A verse by verse commentary on 1 Kings 6 dealing with Solomon Builds the Temple.

1. 1 KI GS 6 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
Solomon Builds the Temple
1 In the four hundred and eightieth[a] year after
the Israelites came out of Egypt, in the fourth year
of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of
Ziv, the second month, he began to build the
temple of the Lord.
BAR ES, "In the four hundred and eightieth year - It is upon this statement
that all the earlier portion of what is called the “received chronology” depends. Amid
Minor differences there is a general agreement, which justifies us in placing the
accession of Solomon about 1000 B.C. (1018 B.C. Oppert.) But great difficulties meet us
in determining the sacred chronology anterior to this. Apart from the present statement,
the chronological data of the Old Testament are insufficient to fix the interval between
Solomon’s accession and the Exodus, since several of the periods which make it up are
unestimated. Hence, chronologists have based entirely the “received chronology” upon
this verse. But the text itself is not free from suspicion.
(1) it is the sole passage in the Old Testament which contains the idea of dating events
from an era.
(2) it is quoted by Origen without the date, and seems to have been known only in this
shape to Josephus, to Theophilus of Antioch, and to Clement of Alexandria.
(3) it is hard to reconcile with other chronological statements in the Old and New
Testament.
Though the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel furnish us with no exact chronology,
they still supply important chronological data - data which seem to indicate for the
interval between the Exodus and Solomon, a period considerably exceeding 480 years.
For the years actually set down amount to at least 580, or, according to another
computation, to 600; and though a certain deduction might be made from this sum on
account of the round numbers, this deduction would scarcely do more than balance the
addition required on account of the four unestimated periods. Again, in the New
Testament, Paul (according to the received text) reckons the period from the division of
Canaan among the tribes in the sixth year of Joshua Jos_14:1-15, to Samuel the prophet,
at 450 years, which would make the interval between the Exodus and the

2. commencement of the temple to be 579 years. On the whole, it seems, therefore,
probable that the words “in the four hundred and eightieth year, etc.,” are an
interpolation into the sacred text, which did not prevail generally before the third
century of our era.
CLARKE, "In the four hundred and eightieth year - The Septuagint has the
four hundred and fortieth year. It need scarcely be noticed, that among chronologists
there is a great difference of opinion concerning this epocha. Glycas has 330 years;
Melchior Canus, 590 years; Josephus, 592 years; Sulpicius Severus, 588; Clemens
Alexandrinus, 570; Cedrenus, 672; Codomanus, 598; Vossius and Capellus, 580;
Serarius, 680; Nicholas Abraham, 527; Maestlinus, 592; Petavius and Valtherus, 520.
Here are more than a dozen different opinions; and after all, that in the common
Hebrew text is as likely to be the true one as any of the others.
The month Zif - This answers to a part of our April and May; and was the second
month of the sacred year, but the eighth month of the civil year. Before the time of
Solomon, the Jews do not appear to have had any names for their months, but
mentioned them in the order of their consecutive occurrence, first month, second
month, third month, etc. In this chapter we find Zif and Bul; and in 1Ki_8:2, we find
another, Ethanim; and these are supposed to be borrowed from the Chaldeans; and
consequently this book was written after the Babylonish captivity. Before this time we
find only the word Abib mentioned as the name of a month, Exo_13:4. Whether there
were any others at that time, or whether Abib was really intended as the name of a
month, we cannot absolutely say. The present names of the Hebrew months are: - Tisri,
answering to a part of September and October, Marchesvan, Cisleu, Tebeth, Shebat,
Adar, Nisan, Ijar, Sivan, Tamuz, Ab, and Elul.
GILL, "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,.... The Tyrian writers (k)
make it five hundred sixty years from hence; but this no doubt is tightest, which Junius
reckons thus; forty years Israel were in the wilderness, seventeen under Joshua, two
hundred ninety nine under the judges, eighty under Eli, Samuel, and Saul, forty under
David, add to which the four years of Solomon, and they make four hundred eighty (l);
they are somewhat differently reckoned by others (m) from the coming out of Egypt to
Joshua forty years, from thence to the first servitude under Cushan twenty five, from
thence to the death of Abimelech two hundred fifty six, under Thola twenty three, from
thence to the Ammonitish servitude four, under that eighteen, under the judges,
Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon, thirty one, Samuel and Saul forty, David forty, and
Solomon three, in all four hundred eighty;
in the, fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel; when he was clear of all
disturbers of his government, and had got all things ready for the building of the temple,
and had gathered together gold and silver enough of his own to defray the expenses; for,
as for what David gave him, he put that into the treasury of the Lord's house, see 1Ki_
7:51;
in the month Zif, which is the second month; and so must be Jiar, for Abib or
Nisan was the first, and Jiar was the second, which answered to part of our April and
part of May; called Zif either from the splendour of the sun, being now higher, and so the
greater; or from the trees and flowers of the field being in all their glory; and so the

3. Targum here calls it, the month of splendour of flowers: and it was on the second day of
it,
that he began to build the house of the Lord: and a very fit and proper season of
the year it was to begin it in, see 2Ch_3:2.
HE RY, "Here, I. The temple is called the house of the Lord (1Ki_6:1), because it was,
1. Directed and modelled by him. Infinite Wisdom was the architect, and gave David the
plan or pattern by the Spirit, not by word of mouth only, but, for the greater certainty
and exactness, in writing (1Ch_28:11, 1Ch_28:12), as he had given to Moses in the
mouth a draught of the tabernacle. 2. Dedicated and devoted to him and to his honour,
to be employed in his service, so his as never any other house was, for he manifested his
glory in it (so as never in any other) in a way agreeable to that dispensation; for, when
there were carnal ordinances, there was a worldly sanctuary, Heb_9:1, Heb_9:10. This
gave it its beauty of holiness, that it was the house of the Lord, which far transcended all
its other beauties.
II. The time when it began to be built is exactly set down. 1. It was just 480 years after
the bringing of the children of Israel out of Egypt. Allowing forty years to Moses,
seventeen to Joshua, 299 to the Judges, forty to Eli, forty to Samuel and Saul, forty to
David, and four to Solomon before he began the work, we have just the sum of 480. So
long it was after that holy state was founded before that holy house was built, which, in
less than 430 years, was burnt by Nebuchadnezzar. It was thus deferred because Israel
had, by their sins, rendered themselves unworthy of this honour, and because God
would show how little he values external pomp and splendour in his service: he was in
no haste for a temple. David's tent, which was clean and convenient, though it was
neither stately nor rich, nor, for aught that appears, ever consecrated, is called the house
of the Lord (2Sa_12:20), and served as well as Solomon's temple; yet, when God gave
Solomon great wealth, he put it into his heart thus to employ it, and graciously accepted
him, chiefly because it was to be a shadow of good things to come, Heb_9:9. 2. It was in
the fourth year of Solomon's reign, the first three years being taken up in settling the
affairs of his kingdom, that he might not find any embarrassment from them in this
work. It is not time lost which is spent in composing ourselves for the work of God, and
disentangling ourselves from every thing which might distract or divert us. During this
time he was adding to the preparations which his father had made (1Ch_22:14), hewing
the stone, squaring the timber, and getting every thing ready, so that he is not to be
blamed for slackness in deferring it so long. We are truly serving God when we are
preparing for his service and furnishing ourselves for it.
III. The materials are brought in, ready for their place (1Ki_6:7), so ready that there
was neither hammer nor ax heard in the house while it was in building. In all building
Solomon prescribes it as a rule of prudence to prepare the work in the field, and
afterwards build, Pro_24:27. But here, it seems, the preparation was more than
ordinarily full and exact, to such a degree that, when the several parts came to be put
together, there was nothing defective to be added, nothing amiss to be amended. It was
to be the temple of God of peace, and therefore no iron tool must be heard in it.
Quietness and silence both become and befriend religious exercises: God's work should
be done with as much care and as little noise as may be. The temple was thrown down
with axes and hammers, and those that threw it down roared in the midst of the
congregation (Psa_74:4, Psa_74:6); but it was built up in silence. Clamour and violence
often hinder the work of God, but never further it.

4. K&D, "The Outside of the Building. - 1Ki_6:1. The building of the temple, a fixed and
splendid house of Jehovah as the dwelling-place of His name in the midst of His people,
formed an important epoch so far as the Old Testament kingdom of God was concerned,
inasmuch as, according to the declaration of God made through the prophet Nathan, an
end would thereby be put to the provisional condition of the people of Israel in the land
of Canaan, since the temple was to become a substantial pledge of the permanent
possession of the inheritance promised by the Lord. The importance of this epoch is
indicated by the fact, that the time when the temple was built is defined not merely in
relation to the year of Solomon's reign, but also in relation to the exodus of the Israelites
out of Egypt. “In the 480th year after the exodus of the sons of Israel out of the land of
Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign, in the second month of the year, Solomon
built the house of the Lord.” The correctness of the number 480, as contrasted with the
440th year of the lxx and the different statements made by Josephus, is now pretty
generally admitted; and we have already proved at Jdg_3:7 that it agrees with the
duration of the period of the Judges when rightly estimated.
(Note: In opposition to the hypothesis of Böttcher, which has been repeated by
Bertheau, viz., that the number 480 merely rests upon the computation of 12 x 40
years, or twelve generations of forty years each, Thenius himself has observed with
perfect justice, that “where both the year and the month of the reign of the king in
question are given, the principal number will certainly rest upon something more
than mere computation; and if this had not been the case, the person making such a
computation, if only for the purpose of obtaining the appearance of an exact
statement, would have made a particular calculation of the years of Solomon's reign,
and would have added them to the round number obtained, and written 'in the year
484.' Moreover, the introduction to our chapter has something annalistic in its tone;
and at this early period it would be undoubtedly well known, and in a case like the
present a careful calculation would be made, how long a time had elapsed since the
most memorable period of the Israelitish nation had passed by.” Compare with this
Ed. Preuss (Die Zeitrechnung der lxx, p. 74ff.), who has endeavoured with much
greater probability to show that the alteration made by the lxx into 440 rests upon
nothing more than a genealogical combination.)
The name of the month Ziv, brilliancy, splendour, probably so called from the
splendour of the flowers, is explained by the clause, “that is, the second month,” because
the months had no fixed names before the captivity, and received different names after
the captivity. The second month was called Jyar after the captivity. - The place where
the temple was built is not given in our account, as having been sufficiently well known;
though it is given in the parallel text, 2Ch_3:1, namely, “Mount Moriah, where the Lord
had appeared to David” at the time of the pestilence, and where David had built an altar
of burnt-offering by divine command (see at 2Sa_24:25).
BE SO , "1 Kings 6:1. In the four hundred and eightieth year — Allowing forty
years to Moses, seventeen to Joshua, two hundred and ninety-nine to the Judges,
forty to Eli, forty to Samuel and Saul, forty to David, and four to Solomon before he
began the work, we have just the sum of four hundred and eighty. So long it was
before that holy house was built, which in less than four hundred and thirty years
was burned by ebuchadnezzar. It was thus deferred, because Israel had, by their
sins, made themselves unworthy of this honour: and because God would show how

5. little he values external pomp and splendour in his service. And God ordered it now,
chiefly to be a shadow of good things to come. In the fourth year of Solomon’s reign
— Solomon was occupied more than three years in making the necessary
preparations; for although, his father had amassed much treasure, had left him a
plan, and provided many things necessary for the undertaking, yet as these
materials, it appears, lay at a considerable distance, and were left rude and
unfashioned, it could not cost less time to form them into the exact symmetry in
which the Scripture represents them to have been before they were used, and to
bring them together to Jerusalem. In the month Zif — The second of the
ecclesiastical year. The word signifying splendour, beauty, comeliness, it was a very
proper name for that month when the trees and the whole vegetable creation first
break forth, and the beauty of the spring begins to appear. He began to build the
house of the Lord — Either to lay the foundation of it, or to build on the foundation
before mentioned.
COKE, ". In the fourth year of Solomon's reign— If it be asked, why Solomon did
not begin the building of the temple sooner, and even in the first year of his reign,
since his father had left him a plan, and all things necessary for the undertaking,
Abarbanel's answer is, that Solomon would not make use of what his father had
prepared, but was resolved to build this temple all at his own cost and charge. He
therefore put into the treasure of the Lord's house, all that David had dedicated to
the work; and to collect as much gold and silver as was necessary to defray so vast
an expence, four years can be accounted no unreasonable time. ay, even supposing
that he made use of the treasure which his father had amassed, yet if the materials
provided by his father lay at a considerable distance, and were left rude and
unfashioned, it would cost all this time to form them into the exact symmetry
wherein the Scripture represents them, before they were brought together;
especially considering that the very stones which made the foundation were
probably vast blocks of marble or porphyry, (chap. 1 Kings 5:17.) and all polished
in an exquisite manner. See Patrick and Poole.
ELLICOTT, "Chapters 6 and 7 form a section almost technically descriptive of the
Temple and other building works of Solomon, (a) The general account of the
building of the Temple occupies 1 Kings 6; (b) to this succeeds a briefer description
of the other works of Solomon (1 Kings 7:1-12); (c) lastly, we have a full and
detailed description of the work of Hiram for the ornaments and furniture of the
Temple (1 Kings 7:13-51). The whole may be compared with 2 Chronicles 3, 4, with
the account in Josephus (Antt. viii. 3), and with the descriptions (in Exodus 25-27,
35-38) of the Tabernacle, which determined the construction of the Temple in many
points. With some variations, depending on the nature of the prophetic vision, it
may also be illustrated from Ezekiel 40-46. On the details of these chapters there has
been much learned discussion; but most light has been thrown on it by the articles
in the Dictionary of the Bible (TEMPLE, PALACE, JERUSALEM), written by Mr.
Fergusson, who unites with antiquarian learning extensive acquaintance with the
history and the details of architecture.

6. Verse 1
(1) In the fourth year.—This date, given with marked precision, forms a most
important epoch in the history of Israel, on which, indeed, much of the received
chronology is based. In the LXX., 440 is read for 480, possibly by an interchange of
two similar Hebrew letters, or, perhaps, by reckoning from the completion of
Exodus at the death of Moses instead of its beginning. The Vulgate agrees with the
Hebrew text. Josephus, on the other hand, without any hint of any other reckoning
in the Scriptural record, gives 592 years. The date itself, involving some apparent
chronological difficulties, has been supposed to be an interpolation; but without any
sufficient ground, except Josephus’s seeming ignorance of its existence, and some
early quotations of the passage by Origen and others without it; and in neglect of
the important fact that, disagreeing prima fâcie with earlier chronological
indications in Scripture, it is infinitely unlikely to have been thus interpolated by
any mere scribe.
These indications are, however, vague. The period includes the conquest and rule of
Joshua, the era of the Judges down to Samuel, the reigns of Saul and David, and the
three years of Solomon’s reign already elapsed. ow, of these divisions, only the last
three can be ascertained with any definiteness, at about 83 years. The time occupied
by the conquest and rule of Joshua, cannot be gathered with any certainty from
Scripture. The same is the case with the duration of some of the subsequent
Judgeships. Even the numerous chronological notices given in the Book of Judges
are inconclusive. We cannot tell whether they are literally accurate, or, as the
recurrence of round numbers may seem to suggest, indefinite expressions for long
periods; nor can we determine how far the various Judgeships were
contemporaneous or successive. The tradition followed by St. Paul (Acts 13:19-21),
assigning to the whole a period of 450 years, agrees generally with the latter idea.
The genealogies given (as, for example, of David, in Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chronicles 2:3-
15, and elsewhere) agree with the former. Hence, these vague chronological statistics
cannot constitute a sufficient ground for setting aside a date so formally and
unhesitatingly given at an important epoch of the history, corresponding to the
equally formal determination of the date of the Exodus in Exodus 12:40-41. The
omission of the date in quotations, again, proves little. The different date given by
Josephus, without any notice of that which we now have, presents the only real
difficulty. But it is possible that he may have been inclined tacitly to harmonise his
chronology with some other reckoning known in his time among the heathen; and in
any case it is doubtful whether his authority can outweigh that of our present text
and the ancient versions. On the whole, therefore, the grounds assigned for rejection
of the chronological notice of this verse, are insufficient.
PARKER, "Solomon"s Temple
1 Kings 6-7
THESE chapters should be compared with2Chron. iii-iv. indeed the whole story

7. should be read in the various forms which it is made to assume in all the historical
books, for without this survey of all the parts we might easily come to false
conclusions regarding many of the details. In this matter of the history of the temple
the Kings and the Chronicles must be considered as filling up what is lacking in
each other, and only the whole can be taken as supplying a true basis of exposition.
These chapters are almost wholly devoted to a technical description of the temple
and other building works of Solomon. It is profitable to compare the two chapters
with the descriptions given in Exodus 25 , Exodus 27 , Exodus 35 , and Exodus 38 of
the building of the tabernacle, which may be taken as an outline of the construction
of the temple itself in many important particulars. This account of the temple, too,
may be compared with advantage with the prophetic vision which was granted to
Ezekiel ( Ezekiel 40-46).
The temple which Solomon built for the Lord was small as to mere arithmetical
dimensions, but large when taken in its spiritual signification. "The length thereof
was threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits, and the height thereof
thirty cubits." It is curious to notice that the temple itself was in all its proportions
the duplicate of the tabernacle, each dimension however being doubled, and the
whole therefore being in cubical measure eight times the size of the house built by
Moses. If the usual calculation of eighteen inches to the cubit be taken, the whole
measurement would stand thus:—length ninety feet, width thirty feet, height forty-
five feet. The temple was only a shrine for the ministering priests, the outer court, or
outer courts, constituting the meeting place of the great assembly of the
congregation. The temple relied for its magnificence not upon its size, but upon the
costliness of the material, and the all but incalculable wealth of the decoration by
which it was enriched and adorned. Mark the point of progress which has been
reached in this historical development of the idea of the sanctuary. We have seen
what the tabernacle in the wilderness was—how frail, yet how beautiful; we now see
how substantial the temple Isaiah , how strongly founded, and how patiently
elaborated in all its costly details. We see also that the dimensions of the sanctuary
are doubled. This fact of the dimensions being doubled is full of moral significance.
The idea of the sanctuary is making progress, more space is required for it; yet
there is no undue haste, nothing of the nature of obtrusive encroachment but
everything of the quality of steady and irresistible progress: as we see the enlarged
dimensions we hear a great voice saying, "As truly as I live, all the earth shall be
filled with the glory of the Lord." The sanctuary is never diminished in size or in
importance; it is a growing quantity; though growing sometimes slowly and almost
indeed imperceptibly, yet the line is one of progress and never of recession.
"And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it
was brought thither: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron
heard in the house, while it was in building" (vi7).
Here was a great erection which proceeded towards its accomplishment without
noise or tumult. Yet there is nothing wrong in noise itself. In all preparation there
must be signs of energy and restlessness and even of apparent confusion, yet a

8. solemn and steadfast purpose may be running through all the energetic
engagements. Who can tell how many preparations are going on in distant places,
the full purport and use of which cannot be understood apart from the sanctuary
which is being silently put up? This may be the meaning of many a war and
controversy and distressing tumult. Whilst the heathen are raging, they may be
undergoing a process of preparation for incorporation into the temple of God. God
sitteth upon the floods, and all the uproar is controlled by himself. If we could have
looked upon Lebanon at the time when the hewers of trees were engaged upon it, we
should have seen nothing but confusion. Before the hewers of wood went to
Lebanon that famous locality was proverbial for its beauty and fragrance. Lebanon
was watered by the streams from the snowy heights when all Palestine was parched
up. ow look at Lebanon when the fellers of trees are carrying out their purpose:
how harsh the sounds, how crashing the fall, how like a devastation the whole
appearance; looked at within its own limits, the scene is one that pains the heart.
Was it for this violent overthrow that all this noble beauty was perfected? We must
take the larger view, and turn not only to Lebanon but to Mount Moriah, and there
observe what is being done with the material which Lebanon supplies. "Behold, I
build an house to the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn
before him sweet incense, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt
offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the
solemn feasts of the Lord our God." Thus the two pictures must be brought
together—the confusion on Lebanon, and the construction upon Mount Moriah.
"Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah,
where the Lord appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had
prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite." The noisy timber-fellers and
the quiet builders belong to the same great company of workers for the Lord God of
Israel. The noisy men must not complain of the quietness of those who go about
their work without making any noise; nor must the quiet constructors rebuke the
energy of men without whose activity they themselves could not proceed to lay
another course in all the sacred structure of the sanctuary. We need the son of
thunder, and the son of consolation; the great wind, and the silent sun; the
tempestuous rain, and the noiseless dew: all these must be considered as part of the
great ministry which God has appointed for the accomplishment of his purposes
upon the earth.
GUZIK, "A. Basic dimensions and structure.
1. (1 Kings 6:1-6) Basic dimensions of the temple.
And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of
Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over
Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the
house of the LORD. ow the house which King Solomon built for the LORD, its
length was sixty cubits, its width twenty, and its height thirty cubits. The vestibule
in front of the sanctuary of the house was twenty cubits long across the width of the
house, and the width of the vestible extended ten cubits from the front of the house.

9. And he made for the house windows with beveled frames. Against the wall of the
temple he built chambers all around, against the walls of the temple, all around the
sanctuary and the inner sanctuary. Thus he made side chambers all around it. The
lowest chamber was five cubits wide, the middle was six cubits wide, and the third
was seven cubits wide; for he made narrow ledges around the outside of the temple,
so that the support beams would not be fastened into the walls of the temple.
a. In the four hundred and eightieth year: This marking point shows just how long
Israel lived in the Promised Land without a temple. The tabernacle served the
nation well for more than 400 years. The temple was built prompted more at the
direction and will of God than out of absolute necessity.
i. The dating provided in 1 Kings 6:1 also gives a dating for the Exodus. As many
suppose, the reign of Solomon began in 971 B.C. and ended at 913 B.C. (the temple
was begun in 967 B.C.). This means that the Exodus took place in 1447 B.C.
b. He began to build the house of the LORD: This was when the actual construction
began. Solomon probably started to organize the work right away. There is some
evidence that it took three years to prepare timber from Lebanon for use in
building. If Solomon began the construction of the temple in the fourth year of his
reign, he probably started organizing the construction in the very first year of his
reign.
i. Yet the work was carefully organized and planned even before Solomon became
king. 1 Chronicles 28:11-12 tells us, Then David gave his son Solomon the plans for
the vestibule, its houses, its treasuries, its upper chambers, its inner chambers, and
the place of the mercy seat; and the plans for all that he had by the Spirit, of the
courts of the house of the LORD, of all the chambers all around, of the treasuries of
the house of God, and of the treasuries for the dedicated things.
ii. The writer of 1 Kings never tells us exactly where the temple was built, but the
writer of 2 Chronicles tells us that it was built on Mount Moriah (2 Chronicles 3:1),
the same place where Abraham went to sacrifice Isaac and - on another part of the
hill - Jesus would be sacrificed.
c. The house which King Solomon built for the LORD: This chapter will describe
the building of the temple and its associated areas. There are four main structures
described.
· The temple proper (the house which King Solomon built), divided into two
rooms (the holy place and the most holy place).
· The vestibule or entrance hall on the east side of the temple proper (the
vestibule in front of the sanctuary). It was thirty feet (10 meters) wide and fifteen
feet (5 meters) deep, and the same height as the temple proper.
· The three-storied side chambers (chambers all around) which surrounded

10. the temple proper on the north, south, and west sides.
· A large courtyard surrounding the whole structure (the inner court
mentioned in 1 Kings 6:36).
d. Its length was sixty cubits, its width twenty, and its height thirty cubits: Assuming
that the ancient cubit was approximately 18 inches (perhaps one-half meter), this
means that the temple proper was approximately 90 feet (30 meters) long, 30 feet (10
meters) wide, and 45 feet (15 meters) high. This was not especially large as ancient
temples go, but the glory of Israel’s temple was not in its size.
i. Allowing for the outside storage rooms, the vestibule, and the estimate thickness of
the walls, the total size of the structure was perhaps 75 cubits long (110 feet, 37
meters) and 50 cubits wide (75 feet, 25 meters).
ii. The dimensions of the temple also tell us that it was build on the same basic
design as the tabernacle, but twice as large. This means that Solomon meant the
temple to be a continuation of the tabernacle.
e. He built chambers all around: These seem to be side rooms adjacent to the
temple, yet not structurally part of the temple. The ew International Version
translates 1 Kings 6:5 : Against the walls of the main hall and inner sanctuary he
built a structure around the building, in which there were side rooms.
PETT, "The Building Of The Temple And Its Specifications (1 Kings 6:1-38).
The description of the building of the Temple, and its specifications, are now given
in order to bring out the glory of Solomon, and the glowing picture (untainted by
the later reality) suggests that the whole was taken from the original source. It was
common for such information to be found in the records kept by kings of the ancient
ear East, for their temples were an important aspect of their reigns, and thus there
is no need to look for a source outside the court records. The overall emphasis is on
the materials used, the measurements, and the techniques.
Being mainly designed by the Phoenicians it was, as we would expect, similar to
neighbouring temples, although having the addition of a Most Holy Place, following
the pattern of the Tabernacle. Thus the porch led in to the Holy Place, an elongated
room, which itself led up to the Most Holy Place which was designed as a perfect
cube. An almost parallel design was found at Ebla, in Syria, dating to the third
millennium BC. A further example of a similar, but smaller, tripartite shrine was
discovered at Tell Tainat on the Orontes (9th century BC), although that had an
altar in the inner room. A late bronze age tripartite shrine was also discovered at
Hazor constructed with timber between the stone courses.
One outstanding feature of Solomon’s Temple was that it was coated with gold. It
was a display of Solomon’s great wealth. It is, however, an interesting indication of

11. Solomon’s lack of spiritual perception that he did not follow the pattern laid down
for the Tabernacle whereby the closer men came to the Most Holy Place, the more
precious the metal that was in use. That indicated to men, as they moved from
bronze, to silver, to gold, that they were, as it were, moving gradually out of their
mundane world closer into His presence until at last they approached the very
curtain behind which was the Ark of YHWH. It was a reminder that man was what
he was, earthly and mundane, and that God was the God of Heaven, and that a
purifying process must take place before we could come face to face with Him. But
in Solomon’s Temple all was gold. God had simply become a ‘national treasure’.
Yes, He was valued. But enclosed in His own little box.
From a literary viewpoint the passage itself follows a clear plan which seeks to bring
out its important message. It opens and closes with a record of the dates involved,
which form an inclusio, and are a reminder that we are dealing with the genuine
history of men, and it centres round a confirming word from YHWH demanding
obedience to His covenant. Indeed without such obedience all that the Temple was
supposed to indicate meant nothing. And in between we have the description of the
building and decorating of the Temple, indicating man’s efforts on God’s behalf.
The writer has already made clear the huge physical effort that has gone into the
building of the Temple (1 Kings 5:13-17), and in 1 Kings 6:14-36 it is made clear the
greatness of the wealth that was being poured into its decoration. The lesson that is
being emphasised is clear. Whatever efforts we may put in, and however much
wealth we may devote to God, if we do not live in obedience to him, all else is in
vain. Being ‘religious’ is not sufficient. What God requires is personal response.
Obedience is central. In the words of Samuel, ‘to obey is better than sacrifice, and to
listen than the fat of rams’ (1 Samuel 15:22). This lesson that great effort and great
giving is not in itself sufficient but must be centred on obedience explains why the
writer divided up the description of the building of the Temple into two parts
around the central covenant.
In this regard God’s words concerning the Temple can hardly be described as over-
enthusiastic. otice the rather unenthusiastic, ‘Concerning this house which you
have built,’ and compare it with ebuchadnezzar’s ‘Is this not great Babylon which
I have built?’ (Daniel 4:30). The initiative for the Temple had come from men and
not from YHWH, which was in total contrast to the Tabernacle (2 Samuel 7:5-7).
And even in its building YHWH’s requirements had been disobeyed as we have
already seen above. It was thus more a monument to Solomon’s great splendour,
and to his spiritual superficiality, than to a genuine evidence of deep spirituality.
Like Saul he was more into the externals than into genuine obedience, something
which in both cases did not become apparent immediately.
The ordinary reader may feel somewhat bewildered at all the detail provided with
regard to the construction and embellishment of the Temple, but we should learn
from this important lessons. Firstly how interested God is in the details of life. he
ensured that a record was made of all the attempts of men to please Him (‘and then
shall every (believing) man have praise of God’ - 1 Corinthians 4:5), just as He
keeps a record of our lives. Secondly of how important it is that we should devote

12. our skills to worshipping Him as well as serving Him. It reminds us that both are
important. How much time do we, for example, spend in planning and designing our
own public and private worship so as to bring glory to Him?). Thirdly as a reminder
of how generous we should be towards God, and of how we should never treat Him
lightly. Fourthly that the Temple, at its best, was designed to lift up men’s hearts
towards God and remind them of His glory, so that as we consider its detail we
might bring glory to our God. It is equally as important for us that we do not get so
absorbed in ‘the church’ that we fail to give Him the glory that is His due. Fifthly in
that it was designed so as to demonstrate that all creation is important in the eyes of
God, and that He created it for our benefit (even though we may misuse it). Sixthly
in that it was demonstrating the presence of God among His people in splendour
and glory, and lifting up their eyes towards Him. The danger came when they
turned their eyes away from God to the Temple and gave it an importance beyond
its deserving. Seventhly in that it stood as a guarantee of the fulfilment of all God’s
promises concerning the rise of the Coming King.
This particular passage is divided into three main parts by three phrases, each of
which is a reminder that the Temple was completed, a repetition which was typical
of ancient literature. These phrases are as follows:
“So he built the house and finished it.” This ends the description of the building of
the stonework (1 Kings 6:9).
“So Solomon built the house and finished it.” This follows the covenant made by
YHWH. (1 Kings 6:14).
“So was he seven years in building it.” This concludes the whole (1 Kings 6:37).
In writings where the script continued unbroken such ‘breaks’ were vital in order to
enable the reader to recognise when a change in the subject matter was taking place
and a new point in the narrative was being reached.
We may analyse the whole as follows:
Analysis.
a The date of commencement of the work (1 Kings 6:1).
b The building of the main structure in stone (1 Kings 6:2-10).
c YHWH’s covenant with Solomon (1 Kings 6:11-14).
b The embellishment of the Temple with timber and its inner detail (1 Kings
6:15-36).
a The date when the Temple was finished (1 Kings 6:37).
Thus the whole is planted firmly in history, man’s efforts on God’s behalf are
described, but central to all is the requirement for obedience to God and His
covenant.
1 Kings 6:1 a ‘It came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the
children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt ---.’
The interpretation of these words is a decisive point in Biblical chronology. It does

13. at first sight give the appearance of indicating an exact chronology, but if taken
literally it would be the only place in Scripture where such a specific attempt at
exact dating, covering so long a period, has been attempted, apart from Exodus
12:40-41. Indeed, speaking from a human point of view it is difficult to see who
would have been in a position to be able to accurately arrive at this figure. Records
were not meticulously kept before the time of the monarchy, and the periods
covered by Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Saul, contain time periods so uncertain that
no one could have pinpointed the length of time with such accuracy from them, even
if they accepted the exact round numbers in Judges literally. Certainly many
attempts have been made to do so since, but none of them have been successful, for
they have always had to make (or ignore) uncertain assumptions concerning the
time period of Joshua, the length of time to the first invasion of the land in Judges
3:8, and the length of the periods for Samuel and Saul. We may take a scholarly
interest in such matters, but it is doubtful if the writer of Kings or his source did so.
It is true, of course, that God would have known how long the true period was, but
the words are not shown as coming from the mouth of God nor are they put in the
form of a prophetic announcement, and there is no indication given anywhere that
the writer obtained special divine assistance in arriving at the figure. He appears
rather to have made the statement almost matter-of-factedly on the basis of his own
knowledge. In that case we may ask why did he do so, and what was the criteria on
which he based his information?
A point that must be borne in mind in considering the matter is the way in which
number words were used in ancient times. They were not times in which much stress
was laid on mathematics and arithmetic. umbers were a mystery to most people.
Indeed most probably could not accurately use numbers beyond, say, twenty (even if
that). umbers were rather used in order to convey an impression, and many of
what we see as number words (e.g. a thousand) also had a number of other different
meanings (such as military unit, family unit, clan unit, work unit, etc.). This being so
our question should rather therefore be, what impression was the writer trying to
give?
A clue may perhaps be found in another reference which has in mind the period
from the Exodus to Solomon and that is found in 1 Chronicles 6. Indicated there we
have the list of ‘Priests’ from Aaron to the time of Solomon, and then from Solomon
to the Exile. If we list the ‘Priests’ from Aaron to Ahimaaz, the son of Zadok, who
would succeed Zadok as Priest in the early days of Solomon, we have twelve names,
and if we take a ‘generation’ to represent forty years that would give us four
hundred and eighty years. Thus the writer may simply be intending to indicate that
there were ‘twelve generations’ (12x40=480) between the coming out of Egypt and
the commencement of the building of the Temple, which would in reality be
considerably less than 480 years. And a connection with the High Priesthood would
be a very fit way in which to date the growth of Israel’s faith to the point at which
the Temple was built (which was as the men of the day would see it).
But we must then ask, why was the matter seen as being of such importance that

14. such dating was required? The answer would appear to lie in the emphasis that is
earlier laid on the fact that the Temple was being built by Solomon because at long
last the land was at rest, with all its enemies having been dealt with. It was an
indication that the period of wandering, and of having a temporary, travelling
sanctuary, was considered to be over. Thus the ‘four hundred and eighty years’
indicated the period that had passed between the first deliverance from Egypt and
the time at which Israel could say, ‘now at last we are permanently settled in the
land and at rest, with all our enemies subdued.’ It was a moment of great
satisfaction.
1 Kings 6:1
‘And it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of
Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over
Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house
of YHWH.’
So after twelve generations from the coming out of Egypt, Solomon felt that things
were so at rest that a permanent Temple could be built. The impression being given
was that now at last Israel were finally settled in the land for good. But as we know,
and as the writer knew, within a generation that vision would collapse, and a united
Israel would be no more. It was a dream that would turn into a nightmare. Thus the
positive note of the verse suggests that it was written before the crises that followed
occurred, confirming that it was very early and part of the original source.
The date was seen as so important that the exact date is then given. It was in the
month Ziv, which was the second month, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign
(somewhere around 960 BC). It was seen as a glorious month in history, for it was in
this month Solomon began to build the house of YHWH. The final writer of Kings
must, however, certainly have had in mind what the future of the Temple was. He
would have known that that too was doomed even as it was being erected, and that a
promising beginning would end in disaster. The dream would come to nothing
because the injunction to Solomon in 1 Kings 6:12-13 would be ignored.
The word used for ‘moon period’ appears regularly in Genesis, Exodus, etc. The
moon period Ziv occurs only in this chapter, and is explained as being the second
moon period in the year. It is an indication of early date, for later the second month
would be Iyyar. The dating from the beginning of the reign was a normal method of
dating. Everything about this verse indicates its antiquity.
PULPIT, "SOLOMO '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

15. 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. or 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

16. 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

17. 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
Length of Holy Place
20
40
Width
10
20
Height

18. 10
20
Length of Holy of Holies
10
20
Width
10
20
Height
10
20
Width of Porch
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

19. 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. ow this
decimal arrangement can hardly have been accidental. ot 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.
or 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.

20. 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 ew 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. or 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,
" ot 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

21. 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.]
BI 1-14, "He began to build the house of the Lord.
The temple built
Solomon’s temple is the most wonderful and interesting building in the world’s history.
It was “the mysterious centre of Israel.” It was far more to Israel than the Vatican is to
Rome. It was, so long as it stood, God’s only earthly palace and temple. The Pyramids of
Egypt were old when it was built, and they show no signs of decay. Solomon’s temple
utterly perished after four centuries. Greek and Roman artists have given the laws of
beautiful and stately architecture to the world, but no one has ever dreamed of copying,
in any respect, the sacred building at Jerusalem. Brunellesehi’s dome at Florence, St.
Peter’s at Rome, the Milan Cathedral are almost miracles of daring genius and patient
toil. The temple was in comparison a homely and plain building in its style. Its size was,
as compared with these, small and insignificant. Yet God in a peculiar sense was its
architect. He filled it with His glory. “His eyes and His heart were there.” The simple
description before us is greatly amplified in this Book of Kings, and in that of Chronicles,
where there are differences noted. Our attention may rest at present on the—
I. Date of the temple. It is given with precision. Months and years are mentioned for the
first time since the Exodus. Here we have one of the two or three points clearly made in
the Scripture by which its chronology is determined. We can easily remember that
Solomon’s reign began about one thousand years before Christ. Homer was singing of
the Trojan war. Two and a half centuries must pass before Romulus and Remus founded
Rome. It seems long since Columbus discovered America. Add a century nearly to this
period, and you have the time between the Exodus and the temple. How long the decay!
Wilderness wandering, rude days of the Judges,—nearly three hundred years. Samuel
and the prophets, King Saul, and then David,—these all must come before God can have
a permanent home on earth for men to see and admire and love.
II. The site of the temple. This is not mentioned in our text, because so familiar and so
often recorded elsewhere. It was on Mount Moriah, to which Abraham centuries before
had raised his eyes in sad recognition of the place for the sacrifice of Isaac.

22. III. The size and plan of the temple. Many a country church is larger than this famous
edifice in its interior dimensions. The cubit is an uncertain measure; but allowing it the
largest limit, we have a room inside of only ninety feet by thirty. It had three distinctly-
marked parts. First, the “temple of the house” (verse 3), or holy place, sixty feet long by
thirty wide. Then, second, came the “oracle” (verse 7), or most holy place, a perfect cube,
thirty feet in each of its dimensions. This was perfectly dark. In front came, although
part of the whole building, a porch fifteen feet deep, running across the whole east end of
the structure. All this was of stone, covered, according to Josephus, with cedar. On the
sides of this building there was what we should call a lean-to, i.e. sets of chambers, not
for residence, but for some other purposes connected with worship. They were entered
from without by a door and winding-stairs, so that the holy places themselves were
always kept separate.
IV. Preparations for this work. They had been going on for thirty years, ever since the
day when David conceived of giving the ark of God a suitable home. Money had been
accumulating, and a special treasurer had charge of it. It amounted, perhaps, to eighty
millions of dollars. Spoils of battles were brought to it, like the banners hanging in
Westminster Abbey. Shields and vessels of gold and silver were gathered in great
numbers. But the materials of the temple itself were all brought from afar.
V. The workmen and their work. They were largely foreigners, under Hiram, King of
Tyre, or native Canaanites, reduced to practical slavery. Their numbers were immense,
one hundred and fifty-three thousand Gibeonites alone engaging in the toil. Thirty
thousand Jews, in relays of ten thousand, worked side by side with Tyrian and Sidonian.
The significant statement is made that their work was so perfect that part came to its
part without the sound of the axe or hammer. This is unparalleled in architecture. In
boring the Mont Cenis Tunnel under the Alps, so exquisitely accurate were the
engineers, that the two shafts begun at opposite sides of the mountain met each other
with scarcely the variation of a line. The Brooklyn Bridge is a triumph of human courage
and skill; but those silent seven years on Mount Zion, in which the house of God grew
into form, each stone hoisted to its place without the shaping touch of the chisel, in
which every beam sunk into its socket with no shading of its already true lines,—that
perfect design, perfectly carried out,—where shall we find its equal? That silence was
suggestive. It was Divine.
VI. The builder of the temple. Not David, the man after God’s own heart. Not the father,
but the son; not the man of blood, but the man of peace. Thus one life completes itself in
another.
VII. The uses of the temple. Here we must abandon our modern conceptions of a house
of God. The temple was not a place for congregational worship. There was no such thing
known in the world at that time. The congregation could assemble in the court before the
temple, and witness the sacrifices of animals, but they could not enter there. Only the
priests were seen within those mysterious portals. We must banish from our minds all
conceptions growing out of the modern church, save as all churches are sacred to the
worship of God. Solomon repeatedly says that Jehovah desired this place that His name
might be there,—the name of His holiness. There God was to be represented in His true
character,—merciful and gracious, but perfectly holy. Israel was to pray towards that
place, but God was to hear in heaven, His dwelling-place.
VIII. The condition of God’s blessing on the temple. While Solomon was busy in the
seven years’ work, he was reminded that all his toil and expenditure would be in vain
unless he walked in the way of the Lord. Stones and cedars, gold and jewels, fine needle-
work and silver could not enclose and secure a purely spiritual presence. God speaks to

23. Solomon himself as if He held him alone responsible for the preservation of the temple’s
sanctity.
IX. The temple a type and prophecy of the whole body of Christ. It expressed to the
ancient people of God the idea of His dwelling amongst them. He ruled the world, even
all the heathen nations; but Zion was His home. Israel was His abode. Amongst them
His glory and power were to be displayed. Josephus and Philo thought that the temple
was a figure of the universe. Others have thought it typical of the human form, others
still a symbol of heaven itself; but we have the Scripture proof of its being a prophecy
and type of that final temple silently reared by the Spirit of God,—each stone a living
soul,—and the whole structure filled and glorified by Christ. (Monday Club Sermons.)
The temple built
I. The Lord’s house begun.
1. The date.
2. The doing.
(1) When Solomon was ready, and the right time had come, he began to build the
Lord s house.
(2) Solomon did not begin to build the Lord’s house before he was ready. He did
not rush into the Lord’s service without counting the cost.
(3) Solomon could the more readily build well for the Lord’s use, because his
father had foreseen the needs of the work. The Christian parent can make much
easier the child’s entrance upon Christian service.
(4) Solomon began to build for the Lord, and he didn’t stop with the beginning,
as do some so-called servants of the Lord.
II. God’s house builded.
1. The size of the temple.
2. The porch of the temple.
3. The chambers of the temple.
4. The building of the temple.
(1) The temple was a magnificent one. Nothing was too good for the Lord’s use.
Solomon did not belong to the class of men who put their punched coin into the
contribution-box and give their unmarketable produce to the minister.
(2) The temple was a large one. But Solomon and the parish committee didn’t
commence to build until they had means to complete the Lord’s house without
the assistance of a colossal mortgage.
(3) The temple was builded in silence. Many a great and grand Christian work is
accomplished with little stir. For the time being a man may make as much noise
in making a chicken-coop as in building a church.
(4) The temple was a permanent structure. Building for God is work that abides.
And we may be stones in a temple of God that shall outlast the stars.

24. III. God’s promise to the builder.
1. The condition.
2. The conclusion.
(1) Performance promised.
(2) Presence promised.
3. Completion.
(1) The word of God came unto Solomon with the promise that his building for
God should secure his up-building from God.
(2) The word of God comes unto us with the assurance that if we do a good work
for Him and love Him, all things shall work together for good to us whom He
loves.
(3) The word of God that came to Solomon comes to us, with the warning that
even our temple-building will not avail unless we offer the sacrifices of obedience
on its altars.
(4) The presence of God was specially promised to Solomon just after he had
made special preparation for God’s worship.
(5) The presence of God in our hearts is assured to us so soon as we show
suitable readiness to welcome His presence.
(6) The presence of God in some manifestation has never failed to His children.
The temple of Solomon was destroyed; the later temple was burned. But their
usefulness was over, for the presence of God now makes a temple of every
believer’s heart. (S. S. Times.)
Church building
One of the greatest living architects, writing on church architecture says: “I do not forget
the profound emotion that an ancient church must still excite in any susceptible breast.
We need not try to analyse it. But when we are building our sanctuaries to-day, we must
ask ourselves how much of this is really religious, how much artistic or historic in its
promptings; and further, how much of its really religious portion is genuine and
personal, and how much merely sympathetic and imaginative?”
Church architecture
Dr. Cuyler, in his “Recollections of a Long Life,” has some interesting remarks on church
buildings. “I fear,” he says, “that too many costly church edifices are erected that are
quite unfit for our Protestant modes of religious service.” It is said that when Bishop
Potter was called upon to consecrate one of the” dim religious” specimens of medieval
architecture, and was asked his opinion of the new structure, he replied: “It is a beautiful
building, with only three faults. You cannot see in it, you cannot hear in it, you cannot
breathe in it!”
The temple built
That temple, which Solomon built and dedicated, which was restored from its desolation
in the time of Nehemiah, and which Herod the Great rebuilt, was known to all devout

25. Israelites as the house of God. God by His prophets taught them so to regard it.
I. Devout intercourse of men with God is prayer. “Prayer is an offering up of our desires
unto God, in the name of Christ, by the help of his Spirit, with confession of our sins,
and thankful acknowledgment of His mercies.” In the ancient temple-worship God
caused E is people’s prayers to be symbolised by the smoke of incense, the sweetest
possible fragrance that could be devised and secured by the art of the apothecary (Exo_
37:29; Luk_1:8-10). It is only trusting, submissive, unselfish prayer that we can offer up
with any good hope of pleasing Him. Such prayer will not limit itself to the things which
we feel the need of for ourselves—things which will do good to us.
II. This spiritual fulfilment is for all mankind.
1. This was plainly enough taught in the original declarations concerning the temple
which we have in the Old Testament. The text (Isa_56:7) affirms that Jehovah called
His house a house of prayer “for all nations.”
2. The dispensation which had its local seat at Jerusalem was predestined to be
temporary, while the spiritual worship which it taught and temporarily helped was to
be permanent and universal. This even pious Israelites were slow to learn, slow to
believe. Ought our worship to be less reverent than that in the ancient temple? In
these Christian synagogues ought not attention to the Word of God to be as serious
and devout as in the Jewish synagogues? Our prayers and our service of song,—
ought we not to be as careful that they be true and pure heart-worship, as of old they
u ere careful not to offer strange fire or unhallowed incense? Are we keeping our
dedicated sanctuaries quite clear of everything which would strike our Lord as
unsuitable for His Father’s house of prayer? (H. A. Nelson, D. D.)
Solomon’s temple viewed as a type of the glorified Church
I. In this temple we have a Divine idea.
1. The church in heaven is a Divine idea of mercy. What St. Paul said to and of those
who composed the church at Corinth is applicable to the redeemed in heaven—“Ye
are God’s building.” The idea of forming a society of perfect spirits claims God for its
Author. Roman force, Popish prescription, and philosophic reasoning have failed to
weld together in blissful harmony the spirits of men. The Almighty Intelligence is at
the foundation of the “church of the firstborn.” The plan of the building is God’s
plan.
2. The church in heaven is a Divine idea of remedial mercy. “Christ loved the church,
and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
water by the Word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having
spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish.”
II. In this temple we have a Divine idea embodied.
1. The building of Solomon expressed the Divine contrivance or idea. It was God’s
thought made palpable or visible. The Supreme Being gave Solomon the idea, and he
gave visible effect to it; he prepared the materials. As the king found them, they were
unfit for use. Man in his natural state is unfit for the church in heaven. A sinner in
the building of the glorified church would disfigure the whole edifice. A change is
necessary here before such an one is fit for the perfected church. The statement—“Ye
must be born again,” is applicable to every man who has not experienced the change.

26. 2. He prepared the materials at a distance from the temple. Lebanon was some
distance from Zion, and here Solomon’s men shaped the stone and wood, and hence
it was the scene of action and noise, but it was all quiet at Zion; there was not the
sound of hammer nor axe, nor any tool of iron, heard at Zion. And in a religious
sense, all the squaring and shaping of character for the temple in heaven must be
done and is, done on earth. There is no Gospel-hammer used in eternity to break
men’s hearts; there is no fiery blaze of Christian truth in heaven to burn out
depravity and sin from the soul.
3. He prepared the materials by different kinds of agency. The glorified people of
God have been prepared by different agencies for their position in the heavenly
temple, but all instrumentalities have been under Christ. He works all according to
His purpose.
III. In this temple there is the union of a variety of materials.
1. The temple of redeemed spirits in heaven is composed of a great variety of
character—the young, the old, the rich, the poor, the learned and unlearned are there
built into a splendid edifice. No family can be pointed out which has not a member
placed in that building.
2. This variety is blended in perfect harmony. Every character has been shaped by
Divine skill for its exact position in the structure. “Holiness to the Lord” is inscribed
upon every “living stone” therein. The abiding principle of pure love is the uniting
and harmonising principle. Rome has a kind of outward union, but no incorporation
or vital unity; but the perfected church is one vitality, and for ever.
IV. If this temple there is magnificence.
1. Look at it as a work of art. The temple upon Zion was the marvel of creation, and
the church in heaven is, and ever will be, the wonder of the universe! What a blaze of
concentrated glories is that celestial temple, what consummate purity and Divine art!
2. As a work of art executed upon the noblest principle. Love to God moved King
David to suggest the building, and love to God impelled his son Solomon to carry out
the work. The glorified multitudes before the throne are there through the love of
God—love brighter, wider, deeper and higher than imagination in her loftiest—
Divinest soarings has ever described or even conceived—love which only the
greatness of a God could have displayed.
V. In this temple there is great value.
1. The temple church is composed of spirit—hence of greater value. The building at
Jerusalem cost nearly nine hundred millions of money, but the treasures of creation
are a mere bauble in comparison to the glorified church.
2. The temple church is composed of spirit, through a greater agency than the edifice
at Jerusalem—hence of more value. The structure in David’s royal city was erected by
Solomon, but the church is built into a holy temple by our Divine Saviour through
the Holy Ghost. Solomon was a mat being, but “behold a greater than Solomon is
here,” in the work of humanist roration.
3. The temple church is composed of spirit for immortality. The splendid fabric on
Zion lasted upwards of four hundred years, and then it was destroyed by
Nebuchadnezzar. The glorified church, however, is to last for ever. “I give unto My
sheep,” says Christ, “eternal life.” The good of all ages and climes are built into “a
habitation for God through the spirit,” and this building will continue longer than

27. the sun, even for ever.
VI. In this temple there is glorious purpose.
1. It was erected as a dwelling-place for God. On the mercy-seat of that hallowed
building God met the high priest, and other men through him. Probably no higher
end can be contemplated in any work than this—to make earth the house of God. The
great purposes of the Incarnation are to make earth the residence of God—to eject
Satan—to sap the foundations of his empire, and to turn this wilderness world into a
Paradise, wherein innocence and God shall reign triumphantly for evermore.
2. As the dwelling-place of God for the good of mankind. What a sacred spot was the
temple at Jerusalem! Here the Supreme and ever-blessed Potentate unfolded His
purposes of mercy, and made man acquainted with redemption by blood. God dwells
in the midst of disembodied spirits, as their Everlasting Light, and the Perennial
Fountain of all their joy! A river of blessedness, pellucid and permanent, flows
through the heavenly temple, and on either side of it grows the tree of life, whose
fruits convey an element of immortality to the participants. We shall see God from
every point of the glorious pavilion of redeemed and perfected men. (J. H. Hill.)
The heavenly temple
I. Of the materials of which it was built. Solomon’s temple was a type of the spiritual
temple in the material of which it was built.
1. It was built of stone. The heart of man in its natural state is a heart of stone.
2. It was built of stones brought a long distance. God might have made His temple
out of materials on the spot. He might have chosen angels and archangels and
seraphs, and beings who had never sinned. But such was not His purpose. He
selected the stones from a distant country, the souls of man from earth rather than
the angels of heaven. It was made of stones, made ready before they were brought to
the spot. The stones of the heavenly temple are prepared before they are removed to
their eternal position. We must be hewn out of the rock,—converted here; we must
be prepared on earth, and fitted to occupy the exact spot intended for us before the
time comes for us to be taken away.
II. In the manner in which it was constructed.
1. That it proceeded gradually. It was impossible for a building to be made all at
once, when the materials were brought from a distance and one by one fitted
together. The temple of God has been going on ever since Abel the first righteous
man was admitted to heaven.
2. That it was carried on according to a plan. It was impossible that each stone could
fit into its appointed place unless that place was pre-arranged and foreseen. Nay,
every detail must have been provided for, and all the parts accurately suited one to
another. So the wisdom of Almighty God has foreseen and provided for every detail
connected with His heavenly temple. Not only have those been selected who shall
form part of the building, but every stone is numbered and has its appointed position
assigned to it
3. It was carried on in solemn and mysterious silence. A fit type of the mysterious
work of God in the construction of His temple in heaven.

28. III. Solomon’s temple was a type of the great spiritual temple in the object for which it
was ordained. This was the glory of God. It was not for the pleasure of the king, or for
manifesting the beauty of the carved stones—it was for the praise, the worship, and the
glory of the Almighty. Let us remember that the end of our salvation is not merely, or
even chiefly, our own advantage. There is a higher, a nobler object to be obtained—the
praise of God. Conclusion:—
1. In all buildings, there are stones of all sorts, shapes, and sizes required. There are
the massive pillars, the keystones to the arches, and the small rubble to fill up the
courses. These may not all occupy so prominent a position, but they are all essential
to the construction of the building. So the humblest Christians are required in the
temple above as well as the more prominent and important.
2. In all buildings there must be builders. So God is the great Master Builder and the
Divine Architect. He superintends the work. The under builders in this work are His
ministers.
3. The foundation is Christ. The topstone is Christ. He is the Alpha and the Omega—
the beginning and the end. He is the basis and the glory of the whole building. (J. S.
Bird, B. A.)
Character
There is an eminent satisfaction in reading this terse sentence. King Solomon not only
began the house; he finished it. I have often thought that the temple was a fit emblem of
a true man’s character, and Solomon’s action and energy a fit example for a true man to
follow.
I. A man’s character must be built upon a solid foundation. The foundation of a man’s
life must not and dare not be a thing of chance. The ancient temple taught us that. It was
founded through agony, its position was indicated by an angel, itself was consecrated by
sacrifice. Life and character stand upon great, solid, permanent principles. No
opportunism is of any use. Quick methods, suggested by selfishness, and attempted by
inexperience and ignorance, will give us a house of cards to be blasted by a breath. What
is more, a temporary success upon any other foundation than these enduring principles
is worthless. It has no true element of success. It is like a gilded ball for a baby; or a
bubble to be pricked by the first chance and disappear. Eternal principles must be our
foundation. Let me point out a few.
1. The deepest down must be truth. Without moral truth no man is tolerable to
others or sure of himself. Moral truth teaches him to say what he believes, and upon
no plea whatever to say anything else.
2. Another principle is honesty. A large portion of honesty is candour, for a
mysterious person, with secret designs and practices, is never altogether honest.
3. Another principle is purity. This lies deep, but it is a sweet, enjoyable, and
beautiful rule. There is no section or class to whom it ought not to be dear. It is very
close to truth and to honesty, and without it no character can be strong. It belongs to
ourselves, our thoughts, imaginings, wishes, and motives. It has a kind of chemical
action going out through our whole nature, and so belonging to others so far as we
belong to them and affect them. It is a function of our bodies, our intellects, and our
souls. It wears the sunlight of holiness, for the perfectly pure is God.

29. 4. Deeper yet, for Jerusalem was built upon the foundation of the hills; and man’s
foundation is God. Jesus is the foundation which lies eternal. Religion is our relation
to Jesus.
II. The character must be built up for a high purpose. It was the consciousness of this
which added the factor of greatness to the work of Solomon. The father of the work was
the Tabernacle. That, at all events, provided the outline. But circumstances had shifted
and lifted themselves during the four hundred years which stood between. New
possibilities had arisen, and therefore larger and richer work must he effected. Here the
ideal of character comes forward. That shows what we wish; the possible translates the
vision into what we can. Therefore the purpose of our life aims at the highest service we
can conceive and hope to render; such service contemplates God as its object—its
highest is found in Him only. Hence, the character that is to be built is built for these:—
1. For Sacrifice.
2. A second purpose must, like that of Solomon, be Thanksgiving, for thanksgiving is
as much a duty as prayer.
3. The Residence of God. It is almost astounding in its presumption. The heaven,
even the heavens of heavens, cannot contain Him. We is of purer eyes than to behold
iniquity, and how shall He come into perpetual association with it? Yet God
vouchsafed to come down within a dwelling-place formed by these hands of sinful
men; He was openly seen there, and His presence remained. Nor will He disdain the
work which is of His own hands, nor refuse to dwell in the fleshy and spiritual temple
which we consecrate to Him.
III. The character must be built up with large and noble ideas. It was a huge
undertaking. The quarries and the forests of Lebanon, the raising and shaping of the
stones, the conveying of the cedar to the sea and then to Joppa, and thence to Jerusalem,
the textile work probably from foreign looms, the brass, the silver, and the gold, all
expressed—and as they seem to us, exhausted—the grandest conception of the eleventh
century before our Lord. Such are to be the kind of ideas that go to make up our
character: the greatest we can, with all of care, all of patience, and all of completeness we
may add. (W. M. Johnston, M. A.)
The law of beauty
When the marble, refusing to express an impure or a wicked thought, has fulfilled the
law of strength, suddenly it blossoms into the law of beauty. For beauty is no outward
polish, no surface adornment. Workers in wood may veneer soft pine with thin
mahogany, or hide the poverty of brick walls behind thin slabs of alabaster. But real
beauty is an interior quality, striking outward and manifest upon the surface. When the
sweet babe is healthy within, a soft bloom appears upon the cheek without. When
ripeness enters the heart of the grape, a purple flush appears upon the surface of the
cluster. When the vestal virgin of beauty had adorned the temple without, it asks the
artist to adorn his soul with thoughts and worship and aspirations. Ii the body lives in a
marble house, the soul should revolt from building a mud hut. The law of divine beauty
asks the youth to flee from unclean thoughts and vulgar purposes as from a bog or a foul
slough. It bids him flee from irreverence, vanity, and selfishness as men flee from some
plague-smitten village or a filthy garment. Having doubled the beauty of his house,
having doubled the sweetness of his music, having doubled the wisdom of his book, man
should also double the nobility and beauty of his life, making the soul within as glorious

30. as a temple without. (N. D. Hillis, D. D.)
The soul’s temple
If Milton says that “a book is the precious life-blood of a master-spirit embalmed and
treasured up on purpose for a life beyond life,” and affirms that we may “as well kill a
man as kill a good book,” then the Divine voice whispers that the soul is the precious
life-temple into which three score years and ten have swept their thoughts, and dreams,
and hopes, and prayers, and tears, and committed all their treasures into the hands of
that God who never slumbers and never sleeps. Slowly the soul’s temple rises, slowly
reason sad conscience make beautiful the halls of imagination, the galleries of memory,
the chambers of affection. Character is a structure that rises under the direction of a
Divine Master-Builder. Full oft a Divine form enters the earthly scene. Thoughts that are
not man’s enter the mind. Hopes that are not his, like angels, knock at his door to aid
him in his work. Even death is no “Vandal.” When the body has done its work, death
pulls the body down as Tintoretto, toiling upon his ceiling, pulled down his scaffold to
reveal to men a ceiling glorious with lustrous beauty. At the gateway of ancient Thebes,
watchmen stood to guard the wicked city. Upon the walls of bloody Babylon soldiers
walked the long night through, ever keeping the towers where tyranny dwelt. And if
kings think that dead stones and breathless timbers are worthy of guarding, we may
believe that God doth set keepers to guard the living city of man’s soul. Man’s soul is
God’s living temple. It is not kept by earthly hands. It is eternal in the heavens. (N. D.
Hillis, D. D.)
2 The temple that King Solomon built for the
Lord was sixty cubits long, twenty wide and thirty
high.[b]
BAR ES, "The size of Solomon’s temple depends upon the true length of the ancient
cubit, which is doubtful. It has been estimated as somewhat less than a foot, and again as
between 19 and 20 inches, a difference of nearly 8 inches, which would produce a
variation of nearly 40 feet in the length of the temple-chamber, and of 46 in that of the
entire building. It is worthy of remark that, even according to the highest estimate,
Solomon’s temple was really a small building, less than 120 feet long, and less than 35
broad. Remark that the measures of the temple, both “house” and porch 1Ki_6:3, were
exactly double those of the older tabernacle (Exo_26:18 note). This identity of
proportion amounts to an undesigned coincidence, indicating the thoroughly historical
character of both Kings and Exodus.

31. CLARKE, "The length thereof was threescore cubits - A cubit, according to
Bishop Cumberland, is 21 inches, and 888 decimals, or 1 foot, 9 inches, and 888
decimals. According to this
Yds. Ft. Inch
.
The length, 60 cubits, was 36 1 5.28
The breadth, 20 cubits,
was
12 0 5.76
The height, 30 cubits, was 18 0 8.64
This constituted what was called the temple or house, the house of God, etc. But,
besides this, there were courts and colonnades, where the people might assemble to
perform their devotions and assist at the sacrifices, without being exposed to the open
air. The court surrounded the temple, or holy place, into which the priests alone entered.
Sometimes the whole of the building is called the temple; at other times that, the
measurement of which is given above. But as no proper account can be given of such a
building in notes; and as there is a great variety of opinion concerning the temple, its
structure, ornaments, etc., as mentioned in the books of Kings and Chronicles, in
Ezekiel, and by Josephus; and as modern writers, such as Vilalpandus, Dr. Lightfoot,
and Dr. Prideaux, professing to be guided by the same principles, have produced very
different buildings; I think it best to hazard nothing on the subject, but give that
description at the end of the chapter which Calmet with great pains and industry has
collected: at the same time, pledging myself to no particular form or appearance, as I
find I cannot give any thing as the likeness of Solomon’s temple which I could say, either
in honor or conscience, bears any affinity to it. For other particulars I must refer the
reader to the three large volumes of Vilalpandus, Dr. Lightfoot’s Works, and to the
Connections of Dr. Prideaux.
GILL, "And the house which King Solomon built for the Lord,.... For his
worship, honour, and glory:
the length thereof was threescore cubits; sixty cubits from east to west, including
the holy place and the most holy place; the holy place was forty cubits, and the most holy
place twenty; the same measure, as to length, Eupolemus, an Heathen writer (n), gives of
the temple, but is mistaken in the other measures:
and the breadth thereof twenty cubits; from north to south:
and the height thereof thirty cubits; this must be understood of the holy place, for
the oracle or most holy place was but twenty cubits high, 1Ki_6:20; though the holy
place, with the chambers that were over it, which were ninety cubits, three stories high,
was in all an hundred twenty cubits, 2Ch_3:4; some restrain it to the porch only, which
stood at the end, like one of our high steeples, as they think.
HE RY 2-3, "IV. The dimensions are laid down (1Ki_6:2, 1Ki_6:3) according to the

32. rules of proportion. Some observe that the length and breadth were just double to that of
the tabernacle. Now that Israel had grown more numerous the place of their meeting
needed to be enlarged (Isa_54:1, Isa_54:2), and now that they had grown richer they
were the better able to enlarge it. Where God sows plentifully he expects to reap so.
JAMISO , "the house which king Solomon built for the Lord — The
dimensions are given in cubits, which are to be reckoned according to the early standard
(2Ch_3:3), or holy cubit (Eze_40:5; Eze_43:13), a handbreadth longer than the
common or later one. It is probable that the internal elevation only is here stated.
K&D, "1Ki_6:2-4
Plan and dimensions of the temple-house. - The measure of the temple-house and its
several subdivisions are all given in the clear, i.e., as the spaces were seen. The house,
i.e., the main building of the temple (lit., as for the house, or shell of the building), its
length was sixty cubits, its breadth twenty cubits, and its height thirty cubits, and that,
according to 2Ch_3:3, “after the earlier measure,” i.e., after the old Mosaic or sacred
cubit, which was a hand-breadth longer, according to Eze_40:5 and Eze_43:13, than the
civil cubit of the time of the captivity. The Mosaic cubit, according to the investigations
of Thenius, was 214,512 Parisian lines long, i.e., 20 1/2 Dresden inches, or 18 1/2
Rhenish inches (see at Gen_6:10).
BE SO , "1 Kings 6:2. The house — Properly so called, as distinct from all the
walls and buildings adjoining to it; namely, the holy and most holy place. Which
King Solomon built for the Lord — For his worship and service; and wherein his
divine presence might, as it were, dwell among them by a visible appearance. The
length thereof was threescore cubits — From east to west; forty of which belonged
to the holy place, and twenty to the most holy. And this and the other measures seem
to belong to the inside from wall to wall. The cubit was that of the sanctuary, about
a foot and a half. And the breadth thereof twenty cubits — The length and breadth
of it were twice as much as those of the tabernacle, which in length was but thirty
cubits, and in breadth but ten. And the height thereof thirty cubits — Just half of
the length of the whole house. But this is to be understood of the holy place, for the
holy of holies was only twenty cubits high, (1 Kings 6:20,) and the porch was one
hundred and twenty, 2 Chronicles 3:4. The height of the holy place, therefore, was
three times the height of that part of the tabernacle. For this temple was to resemble
a high tower having chambers in three stories, one above another. “All the
measures,” says Poole, “compared each with other, were harmonious. For sixty to
twenty (the length to the breadth) is triple; or as three to one: and sixty to thirty (the
length to the height) is double; or as two to one: and thirty to twenty (the height to
the breadth) is one and a half, or as three to two. Which are the proportions
answering to the three great concords in music, commonly called a twelfth, an
eighth, and a fifth. Which therefore must needs be a graceful proportion to the eye,
as that in music is graceful to the ear.”