Deeper Commentary
1Ki 7:1 Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he
finished all his house-
The record of Solomon's building of his own house is clearly framed to
reveal the sad fact that his zeal for God's house was only an outcome of
his own natural zeal and passion for building which he comments upon in
Ecclesiastes; but that tremendous energy was
given far more scope in achieving his own ends. So often apparently
active brethren are only so because the Truth is only compounding their
own naturally active characters. For example, those who naturally like
travelling can seem zealous Gospel missionaries. The style of the record
makes this clear of Solomon:
"So was he seven years in building (God's house)...
but
Solomon was building his
own house thirteen years" (1 Kings 6:38; 7:1).
His own house (cp. our family and mortgage) assumed almost double the importance of God's house. In this we see Solomon's apostacy. The architectural detail given concerning Solomon's house and "the house of the forest of Lebanon" seems to be given in such a format as to compare with that concerning God's house. The question is whether all these building projects happened chronologically, one after another, or whether they in fact were all going on at the same time. If chronologically, we would expect a note to that effect at this point. Instead we are left to conclude that the building of the temple, of his own house, of "the house of the forest of Lebanon" and the "house for Pharaoh’s daughter (whom Solomon had taken as wife)" (:8) all happened at the same time. We could conclude that he was distracted from building God's house by his other building projects, and that's why the building of the temple took seven years. This may appear to be contradicted by the statements in 1 Kings 9:10 and 2 Chron. 8:1: "It happened at the end of twenty years, in which Solomon had built the two houses, the house of Yahweh and the king’s house...". However the context of those verses goes on to state that Solomon had given twenty cities to Hiram in return for his labour and materials for the building of the houses. So we could legitimately read those passages as meaning that at the end of the twenty year period over which the two houses had been built and twenty cities given to Hiram... that Hiram became dissatisfied. The recurrence of the number twenty could hint that he was paid one city a year for twenty years.
He had initially justified building the temple because of the
fact that Israel were worshipping in "high places" contrary to God's
expressed intention. That however was a fake excuse anyway, because they
could have simply assembled wherever the ark was. And if indeed Solomon
was so concerned about this matter, he would have made building the temple
a priority and not delayed it because of his other building projects.
1Ki 7:2 For he built the house of the forest of Lebanon; its length was
one hundred cubits, and its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty
cubits, on four rows of cedar pillars, with cedar beams on the pillars-
It was called the house of the forest of Lebanon because of the
resemblance of the mass of cedar pillars to the Lebanon cedar forest. The
length of “a hundred cubits” (150 feet) was nearly twice as long as the
entire temple without the porch.
LXX "three rows". This must be correct because the three rows of 15 pillars make the 45 pillars of :3. Building using 45 pillars is exactly what we find in the surrounding nations- the 45 pillar layout is most clearly seen in the palace of Cyrus at Pasargadae.
The Temple was smaller than Solomon's house; he took nearly twice as long to build it. Clearly he spent more effort at housing his own glory than he did housing God's. The comparisons are intended to show this. The following comparisons put the temple first, and then Solomon's house.
Length: 60 cubits, breadth 20, height 30 (1 Kings 6:2) cp. Length: 100 cubits, breadth 50, height 30 (1 Kings 7:2)
Used cedar pillars and beams (1 Kings 6:9,10)
cp.
1 Kings 7:2
Inner court built with three rows of hewn stone and a row of cedar
beams (1 Kings 6:36 RV) cp. “The great court round about had three rows of
hewn stones, and a row of cedar beams, like as the inner court of the
house of the Lord” (1 Kings 7:12)
Hiram called in to build it (1 Kings 5:1-5)
cp. 1 Kings 7:13
The Most Holy within God's house (1 Kings 7:8)
cp. The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have
been a replica of the Most Holy within God's house. Here Solomon’s wives
worshipped their idols.
Built on large foundation stones cp. The record of the foundation
stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations.
The temple had a “porch” (Ez. 8:7,16) cp. The porch of Solomon's house
matches that of the temple (Ez. 8:7,16), which in Ezekiel's time was a
place of apostacy.
Open flowers design of the temple
cp.
The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have matched
the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections with
Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (2 Sam. 18:18).
The way the record of Solomon's house follows straight on from that of
God's house (1 Kings 6,7) seems to highlight the similarity between them.
The house of Yahweh and Solomon's house are often spoke of together (e.g.
2 Chron. 7:11; 8:1; 9:11) to make us reflect on this. Indeed,
the record of Solomon's house in 1 Kings 7:1-12 is a parenthesis out of
historical sequence; 5:2-6:38 and 7:13-9:9 are about the temple;
7:1-12 is a clear parenthesis to demonstrate Solomon's weakness.
1Ki 7:3 It was covered with cedar above over the forty-five beams, that
were on the pillars; fifteen in a row-
Is. 2:6-13 condemns Israel for their pride whilst making many allusions
to Solomon: "Full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their
treasures... full of horses... chariots... idols... the work of their own
hands... the cedars of Lebanon" (i.e. Solomon's armoury of 1 Kings
7:2,3; 10:17). The amount of cedar used for Solomon's house as
well as the temple would have probably resulted in the deforestation of
parts of Lebanon in order to provide this number of mature cedar trees. To
cover an area of 100 x 50 cubits with a roof of cedar would have required
5000 square cubits of cedar wood if it were a flat roof, and more if the
roof was angled; although it could be that not all the area was covered,
i.e. there may have been a courtyard. But if it was, then we can
better understand why it was called "the house of the forest of Lebanon"
(1 Kings 10:17; Is. 22:8). About a whole forest of Lebanon would have been
felled and transported to Jerusalem for all this building work.
1Ki 7:4 There were window frames in three rows, and window was over
against window in three ranks-
The words used here are generally different to those in 1 Kings 6:4 and
speaks more of windows for light. There was no natural light in the temple
just as there wasn't in the tabernacle. The hope was that it would be lit
by the light of God's glory; and likewise there is no natural light in the
spiritual temple, only that of God's glory. But there were windows
admitting natural light in Solomon's own house.
There is the implication here that the building was of three stories, as was the temple (1 Kings 6:6). His house was a conscious imitation of God's house, but on a far grander scale.
1Ki 7:5 All the doors and posts had square frames: and window was opposite
window in three tiers-
These windows were for light; AV "light against light". There was no
natural light in the temple; but Solomon's house was full of natural
light. The difference is significant. For the temple was to be illuminated
by God's glory, whereas Solomon's own house was all about his own natural
light.
1Ki 7:6 He made the porch of pillars; its length was fifty cubits, and its
breadth thirty cubits; and a porch before them; and pillars and a
threshold before them-
It's hard to determine which building this porch joined to, but it was
a colonnade, and perhaps a separate building; and the point to note is
that it was far grander than the porch built for Yahweh's house. It was an
Egyptian propylaea, a kind of "pillar hall", and reflects Egyptian
influence upon Solomon.
1Ki 7:7 He made the hall of judgment for the throne where he was to
judge, even the porch of judgment: and it was covered with cedar from
floor to floor-
This was effectively replicating the most holy place of the temple; and
Solomon was placing his throne of judgment as the equivalent to the ark in
the most holy place. He was playing God, exalting his judgment over that
of Yahweh.
1Ki 7:8 His house where he was to dwell had another court within the
porch, which was of the same plan. He made also a house for Pharaoh’s
daughter (whom Solomon had taken as wife), like this porch-
"His house" may differ from the one just described from :1-7, which was
called the house of the forest of Lebanon, and was really a glorious law
court, with Solomon's throne exalted as the judge of all (see on :7).
The porch of Solomon's house matches that of the temple (Ez. 8:7,16), which in Ezekiel's time was a place of apostacy. Solomon's own house was undeniably larger than God's, although built with the same layout (e.g. 1 Kings 6:2 cp. 7:2; 6:36 cp. 7:12; 5:1-5 cp. 7:13). The "another court within the porch" in his house seems to have been a replica of the Most Holy within God's house (1 Kings 7:8), yet it was here that Solomon's wives worshipped their idols. Likewise the record of the foundation stones (7:10) is similar to that of the temple foundations.
1Ki 7:9 All these were of costly stones, even of cut stone, according to
measure, sawn with saws, inside and outside, even from the foundation to
the coping, and so on the outside to the great court-
"According to measure" may mean as in AV that the precious stones were
cut and used to a similar size as building brick, the cut stone. "Inside
and outside" seems to mean that the precious stones were cut or polished
on the inside as well, i.e. the side not exposed to view. This opulence
and grandeur is far greater than what Solomon invested in the building of
God's house.
1Ki 7:10 The foundation was of costly stones, even great stones, stones of
ten cubits, and stones of eight cubits-
This could mean that precious stones were inserted in even the
foundation; see on :9. It seems these stones were smaller than those used
in the temple, meaning that more effort was put into Solomon's own house
than God's house. And that is the challenge of these specifications to us.
1Ki 7:11 Above were costly stones, cut stone, according to measure, and
cedar wood-
That is, above the foundation stones of :10. The stones built upon them
were "cut stones", implying they were smoothed. Again as noted on :10,
more effort was put into Solomon's own house than God's house.
As discussed earlier, the record is implicitly criticizing Solomon
all the way through. His building efforts for his own house dwarfed his
efforts for God's house, and this was to be the complaint of Haggai
centuries later.
1Ki 7:12 The great court around had three courses of cut stone, and a course
of cedar beams; like the inner court of the house of Yahweh, and the porch
of the house-
Again we see Solomon playing God. His house
had two courts [like the temple,
1 Kings 6:36] and was a conscious replica of
the temple, the house of Yahweh, but to a grander scale and with far more
effort put into it.
Again we note that Egyptian and
Assyrian palaces always had such an external court, and then one or more
inner courts or quadrangles.
1Ki 7:13 King Solomon sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre-
This contrasts with how Solomon's communications with Hiram regarding
the temple had been by messenger. But for the matters of building his own
house, he wants him present in person. Again we see how more effort was
put into Solomon's own house than God's house.
However I suggest that the actual Hiram king of Tyre is not necessarily in view, but a man called Huram (2 Chron. 4:11), of similar spelling, who is described as a "father" to Hiram the king (2 Chron. 2:13); in the sense in which Joseph was a father to Pharaoh (Gen. 45:8), his leading official. Thus we read in 2 Chron. 4:16 that "the vessels thereof did Huram his father make for king Solomon". However the point is established that a leading political figure within Tyre, who was known for his craftsmanship, was summoned personally to work on Solomon's own house, whereas this wasn't done for the work of God's house.
Another possibility is that this craftsman was Hiram's own representative, and is therefore spoken of as being "Hiram".
1Ki 7:14 He was the son of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, and his
father was a man of Tyre, a worker in brass-
2 Chron. 2:14 says "Hiram" was "son of a woman of the daughters of
Dan", whereas 1 King 7:14 says he was "the son of a widow of the tribe of
Naphtali". Dan may refer to the town called Dan or Laish which was in the
territory of Naphtali, but inhabited by Danites (Josh. 18:27; 19:47; Jud.
18:7). Here we see how an apparent discrepancy on a surface level reveals
a deep evidence of the way the records do not contradict but dovetail
perfectly, as we would expect of a Divinely inspired writing. But this is
only apparent to those who respectfully search the entire scriptures,
rather than bandying around a surface level contradiction with an
eagerness which speaks more of their own fears the Bible is inspired than
of deep factual persuasion.
And he was filled with wisdom and understanding and skill, to work
all works in brass. He came to king Solomon, and performed all his work-
This is similar language as to how Solomon had been filled by God with
wisdom. But this man was filled with human wisdom. The contrast is similar
to the fact that God's house had no natural light, whereas Solomon's did.
1Ki 7:15 For he fashioned the two pillars of brass, each eighteen cubits
high: and a line of twelve cubits encircled both of them around-
"Fashioned" is as AV "cast", and reflects Egyptian influence. The
paintings of Thebes show this casting being done in Egypt, and it clearly
was copied by Solomon. In connection with his wife being Pharaoh's
daughter, he likely visited Egypt several times.
The two pillars with their pomegranates and lily-work seem to have
matched the open flowers of the temple, and they have ominous connections
with Absalom's pillar of self-glorification (2 Sam. 18:18). Worst of all,
Solomon's throne seems to have been built with allusion to Yahweh's
enthronement upon the praises of Israel in the Most Holy.
The two pillars are said to be 18 cubits high (1 Kings 7:15), but in 2 Chron. 3:15 they are 35 cubits high. What that means is that there were two cubits of 17.5 cubits high each, summarized as 18 cubits high in 1 Kings 7:15. We have another example of this kind of reckoning in the way that the height of the porch was 120 cubits, or 180 feet (2 Chron. 3:4). This is out of proportion to the length and breadth. Perhaps what is meant is that the height of each of the four walls has been added together, which would give a height of 30 cubits. This style is to be found in 2 Chron. 3:11, where the length of the wings of the cherubim is given as 20 cubits, but this was a way of saying that each of the four wings was five cubits long.
1Ki 7:16 He made two capitals of molten brass, to set on the tops of the
pillars: the height of the one capital was five cubits, and the height of
the other capital was five cubits-
The capitals were placed on the tops of the pillars.
"Tops" is "heads",
and the Hebrew for "capitals" suggests "crown". The idea is that
everywhere in his house, Solomon was glorifying his own kingship;
forgetting that it was by grace, and conditional upon his obedience. These
bronze pillars replicated those before the temple (2 Kings 25:17; 2 Chron.
3:15). Solomon was modelling his house upon God's house. Although the
height of the crowns in the pillars before his house was five cubits, but
only three cubits for the pillars before God's house (2 Kings 25:17).
1Ki 7:17 There were nets of chequer work, and wreaths of chain work, for
the capitals which were on the top of the pillars; seven for the one
capital, and seven for the other capital-
"This decoration consisted of seven twists arranged as festoons, which
were hung round the capitals of the pillars" (Keil). The language is more
appropriate for metalwork than stone work.
1Ki 7:18 So he made the pillars; and there were two rows around on the one
network, to cover the capitals that were on the top of the pillars: and he
did so for the other capital-
LXX reads "pomegranates" for "pillars". I consider that any attempt
to find spiritual significance in the pomegranates used in Solomon's
building is misplaced, because I don't think he was at all thinking in
that way. Rather is this another example of his simply copying what he had
seen in Egypt, from where his queen came from. For such pomegranate
designs are common in Egyptian architecture of the time, and Egypt was
famed for pomegranates (Num. 20:5).
1Ki 7:19 The capitals that were on the top of the pillars in the porch
were of carved lilies, four cubits-
Again, this reflects Egyptian influence on Solomon, rather than any
great spiritual symbolism. For "the capitals of Egyptian pillars took the
form of the lotus", and here he uses carved lilies, although they may
effectively be the same as the lotus motif of Egyptian architecture. It
seems that this refers to another capital superimposed upon those we have
just had described (:20). Again, we see how more effort was put into
Solomon's own house than God's house. The lotus or lily was
common the river Nile, and it opened every morning and closed every night,
just as some of their gods were perceived as doing. We note that the lily
/ lotus motif is absent in Ezekiel's temple, where we have only cherubim
and palm trees as a decorative motif. Even Solomon's use of the winged
cherubim as a motif may be intended to imitate the common motif of winged
griffins in contemporary Phoenician temples.
1Ki 7:20 There were capitals above also on the two pillars-
This would mean that there were in fact two capitals on each pillar,
as noted on :19. There was only one such capital on the pillars erected
before God's house. But Solomon was far more painstaking and ornate in
building his own house, and it therefore took him nearly twice as long.
Close by the cushion which was beside the network: and the
pomegranates were two hundred, in rows around on the other capital-
See on :18 for "pomegranates". There were 100 in each row, but on one
row there were 96 facing the courts, meaning the other four were at the
corners (Jer. 52:23). The internal corroboration between records written
hundreds of years apart is impressive, and reflects Divine inspiration of
the entire Old Testament.
1Ki 7:21 He set up the pillars at the porch of the temple: and he set up
the right pillar-
I suggest there were two sets of pillars, one before Solomon's house
and another before the temple. Now the focus of the record returns to the
temple, as now we will also read of the huge laver Solomon built before
the temple. But pillars before a temple was a reflection of pagan
influence. "The Phoenicians used isolated metal columns as sacred
ornaments, so that Hiram would be familiar with such a mode of
ornamentation" (Rawlinson). "Whenever in coins or histories we get a
representation of a Phoenician temple, it always has a pillar or pillars
standing within or before it" (Stanley). It seems that
the contact with
Tyre had resulted in their religion coming to influence Solomon's design
of the temple. And so it happens when we claim to serve God according to
the religious ideas of pagans. This is another reason why I query whether
in fact he did receive the designs of the temple from God as he claimed.
Indeed it was a common feature of the surrounding temples that the
king claimed to have been given the plans by his god, and I suggest
Solomon and David were no different.
And called its name Jachin; and he set up the left pillar, and
called its name Boaz-
"Jachin" means "He will establish", and Boaz "in Him [God] is
strength", which is the idea in Is. 45:24. They were a statement that God
would establish the line of Solomon, and perhaps Boaz is also a reference
to his ancestor of that name. But that establishment of the Kingdom was
conditional upon Solomon's obedience, according to the promises to David
in 2 Sam. 7. But Solomon liked to think that by building these pillars, he
had himself established his dynasty, and shown it to be established.
Putting the two names together, we have 'He will establish by strength’,
and this seems to be deconstructed by the restoration prophecy of Zech.
4:6, given after these two pillars had been removed, never to be restored.
"Boaz" may simply be a reference to David's ancestor Boaz. It was
his line through David which David believed would be permanently
established ['Jachin']. In this case, this would be similar to how
Babylonian temple columns were named according to the first word in a
sentence, which pronounced eternal dynasty to the king. Jeremiah records
the removal of the pillars by the Babylonians, as if to underscore how God
did not in fact permanently establish the line of kings from Solomon and
David. David's hope was that his "throne shall be established [yikkon]
forever as the moon" (Ps. 89:38). Ps. 93:2 claims that his throne is
nakhon ("firmly established"), from the same root as jakhin.
But it wasn't. The eternal establishment was to be through his greater
Son, and not through an unbroken line of kings from him. Yet this is how
the pillars were understood, for in 2 Kings 11:14 we read of the
king "standing by the pillar, as was the custom" to receive an official
position.
The significance of the Jachin and Boaz pillars may however be little more than that like many features of the temple, they correspond closely to the design of other temples in the area. Free standing pillars before temples were common; Cleopatra's Needle in London may be a surviving example of such a free-standing obelisk. Quite possibly these pillars were Hiram's idea, because in Tyre two pillars stood outside the temple of Hercules. Solomon's temple was clearly influenced by his desire to be like the nations, and possibly reflect the influence of his idolatrous wives who were from those nations.
1Ki 7:22 On the top of the pillars was lily work: so was the work of the
pillars finished-
The lily motif is stressed in the final description of the pillars,
and I suggested on :19 that they were pagan lotus symbols.
1Ki 7:23 He made the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, round in
compass, and its height was five cubits; and a line of thirty cubits
encircled it-
This gives the circumference of the laver as “thirty cubits”,
although it was ten cubits broad. Taking ‘pi’ to be 3.14, it is apparent
that the circumference would have been 31.4 cubits; but the Spirit says,
summing up, “thirty”. Sometimes the Biblical record is vague, other times
exact. This reflects how God is not seeking to cover His back against
critics. He is of an altogether higher nature than that. There are times
when the Spirit uses very approximate numbers rather than exact ("about
the space of four hundred and fifty years", Acts 13:20 cp. 1 Kings 6:1).
The reference to "seventy" in Judges 9:56 also doesn't seem exact. Seven
and a half years (2 Sam. 2:11) becomes "seven years" (1 Kings 2:11); three
months and ten days (2 Chron. 36:9) becomes "three months" (2 Kings 24:8).
This is not how we are used to history being written; but we are reading
the Hebrew genre of history, not our own.
1Ki 7:24 Under its brim around there were buds which encircled it, for ten
cubits, encircling the sea: the buds were in two rows, cast when it was
cast-
The size of this laver was unrealistic if it were to be useful. The
huge size was therefore for show, and not because Solomon really wished
there to be cleansing in practice. "Buds" is AV "knops". "Buds" is a guess
at translation, for the Hebrew word is very obscure, literally "wild
gourds", a poisonous plant (s.w. 2 Kings 4:39). It is unlikely this plant
is in view. But there are observable similarities with the decoration of
Egyptian holy places. Seeing that Solomon had married an Egyptian, and the
Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep admiration for things Egyptian, it
seems likely that even in the temple, Solomon allowed Gentile
influence. And that was to be a theme of this temple until its
destruction.
1Ki 7:25 It stood on twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, three
looking toward the west, three looking toward the south and three looking
toward the east; and the sea was set on them above, and all their hinder
parts were inward-
This massive laver was therefore a political statement, implying the
twelve tribes of Israel were only to be cleansed by this huge laver. I
discussed on 1 Kings 4 how Solomon sought to bring all Israel under his
personal control. He constantly mixes spiritual appearance with his own
unspiritual agendas.
1Ki 7:26 It was a handbreadth thick: and its brim was worked like the brim
of a cup, like the flower of a lily: it held two thousand baths-
We several times read of the lily motif in Solomon's building. But
the word can as well refer to the lotus. And "the lotus was the religious
flower of the Indian and Egyptian religions". So we have a case of Solomon
allowing himself to be influenced by the pagan religions of his wives and
those he traded with, and importing it into his own version of Yahweh
worship.
It was 10 cubits [5 meters] in diameter, 30 cubits in circumference and five cubits high- and placed upon ornamental oxen. This would have been at least 2.5 meters off the ground and probably higher if we count the 24 oxen beneath it. 2 Kings 16:17 describes how they "took down the sea from off the brazen oxen that were under it, and put it upon the pavement of stones”. Far too high for priests to have easily cleansed themselves or sacrifices. I have several times commented that some of the temple features were not at all useful in practice. A cedar wood coated altar, gold hinges and a gold floor, the Jachin and Boaz pillars... amongst others. The huge bronze sea or laver is quite likely another example. The huge size made it impractical to wash anything in. There is no mention of steps or ladders, and surely they would have been required. Such water reservoirs were typical of surrounding temples, and I suggest Solomon simply replicated them but on a larger scale. The Egyptian Book of the Temple describes a “purification lake” adorned with lotus / lily flowers. Just as with this huge laver. Surely Solomon was copying this. "The lotus held political and religious significance as one of the incarnations of the sun god, Khafre- who rises every morning from the primordial waters in Egypt- and accordingly served as a symbol of Upper Egypt and featured on most of its temples in the New Kingdom period". Ezekiel's Divinely inspired plans for a rebuilt temple carefully omit any equivalent of this "molten sea". Indeed there were similar symbolic water containers in various temples. A similar object was found at Amathus, Cyprus and currently resides at the Louvre Museum in Paris. A similar water vat existed at the Marduk temple in Babylon. No wonder Jeremiah prophesied that God was furious with the temple from the day it was built to the day He destroyed it. He agreed to dwell in it, but the whole thing was idolatrous from the start.
2000 baths here contrasts with the parallel record stating 3000 baths (2 Chron. 4:2-5). It has been suggested that the figure of 2000 refers to liquid, and 3000 to how much it could contain of dry material. A ration of liquid to dry volume of 3:2 is realistic. Given a circumference of 30 cubits, the diameter is 30 ÷ 2π = 4.77 meters, and therefore the vessel’s volume was 4/3π*2.3853 = 28,400 liters. A domestic bath tub takes 80 liters to fill. So this is the size of a small swimming pool. This is massive and far more water than necessary. There is also no explanation as to how the water entered the "sea" nor how it drained from it. And how was it changed, if it was defiled and dirty? And open water in such a hot climate would soon evaporate. All this leads me to suspect this was again mere showmanship and without any practical utility. Hence there is no record of it ever being used in practice.
All these pagan connections are too many to just insist this
was what God had commanded. The record emphasizes that David merely
claimed to have received the design of the temple from God. Clearly he was
influenced by Gentile temples. And yet despite all this, God did dwell in
the temple, the temple He says He hated from the day it was built (Jer.
32:31). So we conclude that God is so eager to dwell with man and somehow
make the relationship work. Consider the background:
- David had misrepresented God's word about Solomon and the temple
- Solomon in turn had spun David's misinterpretations of God's word
- The temple was heavily influenced by paganism
- There was more mere religion than spirituality in the temple
- Pride and lack of awareness of sin was everywhere in it
- The temple was more about exalting the greatness of the man Solomon than
God.
This all sounds very much like what passes for Christianity today. And yet
God is still willing to try to dwell in that system and to fellowship with
individuals who are within the system, just as He did with those who used
Solomon's temple.
1Ki 7:27 He made the ten bases of brass; four cubits was the length of one
base, and four cubits its breadth, and three cubits
its height-
These bases or pedestals were for the ten smaller lavers which will
now be described. The massive laver described above was for show, it was
too large to realistically be used for ritual cleansing; in practice, the
ten smaller lavers would have to be used.
1Ki 7:28 The work of the bases was like this: they had panels; and there
were panels between the ledges-
These "ledges" appear to refer to poles at the four corners of each
base, onto which the panels were fixed.
1Ki 7:29 and on the panels that were between the ledges were lions, oxen,
and cherubim; and on the ledges there was a pedestal above; and beneath
the lions and oxen were wreaths of hanging work-
The pedestal carrying the actual laver was fixed upon the four poles
or shafts of :28, meaning that the panels didn't carry any of the weight
but were purely decorative.
1Ki 7:30 Every base had four bronze wheels, and axles of brass; and the
four feet of it had supports: beneath the basin were the supports molten,
with wreaths at the side of each-
The language of wheels and axles recalls the cherubim visions of
Ezekiel. The bases were as it were extensions of the cherubim. We note the
lions and oxen of :29 were also associated with the cherubim of Ezekiel's
visions. The "supports" seem to refer to "shoulders"’ (R.V. margin),
through which the axles passed through.
1Ki 7:31 The mouth of it within the capital and above was a cubit: and its
mouth was round after the work of a pedestal, a cubit and a half; and also
on its mouth were engravings, and their panels were foursquare, not round-
The "mouth" appears to refer to a circular opening, into which the
laver itself was hooked in.
1Ki 7:32 The four wheels were underneath the panels; and the axles of the
wheels were in the base: and the height of a wheel was a cubit and half a
cubit-
The axles "were in the base" in that they were cast as art of the
base. If this is correct, then the wheels didn't actually turn. They had
the impression of movement, but didn't actually move- in contrast to the
actual cherubim of Ezekiel's vision, whose wheels moved because of the
presence of the Spirit within them. This was lacking from Solomon's
creation.
1Ki 7:33 The work of the wheels was like the work of a chariot wheel:
their axles, and their rims, and their spokes, and their naves, were all
molten-
Again we see the influence of Egypt. Chariots were forbidden for the
king of Israel, but Solomon indulged in them. And this was reflected in
how he apparently served God. This was a cherubim which couldn't move
anywhere in practice but was totally ornamental and lifeless; see on :32.
1Ki 7:34 There were four supports at the four corners of each base: its
supports were of the base itself-
This follows straight on from the description of the wheels in :33,
and I suggest it means that the base and the "shoulders" where the axles
were (:32) were all cast as part of the same item, and therefore, as
discussed on :32,33, the structure couldn't actually move anywhere.
1Ki 7:35 In the top of the base was there a round compass half a cubit
high; and on the top of the base its stays and its panels were of the
same-
"Of the same" seems to mean they were cast as one piece; see on :32.
1Ki 7:36 On the plates of its stays, and on its panels, he engraved
cherubim, lions, and palm trees, according to the space of each, with
wreaths all around-
Perhaps the reference was to David's imagery of the righteous
flourishing like the palm tree (Ps. 92:12). But Solomon
had likened his
Egyptian lover to a palm (Song 7:7,8), and the palm and open flowers
feature in Egyptian architecture. See on 1 Kings 6:18. Seeing that Solomon
had married an Egyptian, and the Song of Solomon reflects Solomon's deep
admiration for things Egyptian, it seems likely that even in the temple,
Solomon allowed Gentile influence, although mixing it with the imagery of
the cherubim of Yahweh's manifestation. And that was to be a sad theme of
this temple until its destruction. Cherubim clearly allude to the
garden of Eden, and there are many echoes of Eden in the temple. The use
of cedar and palm trees would represent the righteous, as is clear from
Ps. 92:13-16 ["The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree, he will
grow like a cedar in Lebanon. They are planted in Yahweh’s house, they
will flourish in our God’s courts"]. The huge water tank / "molten sea"
may allude to water coming out of Eden. But in this case we see Solomon
assuming that he had as it were restored Eden. But without dealing with
sin and without any Messianic sacrifice of the seed of the woman. The
cherubim were to keep man out of Eden, but throughout the temple there is
the message that man was now mixing freely with the cherubim.
1Ki 7:37 In this way, he made the ten bases: all of them had one casting,
one measure, and one form-
They were all cast from the same one mould.
We enquire however
why there were ten such smaller lavers and not twelve, for the twelve
tribes of Israel. Perhaps Solomon thought that his favoured kingdom, of
Judah and Benjamin, didn't require such cleansing.
1Ki 7:38 He made ten basins of brass: one basin contained forty baths; and
every basin was four cubits; and on every one of the ten bases one basin-
Forty baths was about 340 gallons, 1287 litres. The measurement of
"four cubits" could refer to the height, or to the diameter. The
presence
of so many lavers implied that Solomon expected huge numbers of animals to
be sacrificed at one time, as he himself did. He had not at all picked up
the spirit of his father David, who perceived that God was looking for
broken hearts and not sacrifices (Ps. 51:17). The tabernacle had
only one laver for all Israel.
1Ki 7:39 He set the bases, five on the right side of the house, and five
on the left side of the house-
The right side was the south, the left side was the north.
And he set the sea on the right side of the house eastward, toward the
south-
This confirms that the right side was the south. The description is
as of a person standing facing the temple from the west side of it. But
this was not where the entrance was. Solomon was describing it from his
perspective and not that of a worshipper entering the temple from the
east.
1Ki 7:40 Hiram made the basins, and the shovels, and the basins. So Hiram
made an end of doing all the work that he worked for king Solomon in the
house of Yahweh-
"Basins" is a very similar Hebrew word for "pots" (as in 2 Chron.
4:11). "Pots" is likely the best reading. There is much stress upon all
the "work" done (:40,51). Solomon had quite missed the lessons learned by
his father David [and his mother Bathsheba], that God wants broken,
contrite hearts more than works and sacrifices.
1Ki 7:41 the two pillars, and the two bowls of the capitals that were on
the top of the pillars; and the two networks to cover the two bowls of the
capitals that were on the top of the pillars-
The bowls on top of the pillars may have been because there
were oil lamps burning there, as if pointing the way into the temple by
night. The same word is used in Zech. 4:2,3 for a bowl of oil on top of a
golden candlestick. We now have a summary of all the work done, as if Solomon itemized it
all and boasted in the inventory. This glorification of human works and
achievement revealed so much about his lack of true spiritual perception;
see on :40.
1Ki 7:42 and the four hundred pomegranates for the two networks; two rows
of pomegranates for each network, to cover the two bowls of the capitals
that were on the pillars-
The Hebrew word for "network" is used multiple times in the
descriptions of Solomon's work. But it is an unusual word, and is
elsewhere translated "snare" (Job 18:8). There is throughout the record
the hint that all is not how it should have been spiritually.
1Ki 7:43 and the ten bases, and the ten basins on the bases-
There was only one laver in the tabernacle, made of the brass mirrors
of the repentant women of Ex. 38:8. There was to be a common experience of
washing and cleansing in using the same laver; and this was rather spoilt
by having ten lavers and then one huge laver, so huge nobody could
effectively use it.
1Ki 7:44 and the one sea, and the twelve oxen under the sea-
There is no record of this huge laver ever being used in practice.
The urgent requirement for true cleansing was turned into mere external
ritualism, something which was to be seen and admired rather than
personally participated it.
1Ki 7:45 and the pots, and the shovels, and the basins: even all these
vessels, which Hiram made for king Solomon, in the house of Yahweh, were
of burnished brass-
The idea is of polished copper.
1Ki 7:46 The king cast them in the plain of the Jordan, in the clay ground
between Succoth and Zarethan-
"The king cast them" suggests Solomon's personal involvement with the
work. This reflects how he admits in Ecclesiastes that he followed his
obsession with building and architecture to a degree not possible for most
men. His zeal was therefore more an expression of his own personality type
and personal interests, than true love for God.
Zarethan where Solomon cast the lavers for the temple with their pagan motifs (1 Kings 7:46) is called Zaredathah in 2 Chron. 4:17, which is a form of Zeredah (1 Kings 11:26), the birthplace of Jeroboam son of Nebat. It doesn't therefore have good connections. We wonder if the golden calves were cast there too.
1Ki 7:47 Solomon left all the vessels unweighed, because they were
exceeding many: the weight of the brass could not be found out-
As noted on :41, Solomon itemized his work and boasted in
the inventory. But he gave up weighing all the brass vessels. This
glorification of human works and achievement revealed so much about his
lack of true spiritual perception; see on :40.
1Ki 7:48 Solomon made all the vessels that were in the house of Yahweh:
the golden altar, and the table whereupon the show bread was, of gold-
"The golden altar" is the altar of incense. "That were in the
house..." could suggest that this history was written or edited after the
exile, when these things were no longer there in the temple.
1Ki 7:49 and the lampstands, five on the right side, and five on the left,
before the oracle, of pure gold; and the flowers, and the lamps, and the
tongs, of gold-
"Oracle" is the Hebrew word usually translated "word". It refers to
the most holy place, but perhaps the idea is that God's word is ultimately
where we are to find the presence of God represented by the ark.
1Ki 7:50 and the cups, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the spoons,
and the fire pans, of pure gold; and the hinges, both for the doors of the
inner house, the most holy place, and for the doors of the house, of the
temple, of gold-
The inventory here is similar in style to that of the vessels of the
tabernacle on Ex. 25-30. It seems Solomon wished to present what he had
done in terms of building a new tabernacle, with himself thereby presented
as Moses. And yet we have seen hints throughout the record that he built
it with pagan influences throughout it.
Hinges of gold are impractical as gold is a soft metal.
Again as discussed on 1 Kings 6:30, we perceive that Solomon's interest
was not on practical utility / usage, but rather on external appearance
and creating a legend that his temple even had gold hinges.
1 Kings 7 gives such a detailed inventory of the temple, but
the later record describes how all these items, using the same terms, were
stripped away. Shishak robbed the treasury (1 Kings 14:26). Ahaz stripped
the stands and removed the bulls under the brazen sea (2 Kings 16:17).
Hezekiah removed the gold from
the doors (2 Kings 18:16). Nebuchadnezzar cut
up the gold vessels that Solomon had made (2 Kings 24:13). The gold and
silver were melted down and the bronze items broken up (2 Kings
25:13-17).
1Ki 7:51 Thus all the work that king Solomon worked in the house of Yahweh
was finished-
There is much stress upon all the "work" done (:40,51). Solomon had
quite missed the lessons learned by his father David [and his mother
Bathsheba], that God wants broken, contrite hearts more than works and
sacrifices.
Solomon brought in the things which David his father had
dedicated, the silver, the gold and the vessels, and put them in the
treasuries of the house of Yahweh-
These vessels were those taken in 2 Sam. 8:10. They were devoted to
God's service by David and then Solomon dedicated them to the temple. The
same phrase "of silver, and vessels of gold, and vessels of brass" is used
of the vessels taken from Egypt and dedicated to the tabernacle (Ex. 11:2;
12:35; Josh. 6:19; 2 Sam. 8:10; 1 Kings 7:51). The generosity of others in
Biblical history, their right perspective on the wealth taken from this
world, was to inspire other believers in later history. And this is how
the body of Christ should function today, with members inspiring others to
spirituality.
Solomon's zealous organization of the temple worship was an exact fulfillment of the order laid down by his father David (1 Kings 7:51; 2 Chron. 7:6; 8:14). Solomon wanted God to bless the temple as a sign of His pleasure with David his father (e.g. 2 Chron. 6:42). Solomon's personal enthusiasm for service to God became subsumed by the huge psychological spiritual dominance of his parents. His zeal for the temple was almost purely a result of living out his father's expectation; he almost admits as much in 1 Kings 8:20: "I am risen up in the room of David my father... and have (therefore, in the context) built an house for the name of the Lord".
The promises God makes involve a solemn commitment by
Him to us- the serious, binding nature of His oath to us is easy to
forget. God swore to David “by my holiness” (Ps. 89:35). The Hebrew for
“holiness” is the very same word translated “dedication”. David’s response
to God’s dedication to him was to dedicate [s.w.] all the silver and gold
which he had won from this world, to the service of God’s house (1 Kings
7:51; 1 Chron. 26:26; 2 Chron. 5:1). Our response to God’s dedication to
us should be a like dedication of what we have to Him. Covenant
relationship with God requires much of both Him and us. The case of David
is a nice illustration of the meaning of grace. David wanted to do
something for God- build Him a house, spending his wealth to do so. God
replied that no, He wanted to build David a house. And He started
to, in the promises He gave David. And David’s response to that grace is
to still do something- to dedicate his wealth to God’s house, as
God had dedicated Himself to David’s house. This is just how grace and
works should be related in our experience.
Previous Chapter
