence by the cloud which filled the sanctuary, when the ark was brought into the most holy place. The devouring of the sacrifices upon the altar by fire from heaven was merely the confirmatory sign that the Lord, enthroned above the ark in the temple, accepted, well pleased, the sacrificial service carried on on the altar of this temple; and since the people could draw near to the Lord only with sacrifices before the altar, it was a confirmatory sign that He from His throne would bestow His covenant grace upon those who appeared before Him with sacrifices; cf. Lev. ix. 23 f. Implicitly, this grace was already secured to the people by God's consecrating the sanctuary to be the throne of His grace by the cloud which filled the temple; and the author of the book of Kings thought it sufficient to mention this sign, and passed over the second, which only served as a confirmation of the first. With the chronicler the case was different; for his plan to portray In detail the glory of the worship of the former time, the divine confirmation of the sacrificial worship, which was to be carried on continually in the temple as the only legitimate place of worship, by fire from heaven, was so important that he could not leave it unmentioned; while the words of blessing spoken by Solomon to the congregation, as being already implicitly contained in the dedicatory prayer, did not appear important enough to be received into his book. For the rest, the sacrifices which the fire from heaven devoured are the sacrifices mentioned in chap. v. 6, which the king and the congregation had offered when the ark was borne into the temple. As there was an immense number of these sacrifices, they cannot all have been offered on the altar of burnt-offering, but, like the thank-offerings afterwards brought by Solomon and the congregation, must have been offered on the whole space which had been consecrated in the court for this purpose (ver. 7). This is expressly attested by ver. 7, for the nipyn can only be the sacrifices in v. 6, since the sacrifices in ver. 5 of our chapter were only BW£>; cf. 1 Kings viii. 62.

Vers. 4-10. The sacrifices and the festival. After fire from heaven had devoured the sacrifices, and Solomon had praised the Lord for the fulfilment of His word, and sought for the congregation the further bestowal of the divine blessing (1 Kings viii. 54- 61), the dedication of the temple was concluded by a great thankoffering, of which we have in vers. 5, 6 an account which completely agrees with 1 Kings viii. 62, 63. — In ver. 6 the author of the Chron. again makes express mention of the singing and playing of the Levites when these offerings were presented. In the performance of this sacrificial act the priests stood Drri"i£^Er?y? in their stations; but that does not signify separated according to their divisions (Berth.), but in officiis suis (Vulg.), i.e. ordines suos et functiones suas a Davide 1 Chron. xxiv. 7 sqq. institutas servarunt (Ramb.); see on Num. viii. 26. The Levites with the instruments of song of Jahve, which David had made, i.e. with the instruments invented and appointed by David for song to the praise of the Lord, fen? DTn TVJ, not liymnos David canentes per manns suas (Vulg.), taking TV} fen for the praising appointed by David, which by the hands of the Levites, i.e. was performed by the hands of the Levites (Berth.), but literally: when David sang praise by their hand (i.e. their service). This clause seems to be added to the relative clause, " which king David had made," for nearer definition, and to signify that the Levites used the same instruments which David had introduced when he praised God by the playing of the Levites. The form DnwriE as in 1 Chron. xv. 24. —

Ver. 7 contains a supplementary remark, and the 1 relat. expresses only the connection of the thought, and the verb is to be translated in English by the pluperfect. For the rest, compare on vers. 4-10 the commentary on 1 Kings viii. 62—66.

Vers. 11-22. The Lord's answer to Solomon's dedicatory prayer. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 1-9. The general contents, and the order of the thoughts in the divine answer in the two texts, agree, but in the Chronicle individual thoughts are further expounded than in the book of Kings, and expressions are here and there made clear. The second clause of ver. 11 is an instance of this, where " and all the desire of Solomon, which he was pleased to do," is represented by " and all that came into Solomon's heart, to make in the house of the Lord and in his own house, he prosperously effected." Everything else is explained in the Com. on 1 Kings ix.

The building of the temple was the most important work of Solomon's reign, as compared with which all the other undertakings of the king fall into the background; and these are consequently only summarily enumerated both in the book of Kings and in the Chronicle. In our chapter, in the first place, we have, (a) the building or completion of various cities, which were of importance partly as strongholds, partly as magazines, for the maintenance of the army necessary for the defence of the kingdom against hostile attacks (vers. 1-6); (b) the arrangement of the statute labour for the execution of all his building works (vers. 7-11); (c) the regulation of the sacrificial service and the public worship (vers. 12-16); and (d) the voyage to Ophir (vers. 17, 18). All these undertakings are recounted in the same order and in the same aphoristic way in 1 Kings ix. 10-28, but with the addition of various notes, which are not found in our narrative; while the Chronicle, again, mentions several not unimportant though subordinate circumstances, which are not found in the book of Kings; whence it is clear that in the two narratives we have merely short and mutually supplementary extracts from a more elaborate description of these mutters.

Vers. 1-6. The city-building. — Ver. 1. The date, " at the end of twenty years, when Solomon... had built," agrees with that in 1 Kings ix. 10. The twenty years are to be reckoned from the commencement of the building of the temple, for he had spent seven years in the building of the temple, and thirteen years in that of his palace (1 Kings vi. 38, vii. 1). — Ver. 2 must be regarded as the apodosis of ver. 1, notwithstanding that the object, the cities which... precedes. The unusual position of the words is the result of the aphoristic character of the notice. As to its relation to the statement 1 Kings ix. 10-13, see the discussion on that passage.. H33, ver. 2, is not to be understood of the fortification of these cities, but of their completion, for, according to 1 Kings ix. 10, 13, they were in very bad condition. yjv\ he caused to dwell there, i.e. transplanted Israelites thither, cf. 2 Kings xvii. 6. The account of the cities which Solomon built, i.e. fortified, is introduced (ver. 3) by the important statement, omitted in 1 Kings ix.: " Solomon went to Hamath-zobah, and prevailed against it."?V Pin, to be strong upon, that is, prevail against, conquer; cf. xxvii. 5. Hamath-zobah is not the city Hamath in Zobah, but, as wre learn from ver. 4, the land or kingdom of Hamath. This did not lie, any more than the city Hamath, in Zobah, but bordered on the kingdom of Zobah: cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 3; and as to the position of Zobah, see the Commentary on 2 Sam. viii. 3. In David's time Hamath and Zobah had their own kings; and David conquered them, and made their kingdoms tributary (1 Chron. xviii. 49). Because they bordered on each other, Hamath and Zobah are here bound together as a nomen compos. HyV ptjtj signifies at least this, that these tributary kingdoms had either rebelled against Solomon, or at least had made attempts to do so; which Solomon suppressed, and in order to establish his dominion over them fortified Tadmor, i.e. Palmyra, and all the store cities in the land of Hamath (see on 1 Kings ix. 18 f.); for, according to 1 Kings xi. 23 ff., he had Rezon of Zobah as an enemy during his whole reign; see on that passage. — Vers. 5 ff. Besides these, he made Upper and Nether Beth-horon (see on 1 Chron. vii. 24) into fortified cities, with walls, gates, and bars. "lto *Jg is the second object of |3^, and ni»in 'i:i is in apposition to that. Further, he fortified Baalah, in the tribe of Dan, to defend the kingdom against the Philistines, and, according to 1 Kings ix. 15-17, Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer also, — which are omitted here, while in 1 Kings ix. 17 Upper

Betli-horon is omitted, — and store cities, chariot cities, and cavalry cities; see on 1 Kings ix. 15-19.

Vers. 7-10. On the arrangement of the statute labour, see on 1 Kings ix. 20-23. — This note is in Chron. abruptly introduced immediately after the preceding. Ver. 7 is an absolute clause: u as regards the whole people, those." DfTOSTftt (ver. 8) is not partitive: some of their sons; but is only placed before the "H?K: those of their sons (i.e. of the descendants of the whole Canaanite people) who had remained in the land, whom the Israelites had not exterminated; Solomon made a levy of these for statute labourers. The IP is wanting in 1 Kings, but is not to be struck out here on that account. Much more surprising is the "^K after btfW) \?2T|*?j ver. 9, which is likewise not found in 1 Kings, since the following verb |nj Nv is not to be taken relatively, but contains the predicate of the subject contained in the words 'W *?3"|?. This "i^ cannot be otherwise justified than by supposing that it is placed after W *J3 |D, as in Ps. lxix. 27 it is placed after the subject of the relative clause, and so stands for ''W *33 }D *ib>k: those who were of the sons of Israel (i.e. Israelites) Solomon did not make... The preplacing of WTO? ^ m ver* 8 would naturally suggest that ''W T33 JD should also precede, in order to bring out sharply the contrast between the sons of the Canaanites and the sons of Israel.— Ver. 9. N^tf ^ should be altered into mi?

Wwj as in 1 Kings ix. 22, for D^W are not chariot combatants, but royal adjutants; see on Ex. xiv. 7 and 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. Over the statute labourers 250 upper overseers were placed. EWMB 'HJP, chief of the superiors, i.e. chief overseer. The Keth. WSWjprcBfecti, is the true reading; cf. 1 Chron. xviii. 13, 2 Chron. xvii. 2. The Keri has arisen out of 1 Kings ix. 23. These overseers were Israelites, while in the number 550 (1 Kings ix. 23) the Israelite and Canaanite upper overseers are both included; see on ii. 17. DVn refers to ^V^"?3, ver. 7, and denotes the Canaanite people who remained.

Ver. 11. The remark that Solomon caused Pharaoh's daughter, whom he had married (1 Kings iii. 1), to remove from the city of David into the house which he had built her, i.e. into that part of his newly-built palace which was appointed for the queen, is introduced here, as in 1 Kings ix. 24, because it belongs to the history of Solomon's buildings, although in the Chronicle it comes in very abruptly, the author not having mentioned Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh (I Kings iii. 1). The reason given for this change of residence on the part of the Egyptian princess is, that Solomon could not allow her, an Egyptian, to dwell in the palace of King David, which had been sanctified by the reception of the ark, and consequently assigned to her a dwelling in the city of David until he should have finished the building of his palace, in which she might dwell along with him. HEn is, as neuter, used instead of the singular; cf. Ew. § 318, b. See also on 1 Kings iii. 1 and ix. 24. Vers. 12-16. The sacrificial service in the new temple. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 25, where it is merely briefly recorded that Solomon offered sacrifices three times a year on the altar built by him to the Lord. In our verses we have a detailed account of it. tN, at that time, sciL when the temple building had been finished and the temple dedicated (cf. ver. 1), Solomon offered burnt-offerings upon the altar which he had built before the porch of the temple. He no longer now sacrifices upon the altar of the tabernacle at Gibeon, as in the beginning of his reign (i. 3 ff.). — Ver. 13. li Even sacrificing at the daily rate, according to the direction of Moses." These words give a supplementary and closer definition of the sacrificing in the form of an explanatory subordinate clause, which is interpolated in the principal sentence. For the following words 'til TYiT\2&? belong to the principal sentence (ver. 1 2): he offered sacrifices... on the sabbaths, the new moons, etc. The 1 before "l?t? is explicative, and that = viz.; and the infin. TOSH?, according to the later usage, instead of infin. absol.; cf. Ew. § 280, d. The preposition 1 (before T?}) is the so-called 2 essentia?: consisting in the daily (rate) to sacrifice (this); cf. Ew. § 299, b. The daily rate, i.e. that which was prescribed in the law of Moses for each day, cf. Lev. xxiii. 37. rrilJJiB? is further explained by the succeeding clause: on the three chief festivals of the year. — Ver. 14 ff. He ordered the temple service, also, entirely according to the arrangement introduced by David as to the service of the priests and Levites. He appointed, according to the ordinance of David his father, i.e. according to the ordinance established by David, the classes of the priests (see on 1 Chron. xxiv.) to that service, and the Levites to their stations (nntt^p as in vii. 6), to praise (cf. 1 Chron. xxv.), and to serve before the priests (1 Chron. xxiii. 28 ff.), according to that which was appointed for eveiy day, and the doorkeepers according to their courses, etc. (see 1 Chron. xxvi. 1-19). With the last words cf. Neh. xii. 24. — Ver. 15. This arrangement was faithfully observed by the priests and Levites. The verb "ViD is here construed c. accus. in the signification to transgress a command (cf. Ew. § 282, a), and it is therefore not necessary to alter nTCD into rmftSD. Ci^nbn-^ depends upon rflVD: the king's command concerning the priests and the Levites, i.e. that which David commanded them. 'Ml "QV^r, in regard to all things, and especially also in regard to the treasures; cf. 1 Chron. xxvi. 20-28. — With ver. 16 the account of what Solomon did for the public worship is concluded: " Now all the work of Solomon was prepared until the (this) day, the foundation of the house of Jahve until its completion; the house of Jahve was finished." riDK?D is explained by 1D1D. Cisn is the day on which, after the consecration of the completed temple, the regular public worship was commenced in it, which doubtless was done immediately after the dedication of the temple. Only when the regular worship according to the law of Moses, and with the arrangements as to the service of the priests and Levites established by David, had been commenced, was Solomon's work in connection with the temple completed, and the house of God DPB^ integer, perfect in all its parts, as it should be. The last clause, '* 1V2 D7£>, is connected rhetorically with what precedes without the conjunction, and is not to be regarded as a subscription, " with which the historian concludes the whole narrative commencing with chap. i. 18" (Berth.); for u?W does not signify "ended," or to be at an end, but to be set thoroughly (perfectly) in order.

Vers. 17 and 18. Voyage to Ophir. Cf. 1 Kings ix. 26-28, and the commentary on that passage, where we have discussed the divergences of our narrative, and have also come to the conclusion that Ophir is not to be sought in India, but in Southern Arabia. By TK the date of this voyage is made to fall in the period after the building of the temple and the palace, i.e. in the second half of Solomon's reign.

Vers. 1-12. The visit of the queen of Sheba. Cf. 1 Kings x. 1-13. — This event is narrated as a practical proof of Solomon's extraordinary wisdom. The narrative agrees so exactly in both texts, with the exception of some few quite unimportant differences, that we must regard them as literal extracts from an original document which they have used in common. For the commentary on this section, see on 1 Kings x. 1-13.

Vers. 13-21. Solomon's revenue in gold, and the use he made of it. Cf. 1 Kings x. 14-22, and the commentary there on this section, which is identical in both narratives, with the exception of some trifling differences. Before DW^o D'nnbm the relative pronoun is to be supplied: " and what the merchants brought." As to the derivation of the word rrina? which comes from the Aramaic form nns, governor (ver. 14), see on Hagg. i. 1. — twin ntopn ntoK, in ver. 21, ships going to Tarshish, is an erroneous paraphrase of B^BhFi ntojj, Tarshish-ships, i.e. ships built for long sea voyages; for the fleet did not go to Tartessus in Spain, but to Ophir in Southern Arabia (see on 1 Kings ix. 26 ff.). All the rest has been explained in the commentary on 1 Kings x.

In vers. 22-28, all that remained to be said of Solomon's royal glory, his riches, his wisdom, and his revenues, is in conclusion briefly summed up, as in 1 Kings x. 23-29. From ver. 25 onwards, the account given in the Chronicle diverges from that in 1 Kings x. 26 ff., in so far that what is narrated in 1 Kings x. 26-28 concerning Solomon's chariots and horses, and his trade with Egypt in horses, is here partly replaced by statements similar in import to those in 1 Kings v., because the former matters had been already treated of in Chron. i. 14-17. — Ver. 25 does not correspond to the passage 1 Kings x. 26, but in contents and language agrees with 1 Kings v. 6, and ver. 26 with 1 Kings v. 1. Only the general estimate of Solomon's riches in gold and silver, in ver. 27, repeated from chap. i. 15, corresponds to 1 Kings x. 27. Finally, in ver. 28 the whole description is rounded off; all that has already been said in chap. i. 16 and 17 as to the trade in horses with Egypt (1 Kings x. 28, 29) being drawn together into one general statement.

After giving an account of the revolt of the ten tribes of Israel from the divinely chosen royal house of David (chap, x.), the author of the Chronicle narrates the history of the kingdom of Judah — to which he confines himself, to the exclusion of the history of the kingdom of the ten tribes — at much greater length than the author of the books of Kings has done. This latter portrays the development of both kingdoms, but treats only very briefly of the history of the kingdom of Judah, especially under its first rulers, and characterizes the attitude of the kings and people of Judah to the kingdom of Israel and to the Lord only in the most general way. The author of the Chronicle, on the other hand, depicts the development of Judah under Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, and Jehoshaphat much more thoroughly, by communicating a considerable number of events which are omitted in the book of Kings. As we have already proved (p. 19), the purpose of the chronicler was to show, according to the varying attitude of the kings of the house of David to the Lord and to His law, how, on the one hand, God rewarded the fidelity of the kings and of the people to His covenant with prosperity and blessing, and furnished to the kingdom of Judah, in war with its enemies, power which secured the victory; and how, on the other, He took vengeance for every revolt of the kings and people, and for every fall into idolatry and superstition, by humiliations and awful judgments. And more especially from the times of the godless kings Ahaz and Manasseh does our author do this, pointing out how God suffered the people to fall ever deeper into feebleness, and dependence upon the heathen world powers, until finally, when the efforts of the pious kings Hezekiah and Josiah to bring back the people, sunk as they were in idolatry and moral corruption, to the God of their fathers and to His service failed to bring about any permanent repentance and reformation, He cast forth Judah also from His presence, and gave over Jerusalem and the temple to destruction by the Chaldeans, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judah to be led away into exile to Babylon.

This event is narrated in our chapter, except in so far as a few unessential differences in form are concerned, exactly as we have it in 1 Kings xii. 1-19; so that we may refer for the exposition of it to the commentary on 1 Kings xii., where we have both treated the contents of this chapter, and have also discussed the deeper and more latent causes of this event, so important in its consequences.

When the ten tribes had renounced their allegiance to Rehoboam the son of Solomon, and had made Jeroboam their king (1 Kings xii. 20), Rehoboam wished to compel them by force of arms again to submit to him, and made for this purpose a levy of all the men capable of bearing arms in Judah and Benjamin. But the prophet Shemaiah commanded him, in the name of the Lord, to desist from making war upon the Israelites, they being brethren, and Rehoboam abandoned his purpose (vers. 1-4, cf. 1 Kings xii. 21-24), and began to establish his dominion over Judah and Benjamin. His kingdom, moreover, was increased in power by the immigration of the priests and Levites, whom Jeroboam had expelled from the priesthood, and also of many God-fearing Israelites out of the ten tribes, to Judah (vers. 13-17). Rehoboam also set his family affairs in order, by nominating from among his many sons, whom his wives had borne to him, Abijah to be his successor on the throne, and making provision for the others in different parts of the country (vers. 18-23). But when he had established his royal authority, he forsook the law of Jahve, and was punished for it by the inroad of the Egyptian king Shishak, who marched through his land with a numerous host, took Jerusalem, and plundered the palace and the temple (chap. xii. 1-11), but without wholly ruining Judah; and Rehoboam was king until his death, and his son succeeded him on the throne (vers. 12-16).

The order in which these events are narrated is not chronological; they are rather grouped together according to their similarities. As Rehoboam began even in the third year of his reign to forsake the law of God, and King Shishak made war upon Judah as early as in his fifth year, the building of the fortresses may have been begun in the first three or four years, but cannot have been ended then; still less can the sons of Rehoboam have been provided for in the time before Shishak's inroad.

Chap. xi. 1-4. — Rehoboarn s attitude to the ten rebel tribes. Cf. 1 Kings xii. 21-24. — Eehoboam's purpose, to subdue these tribes by force of arms, and bring them again under his dominion, and the abandonment of this purpose in consequence of the command of the prophet Shemaiah, belong in a certain measure to the history of the revolt of the ten tribes from the house of David; for the revolt only became an accomplished fact when the prophet Shemaiah proclaimed in the name of the Lord that the matter was from the Lord. Ver. 3 f. Of Jahve was the thing done; He had ordained the revolt as a chastisement of the seed of David for walking no more in His ways. Solomon had, by allowing himself to be seduced by his many foreign wives into departing from the Lord, exposed himself to the divine displeasure, and his successor Hehoboam increased the guilt by his impolitic treatment of the tribes dissatisfied with Solomon's rule, and had, if not brought about the revolt, yet hastened it; but yet the conduct of these tribes was not thereby justified. Their demand that the burdens laid upon them by Solomon should be lightened, flowed from impure and godless motives, and at bottom had its root in discontent with the theocratic rule of the house of David (see on 1 Kings xii. 21 ff.). The expression, a to all Israel in Judah and Benjamin," is deeper than " the whole house of Judah and Benjamin and the remnant of the people," i.e. those belonging to the other tribes who were dwelling in the tribal domains of Judah and Benjamin (1 Kings xii. 23); for it characterizes all who had remained true to the house of David as Israel, i.e. those who walked in the footsteps of their progenitor Israel (Jacob).

Vers. 5-12. — Rehoboam s measures for the fortifying of his kingdom. — To defend his kingdom against hostile attacks, liehoboam built cities for defence in Judah. The sine;- "N^W is used, because the building of cities served for the defence of the kingdom. Judah is the name of the kingdom, for the fifteen fenced cities enumerated in the following verses were situated in the tribal domains of both Benjamin and Judah. — Ver. G. In Judah lay Bethlehem, a small city mentioned as early as in Jacob's time

(Gen. xxxv. 19), two hours south of Jerusalem, the birthplace of David and of Christ (Mic. v. 1; Matt. ii. 5, 11), now Beit- Lahm; see on Josh. xv. 59. Etam is not the place bearing the same name which is spoken of in 1 Chron. iv. 32 and Judg. xv. 8, and mentioned in the Talmud as the place where, near Solomon's Pools, the aqueduct which supplied Jerusalem with water commenced (cf. Robins. Pal. sub voce; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. S. 84 ff., 855 ff.) j1 nor is it to be looked for, as Robins, he. cit.j and New Bibl. Researches, maintains, in the present village Urtas (Artas), for it has been identified by Tobl., dritte Wand. S. 89, with Ain Attan, a valley south-west from Artas. Not only does the name Attan correspond more than Artas with Etam, but from it the water is conducted to Jerusalem, while according to Tobler's thorough conviction it could not have been brought from Artas. Tekoa, now Tekua, on the summit of a hill covered with ancient ruins, two hours south of Bethlehem; see on Josh. xv. 59. — Ver. 7. Beth-zur was situated where the ruin Beth-Sur now stands, midway between Urtas and Hebron; see on Josh. xv. 58. Shoko, the present Shuweike in Wady Sumt, 3| hours south-west from Jerusalem; see on Josh. xv. 35. Adullam, in Josh. xv. 35 included among the cities of the hill country, reckoned part of the lowland (Shephelah), i.e. the slope of the hills, has not yet been discovered. Tobler, dritte Wand. S. 151, conjectures that it is identical with the present Dula, about eight miles to the east of Beit-Jibrin; but this can hardly be correct (see against it, Arnold in Herzog's Realenc. xiv. S. 723). It is much more probable that its site was that of the present Deir Dubban, two hours to the north of Beit- Jibrin; see on Josh. xii. 15. — Ver. 8. Gath, a royal city of the Philistines, which was first made subject to the Israelites by David (1 Chron. xviii. 1), and was under Solomon the seat of its own king, who was subject to the Israelite king (1 Kings ii. 39), has not yet been certainly discovered; see on Josh. xiii. 3.J Mareshah, the city Marissa, on the road from Hebron to the