1 kings 8 commentary

1 KI GS 8 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
The Ark Brought to the Temple
1 Then King Solomon summoned into his
presence at Jerusalem the elders of Israel, all the
heads of the tribes and the chiefs of the Israelite
families, to bring up the ark of the Lord’s
covenant from Zion, the City of David.
BAR ES, "There seems to be a contrast here between the more popular proceedings
of David 2Sa_6:1, and the statelier system of his son, who merely summons the chief
men as representatives of the nation. The rest of the people “assembled themselves”
1Ki_8:2, and were mere spectators of the solemnity.
CLARKE, "Then Solomon assembled - It has already been observed that
Solomon deferred the dedication of the temple to the following year after it was finished,
because that year, according to Archbishop Usher, was a jubilee. “This,” he observes,
“was the ninth jubilee, opening the fourth millenary of the world, or A.M. 3001, wherein
Solomon with great magnificence celebrated the dedication of the temple seven days,
and the feast of tabernacles other seven days; and the celebration of the eighth day of
tabernacles being finished, upon the twenty-third day of the seventh month the people
were dismissed every man to his home. The eighth day of the seventh month, viz., the
thirtieth of our October, being Friday, was the first of the seven days of dedication; on
the tenth day, Saturday, November 1, was the fast of expiation or atonement held;
whereon, according to the Levitical law, the jubilee was proclaimed by sound of trumpet.
The fifteenth day, Friday, November 6, was the feast of tabernacles; the twenty-second,
November 13, being also Friday, was the feast of tabernacles, which was always very
solemnly kept, 2Ch_7:9; Lev_23:36; Joh_7:37; and the day following, November 14,
being our Saturday, when the Sabbath was ended, the people returned home.
“In the thirteenth year after the temple was built, Solomon made an end also of
building his own house, having spent full twenty years upon both of them; seven and a
half upon the temple, and thirteen or twelve and a half upon his own.” - Usher’s Annals,
sub. A.M. 3001.

GILL, "Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel,.... The judges in the
several cities, or senators of the great sanhedrim, as others; though it is a question
whether as yet there was such a court:
and all the heads of the tribes; the princes of the twelve tribes:
the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel; the principal men of the ancient
families in every tribe:
unto King Solomon in Jerusalem; these he summoned together to himself there
where the temple was built:
that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of
David, which is Zion; whither David brought it, when he had taken that fort, so
called, and dwelt in it; and from this mountain Solomon proposed to bring it up to the
temple, on a higher mountain, Moriah, not far from one another.
HE RY 1-9, "The temple, though richly beautified, yet while it was without the ark was
like a body without a soul, or a candlestick without a candle, or (to speak more properly)
a house without an inhabitant. All the cost and pains bestowed on this stately structure
are lost if God do not accept them; and, unless he please to own it as the place where he
will record his name, it is after all but a ruinous heap. When therefore all the work is
ended (1Ki_7:51), the one thing needful is yet behind, and that is the bringing in of the
ark. This therefore is the end which must crown the work, and which here we have an
account of the doing of with great solemnity.
I. Solomon presides in this service, as David did in the bringing up of the ark to
Jerusalem; and neither of them thought it below him to follow the ark nor to lead the
people in their attendance on it. Solomon glories in the title of the preacher (Ecc_1:1),
and the master of assemblies, Ecc_12:11. This great assembly he summons (1Ki_8:1),
and he is the centre of it, for to him they all assembled (1Ki_8:2) at the feast in the
seventh month, namely, the feast of tabernacles, which was appointed on the fifteenth
day of that month, Lev_23:34. David, like a very good man, brings the ark to a
convenient place, near him; Solomon, like a very great man, brings it to a magnificent
place. As every man has received the gift, so let him minister; and let children proceed in
God's service where their parents left off.
II. All Israel attend the service, their judges and the chief of their tribes and families,
all their officers, civil and military, and (as they speak in the north) the heads of their
clans. A convention of these might well be called an assembly of all Israel. These came
together, on this occasion, 1. To do honour to Solomon, and to return him the thanks of
the nation for all the good offices he had done in kindness to them. 2. To do honour to
the ark, to pay respect to it, and testify their universal joy and satisfaction in its
settlement. The advancement of the ark in external splendour, though it has often
proved too strong a temptation to its hypocritical followers, yet, because it may prove an
advantage to its true interests, is to be rejoiced in (with trembling) by all that wish well
to it. Public mercies call for public acknowledgments. Those that appeared before the
Lord did not appear empty, for they all sacrificed sheep and oxen innumerable, 1Ki_8:5.
The people in Solomon's time were very rich, very easy, and very cheerful, and therefore
it was fit that, on this occasion, they should consecrate not only their cheerfulness, but a

part of their wealth, to God and his honour.
III. The priests do their part of the service. In the wilderness, the Levites were to carry
the ark, because then there were not priests enough to do it; but here (it being the last
time that the ark was to be carried) the priests themselves did it, as they were ordered to
do when it surrounded Jericho. We are here told, 1. What was in the ark, nothing but the
two tables of stone (1Ki_8:9), a treasure far exceeding all the dedicated things both of
David and Solomon. The pot of manna and Aaron's rod were by the ark, but not in it. 2.
What was brought up with the ark (1Ki_8:4): The tabernacle of the congregation. It is
probable that both that which Moses set up in the wilderness, which was in Gibeon, and
that which David pitched in Zion, were brought to the temple, to which they did, as it
were, surrender all their holiness, merging it in that of the temple, which must
henceforward be the place where God must be sought unto. Thus will all the church's
holy things on earth, that are so much its joy and glory, be swallowed up in the
perfection of holiness above. 3. Where it was fixed in its place, the place appointed for its
rest after all its wanderings (1Ki_8:6): In the oracle of the house, whence they expected
God to speak to them, even in the most holy place, which was made so by the presence of
the ark, under the wings of the great cherubim which Solomon set up (1Ki_6:27),
signifying the special protection of angels, under which God's ordinances and the
assemblies of his people are taken. The staves of the ark were drawn out, so as to be seen
from under the wings of the cherubim, to direct the high priest to the mercy-seat, over
the ark, when he went in, once a year, to sprinkle the blood there; so that still they
continued of some use, though there was no longer occasion for them to carry it by.
K&D, "This solemn transaction consisted of three parts, and the chapter arranges
itself in three sections accordingly: viz., (a) the conveyance of the ark and the tabernacle,
together with its vessels, into the temple, with the words spoken by Solomon on the
occasion (vv. 1-21); (b) Solomon's dedicatory prayer (vv. 22-53); (c) the blessing of the
congregation, and the offering of sacrifice and observance of a feast (1Ki_8:54-66). - The
parallel account to this in 2 Chron 5:2-7:10, in addition to certain minor alterations of
words and constructions, introduced for the most part merely for the sake of elucidation,
contains here and there, and more especially towards the end, a few deviations of greater
extent, partly omissions and partly additions. But in other respects it agrees almost word
for word with our account.
With regard to the time of the dedication, it is merely stated in 1Ki_8:2 that the heads
of the nation assembled at Jerusalem to this feast in the seventh month. The year in
which this took place is not given. But as the building of the temple was finished,
according to 1Ki_6:38, in the eighth month of the eleventh year of Solomon's reign, the
dedication which followed in the seventh month cannot have taken place in the same
year as the completion of the building. Ewald's opinion, that Solomon dedicated the
building a month before it was finished, is not only extremely improbable in itself, but is
directly at variance with 1Ki_7:51. If we add to this, that according to 1Ki_9:1-10 it was
not till after the lapse of twenty years, during which he had built the two houses, the
temple, and his palace, that the Lord appeared to Solomon at the dedication of the
temple and promised to answer his prayer, we must decide in favour of the view held by
Thenius, that the dedication of the temple did not take place till twenty years after the
building of it was begun, or thirteen years after it was finished, and when Solomon had
also completed the building of the palace, which occupied thirteen years, as the lxx have
indicated at the commencement of 1Ki_8:1 by the interpolation of the words, καᆳ ᅚγένετο
ᆞς συνετέλεσε Σαλωµᆹν τοሞ οᅶκοδοµᇿσαι τᆵν οᅼκον Κυρίου καᆳ τᆵν οᅼκον αᆒτοሞ µετᆭ εᅺκοσι

ᅞτη.
(Note: From the whole character of the Alexandrian version, there can be no doubt
that these words have been transferred by the lxx from 1Ki_9:1, and have not
dropped out of the Hebrew text, as Thenius supposes.)
1 Kings 8:1-21
The First Act of the solemnities consisted (1) in the removal of the ark of the covenant
into the Most Holy Place of the temple (1Ki_8:1-11); and (2) in the words with which
Solomon celebrated the entrance of the Lord into the new temple (1Ki_8:12-21).
1Ki_8:1-11
Removal of the ark of the covenant into the temple. - This solemn transaction was
founded entirely upon the solemnities with which the ark was conveyed in the time of
David from the house of Obed-edom into the holy tent upon Zion (2Sa_6:12.; 1Ch_
15:2.). Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes
of the fathers' houses (‫ּות‬‫ב‬ፎ ָ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ ֵ‫יא‬ ִ‫שׂ‬ְ‫,נ‬ contracted from ‫ּות‬‫ב‬ፎ ָ‫ה‬ ‫ית‬ ֵ ‫י‬ ֵ‫יא‬ ִ‫שׂ‬ְ‫)נ‬ of the Israelites, as
representatives of the whole congregation, to himself at Jerusalem, to bring the ark of
the covenant out of the city of David, i.e., from Mount Zion (see the Comm. on 2Sa_6:16-
17), into the temple which he had built upon Moriah. (On the use of the contracted form
of the imperfect ‫ל‬ ֵ‫ה‬ ְ‫ק‬ַ‫י‬ after ‫ז‬ፎ, see Ewald, §233, b.)
BE SO , "1 Kings 8:1. Solomon assembled the elders of Israel — The senators,
and judges, and rulers. And all the heads of the tribes — For each tribe had a
peculiar head or governor. The chief of the fathers — The principal person of every
great Family in each tribe. Unto King Solomon, in Jerusalem — Where the temple
was built, and now finished. That they might bring up the ark — With solemn pomp
to the top of Moriah, (upon which mountain the temple stood,) in order that by this
their attendance they might make a public profession of the respect, obedience, and
service which they owed unto that God, who had been graciously and gloriously
present with the ark. Out of the city of David, which is Zion — That is, called Zion.
Thither David had brought the ark from the house of Obed-Edom, and had made a
tabernacle for it, (2 Samuel 6:12; 2 Samuel 6:17,) until a fixed house should be
prepared.
1 Kings 8:1. Solomon assembled the elders of Israel — The senators, and judges,
and rulers. And all the heads of the tribes — For each tribe had a peculiar head or
governor. The chief of the fathers — The principal person of every great Family in
each tribe. Unto King Solomon, in Jerusalem — Where the temple was built, and
now finished. That they might bring up the ark — With solemn pomp to the top of
Moriah, (upon which mountain the temple stood,) in order that by this their
attendance they might make a public profession of the respect, obedience, and
service which they owed unto that God, who had been graciously and gloriously
present with the ark. Out of the city of David, which is Zion — That is, called Zion.
Thither David had brought the ark from the house of Obed-Edom, and had made a
tabernacle for it, (2 Samuel 6:12; 2 Samuel 6:17,) until a fixed house should be
prepared.

COFFMA , "THE DEDICATIO OF SOLOMO 'S TEMPLE
This is a very significant O.T. chapter, (1) because "It confounds and contradicts
the critical allegations which are based upon their false hypothesis that the theology
of Israel developed after the manner of an evolutionary pattern, and that it was not
fully developed until the times of the (imaginary) Second Isaiah."[1] Solomon's
words here uphold the immanence and yet transcendence of God.[2]
Also (2) this chapter presents overwhelmingly convincing evidence of the prior
existence of the Five Books of Moses, commonly called the Pentateuch. He honored
the Levitical instructions on moving the ark of the covenant. His prayer exhibited
his knowledge of Exodus 22:8-11; Genesis 14:14; 34:29; umbers 24:22 and of the
entire Mosaic history of Israel.
It is quite annoying how frequently one encounters the comment that this chapter is
"Deuteronomic," that being a code word supposed to identify its user as one who
accepts the critical fairy tale about the origin of the Pentateuch in the days of Josiah.
LaSor came very near to expressing this writer's opinion on that allegation as
follows:
"It is our conviction that Deuteronomy is essentially Mosaic,"[3] and that it was not
the product of the Josianic period. If Deuteronomy had been produced at any time
between the fall of Samaria and the fall of Jerusalem, and if the Jewish priesthood
wrote it to establish the primacy of the Jerusalem sanctuary, then how can it be
explained that JERUSALEM IS OT EVE ME TIO ED I DEUTERO OMY?
Also, how can it be explained that there is found right here in the Book of Kings
DETAILED K OWLEDGE OF THE E TIRE WILDER ESS PERIOD OF
ISRAEL and knowledge of the Conquest and of Israel's history during the times of
Judges and Samuel?
"The critical dictum that the workmen in the Temple in the times of Josiah found a
copy of `the Book of Deuteronomy' is fraudulent because it was not the `Book of
Deuteronomy' which was found, but "The Book of the Law," namely, the Five
Books of Moses, as specifically stated in 2 Kings 22:8; and furthermore the strict
observance of the' Passover which Josiah commanded to be observed according to
what was written in "this book of the covenant" (which instructions are not in
Deuteronomy, except in a very abbreviated form in Deuteronomy 16, but in Exodus)
convincingly demonstrates that `the book' discovered was the whole Mosaic Law."
The Temple of Solomon was a significant and impressive symbol of Israel's unity
and of their acceptance of Jehovah as their God, but "Whatever it might have been
or might not have been to the people, Solomon used it as his private chapel. Three
times a year he offered (and for all that appears, he offered with his own hand),
without the intervention of any priests, burnt-offerings and peace-offerings upon
the altar. ot only this, he actually, `burnt incense therewith upon the altar which
was before the Lord' (1 Kings 9:25). This was a deadly sin, the very sin for which
Uzziah was stricken with leprosy (2 Chronicles 26:17-20)."[4] The High Priest alone
(and only once in the year), was privileged to offer incense upon that altar within

the holy of holies.
evertheless, this chapter records God's acceptance of the Temple and his
accommodation to the vainglorious indulgence of the people and their wicked king
in the building of it.
The chapter naturally falls into these divisions. "(1) Removing of the ark into the
Temple (1 Kings 8:1-22), (2) Solomon's prayer of consecration (1 Kings 8:23-54), (3)
the benediction of the congregation (1 Kings 8:55-61), and (4) the festal sacrifices
that completed the dedication (1 Kings 8:62-66)."[5]
THE ARK IS PLACED I THE HOLY OF HOLIES
"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the
princes of the fathers' houses of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in
Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of Jehovah out of the city of David
which is Zion. And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto king Solomon at
the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. And all the elders of
Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. And they brought up the ark of
Jehovah, and the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the Tent; even
these did the priests and the Levites bring up. And king Solomon and all the
congregation of Israel, that were assembled unto him, were with him before the ark,
sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be numbered for multitude. And the
priests brought in the ark of the covenant of Jehovah unto its place, into the oracle
of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim. For the
cherubim spread forth their wings over the place of the ark, and the cherubim
covered the ark and the staves thereof above. And the staves were so long that the
ends of the staves were seen from the holy place before the oracle; but they were not
seen without: and there they are unto this day. There was nothing in the ark save
the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when Jehovah made a
covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. And
it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud
filled the house of Jehovah, so that the priests could not stand to minister by reason
of the cloud; for the glory of Jehovah filled the house of Jehovah."
"At the feast of Ethanim" (1 Kings 8:2). This was the feast of Tabernacles
(Deuteronomy 16:13), one of the great feasts when all the men of Israel were
required to be present. This was the seventh month, and, as Solomon had finished
building the Temple in the month Bul, which was the eighth month (1 Kings 6:38), it
is evident that almost a year passed between the finishing of the Temple and its
dedication, unless as some have supposed, he dedicated it a year before he finished
it. We agree with Dentan that, "The dedication ceremonies were delayed for eleven
months so that they might coincide with the Feast of Tabernacles."[6] "The time of
the year was October- ovember. Ethanim is the earlier name for the month
Tishri."[7] The use of that earlier name does not fit the allegation of an exilic date
for Kings.

"The cherubim spread forth their wings over the place of the ark" (1 Kings 8:7).
"These were not the Mosaic cherubim which were firmly affixed to the lid of the ark
of the covenant (Exodus 37:7)."[8] Furthermore, the wing-spread of these cherubim
was twenty cubits, whereas the Mosaic cherubim were miniatures atop the lid that
covered the ark of the covenant.
"The staves were so long that they were seen from the holy place" (1 Kings 8:8). In
their attempts to explain exactly what the problem was with regard to these staves,
both Martin and Hammond mention the "curtain"[9] (the veil) which separated the
oracle (holy of holies) from the holy place, but we have found no mention whatever
of any veil or curtain in the whole Book of Kings! There is no record that Solomon's
Temple ever had a curtain. One of David's original objections to the Tabernacle was
that it housed the ark "within curtains" (2 Samuel 7:2). It appears to be quite
obvious that Solomon omitted the veil.
"There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there"
(1 Kings 8:9). Hebrews 9:4 states that a pot of manna and Aaron's rod that budded
were also in the ark of the covenant. Canon Cook explained this by the declaration
that, "Solomon removed the pot of manna and Aaron's rod and put them
elsewhere."[10] Keil, however, declared that the O.T. passages (Exodus 16:33,34
and umbers 17:25) were misinterpreted and that they merely state that the manna
and the rod were, "deposited in front of the ark of testimony and not inside of
it."[11] This writer prefers Cook's explanation. We have already observed that
Solomon made a lot of changes: the design of the cherubim, the omission of the veil,
the addition of the pillars Jachin and Boaz, etc.
"The cloud filled the house of Jehovah" (1 Kings 8:11). "This struck the minds of
the priests, as it formerly had done Moses, with such astonishment and terror
(Leviticus 16:2-13; Deuteronomy 4:24; and Exodus 40:35) that they could not
remain."[12] "We may see in this cloud the seat of the Shechinah,"[13] or the
presence of God. However contrary to the will of God the very conception of an
earthly temple certainly was, the Lord nevertheless received it, marked it with a
visible emblem of his Divine presence, and accepted it (for a season only) as the
place of God's ame. In this must be seen the infinite grace and mercy of God
overruling even the mistakes of men and conforming their sinful institutions in such
a manner as finally to achieve the redemption of all men in Christ Jesus.
SOLOMO CLAIMED THAT HIS TEMPLE WAS THE FULFILLME T OF 2
SAM. 7:13
There cannot be any doubt that Solomon was grossly mistaken in this claim. (See
my comment at 1 Kings 8:20)
COKE, ". All the men of Israel assembled—in the month Ethanim— To celebrate
the dedication of his new temple with greater magnificence, Solomon chose to defer
it till the next year, which was the Jubilee, their ninth, according to Archbishop

Usher, which opened the fourth millenary of the world: at which solemnity there
used to be always a vast concourse of people from all parts of the kingdom. The
ceremony began on the eighth day of the seventh month of the sacred year, which
was the first of the civil year, answering to the latter end of our October, and lasted
seven days; at the end of which began the feast of tabernacles. The ceremony opened
with a pompous procession, in which the priests carried the ark from the tabernacle
which David had erected for it, to the temple, and deposited it in the most holy
place, between the two golden cherubims which Solomon had caused to be made by
Hiram, to be a kind of covering to the ark. The king himself, accompanied by all his
chief officers and the elders of Israel, marched before the ark: these were followed
by a great number of priests and Levites, who sung some canticles proper to the
occasion, and played upon various instruments. ext to the ark followed another
number of singers and players, with other priests bearing the golden candlesticks,
altar of incense, and other sacred utensils of the sanctuary, which had been brought
from Gibeon, where they and the tabernacle had been deposited till that time. While
the priests were placing the ark in the Holy of Holies, the air rung with the sound of
a hundred and twenty trumpets, and with the voices of the Levites, who sang the
praises of God, repeating these words at proper stanzas: Give thanks to the Lord,
for he is good;—and his mercy endureth for ever: it was then that God seemed to
come down in a visible manner, to take possession, as it were, of his new temple, by
filling it with a glorious cloud, as he had formerly done the tabernacle; insomuch
that the priests could not stand to offer up the sacrifices which they had prepared
upon that occasion. See Exodus 40:34. 2 Chronicles 5 throughout, and Universal
History.
ELLICOTT, "The exceedingly minute and graphic character of the narrative of the
consecration of the Temple, the almost exact verbal coincidence with it of the
account given in the Second Book of Chronicles, and the occurrence in 1 Kings 8:8
of the phrase, “There they are unto this day,” which could not have belonged to the
time of the composition of the book—all show that the compiler must have drawn
from some contemporary record, probably some official document preserved in the
Temple archives. The beauty and spiritual significance of this chapter—which from
time immemorial has been made to yield teaching and encouragement for the
consecration of Christian churches—stand in remarkable contrast with the mere
technical detail of the preceding; yet each, in its own way, bears equally strong
marks of historical accuracy.
Throughout the whole history, the sole majesty of the king is conspicuous. The
priests perform only the ministerial functions of ritual and sacrifice. The prophetic
order is absolutely unrepresented in the narrative. Solomon, and he alone, stands
forth, both as the representative of the people before God in sacrifice and prayer,
and as the representative of God in blessing and exhortation of the people. He is for
the time king, priest, and prophet, in one—in this a type of the true “Son of David,”
the true “Prince of Peace.” It is not unlikely that from this unequalled concentration
on his head of temporal and spiritual dignity came the temptation to self-idolatry,
through which he fell; and that the comparative abeyance of the counterbalancing

influences wielded by the prophet and (in less degree) by the priest gave occasion to
the oppressive, though splendid, despotism under which Israel groaned in his later
days.
Verse 1
(1) The elders.—If in this description—found also in 2 Chronicles 5:2, and taken, no
doubt, from the original document—“the elders of Israel,” are to be distinguished
from the “heads of the tribes,” and not (as in the LXX.) identified with them, the
former expression probably refers to the chiefs of official rank, such as the princes
and the counsellors of the king, and the latter to the feudal chiefs of the great
families of the various tribes. These alone were specially summoned; but as the
Dedication festival (being deferred for nearly a year after the completion of the
Temple) was blended with the Feast of Tabernacles, “all the men of Israel”
naturally “assembled at Jerusalem” without special summons.
EBC, "THE TEMPLE WORSHIP
1 Kings 8:1-11
"Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the
Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these. Behold, ye trust m lying words, that cannot
profit."
- Jeremiah 7:4; Jeremiah 7:8
THE actual Temple building, apart from its spacious courts, was neither for
worshippers nor for priests, neither for sacrifice nor for prayer. It existed only for
symbolism and, at least: in later days, for expiation. o prayer was offered in the
sanctuary. The propitiatory was the symbol of expiation, but even after the
introduction of the Day of Atonement the atoning blood was only carried into it
once a year.
All the worship was in the outer court, and consisted mainly,
(1) of praise and
(2) of offerings. Both were prominent in the Dedication Festival.
"It is written," said our Lord, "My house shall be called a House, of Prayer, but ye
have made it a den of robbers." The quotation is from the later Isaiah, and
represents a happy advance in spiritual religion. Among the details of the Levitic
Tabernacle no mention is made of prayer, though it was symbolized both in the
incense and in the sacrifices which have been called "unspoken prayers." "Let my
prayer be set forth as incense," says the Psalmist, "and the lifting up of my hands as
the evening sacrifice." In the ew Testament we read that "the whole multitude of
the people were praying without at the time of incense." But during the whole

history of the first Temple we only hear-and that very incidentally-of private prayer
in the Temple. Solomon’s prayer was public, and combined prayer with praises and
benedictions. But no fragments of Jewish liturgies have come down to us which we
can with any probability refer to the days of the kings. The Psalms which most
clearly belong to the Temple service are mainly services of praise.
In the mind of the people the sacrifices were undoubtedly the main part of the
Temple ritual. This fact was specially emphasized by the scene which marked the
Festival of the Dedication.
It is difficult to imagine a scene which to our unaccustomed senses would have been
more revolting than the holocausts of a great Jewish Festival like that of Solomon’s
Dedication. As a rule the daily sacrifices, exclusively of such as might be brought by
private worshippers, were the lambs slain at morning and evening. Yet Maimonides
gives us the very material and unpoetic suggestion that the incense used was to
obviate the effluvium of animal sacrifice. The suggestion is unworthy of the great
Rabbi’s ability, and is wholly incorrect; but it reminds us of the almost terrible fact
that, often and often, the Temple must have been converted into one huge and
abhorrent abattoir, swimming with the blood of slaughtered victims, and rendered
intolerably repulsive by heaps of bloody skins and masses of offal. The smell of
burning flesh, the swift putrescence caused by the tropic heat, the unlovely
accompaniments of swarms of flies, and ministers with blood-drenched robes would
have been inconceivably disagreeable to our Western training-for no one will believe
the continuous miracle invented by the Rabbis, who declare that no fly was ever
seen in the Temple, and no flesh ever grew corrupt. o doubt the brazen sea and the
movable caldrons were in incessant requisition, and there were provisions for vast
storages of water. These could have produced a very small mitigation of the
accompanying pollutions during a festival which transformed the great court of the
Temple into the reeking shambles and the charnel-house of sheep and oxen "which
could not be told nor numbered for multitude."
Had such spectacles been frequent, we should surely have had to say of the people of
Jerusalem as Sir Monier Williams says of the ancient Hindus, "The land was
saturated with blood, and people became wearied and disgusted with slaughtered
sacrifices and sacrificing priests." What infinite, and what revolting labor, must
have been involved in the right burning of "the two kidneys and the fat," and the
due disposition of the "inwards" of all these holocausts! The groaning brazen altar,
vast as it was, failed to meet the requirements of the service, and apparently a
multitude of other altars were extemporized for the occasion.
When the festival was over God appeared to Solomon in vision, as He had done at
Gibeon. So far Solomon had not gravely or consciously deflected from the ideal of a
theocratic king. Anything which had been worldly or mistaken in his policy-the
oppression into which he had been led, the heathen alliances which he had formed,
his crowded harem, his evident fondness for material splendor which carried with it
the peril of selfish pride-were only signs of partial knowledge and human frailty.
His heart was still, on the whole, right with God. He was once more assured in

nightly vision that his prayer and supplication were accepted. The promise was
renewed that if he would walk m integrity and uprightness his throne should be
established for ever; but that if he or his children swerved into apostasy Israel
should be driven into exile, and as a warning to all lands, "this house, which have
hallowed for My name, will I cast out of My sight, and Israel shall be a proverb and
a byword among all people." Here, then we are brought face to face with problems
which arise from the whole system of worship in the Old Dispensation. Whatever it
was, to whatever extent it was really carried out and was not merely theoretical, at
whatever date its separate elements originated, and however clear it is that it, has
utterly passed away, there must have been certain ideas underlying it which are
worthy of our study.
1. Of the element of praise supported by music, we need say but little. It is a natural
mode of expressing the joy and gratitude which fill the heart of man in
contemplating the manifold mercies of God. For this reason the pages of Scripture
ring with religious music from the earliest to the latest age. We are told in the
Chronicles that triumphant praise was largely introduced into the great festival
services, and that the Temple possessed a great organization for vocal and
orchestral music. David was not only a poet, but an inventor of musical instruments.
{Amos 6:5, 1 Chronicles 23:5} Fifteen musical instruments are mentioned in the
Bible, and five of them in the Pentateuch. Most important among them are cymbals,
flutes, silver trumpets, rams’ horns, the harp (Kinnor) and the ten-stringed lute
( evel). The remark of Josephus that Solomon provided 40, 000 harps and lutes and
200, 000 silver trumpets is marked by that disease of exaggeration which seems to
infect the mind of all later Jewish writers when they look back with yearning to the
vanished glories of their past. There can, however, be no doubt that the orchestra
was amply supplied, and that there was a very numerous and well-trained choir. We
read in the Psalms and elsewhere of tunes which they were trained to sing. Such
tunes were "The Well," and "The Bow," and "The Gazelle of the morning," and
"All my fresh springs shall be in Thee," and "Die for the son" (Muth-labben). In
the second Temple female singers were admitted; {Ezra 2:65 ehemiah 7:67 Psalms
87:7} in Herod’s Temple Levite choir-boys took their place. The singing was often
antiphonal. Some of the music still used in the synagogue must date from these
times, and there is no reason to doubt that in the so-called Gregorian tones we have
preserved to us a close approximation to the ancient hymnody of the Temple. This
element of ancient worship calls for no remark. It is a religious instinct to use music
in the service of God; and perhaps the imagination of St. John in the Revelation,
when he describes the rapture of the heavenly host pouring forth the chant
"Alleluia, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth," was colored by reminiscences of
gorgeous functions in which he had taken part on the "Mountain of the House."
2. When we proceed to speak of the Priesthood we are met by difficulties, to which
we have already alluded, as to the date of the varying regulations respecting it. "It
would be difficult," says Dr. Edersheim, "to conceive arrangements more
thoroughly or consistently opposed to what are commonly called ‘priestly
pretensions’ than those of the Old Testament." According to the true ideal, Israel
was to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation"; {Exodus 19:5-6} but the

institution of ministering priests was of course a necessity, and the Jewish
Priesthood, which is now utterly abrogated, was or gradually became,
representative. Representatively they had to mediate between God and Israel, and
typically to symbolize the "holiness," i.e., the consecration of the Chosen People.
Hence they were required to be free from every bodily blemish. It was regarded as a
deadly offence for any one of them to officiate without scrupulous safeguard against
every ceremonial defilement, and they were specially adorned and anointed for their
office. They were an extremely numerous body, and from the days of David are said
to have been divided into twenty-four courses. They were assisted by an army of
attendant Levites, also divided into twenty-four courses, who acted as the cleansers
and keepers of the Temple. But the distinction of priests and Levites does not seem
to be older than "the Priestly Code," and criticism has all but demonstrated that the
sections of the Pentateuch known by that name belong, in their present form, not to
the age of Moses, but to the age of the successors of Ezekiel. The elaborate priestly
and Levitic arrangements ascribed to the days of Aaron by the chronicler, who
wrote six hundred years after David’s day, are unknown to the writers of the Book
of Kings.
In daily life they wore no distinctive dress. In the Temple service, all the year round,
their vestments were of the simplest. They were of white byssus to typify innocence,
{Revelation 15:6} and four in number to indicate completeness. They consisted of a
turban, breeches, and seamless coat of white linen, together with a girdle, symbolic
of zeal and activity, which was assumed during actual ministrations. {Comp.
Revelation 1:13; Revelation 15:6} The only magnificent vestments were those worn
for a few hours by the high priest once a year on the Great Day of Atonement. These
"golden vestments" were eight in number. To the ordinary robes were added the
robe of the ephod (Meil) of dark blue, with seventy-two golden bells, and
pomegranates of blue, purple, and scarlet; a jeweled pectoral containing the Urim
and Thummim; the miter; and the golden frontlet (Ziz), with its inscription of
"Holiness to the Lord." The ideal type was fulfilled, and the poor shadows
abolished forever, by Him of whom it is said, "Such a high priest became us, who is
holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners."
The priests were poor; they were very often entirely unlettered; they seem to have
had for many centuries but little influence on the moral and spiritual life of the
people. Hardly any good is recorded of them as a body throughout the four hundred
and ten years during which the first Temple stood, as very little good had been
recorded of them in the earlier ages, and not much in the ages which were to follow.
We read of scarcely a single moral protest or spiritual awakenment which had its
origin in the priestly body. Their temptation was to be absorbed in their elaborate
ceremonials. As these differed but little from the ritual functions of surrounding
heathendom they seem to have relapsed into apostasy with shameful readiness, and
to have submitted without opposition to the idolatrous aberrations of king after
king, even to the extent of admitting the most monstrous idols and the most
abhorrent pollutions into the sacred precincts of the Temple, which it was their
work to guard. When a prophet arose out of their own supine and torpid ranks he
invariably counted his brethren amongst his deadliest antagonists. They ridiculed

him as they ridiculed Isaiah; they smote him on the cheek as they smote Jeremiah.
The only thing which roused them was the spirit of revolt against their vapid
ceremonialism, and their abject obedience to kings. The Presbyterate could have no
worse ideal, and could follow no more pernicious example, than that of the Jewish
priesthood. The days of their most rigid ritualism were the days also of their most
desperate moral blindness. The crimes of their order culminated when they
combined, as one man: under their high priest Caiaphas and their sagan Annas to
reject Christ for Barabbas, and to hand over to the Gentiles for crucifixion the
Messiah of their nation, the Lord of Life.
Verses 1-66
THE GRADUAL GROWTH OF THE LEVITIC RITUAL
1 Kings 8:1-66
"Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice."
- 1 Samuel 15:22
BEFORE we enter on the subject of the Temple worship, it is necessary to
emphasize a fact which will meet us again and again in many forms as we consider
the history of the Chosen People: It is the amazing ignorance which seems to have
prevailed among them for centuries as to the most central and decisive elements of
nearly the whole of the Mosaic law as we now read it in the Pentateuch.
1. Take, for instance, the law of a central sanctuary. It is strongly laid down, and
incessantly insisted on, throughout the Book of Deuteronony. Yet that law does not
seem to have been so much as noticed by any of the earlier prophets or judges, or by
Saul, or by David. The judges and early kings offer sacrifices at any place which
they regard as sacred-Bochim, Ophrah, Mizpeh, Gilgal, Bethel, Bethlehem, etc. {
2:5, 6:24, 8:27, 20:1, 21:2; 2:4 1 Samuel 7:9, 1 Samuel 10:8; 1 Samuel 7:11; 1 Samuel
7:15, etc.} The rule of one place for sacrifice was not regarded for a moment by the
kings of the orthern Kingdom. The transgression of it was not made a subject of
complaint by Elijah, Elisha, or any of the earlier prophets. ot one of the kings,
even of the most pious kings-Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham-
rigidly enforced it until the reign of Josiah. The law seems to have remained an
absolutely dead letter for hundreds of years. ow this would be amply accounted
for if the Deuteronomic and Levitic Codes only belonged in reality to the days of
Josiah and of the Exile: for in "the Book of the Covenant," {Exodus 24:7} which is
the most ancient part of these codes, and comprises Exodus 20:1-26 - Exodus 28:33,
and is briefly repeated in Exodus 34:10-28, there is not only no insistence on a
central shrine, but many of the regulations would {Exodus} have been rendered
impossible had such a shrine existed (e.g., Exodus 21:6, Exodus 22:7-8, where "the
judges" should be "God," as in the R.V). Indeed, so far from insistence on one
Temple, we expressly read, {Exodus 20:24} "An altar of earth shall thou make Me,
and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy sheep
and thine oxen, in all places where I record My name, and I will come unto thee and

bless thee."
2. Again, the Book of Leviticus lays down a singularly developed code of ritual,
"extending to the minutest details of worship and of life." Yet there is scarcely the
shadow of a trace of the observance of even its most reiterated and important
provisions during centuries of Israelitish history. It is emphatically a priestly book;
yet from the days of David down to those of Josiah, the priests, with few exceptions,
are almost ignored in the national records. They took the color of their opinions
from the reigning kings, even in matters which were contrary to the whole extent
and spirit of the Mosaic Code. Samuel, who was not a priest, nor even a Levite,
performed every function of a priest, and of a high priest, all his life long.
3. Again, as we have seen, in spite of the positive distinctness of the Second
Commandment, not only is the "calf-worship" established, with scarcely a protest,
throughout the orthern Kingdom; but Solomon even ventures, without question or
reproof, to place twelve oxen under his brazen sea, and to adorn the steps of his
throne with golden lions.
4. Again, no ceremony was more awful, or more strikingly symbolical, in the later
religion of Israel, than that of the Great Day of Atonement. It was the only
appointed fast in the Jewish year, a day so sacred that it acquired the name of
Yoma, "the Day." Yet the Day of Atonement, with its arresting ceremonies and
intense significance, is not so much as once mentioned outside the Levitical Code by
a single prophet, or priest, or king. It is not even mentioned-which is exceedingly
strange-in the post-exilic Books of Chronicles. Between the Book of Leviticus (with
its supposed date of 1491 B.C.), down to the days of Philo, Josephus, and the ew
Testament, there is not so much as a hint of the observance of this central ceremony
of the whole Levitic law! What is more perplexing is that, in the ideal legislation of
Ezekiel, where alone anything distantly resembling the Day of Atonement is alluded
to, {Ezekiel 45:18-20} the time manner, and circumstances are as absolutely
different as if Ezekiel had never read the Levitic law at all. How would any prophet
have dared to ignore or alter, without a word of reference or apology, a rite of
Divine origin and immemorial sanctity, if he had been aware of its existence?
5. or is this only the case with the Day of Atonement. It seems certain that at
Jerusalem there was not for centuries anything distantly resembling the due Levitic
observance of the three great yearly feasts. ehemiah, for instance, tells us in so
many words that since the days of Joshua the son of un down to B.C. 445-perhaps
for a thousand years-the Feast of Tabernacles had never been observed in the most
characteristic of all its appointed rites-the dwelling in booths. { ehemiah 8:17}
6. Again, although there are slight allusions in some of the Prophets to "laws" and
"statutes" and "commandments," their silence about, if not their absolute
ignorance of; anything which resembles the Levitic legislation as a whole is a
startling problem. Thus, even a late prophet like Jeremiah alludes, without a word
of reprobation, to men cutting and making themselves bald for the dead (Jeremiah
16:6; comp. Jeremiah 12:5) in a way which the Levitic law {Leviticus 19:28,

Deuteronomy 14:10} strenuously forbids.
7. Again, as is well known, there is a fundamental difference between the three codes
as to the relative position of the priests and Levites.
(1) Exodus 19:6 all Israel is regarded as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,"
and in Exodus 24:5 the young men of the children of Israel "offer burnt offerings
and sacrifice peace offerings."
(2) umbers 3:44-51 the Levites are set aside for the service of the Tabernacle in
place of the firstborn. But neither in "the Book of the Covenant" nor in
Deuteronomy is there any distinction between the services of the priests and the
Levites.
(3) Deuteronomy 10:8 every Levite may become a priest. All priestly functions are
open to the Levites, and the arrangements for the Levites are wholly different from
those of umbers.
(4) But in the Priestly Code only the sons of Aaron are to be priests. { umbers 6:22-
27, umbers 18:1-7 Leviticus 1:5; Leviticus 1:8} The Levites are to minister to them
in more or less menial functions, and are permitted a share in the tithes, but not (as
in Deuteronomy 18:1) in the firstfruits. We have first identity of priests and Levites,
then partial, then absolute separation. The earliest trace of this degradation of the
Levites is propounded as something quite new in Ezekiel 44:10-16, which distinctly
implies (see Ezekiel 44:13) that up to that time the Levites had enjoyed full priestly
rites.
It must be admitted that these facts are not capable of easy explanation, nor is it
strange that they have led the way to unexpected conclusions. We have to face the
certainty that, for ages together, the Levitic law was not only a dead letter among
the people for whom it was intended, hut that its very existence does not seem to
have been known. "For long periods," says Professor Robertson, "the people of
Israel seem to have been as ignorant of their own religion as the people of Europe
were of theirs in the Dark Ages." But the problem, were we to pursue it into its
details, is far more perplexing than can be accounted for by the very partial and
misleading parallel which Professor Robertson adduces. The parallel would be
nearer if, throughout the Dark Ages for a thousand years together, scarcely a single
trace were to be found, even under the best popes and the most pious kings, and
even in theologic and sacred literature, of so much as the existence of a ew
Testament, or of any observance of the most distinctive festivals and sacraments of
Christianity. And this, as Professor Robertson knows, is infinitely far from being the
case. It is true that an argument ex silentio may easily be pushed too far; but we
cannot ignore it when it is so striking as this, and when it is also strengthened by so
many positive and corroborative facts.
A solution of this phenomenon-which becomes most salient in the Book of Kings-is
proposed by the criticism which has received the title of "The Higher Criticism,"

because it is historic and constructive, and rises above purely verbal elements. That
solution is that the Pentateuch is not only a composite structure (which all would
concede), but that it was written in very different ages, and that much of it is of very
late origin. Critics of the latest school believe that it consists of three well-marked
and entirely different codes of laws-namely, "the Book of the Covenant"; {Exodus
20:23-23} the "Deuteronomic Code," first brought into prominence in the reign of
Josiah, and written shortly before that reign: and the "Levitical" or "Priestly
Code," which comprises most of Exodus, and nearly all Leviticus, and was not
introduced till after the Exile. This would be indeed a radical conclusion, and
cannot yet be regarded as having been conclusively established. But so remarkable
has been the rapidity with which the opinion of religious critics has advanced on the
subject, that now even the strongest opponents of this extreme view admit that the
existence of the three separate codes has been demonstrated, although they still
think that all three may belong to the Mosaic age. It is obvious, however, that this
view leaves many of the difficulties entirely untouched. Criticism has not yet spoken
her last word upon the subject, but we ought to take her views into account in
considering the judgments pronounced by the historian of the Kings. They were
judgments which, in their details, though not as regards broad moral principles,
were based on the standpoint of a later age. The views of that later age must be
discounted if we have to admit that some of the ritual innovations and legal
transgressions of the kings were transgressions of laws of the very existence of which
they were profoundly ignorant. That they were thus ignorant of them is not only
implied throughout, but appears from the direct statements of the sacred historians.
{See 2 Kings 22:11; Ezra 9:1; Ezra 9:7; ehemiah 9:3}
PARKER, "The Dedication of the Temple
1 Kings 8
IT is remarkable in connection with the dedication of the temple how the leading
part was taken throughout by king Solomon. One would have thought that in the
dedication of a sanctuary the leading men would have been the priests, Levites,
scribes, and other persons distinctively identified with religious functions and
responsibilities. We find, however, that exactly the contrary is the case. The priest
occupied a second and tributary position, but it is the king who consecrates the
sanctuary, and it is the king who offers the great prayer at its dedication. The
question arises, Was not Solomon in reality more than king? Or, being a king, was
he not, according to the divine ideal of Israel, a priest unto God? Did he not indeed
occupy a kind of typical position as being in anticipation none other than the great
high priest Jesus Christ himself? The kingship and the priesthood are combined in
the Christian character of the later dispensation: "Ye are a chosen generation, a
royal priesthood, an holy nation." This is precisely what Solomon was, namely, a
"royal priest!" We are not, therefore, to look upon Solomon as merely in some
official capacity superseding all the officers, and dignitaries of the nation, but as in a
mysterious way overshadowing the system of things that was to be under the reign
of the true Melchisedek. This is further illustrated by the circumstance that "king

Song of Solomon , and all the congregation of Israel, that were assembled unto him,
were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be told nor
numbered for multitude" ( 1 Kings 8:5). The counterpart of this we find in the
epistle to the Hebrews , where we read that "Christ was once offered to bear the sins
of many;" and again, "by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are
sanctified." We take it, therefore, that in the instance before us there is no authority
for kings merely as such, that is to say, in their strictly official capacity, to take a
leading part in religious ceremonials. Bright indeed will be the day when every king
as a Prayer of Manasseh , a Christian, a loyal servant of Christ, shall take part in
everything that concerns the sanctuary; but this is a very different thing from
calling upon a royal personage simply on the ground of his royalty to sanctify a
religious occasion by the exercise of royal prerogatives.
Solomon and his associates having done all in their power to bring the temple to a
completion, we read, as in the case of the tabernacle erected by Moses, that "it came
to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the
house of the Lord" ( 1 Kings 8:10). So intense was the manifestation of the divine
presence, "that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud: for the
glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord" ( 1 Kings 8:11). It was precisely
the same in the case of Moses, concerning whom we read, "And Moses was not able
to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the
glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle." The conclusion of man"s work would seem
to be the beginning of God"s; in other words, when man can go no further, God
takes up the line of Revelation , and continues it to the limit of human capacity. As
we saw in the case of Moses, so in the case of Solomon we see that we have no right
to expect the divine presence until our human resources have been exhausted. This
indeed is the condition upon which the Almighty has worked in all the dispensations
of providence. "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in
mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open
you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be
room enough to receive it." We know, therefore, the way by which to secure the
divine revelation amongst us: sighing, repining, moaning, rebuking one another,
criticism of methods may all be dismissed as utterly futile; we can only rely upon the
disclosure of the divine presence by doing all that within us lies to fulfil our own
personal religious duty. We have seen how Solomon and his associates worked, how
heartily and lovingly they laboured together in the construction of the temple; and
now when we read that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, and the glory of the
Lord was dazzlingly shown, we feel as if we had concluded, not an ebullition of
sentiment, but a process of logic. The glory of the Lord follows sequentially, as if by
a gracious necessity, upon all the labour which Solomon and his colleagues had
laboured to do.
ow we approach the great prayer by which the temple was dedicated. The house
itself was nothing. It was but a gilded sepulchre, an elaborate and costly vacancy.
First of all, therefore, we stand convinced that however much we may do
technically, it can only be regarded as in a preparatory or introductory capacity. We
can build the house, but we cannot supply the tenant. Solomon and those united

with him in this holy labour did not walk round about the temple saying, Behold
how beautiful a thing we have created, how lavish has been the generosity of Hiram,
and how skilful have been the men whose hands fashioned all this beauty! ot a
word of praise do we hear concerning their own work; they seem rather to hasten
into the house that they may behold some manifestation of the divine presence and
rejoice that God was still king and ruler in Israel. It is beautiful to notice that even
at this early period of religious development the spiritual ruled over the material,
and the revelation of God even in the mystery of a cloud was considered an infinitely
greater thing than all the architectural wonder which had been embodied by the
genius and munificence of kings.
Solomon"s conception of the personality and dignity of God stands out quite
conspicuously in the pages of history for its unrivalled sublimity. He speaks as one
who was well instructed in the mysteries of the kingdom. In this prayer of
Solomon"s there is what some persons often mistakenly call preaching even in the
language of devotion. We are tempted to form too narrow a conception of prayer,
and then to exclude from prayer much that in reality belongs to the very spirit and
essence of communion. Solomon here tells God what he Isaiah , magnifies his
attributes, adores his personality, as if giving God information regarding his own
Deity; this would be the shallow criticism passed upon the prayer by those who do
not understand what prayer is in all its scope and grandeur. Prayer is not request
only, it is fellowship, communion, identification with God; it is the soul pouring
itself out just as it will in all the tender compulsion of love, asking God for blessings,
praising God for mercies, committing itself to God in view of all the mystery and
peril of the future. When we enlarge our idea of prayer so as to take in all its
meaning, we shall find that many a man has been praying who thought he was only
preaching or discoursing upon the attributes of God. It is marvellous how in the Old
Testament darkness is brought in as if it had been specially chosen for sacred
purposes by the living God. Thus Solomon: "The Lord said that he would dwell in
the thick darkness." Thus the psalmist: "He made darkness his secret place; his
pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies;" and the
psalmist again: "Clouds and darkness are round about him;" and Isaiah says,
"Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself."
Solomon having thus addressed the God of Israel, turns to providence as revealed in
the history of the chosen people, goes back even so far as the bringing-forth of Israel
out of Egypt, and indicates point after point, at least suggestively, until David was
elected to reign over the people Israel, and purposed as king to build an house for
the name of the Lord God of Israel. Solomon does not take the whole credit to
himself for the origination of this idea of the temple. He connects his action with the
purpose that was in the heart of David his father—"And it was in the heart of David
my father to build an house for the name of the Lord. God of Israel" ( 1 Kings 8:17).
Solomon could not but remember this, for David had made a special communication
to him upon the subject—"And David said to Song of Solomon , My Song of
Solomon , as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord
my God." In his prayer Solomon does not refer to the reason which had formerly
been given by himself to Hiram for God rejecting the purposed temple on the part of

David. Solomon puts the case with exquisite delicacy: "And the Lord said unto
David my father, Whereas it was in thine heart to build an house unto my name,
thou didst well that it was in thine heart"( 1 Kings 8:18). Thus the purpose was
commended as if itself had been a temple. We must not neglect the great principle
which is suggested by this commendation. We shall be credited with doing many
things which we only purposed to do. If we make a vow and indolently fail to fulfil
it, then that vow shall be reckoned against us, and it shall be turned into an element
increasing the severity of our judgment; but if for some reason, over which we have
no control, we are unable to complete our wishes, or embody our intentions in actual
fact, God will look upon those intentions as being themselves acceptable, and he will
commend us as if we had brought them to maturity. "The Lord is very pitiful and
kind." The Lord is infinitely generous in all his construction of human motive and
purpose. As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he reading the heart; and knowing
how human life is limited by uncontrollable circumstances, it shall be found at the
last that many who were by no means conspicuous for Christian activity have really
been amongst the leaders of the age in which they were unknown. A purpose will be
regarded in heaven as equivalent to a prayer, and the answer to that prayer may
come through others rather than to and through the suppliant himself. One man
prays and another receives the answer, as one man sows and another reaps; thus the
interblending of human interests and relations is again and again illustrated from a
thousand various points.
The temple, so beautiful and so costly, is not to be associated with anything that is
merely religiously mystic. This is not a tent of superstition, nor a habitation created
for the purpose of indulging spiritual romances which can never have any bearing
upon actual human life. Throughout his prayer we discover on the part of Solomon
how thoroughly he identifies the house of God with all human interests. We have
seen before that the house of God is really the house of Prayer of Manasseh , and
that being in the largest sense the house of Prayer of Manasseh , it becomes through
that very circumstance the house of God. The sanctuary should always be regarded
as the home of the people. It is in the sanctuary that human life should be
interpreted in all the meaning of its pain and tragedy. Men should be able to say,
ow that we are baffled and perplexed by the things which are round about us in
this world, and now that we find ourselves utterly unable to solve the problems
which crowd upon our distracted minds, let us go unto the house of the Lord, for
there we shall feel upon our souls the breath of eternity, and there we shall hear
music which will quiet the tumult which carnal reason can neither explain nor
control. Dark will be the day when men can hear nothing in the sanctuary but
words which they cannot understand, references which have no bearing upon
immediate agony, and discussions which simply titilate the intellect and the fancy
but never reach the dark and mortal sorrows of the heart.
GUZIK, "A. The Ark of the Covenant is brought to the temple.
1. (1 Kings 8:1-2) All of Israel assembles at Jerusalem.

ow Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief
fathers of the children of Israel, to King Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might
bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD from the City of David, which is Zion.
Therefore all the men of Israel assembled with King Solomon at the feast in the
month of Ethanim, which is the seventh month.
a. Solomon assembled the elders of Israel and all the heads of the tribes, the chief
fathers of the children of Israel: Solomon intended this to be a spectacular “opening
ceremony” for the temple. It was probably on the scale of the large productions in
our modern Olympic opening ceremonies.
b. That they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD: The temple
wasn’t “open” until the ark of the covenant was set in the most holy place. The ark
was the most important item in the temple.
c. Which is the seventh month: The temple was finished in the eighth month (1
Kings 6:38), but Solomon chose the seventh month for the dedication, eleven months
later, “which time he chose with common respect to his people’s convenience,
because now they had gathered in all their fruits, and now they were come up to
Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of tabernacles.” (Poole)
i. There may have also been another reason. “It has already been observed that
Solomon deferred the dedication of the temple to the following year after it was
finished, because that year, according to Archbishop Usher, was a jubilee.” (Clarke)
PULPIT, "THE DEDICATIO OF THE TEMPLE.—The stately and impressive
service with which the Temple, the character and contents of which have now been
described, was dedicated, is related in this chapter, and divides itself into four
sections. We have
SECTIO I.—The Removal of the Ark.
1 Kings 8:1
Then [i.e; when the work of the house of the Lord was practically ended, as stated in
1 Kings 7:51. But the precise date of the dedication is a matter of dispute and
uncertainty. We know that it took place in the seventh month of the year, but of
what year we cannot be so sure. Was it the same year in the eighth month of which
(1 Kings 6:38) the house was finished (Ewald)? Was the dedication, that is to say,
one month anterior to the completion of the house and its appointments? Or are we
to understand "the seventh month" to mean the Ethanim of the following year
(Bähr)? are we to assign the dedication, that is, to a date eleven months after
completion? Or, finally, are we to believe with the Vat. LXX. µετὰ ἔικοσι ἔτη (the
LXX. text is here, however, in great confusion), that the temple was not dedicated
until the palaces were also built (see 1 Kings 9:1-9); are we to hold, i.e; that though
finished and ready for use, it remained unused for a period of thirteen years

(Thenius, Keil)? These are questions which we cannot perhaps answer with absolute
certainty, but, to my mind, every consideration is in favour of the date first
mentioned, i.e; the seventh month of the eleventh year of Solomon's reign. It is true
Bähr says that this opinion "needs no refutation," while Keil pronounces it directly
at variance with 1 Kings 7:51." But it is worth while to inquire whether this is so?
And, first, as to the bearing of the passage just cited, "So was ended all the work
which," etc; taken in connexion with 1 Kings 8:1, "Then Solomon assembled," etc.
To the cursory reader it appears no doubt as it this "then" must refer to the
completion of the work of which we have just heard, and which was not effected
until the eighth month of the year (1 Kings 6:38). But
BI 1-9, "Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel.
A royal priest
It is remarkable in connection with the dedication of the temple how the leading part
was taken throughout by King Solomon. One would have thought that in the dedication
of a sanctuary the leading men would have been the priests, Levites, scribes, and other
persons distinctively identified with religious functions and responsibilities. We find,
however, that exactly the contrary is the case. The priest occupied a second and tributary
position, but it is the king who consecrates the sanctuary, and it is the king who offers
the great prayer at its dedication. The question arises, Was not Solomon in reality more
than king? Or, being a king, was he not, according to the Divine ideal of Israel, a priest
unto God Did he not indeed occupy a kind of typical position as being in anticipation
none other than the great high priest Jesus Christ Himself? The kingship and the
priesthood are combined in the Christian character of the later dispensation: “Ye are a
chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” This is precisely what Solomon
was, namely, a “royal priest”! (J. Parker, D. D.)
A king dedicates a church
A missionary in the Hawaiian Islands gives an account of the dedication of a place of
worship by the king. He says: “Quite 4000 persons were present, including most of the
great personages of the nation. An elegant sofa, covered with satin damask of a deep
crimson colour, had been placed for them in the front of the pulpit. The king, in his
gorgeous uniform, sat at one end, and his sister, in a superb dress, at the other. Before
the religious services commenced, the king arose from his seat, and, addressing himself
to the chiefs, teachers, and people generally, said that this house, which he had built, he
new publicly gave to God, to be appropriated to His worship. The religious exercises
were appropriate; and when these were closed, the king again stood up, and saying, ‘Let
us pray,’ addressed the throne of grace, commending the building and the people to
God.”
2 All the Israelites came together to King

Solomon at the time of the festival in the month of
Ethanim, the seventh month.
BAR ES, "The feast in the month Ethanim - i. e. the Feast of Tabernacles, or
the Feast of Ingathering, the commemoration of the dwelling in booths at the time of the
Exodus (margin reference), and the festival of thanksgiving on account of the
completion of harvest Exo_23:16; Lev_23:39; Deu_16:13. It was one of the three on
which the people were required to “appear before the Lord.”
CLARKE, "At the feast in the month Ethanim - The feast of tabernacles, which
was celebrated in the seventh month of what is called the ecclesiastical gear.
GILL, "And all the men of Israel assembled themselves unto King Solomon
at the feast,.... Not of tabernacles, as the Targum on 2Ch_5:3 and so Jarchi; though
that was in the same month next mentioned, and began on the fifteenth of it, and held
seven days; wherefore this must be the feast of the dedication of the temple, and which
was kept before that; since both lasted fourteen days, and the people were dismissed on
the twenty third of the month; now not only the above principal persons convened, but a
vast number of the common people came to see the solemnity of removing the ark, and
of dedicating the temple, and to attend the feast of it, and the more, since in a few days
was the time for all the males in Israel to appear there:
in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month; it was, as the Targum says,
originally the first month; but upon the children of Israel coming out of Egypt in Ab or
Nisan, that became the first month, and this was the seventh from that; and is the same
with Tisri, which answers to part of September, and part of October, here called
Ethanim; which some render the month of the ancients, others of strong ones; either
because of the many feasts that were in it, as some say; or because it was the time of
ingathering all the increase and fruits of the earth, which strengthen and support man's
life; or rather of "never failing", i.e. waters, showers falling in this month, and the rivers
full of water (l); so September is "septimus imber", according to Isidore (m), and the
three following months are alike derived; this, by the Egyptians, was called Theuth, and
was with them the first month in the year (n); so Porphyry says (o), with the Egyptians
the beginning of the year was not Aquarius, as with the Romans, but Cancer; and so the
month of September was the first with the Ethiopians (p), and with most people (q);
though with the Chinese about the middle of Aquarius (r). Now, though the temple was
finished in the eighth month, 1Ki_6:38, it was not dedicated until the seventh in the
following year; it required time to finish the utensils and vessels, and put them in their
proper place, and for the drying of the walls, &c.

JAMISO 2-6, "at the feast in the month Ethanim — The public and formal
inauguration of this national place of worship did not take place till eleven months after
the completion of the edifice. The delay, most probably, originated in Solomon’s wish to
choose the most fitting opportunity when there should be a general rendezvous of the
people in Jerusalem (1Ki_8:2); and that was not till the next year. That was a jubilee
year, and he resolved on commencing the solemn ceremonial a few days before the feast
of tabernacles, which was the most appropriate of all seasons. That annual festival had
been instituted in commemoration of the Israelites dwelling in booths during their stay
in the wilderness, as well as of the tabernacle, which was then erected, in which God
promised to meet and dwell with His people, sanctifying it with His glory. As the
tabernacle was to be superseded by the temple, there was admirable propriety in
choosing the feast of tabernacles as the period for dedicating the new place of worship,
and praying that the same distinguished privileges might be continued to it in the
manifestation of the divine presence and glory. At the time appointed for the
inauguration, the king issued orders for all the heads and representatives of the nation to
repair to Jerusalem and take part in the august procession [1Ki_8:1]. The lead was taken
by the king and elders of the people, whose march must have been slow, as priests were
stationed to offer an immense number of sacrifices at various points in the line of road
through which the procession was to go. Then came the priests bearing the ark and the
tabernacle - the old Mosaic tabernacle which was brought from Gibeon. Lastly, the
Levites followed, carrying the vessels and ornaments belonging to the old, for lodgment
in the new, house of the Lord. There was a slight deviation in this procedure from the
order of march established in the wilderness (Num_3:31; Num_4:15); but the spirit of
the arrangement was duly observed. The ark was deposited in the oracle; that is, the
most holy place, under the wings of the cherubim - not the Mosaic cherubim, which were
firmly attached to the ark (Exo_37:7, Exo_37:8), but those made by Solomon, which
were far larger and more expanded.
K&D, "1Ki_8:2
Accordingly “all the men of Israel (i.e., the heads of the tribes and families mentioned
in 1Ki_8:1) assembled together to the king in the month Ethanim, i.e., the seventh
month, at the feast.” Gesenius explains the name ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ָ‫ת‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ‫ה‬ (in 55 codd. ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ָ‫ית‬ ֵ‫א‬ ָ‫)ה‬ as meaning
“month of the flowing brooks,” after ‫ן‬ ָ‫ית‬ ֵ‫א‬ in Pro_13:15; Böttcher, on the other hand,
supposes it to denote the equinox. But apart from other grounds, the plural by no means
favours this. Nor does the seventh month answer to the period between the middle of
our September and the middle of October, as is supposed by Thenius, who founds upon
this supposition the explanation already rejected by Böttcher, viz., “month of gifts;” but
it corresponds to the period between the new moon of October and the new moon of
November, during which the rainy season commences in Palestine (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 96ff.),
so that this month may very well have received its name from the constant flowing of the
brooks. The explanation, “that is the seventh month,” is added, however (here as in 1Ki_
6:1, 1Ki_6:38), not because the arrangement of the months was a different one before
the captivity (Thenius), but because different names came into use for the months
during the captivity. ‫ג‬ ָ‫ח‬ ֶ is construed with the article: “because the feast intended was
one that was well known, and had already been kept for a long time (viz., the feast of
tabernacles).” The article overthrows the explanation given by Thenius, who supposes
that the reference is to the festivities connected with the dedication of the temple itself.

BE SO ,, "1 Kings 8:2. All the men of Israel assembled — ot only the chief men,
who were particularly invited, but a vast number of the common people, as being
desirous to see and join in this great and glorious solemnity. At the feast — This
feast of the dedication to which Solomon had invited them. In the month Ethanim,
which is the seventh month — This time he chose for the people’s greater
convenience, because now they had gathered in all their fruits, and were going up to
Jerusalem to celebrate the feast of tabernacles. But it may be objected, “According
to 1 Kings 6:38, the temple was not finished till the eighth month, how then could he
invite them to the dedication of it in the seventh month?” To this it must be
answered, It was the seventh month of the next year. For although the house in all
its parts was finished the year before, yet, it seems, the utensils of it were not then
fully finished; and many preparations were to be made for this great and
extraordinary occasion. Add to this, that Solomon chose to defer this solemnity till
the next year, that he might celebrate it with the greater magnificence, that being
the year of jubilee, their ninth, according to Archbishop Usher, which opened the
fourth millenary of the world; and at the solemnity of the jubilee, there used to be
always a vast concourse of people from all parts of the kingdom. “This ceremony”
then of the dedication “began on the eighth day of the seventh month of the sacred
year, which was the first of the civil year, answering to the latter end of our
October, and lasted seven days, at the end of which began the feast of tabernacles.”
ELLICOTT, "(2) The month Ethanim (called after the Captivity Tisri),
corresponded with the end of September and beginning of October. The name is
supposed (by Thenius) to be properly, as in the LXX., Athanim, and to signify the
“month of gifts,” so called as bringing with it the gathering in of the vintage, and of
the last of the crops. According to the Chaldee Targum, it was in old times the
beginning of the civil, as Abib of the ecclesiastical year. The feast in this month was
the Feast of Tabernacles—of all feasts of the year the most joyful—marking the
gathering in of all the fruits of the land, commemorating the dwelling in tabernacles
in the wilderness, and thanking God for settlement and blessing in the land
(Leviticus 23:33-44). It was, perhaps, the time when the Israelites could best be
absent from their lands for a prolonged festival; but there was also a peculiar
appropriateness in thus giving it a higher consecration, by celebrating on it the
transference of the ark from the movable tabernacle to a fixed and splendid
habitation. In this instance the festival was doubled in duration, from seven to
fourteen days. (See 1 Kings 8:65.)
PULPIT, "And all the men of Israel [not all the heads of the tribes just mentioned (1
Kings 8:1), as Keil, but all who came to the feast, as every male Israelite was under
obligation to do (Deuteronomy 16:16) ] assembled themselves unto King Solomon at
the feast [the Heb. word ‫ָג‬‫ח‬ֶ‫ה‬ (with the art.) always means the feast of tabernacles.
The same word is used of the feast of passover (Exodus 23:15) and pentecost (ib.
verse 16), but "the feast" here can only mean that of tabernacles. As the "feast of
ingathering" (Exodus 23:16), as commemorating the deliverance from Egypt (Le

23:43), and as peculiarly a social festival (ib. verses 40-42; umbers 29:12 sqq.), it
was the most joyous as well as the greatest ( ἑορτὴ ἁψιωτάτν καὶ µεγίστν. Jos; Ant.
8.4. 1) gathering of the year. (Compare the Jewish saying of a later date: "He who
has never seen the rejoicing at the pouring out of the water of Siloam, has never
seen rejoicing in his life.") It was doubtless for this reason that tabernacles was
selected for the dedication. A special feast of dedication, however, was held for seven
days before the feast of tabernacles proper commenced (see on verse 65). It did not
displace that great feast, however (Stanley), but simply preceded it. It is worthy of
notice that Jeroboam selected the same feast (1 Kings 12:32) for the inauguration of
his new cultus. The idea of Josephus, that the feast of tabernacles "happened to
coincide with the dedication" hardly seems probable] in the month Ethanim
[variously interpreted to mean gifts, i.e; fruits (Thenius), flowing streams
(Gesenius)—it falls about the time of the early rains—and equinox (Bottcher) ],
which is the seventh month. [This is added because the month was subsequently
known as Tisri (see on 1 Kings 6:1), or to show that "the feast" was the feast of
tabernacles.]
3 When all the elders of Israel had arrived, the
priests took up the ark,
BAR ES, "In 2Ch_5:4, ““the Levites” took up the ark;” and by the Law the ark was
the special charge of the Kohathites Num_3:31; Num_4:15. But all priests were Levites
Jos_3:3, though all Levites were not priests. And as Joshua had done Jos_3:6; Jos_6:6,
so Solomon called upon the priests to bear the holy structure, allowing to mere Levites
only the inferior honor of helping to transport the tabernacle and the vessels of the
sanctuary.
GILL, "And all the elders of Israel came,.... To Zion, the city of David:
and the priests took up the ark; from thence; in 2Ch_5:4 it is said the Levites did it,
whose business it was, Deu_31:25, and so the priests might be called; for every priest
was a Levite, though every Levite was not a priest, and the priests did at all times bear
the ark; see Jos_3:15.
K&D 3-4, "1Ki_8:3-4
After the arrival of all the elders (i.e., of the representatives of the nation, more
particularly described in 1Ki_8:1), the priests carried the ark and brought it up (sc., into

the temple), with the tabernacle and all the holy vessels in it. The expression ‫ם‬ ָ‫ּת‬‫א‬ ‫לוּ‬ ֲ‫ע‬ַ ַ‫,ו‬
which follows, introduces as a supplementary notice, according to the general
diffuseness of the early Hebrew style of narrative, the more precise statement that the
priests and Levites brought up these sacred vessels. ‫ד‬ ֵ‫ּוע‬‫מ‬ ‫ל‬ ֶ‫ּה‬‫א‬ is not the tent erected for
the ark of the covenant upon Zion, which can be proved to have been never so
designated, and which is expressly distinguished from the former in 2Ch_1:4 as
compared with 1Ki_8:3, but is the Mosaic tabernacle at Gibeon in front of which
Solomon had offered sacrifice (1Ki_3:4). The tabernacle with the vessels in it, to which,
however, the ark of the covenant, that had long been separated from it, did not belong,
was probably preserved as a sacred relic in the rooms above the Most Holy Place. The
ark of the covenant was carried by priests on all solemn occasions, according to the spirit
of the law, which enjoined, in Num_3:31 and Num_4:5., that the ark of the covenant and
the rest of the sacred vessels should be carried by the Levites, after the priests had
carefully wrapped them up; and the Levites were prohibited from directly touching
them, on pain of death. When, therefore, the ark of the covenant was carried in solemn
procession, as in the case before us, probably uncovered, this could only be done by the
priests, more especially as the Levites were not allowed to enter the Most Holy Place.
Consequently, by the statement in 1Ki_8:3, that the priests and Levites carried them
(‫ם‬ ָ‫ּת‬‫א‬), viz., the objects mentioned before, we are to understand that the ark of the
covenant was carried into the temple by the priests, and the tabernacle with its vessels
by the Levites.
(Note: Instead of ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ּה‬ⅴ in 1Ki_8:3, we have ‫ם‬ִ ִ‫ו‬ ְ ַ‫ה‬ in 2Ch_5:4; and instead of ‫ם‬ִ ִ‫ו‬ ְ ַ‫ה‬ְ‫ו‬
‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ּה‬ⅴ ַ‫ה‬ in 1Ki_8:4, we have ‫ם‬ִ ִ‫ו‬ ְ ַ‫ה‬ ‫ים‬ִ‫נ‬ ֲ‫ּה‬ⅴ ַ‫,ה‬ “the Levitical priests.” These variations are to
be attributed to inexactness in expression. For it is obvious that Thenius is wrong in
his notion that the chronicler mentioned the Levites instead of the priests, from the
simple fact that he states in 1Ki_8:7 that “the priests carried the ark,” etc., in exact
agreement with our account.)
BE SO , "1 Kings 8:3. The priests took up the ark — The ark had been carried by
the priests three times before this; when they went over Jordan; when they
encompassed the walls of Jericho; and when David sent it back by Zadok and
Abiathar, at the time when he fled from Absalom. It was, however, the office of the
Levites to carry the ark, which they did, except upon special occasions, of which this
was one. The priests were now appointed to carry it for the greater honour of the
solemnity; and because the Levites might not enter into the holy place, much less
into the holy of holies, where it was to be placed, into which the priests themselves
might not have entered, if the high-priest alone could have done this work without
them.
ELLICOTT, "(3) The priests took up the ark.—To bear the ark on its journeys was
properly the duty of the Levites of the family of Kohath ( umbers 3:31; umbers
4:5); but to bring it out of the Holy of Holies (or, as here, from whatever
corresponded thereto in the tent erected for the ark on Mount Zion), and to replace
it therein, was the work of the priests alone. Hence in this passage, with literal
accuracy, it is said, first, that “the priests took up the ark;” then (1 Kings 8:4) that
the priests and Levites brought up the ark and the holy things; and, lastly (1 Kings

8:6), that “the priests brought in the ark into the oracle.” Josephus, indeed, declares
that, as was natural on this occasion of special solemnity—just as at the passage of
the Jordan, and the circuit round the walls of Jericho (Joshua 3:6-17; Joshua 6:6)—
the priests themselves bore the ark, while the Levites bore only the vessels and
furniture of the Tabernacle.
GUZIK, "2. (1 Kings 8:3-9) The ark of the covenant is set in the Holy of Holies.
So all the elders of Israel came, and the priests took up the ark. Then they brought
up the ark of the LORD, the tabernacle of meeting, and all the holy furnishings that
were in the tabernacle. The priests and the Levites brought them up. Also King
Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel who were assembled with him, were
with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen that could not be counted or
numbered for multitude. Then the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the
LORD to its place, into the inner sanctuary of the temple, to the Most Holy Place,
under the wings of the cherubim. For the cherubim spread their two wings over the
place of the ark, and the cherubim overshadowed the ark and its poles. The poles
extended so that the ends of the poles could be seen from the holy place, in front of
the inner sanctuary; but they could not be seen from outside. And they are there to
this day. othing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put
there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when
they came out of the land of Egypt.
a. The priests took up the ark: Solomon was careful to obey what God commanded
about transporting the ark of the covenant, that it was only to be carried by priests.
He will not repeat the error of his father David in 2 Samuel 6:1-8.
b. And all the holy furnishings that were in the tabernacle: The ark of the covenant
was the most important item in the temple, but not the only item. They also brought
the lampstand, the table of showbread, and the altar of incense from the tabernacle
into the temple.
i. “It is generally agreed that there were now two tabernacles, one at Gibeon, and
the other in the city of David, which one David had constructed as a temporary
residence for the ark.” (Clarke)
c. Sacrificing sheep and oxen that could not be counted or numbered for multitude:
Solomon went “over-the-top” in his effort to honor and praise God on this great
day.
d. othing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at
Horeb: At an earlier point in Israel’s history there were three items in the ark of the
covenant. Earlier, inside the ark were the golden pot that had the manna (Exodus
16:33), Aaron’s rod that budded ( umbers 17:6-11), and the tablets of the covenant
(Exodus 25:16). We don’t know what happened to the golden pot of manna and
Aaron’s rod, but they were not in the ark when Solomon set it in the most holy

place.
e. When the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out
of the land of Egypt: The reminder of the deliverance from Egypt is significant,
because there is a sense in which this - some 500 years after the Exodus - is the
culmination of the deliverance from Egypt. Out of Egypt and into the wilderness
Israel, out of necessity, lived in tents - and the dwelling of God was a tent. ow since
Solomon built the temple, the dwelling of God among Israel was a building, a place
of permanence and security.
PULPIT, "And all the elders of Israel came [ ot a mere repetition. The men who
were summoned to Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:1) were all present, of their own accord, to
witness the removal], and the priests took up the ark. tin the parallel account in 2
Chronicles 5:4, we read that "the Levites took up the ark." But there is no
contradiction, as has been too readily supposed. For 2 Chronicles 5:7 of the
Chronicles," the priests brought in the ark," etc; confirms the statement of the text.
And the explanation is suggested in 2 Chronicles 5:5 of the same chapter, "These
did the priests, the Levites (so the Heb.) bring up." Same expression in Joshua 3:3.
All the priests were Levites—Keil translates, "the Levitical priests"—and this
somewhat singular expression is no doubt used to remind us that such was the ease.
or need it cause us any surprise to find the priests employed in this service. It is
true that the ark was given into the charge of the Kohathite Levites ( umbers 3:30,
umbers 3:31); and it was their duty to bear it ( umbers 4:15; umbers 7:9;
umbers 10:21; cf. 1 Chronicles 15:2, 1 Chronicles 15:11, 1 Chronicles 15:12). But
the real care and supervision of the ark always belonged to the sons of Aaron. It was
their office, e.g; to put on or take off the covering of the ark and of the vessels,
which the Levites were forbidden directly to touch ( umbers 4:5-15). It was quite in
accordance with the spirit of these provisions that Solomon now entrusted the
carriage of the ark to the superior order. But more than that, Solomon was not
without precedent to justify his choice, indeed, we may see in his selection of the
priests a minute mark of truth, amounting almost to an undo-signed coincidence.
For we find that on occasions of extraordinary solemnity—at the crossing of the
Jordan, e.g. (Joshua 3:6, Joshua 3:15, Joshua 3:17), and at the siege of Jericho
(Joshua 6:6), the priests had borne the ark (of. 1 Samuel 4:4; 1 Chronicles 15:11, 1
Chronicles 15:12). It was no doubt these familiar precedents guided Solomon, or the
ecclesiastical authorities, in their selection of the priests on this occasion. A "settled
place," a "house of cedars" (2 Samuel 7:7), "having now been found for the ark" to
abide in, after it had "dwelt in curtains" for 500 years, it was taking its last journey,
and in order to mark this journey as exceptional, in order to show both the ark and
the house the greater reverence, it was determined that it should be borne for the
last time by the priests. Keil suggests that the ark may have been uncovered, but this
is very improbable. Why, we may ask, were coverings provided, and their use
prescribed ( umbers 4:5-15), if they were to be arbitrarily dispensed with? He also
adds that Levites were not allowed to enter the most holy place. But neither, it may
be added, was this lawful for the priests. Levites and priests might enter that day,
because the house was not then dedicated. The cloud (Joshua 3:10) claimed it for

God.
4 and they brought up the ark of the Lord and the
tent of meeting and all the sacred furnishings in it.
The priests and Levites carried them up,
BAR ES, "And the tabernacle of the congregation - Not the tented structure
erected for the ark on Mount Zion 2Sa_6:17 by David, but the original tabernacle made
by Moses, which had hitherto remained at Gibeon (margin reference). The tabernacle
and its holy vessels were probably placed in the treasury.
CLARKE, "They brought up - the tabernacle - It is generally agreed that there
were now two tabernacles at Gibeon, and the other in the city of David, which one David
had constructed as a temporary residence for the ark, in the event of a temple being
built. Which of these tabernacles was brought into the temple at this time, is not well
known; some think both were brought in, in order to prevent the danger of idolatry. I
should rather suppose that the tabernacle from Gibeon was brought in, and that the
temporary one erected by David was demolished.
GILL, "And they brought up the ark of the Lord,.... From the city of David to the
temple:
and the tabernacle of the congregation; not the tent David made for the ark,
though that might be brought also, but the tabernacle of Moses, which had been many
years at Gibeon; but now removed to Zion, and from thence to the temple, where it was
laid up, as having been a sacred thing; that it might not be put to common or
superstitious uses, and to prevent the being of more places than one for worship:
and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle; as the candlestick,
shewbread table, incense altar, &c.
even those did the priests and the Levites bring up; some brought one, and some
another; the priests brought the ark, and the Levites the vessels.
BE SO , "1 Kings 8:4. And the tabernacle of the congregation — That made by
Moses, which doubtless before this time had been removed from Gibeon to Zion.
And all the holy vessels — amely, the altar of incense, the table of showbread, the

candlestick, and every thing belonging to them; all these were now carried into the
temple, and laid up there, to prevent all idolatrous and superstitious use of them,
and to oblige the people to come up to Jerusalem, as the only place where sacrifices
were now to be offered, and the various ceremonies of public worship performed.
ELLICOTT, "(4) The tabernacle of the congregation (see 1 Chronicles 16:39-40; 2
Chronicles 1:3) was still at Gibeon; and the priests and Levites had hitherto been
divided between it and the lesser tabernacle over the ark on Mount Zion. Probably
each section of the priests and Levites now brought up in solemn procession the
sacred things entrusted to them. According to the order of the Mosaic law ( umbers
3:25-37), the Kohathites had charge on the march of the ark and the vessels, the
Gershonites of the Tabernacle and its hangings, and the Merarites of the boards and
pillars of the Tabernacle and the outer court. This order, no doubt, was followed, as
far as possible, on this its last journey. What became of the Tabernacle and its
furniture (so far as this was disused), we are not told; but all was probably
deposited, as a sacred relic of antiquity, somewhere in the precincts of the Temple.
This seems to be implied in the famous Jewish tradition (see 2 Maccabees 2:4-6),
that Jeremiah was enabled to hide by miracle “the Tabernacle and the ark and the
altar of incense” on the destruction of the Temple.
PULPIT, "And they brought up the ark of the Lord [which had now been for nearly
40 years "in the tabernacle that David had pitched for it" on the Mount Zion (2
Samuel 6:17) ], and the tabernacle of the congregation [Heb, "the tabernacle of
meeting". This had been for many years at Gibeon. (Cf. 1 Kings 3:4; 2 Chronicles
1:8; 1 Chronicles 16:1-43 :89. See note on 1 Chronicles 3:4.) The tabernacle of
Mount Zion is never called "the tabernacle of the congregation"—indeed, it is
expressly dis-tingnished from it, 2 Chronicles 1:3, 2 Chronicles 1:4. The ark and the
tabernacle were now reunited in the temple of Solomon, thus "marking the identity
and continuity of the life and ritual of the Hebrew Church" (Wordsworth) ], and all
the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle [Perhaps the brazen altar. Certainly the
altar of incense, the table of shewbread, the candlestick, and also the brazen serpent
(Stanley) ], even those did the priests and Levites bring up. [We are hardly justified
in saying (as Keil, al.) that the Levites carried all but the ark. The text rather
favours the view that the priests assisted in bringing up the tabernacle and its
furniture. So 2 Chronicles 5:5. either the tabernacle nor its vessels were designed
for further use in the temple; the latter had been replaced by vessels better suited to
the enlarged sanctuary—they were simply preserved, so far as we know, as relics of
the past. in the treasury or side chambers.
5 and King Solomon and the entire assembly of

Israel that had gathered about him were before
the ark, sacrificing so many sheep and cattle that
they could not be recorded or counted.
GILL, "And King Solomon, and all the congregation of Israel, that were
assembled together,.... On this solemn occasion:
were with him before the ark; while it was in the court of the priests, before it was
carried into the most holy place:
sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be told nor numbered for
multitude; the phrase seems to be hyperbolical, and designed to denote a great
number.
K&D, "1Ki_8:5
“And king Solomon and the whole congregation, that had gathered round him, were
with him before the ark sacrificing sheep and oxen in innumerable multitude.” This took
place while the ark of the covenant was carried up, no doubt when it was brought into
the court of the temple, and was set down there for a time either within or in front of the
hall. Then was this magnificent sacrifice “offered” there “in front of the ark” (‫ּון‬‫ר‬ፎ ָ‫ה‬ ‫י‬ֵ‫נ‬ ְ‫פ‬ ִ‫.)ל‬
BE SO , "1 Kings 8:5. King Solomon, and all the congregation with him before
the ark — This ceremony of removing the ark from the tabernacle which David had
erected for it, to the temple, and depositing it in the most holy place, was opened
with a pompous procession. The king himself, accompanied by all his chief officers
and the elders of Israel, marched before the ark; these were followed by a great
number of priests and Levites, who sung some canticles proper to the occasion, and
played upon various instruments. ext to the ark followed another number of
singers and players, with other priests bearing the tabernacle and the sacred
utensils of the sanctuary, which had been brought from Gibeon. While the priests
were placing the ark in the most holy place, the air rung with the sound of a
hundred and twenty trumpets, and with the voices of the Levites, who sang the
praises of God, repeating these words at proper intervals; Give thanks to the Lord,
for he is good; and his mercy endureth for ever. It was then that God seemed to
come down in a visible manner, to take possession, as it were, of his new temple, by
filling it with a glorious cloud, as he had formerly done the tabernacle; insomuch
that the priests could not stand to offer up the sacrifices which they had prepared
upon that occasion. See Universal Hist. Sacrificing sheep and oxen that could not be
numbered — When the ark was seated in its place; for although they might in the
way offer some sacrifices, as David did, yet that was not a proper season to offer so

1 kings 8 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 1 kings 8 commentary

Similar to 1 kings 8 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

1 kings 8 commentary