1 Kings 6:1-38

EXPOSITION

SOLOMON'S TEMPLE.—The preparations for the building of the Temple having been related in the preceding chapter, the historian now proceeds to describe the edifice. He begins his narrative with a precise statement of the date of its erection (1 Kings 6:1); then follows

The erection of this splendid sanctuary was no doubt the greatest event, both in Jewish and Gentile eyes, in the history of the Holy City. It made Jerusalem what it had not been till then, the religious capital. The stronghold of the Jebusites now became the shrine and centre of the Jewish system. We are not warranted, however, in believing that it shaped the name by which the city was known to the Greeks, ἱεροσολυμὰ (Jos; B. J. 6. 10) and ἱερὸν σαλομῶνος, being probably mere attempts to "twist Jerushalaim into a shape which should be intelligible to Greek ears" (Dict. Bib. 1:983).

We find a sufficient indication, however, of the profound importance which this undertaking assumed in Jewish eyes in the fact that four chapters of our history—and three of them of considerable length—are occupied with an account of the materials, proportions, arrangements, and consecration of this great sanctuary. To the historiographers of Israel it seemed meet that every measurement of the holy and beautiful house should be recorded with the greatest exactness, while the very vessels of service, "the pots and the shovels and the basons," were judged worthy of a place in the sacred page.

But these careful and detailed dimensions are not only proofs of the tender veneration with which the Jew regarded the Temple and its appointments; they are also indications and expressions of the belief that this house, so "exceeding magnifical," was for the Lord, and not for man. These exact measurements, these precise and symbolic numbers all]point to a place for the Divine Presence; they are "the first requisite for every space and structure which has a higher and Divine destination, and they impart thereto the signature of the Divine" (Bähr). Indeed the very names templum and τέμενος (= a space measured off) are in themselves in some sort attestations to the ancient belief that the dignity of a temple of the Most High God required that the length and breadth and height, both of the whole and of its component parts, should be carefully recorded. It is this consideration explains a peculiarity of Scripture which would otherwise cause some difficulty; viz; the detailed and repeated measurements, and the almost rabbinical minuteness, not only of our author, but of Ezekiel and of the Apocalypse. When a "man with a measuring reed" (Ezekiel 40:8, Ezekiel 40:5; Revelation 11:1; Revelation 21:15) appears upon the scene, we are to understand at once that the place is sacred ground, and that we are in the precincts of the temple and shrine of Jehovah.

At the same time it must be added here that, exact and detailed as is the description of this edifice, it is nevertheless so partial, and the account is, perhaps necessarily, so obscure as to leave us in considerable doubt as to what Solomon's Temple was really like. In fact, though "more has been written regarding the temple at Jerusalem than in respect to any other building in the known world" (Fergusson), the authorities are not agreed as to its broad features, while as to matters of detail they are hopelessly divided. On one point, indeed, until recently, there was a pretty general agreement, viz; that the house was "rectilinear and of box form." But it is now contended that this primary and fundamental conception of its shape is entirely at fault, and that its sloping or ridged roof would give it a resemblance to the ark or to a tent. Nor have we the materials to decide between these conflicting views; in fact, nothing perhaps but drawings would enable us to restore the temple with any approach to accuracy. "It is just as easy to pourtray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton as to reproduce a building in a way which shall correspond with reality when we have only a few uncertain remains of its style of architecture in our possession". And the difficulty is enhanced by the fact that the temple was sui generis. It was purely Jewish, so that no information as to its structure and arrangements can be derived from the contemporary architecture of Egyptians or Assyrians. In the absence of all analogies restoration is hopeless. It is well known that all the many and varied representations of different artists, based though they all were on the Scripture account (Exodus 25:31-37) of the seven-branched candlestick, were found to be exceedingly unlike the original, when the true shape of that original was disclosed to the world on the Arch of Titus. It is equally certain that, were s true representation of the temple ever to be placed in our hands, we should find that it differed just as widely from all attempted "restorations" of the edifice, based on the scanty and imperfect notices of our historian and Ezekiel.

The mention of Ezekiel suggests a brief reference to the temple, which he describes with so much precision and fulness in his fortieth and following chapters. What is its bearing on the description we have now to consider? Is it an account of the temple as it actually existed in or before his time; is it a plan or suggestion for its restoration (Grotius), or is it wholly ideal and imaginary? The first view, which long found favour with commentators, and which has still some advocates, is now pretty generally abandoned. For while many of Ezekiel's measurements, etc; correspond exactly with those of our historian, and while it may be conceded, therefore, that this delineation has a historical basis, there are features in the narrative which can never have been realized in any building, and which prove the account to be more or less ideal. For example. The outer court of his temple (Ezekiel 42:16-20) would cover not only the whole of Mount Moriah, but more than the whole space occupied by the entire city of Jerusalem, He speaks again of "waters issuing out from under the threshold" (Ezekiel 47:1), and flowing down eastward to heal the pestilent waters of the Dead Sea, where a literal interpretation is manifestly impossible. And it is to be remembered that the prophet himself speaks of his temple as seen in vision (Ezekiel 40:2; Ezekiel 43:2, Ezekiel 43:8). The true account of this portraiture would therefore seem to be that, while it borrowed largely from the plan and proportions of Solomon's Temple, it was designed to serve as "the beau ideal of what a Semitic temple should be"

Two other authorities, whose accounts have a direct bearing on the sacred narrative, must be mentioned here Josephus and the Talmudic tract on the temple, called Middoth (i.e; measures). Unfortunately, neither is of much avail for the illustration of the text we have now to consider. Josephus, too often unreliable, would seem to be especially so here. "Templum aedificat," says Clericus, "quale animo conceperat non quale legerat a Salomone conditum." "Inconsistency, inaccuracy, and exaggeration are plainly discoverable in the measurements given by Josephus". "Wherever the Mishna is not in accord with Josephus the measurements of the latter are untrustworthy". The writers of the Mishna, again, refer generally, as might be expected, to the temple of Herod, or confuse in their accounts the three temples of Solomon, Herod, and Ezekiel (Bähr). The student of temple architecture consequently derives but scant assistance in his work from the writings of uninspired historians.

Perhaps this is the proper place to remark on the close correspondence between temple and tabernacle.. In the first place, in plan and arrangement the two structures were identical. Each faced the east; each had three parts, viz; porch, holy place, and holy of holies, while the side chambers of the temple (verse 5) were analogous to the verandah formed by the projecting roof, or curtains, which ran round three sides of the tabernacle. Secondly, the measurements both of the whole edifice and of its component parts were exactly double those of the tabernacle, as the following table will show:—

Tabernacle cubits

Temple Cubits.

Entire length

40

80

Entire width

20

40

Entire height

15

30

20

40

Width

10

20

Height

10

20

10

20

Width

10

20

Height

10

20

10

20

Depth

5

10

The only exception to this rule is that of the side chambers, which (on the lowest story) were but five cubits wide, i.e; they were identical in width with the verandah. It is held by some, however, that with the enclosing walls, they were ten cubits. If this were so, it follows that here again the same proportions are exactly preserved.

It will be clear from this comparison that the temple was constructed, not after any Egyptian or Assyrian model, but that it preserved the features and arrangement of the consecrated structure, the pattern of which was showed to Moses in the Mount (Exodus 25:9, Exodus 25:40; cf. Acts 7:44; Hebrews 8:5), so that when "David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch," etc; "and the pattern of all that he had by the spirit" (1 Chronicles 28:11, 1 Chronicles 28:12), the same arrangement and similar proportions were consciously or unconsciously preserved. The temple differed from the tabernacle only so far as a large house necessarily differs from a small tent.

It is also to be observed that every dimension of the temple was either ten cubits—the holy of holies was a cube of ten cubits—or a multiple of ten, just as the dimensions of the tabernacle are either five cubits or multiples of five. Now this decimal arrangement can hardly have been accidental. Not only had the Jews ten fingers, but they had ten commandments, and a system of tenths or tithes, and this number, therefore, was to them, no doubt, the symbol of completeness, just as five was the sign of imperfection. The very dimensions, consequently, of the house are a testimony to the perfections of the Being to whose service it was dedicated.

Nor is the recurrence of the number three, though by no means so marked, to be altogether overlooked. Considering its Divine original—that it was made after the pattern of things in the heavens—it is not wholly unworthy of notice that the building "had three compartments.… Each of the three sides was flanked by an aisle formed of three stories, and the holy of holies was of three equal dimensions" (Wordsworth). And if we cannot follow him further and see any significance in the fact that the "length was 3 x 30 cubits, and the height 3 x 10," we may still remember that this house was built, though Solomon knew it not, to the glory of the Triune God. Bähr, however, who also shows at some length how "the number three is everywhere conspicuous in the building", accounts for it on the ground that "three is in the Old Testament the signature of every true and complete unit" (Was drei Mal geschieht ist das rechte Einmal; was in drei getheilt ist ist eine wahre Einheit), so that practically three would signify here much the same as ten—it would stand as "the signature of the perfect unit, and so also of the Divine Being."

One remark more may be made here, viz; that in the temple or tabernacle we have the archetype of the Christian Church. The correspondence is so obvious as to strike the most casual observer. Porch, or steeple, nave, chancel, altar, side aisles, these have succeeded to, as they were suggested by, porch, temple of the house, oracle, mercy seat, side structure, of the Jewish sanctuary. Just as Christianity is built on the foundations of Judaism (see Homiletics), so has the Jewish temple furnished a model for the Christian; for, considering how closely the early Church fashioned itself after the pattern of Judaism, the resemblance can hardly be accidental.

1 Kings 6:1

And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt [This date has been the subject of much controversy, which cannot even now be considered as closed. Grave doubts are entertained as to its genuineness. Lord A. Hervey says it is "manifestly erroneous." Rawlinson considers it to be "an interpolation into the sacred text". And it is to he observed,

1. that the LXX. reads 440 instead of 480 years—a discrepancy which is suspicious, and argues some amount of incertitude.

2. Origen quotes this verse without these words (Comm. in S. Johann 1 Kings 2:20).

3. They would seem to have been unknown to Josephus, Clem. Alex; and others.

4. It is not the manner of Old Testament writers thus to date events from an era, an idea which appears to have first occurred to the Greeks temp. Thucydides (Rawlinson). It is admitted that we have no other instance in the Old Testament where this is done.

5. It is difficult to reconcile this statement with other chronological notices both of the Old and New Testaments. For taking the numbers which we find in the Hebrew text of the books which refer to this period, they sum up to considerably more than 480 years. The time of the Judges alone comprises 410 years at the least. It should be stated, however, with regard to the chronology of the period last mentioned

6. The chronology of Josephus—to which by itself, perhaps, no great weight is to be attached, agrees with St. Paul's estimate, and of course contradicts that of the text.

7. Nor does it seem to be a valid argument for the retention of the suspected words, that "the precision of the statement is a voucher for its accuracy." (Bähr, who adds, "Not only is the whole number of the years given, but also the year of the reign of the king, and even the month itself," for the genuineness of the later date, "In the fourth year," etc; is not questioned.) The remark of Keil that the building of the temple marked a new and important epoch in the history of the chosen people, and so justified an exceptional reference to the birth or emancipation of the nation, though undoubtedly true, will hardly avail much against the considerations alleged above. On the whole, therefore, I confess to the belief that these words are the interpolation of a later hand (of which we shall find traces elsewhere), though it would, perhaps, be premature, with only the evidence now before us, to exclude them from the text. It is certainly noteworthy that such destructive critics as Ewald and Thenius are satisfied as to their genuineness], in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel [according to the chronology of Ussher, this was A.M. 3000], in the month Zif [i.e; May. The word signifies splendour. The month was probably so called because of the brilliancy of its flowers (Gesen; Keil, al.)], which is the second month [This explanation is added because before the captivity the months (with the exception of Abib) appear to have had no regular names, but were almost always designated by numbers. (See, e.g; Genesis 7:11; 2 Kings 25:1). Only four pre-captivity names are recorded, and of these three are mentioned in connexion with the building of the temple, viz; Zif here and in verse 37, Bul in verse 38, and Ethanim in 1 Kings 8:2. It has hence been inferred that these names were not in general use, but were restricted to public documents, etc., a supposition which, if correct, would account for the facility with which the old appellations were superseded by post-captivity names. The later name for this month was Iyar (Targum on 2 Chronicles 30:2)], that he began [not in Heb.] to build the house of [Heb. to] the Lord. [The chronicler mentions the site (2 Chronicles 3:1), "In Mount Moriah....in the threshing floor of Ornan," etc. We know from the extensive foundations yet remaining that the preparation of the platform on which the temple should stand must have been a work of considerable time and labour, and see Jos; Ant. 8.3. 9, and Bell. Jud. 5.5.1. We can hardly be wrong in identifying the remarkable rock known as the Sakrah, over which the mosque of Omar (Kubbet-es-Sakrah) is built—the "pierced rock" of the Jerusalem Itinerary—with the threshing floor of Ornan. The reader will find an interesting paper on the site of the temple in "Scribner's Monthly," vol. 11. pp. 257-272. According to Mr. Beswick, whose measurements and conclusions it gives, the porch stood on the Sakrah. Mr. Conder, however, urges strong reasons for placing the Holy of Holies on the rock. We should then "see the Holy House in its natural and traditional position on the top of the mountain; we see the courts descending on either side, according to the present slopes of the hill; we find the great rock galleries dropping naturally into their right places; and finally, we see the temple, by the immutability of Oriental custom, still a temple, and the site of the great altar still consecrated [?] by the beautiful little chapel of the chain." But see Porteri. p. 125; Pal. Explor. p. 4, also pp. 342, 343; "Our Work in Palestine," chs. 8. and 9.; "Recovery of Jerusalem," Hebrews 12:1-29; etc. Quot viatores, tot sententiae.]

1 Kings 6:2

And the house [i.e; not the whole structure, but the main building, exclusive of porch (1 Kings 6:3) and side chambers (1 Kings 6:5)] which king Solomon built for the Lord, the length thereof was threescore cubits [But what was the length of the cubit? ( אָמָהֹ) This unfortunately is by no means certain, as the Jews would seem to have had three different cubits. All the ancient measures, both Jewish and Gentile, were taken from parts of the body. Thus we find a "finger-breadth" (Jeremiah 52:21), "hand-breadth" (1 Kings 7:26), "span" (1 Samuel 17:24), and the Greeks had their δάκτυλος πούς and τῆχυς, and the Romans their cubitus, pes, digitus, etc. אָמָה is used in its proper sense (ulna) Deuteronomy 3:11. Probably at first it signified, like πῆχυς, the length from point of elbow to tip of little or middle finger. But it is obvious that this was an uncertain measure, and hence perhaps arose cubits of different length. According to Gesen. the cubit here mentioned, which was the older or sacred Mosaic cubit (2 Chronicles 3:3), was six palms, while that of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 40:5; Ezekiel 43:13), the royal Babylonian cubit, was seven, but on this as well as other points the authorities are very far from agreed. "The length of the cubit is one of the most knotty points of Hebrew archaeology". There is a general consensus of opinion, however in favour of understanding the cubit here mentioned as measuring 18 inches. Fergusson considers this to be beyond question. It is certainly noteworthy that the measurements of Kings and Chronicles, of Ezra and Ezekiel, of Josephus and the Talmud, all agree, and we know that Josephus always uses the Greek cubit of 18 inches. Mr. Conder, however, maintains that the Hebrew cubit amounts to no more than sixteen inches. He says, "Maimonides tells us that the temple cubit was of 48 barleycorns, and any one who will take the trouble to measure barleycorns, will find that three go to the inch"—which gives 16 inches for the cubit. To this argument, which is not perhaps of much weight, he adds, what is of much greater moment, that "the Galilean synagogues, measured by it, give round numbers"] and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof thirty cubits. [It thus appears that the temple was but a small—compared with many churches, a very small—building. But its purpose and object must be considered. It was not for assemblies of the people. The congregation never met within it, but the worship was offered towards it. It was a place for the Holy Presence, and for the priests who ministered before it.]

1 Kings 6:3

And the porch [ אוּלָם, forepart, projection (Vorhalle, Gesenius). The porch was not a colonnade—that is called a "porch of pillars" (1 Kings 7:6), but was formed By simply prolonging the side walls, and possibly the roof (see below). Bähr holds that it had only side walls and cieling (sic), and was entirely open in front; and the fact that no mention is made of any door or opening, though the doors of the other parts of the edifies are all referred to (1 Kings 6:8, 1 Kings 6:31, 1 Kings 6:33), certainly favours this view, as also does the position of the pillars of 1 Kings 7:21] before the temple of the house [The house, or main building (1 Kings 7:2), had two parts.

1 Kings 6:4

And for the house he made windows of narrow lights. [There has been much disputation over these words. The older expositors generally follow the Chaldee and Rabbins: "windows broad within and narrow without;" windows, i.e. somewhat like the loopholes of ancient castles. The windows of the temple would then have resembled those of Egyptian sacred buildings. (It is not implied that there was any conscious imitation of Egypt, though Fergusson surely forgets the affinity with Pharaoh (1 Kings 3:1), the trade with Egypt (1 Kings 10:28), and the favour with which some Egyptian fashions were regarded (Song of Solomon 1:9), when he contends that the chosen people would never take the buildings of their ancestral enemy for a model.) But this meaning is not supported by the original ( שְׁקֻפִים אֲטֻמִים), the literal interpretation of which is "closed beams" (cf. 1 Kings 7:4, 1 Kings 7:5), and which the most competent scholars now understand to mean "closed or fixed lattices, i.e; the lattices or the temple windows were not movable, as in domestic architecture (2 Kings 1:2; 2 Kings 13:1-25, 2 Kings 17:1-41; Daniel 6:10). So Gesenius, De Wette, Keil, Bähr, al.]

1 Kings 6:5

And against [or upon, עַל; they rested on the wall] the wall of the house [here meaning both temple and oracle: see below] he built chambers [Marg. floors. The Orig. is יָצוּעַ (Keri, יָצִיעַ) singular = stratum ( יָצַע stravit, spread out). Symm. translates κατάστρωμα. Gesenius remarks that the word is used here and in 1 Kings 6:10 in the masculine of the whole of the side structure, while in 1 Kings 6:6 it is used in the feminine of the single stories. The floors bore this name, יָצוּע, because they were spread upon, not inserted into the walls. Rawlinson has evidently confounded this word with צֵלָע (see below) when he says, "The Hebrew word here used would be best translated a lean to." Both words are translated alike "chambers" in the Authorized Version, but the first means stories or floors; the second may, perhaps, signify lean tos] round about, against [It is doubtful whether אֶת is here, as commonly, merely the sign of the accusative, or is the preposition "with," meaning "in connexion with," cum parietibus (Seb. Schmidt), in which case its meaning would approach very closely to that of עַל above. Bähr remarks that עַל and אֶת are used elsewhere as almost synonymous, and refers to Psalms 4:7 in connexion with Psalms 67:2. Keil translates, "As for the walls" (Anlangend die Wande), but this gives us an unfinished sentence. It is probably an accusative, explicative of the preceding clause = "I mean the walls," etc; the singular, wall, having being used above. This additional clause] the walls of the house round about [would then mean that the term "house" is to be understood as including both temple and oracle (and excluding porch), as the next words define it], both of the temple and of the oracle [The floors, i.e; ran round the south, west, and north sides of the building. Stanley aptly compares them to the little shops which nestle under the continental cathedrals; though the side aisles of some Gothic churches, viewed externally, would perhaps better represent their proportions] and he made chambers [ צְלָעעוֹת, literally, ribs, beams, (Gesenius); Rippen (Bähr). The design of the word is clearly to convey that the floors were "divided by partitions into distinct compartments" (Merz). According to Ezekiel 41:6 (where, however, the reading is doubtful) there were thirty-three of these side chambers; according to Josephus (Ant. 8.8. 2) thirty. Thenius is probably not so far wrong when he sees in these chambers bedrooms. A sort of monastery would seem to have been attached to the temple. So many chambers could hardly have been required for the "preservation of temple stores and utensils" (Keil), or of offerings (Ewald). Whatever their use, we can hardly suppose that they were wholly without light, though nothing is said about windows. They may have had "fixed lattices." It is to be re. membered that the priests and Levites ministered "by night in the house of the Lord" (Psalms 134:1)] round about.

1 Kings 6:6

The nethermost chamber [Heb. floor; cf. Ezekiel 41:6] was five cubits broad [It must be remembered that all the measurements are those of the interior], and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad: for [Explanation how these differences of size arose] without [i.e; on the outside] in the wall of [Heb. omits] the house [main building—nave, and chancel] he made [Heb. put] narrowed rests [marg. "narrowings or rebatements," The word מִגְרָעות means lessenings, deductions; Absatze, Gesen. (Thesaurus, 1:804), Bähr.

The outside of the temple wall took the shape of three (or four) steps, and presented three ledges for the beams to rest upon. See below] round about [same word as in verse 5. The recesses in the wall ran round the north, west, and south sides of the building; they were co-extensive, i.e; with the flats or side chambers], that the beams should not be fastened [Heb. that no fastening] into the walls of the house. [The meaning is perfectly clear, viz; that the timbers should not be let into the walls, ("they had not hold in the wall of the house," Ezekiel 41:6); but why this was forbidden is not quite so certain. According to Bähr, it was in order to preserve the great and costly stones of the temple intact; but others, with greater probability, hold that it was because it appeared unseemly to have the side chambers, which were for semi-secular purposes (cubicles, perhaps), made an actual part of the sacred edifice. Anyhow, it is clear that the beams rested on ledges made in the walls; but whether in the temple wall only, or in the outer wall of the side structure also, is uncertain. The preceding sketch will not only illustrate the difference, but will help the reader to understand the description preceding. In drawing (1) rebatements are showed only in the temple or inner wall, In (2) they are showed in both walls. In (1) the edifice is represented with a fiat; in (2) with a span roof.

Keil decides in favour of the first arrangement (1), and Bähr says somewhat positively, "The outer wall of the structure had no rests." In fact, he suggests that the whole of this side building may have been of wood. It must be admitted that we do know that there were rebatements in the wall A, whereas nothing is said as to the outer wall B. It may also be reasonably alleged that the considerations of fitness and sacredness which forbade the insertion of the beams into the sanctuary wall would not apply to the outer wall, which was a part of the side structure only. Against this view, however, may be urged the extreme thickness of wall which this method of building would necessitate. For unless we suppose that the floor of the ground story rested on the rock, and so was quite detached from the building, we must suppose four rebatements, so that if the wall at the top were two cubits wide, it would be no less than six cubits (or nine feet) at the bottom. It is true that the walls of ancient buildings were of extraordinary thickness, but it must also be remembered that the temple was not fifty feet high. However, Ezekiel 41:9 suggests that the outside wall (B) may have been five cubits in thickness, and, if so, the inner wall would hardly be less. Fergusson, therefore, has some justification for putting each wall down as five cubits wide; but on the whole, perhaps, the plan represented in (1) appears the more probable.

The historian here digresses for a moment to speak of the remarkable and, indeed, unprecedented way in which the temple was built, The stories were shaped and prepared beforehand in the quarry, so that there was nothing to do on their arrival in the temple area but to fit them into their place in the building.]

1 Kings 6:7

And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready [Heb. perfect. This does not mean unhewn, though אֵבָנִים שְׁלְמוֹת is undoubtedly used in Deuteronomy 27:6 (cf. Exodus 20:25) of unhewn or virgin stone; and Gesenius would so understand the expression here, But the context seems rather to convey the idea that the stones were not shaped on the spot. It was apparently the belief of the ancients that stones of proper shape and size were provided in their bed by God (so Theodoret and Procopius,) It is inconceivable, however, that no dressing or preparation of any kind would be required; an idea, moreover, which is contradicted by 1 Kings 5:18. When Gardiner (in Bähr, American edition) quotes Keil (in his earlier work) as understanding "all unviolated stones of the quarry," he hardly does justice to that author, who straightway adds, "that is, not altogether unhewn stones… but stones that were so hewn and wrought in the quarry that neither hammer," etc. (see below). Similarly Thehius and Bähr] before it was brought thither [so the Authorized Version renders מַסָּע but mistakenly. It means, the quarry The verb נָסַע is used of quarrying in 1 Kings 5:1-18:31 (Heb.) Where was this quarry? The general idea is that it was in the Lebanon. And it is not to be denied that some of the massive substructions and cornerstones of the temple may have been brought from the mountain, along with the wood; but the bulk of the stone, there can be no doubt, was found much nearer home. Some of it, according to the Mishna (Middoth, 3.4), came from Bethlehem; but we can hardly be mistaken in believing that for the most part it was quarried in Jerusalem itself, under the very temple rock, and out of the vast caverns recovered some years ago by Dr. Barclay (see his "City of the Great King"), the "Royal Caverns" of Josephus. See "Quart. Journal," Pal. Explor. Fund (No. 7.), pp, 373, 374, and cf. p. 34. There are unmistakable evidences of these extensive caverns having served as a quarry. Not only are the walls cut straight, but rude masses are left here and there to support the roof, and, what is still more convincing, there are stones more or less cut out of the rock, and incisions are made where stones are to be quarried. There was no reason why the workmen should go far afield for stone when they had it, and of very excellent quality, at their own doors]: so that there was neither hammer [Heb. and hammers. Keil understands "finished stones of the quarry, and hammer, and axe." But the word "was built" ( נִבְנֶה), coming as it does between "quarry" and "hammers," almost forbids this connexion] nor axe [Heb. the axe] nor any tool [Heb. every tool] of iron heard in the house, while it was building. [The historian remarks on this, not only because it was so unusual, but with the evident idea that it was a fulfilment of the spirit of the law (Deuteronomy 27:5, Deuteronomy 27:6), which required the altar to be of virgin stones, untouched by tool of iron. If the quarries are to be identified with the "Royal Caverns," it is easy to understand how the temple rose up in silence.

1 Kings 6:8

After recording this interesting and singular fact, the historian resumes his description of the side building. The door [or entrance, doorway, פֶתַח, as in 1 Kings 6:31] for [Heb. of] the middle chamber [generally understood to mean "the middle side chamber of the lower story." But this is by no means necessary, for

1 Kings 6:9

So he built the house and finished it [i.e; the exterior (see on 1 Kings 6:14)] and covered [i.e; roofed, same word Deuteronomy 33:21; Jeremiah 22:14; Haggai 1:4. There is no reference to the lining of cedar which was applied to the interior. That is described in Haggai 1:15] the house with beams and boards [Heb. rows, ranks. The same word is used of soldiers 2 Kings 11:8, 2 Kings 11:15] of cedar. [It has been universally held till quite lately that the roof was either vaulted (Thenius) or flat (Bähr, Keil). But Mr. Fergussen has alleged some reasons for believing that it was a span or gable roof. It is true that Oriental buildings almost invariably have externally flat(internally arched) roofs. In Palestine, because of the scarcity of timber, no other form is possible. But the temple, as we have seen, was constructed after the model of the tabernacle, and the latter, as the name almost implies, and as necessity would require, had a ridged roof. It does not necessarily follow, however, as Fergusson assumes, that the temple followed the tabernacle in this respect. It is obvious that when a "house was built unto the name of the Lord," the form of the tent might be abandoned as inappropriate. It is true that this shape would be consecrated to them by many centuries of use, but it is also possible that in a house it would strike them as altogether bizarre.]

1 Kings 6:10

And then [Heb. omits] he built chambers [Heb. the floor ( הַיָּצִועַ). The word (masculine) is here again used of the entire side structure] against all the house, five cubits high [i.e; each story was five cubits (7.5 feet). The three stories would altogether measure fifteen cubits, and of course something must be allowed for joists, floors, etc. The entire height of the side structure (exterior) would consequently be about 18 or 20 cubits. And as the house was internally 30 cubits high, the exterior measurement would probably be about 32 cubits. It has hence been inferred that between the side structure and the top of temple wall there would be a clear space of 12 or 14 cubits, in which the windows were inserted. But this is based on the assumption that the side structure had a flat roof, which is by no means certain. If the roof leaned against the walls of the house, with a low pitch, there would still be space amply sufficient for the clerestory windows. Rawlinson's diagram, which gives 80 cubits as the height from basement to ridge of roof, and only allows 20 cubits for height of walls, practically makes the house 20 instead of 30 cubits high, for it is hardly likely that it had an open roof. In fact, we know that it had a cieling (verse 14), which must have been at the height of 30 cubits

house and side structure are represented with flat, in