The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 113

impossible in the present state of our know- and whether at the height of twenty or thirty ledgo to arrive at any very positive conclu- cubits-how we.a it supported? For "no sionA, but it may be well, nevertheless, ii cedar beam could be laid across a space of only to show in how much uncertainty the twenty cubits without sinking in the centre architecture of the temple is involved, to by its own weight." Fergusson hence argaes state them. First among them is this: that the roof must have been carried on Was the roof of the temple flo.t or ridged? pillars-four in the se.nctuary and ten in the (See a.hove on ver. 9). (2) In either ca.se, hall. He remarks that they were used in was the height of thirty cubits, or any uni- the house of the Forest of Lebanon, where form height, maintained throughout, or they were less suitable than here]: and he was the roof of the oracle some ten cubits overlaJd it [lit. made it shine] with pare lower than that of the house? The analogy gold [marg. shut up (from iIQ clausit). of the tabernacle, of which the temple wo.s Cf. Job xxviii. 15 (Heb.) The same gold_is a copy, would lead us to suppose that the described as i1i1~ (Exod. xxv. 11) and :l1Q ridge-if there was a ridge-of the entire building was level and unbroken, though the (2 Chron. iii. 8). It is ea.lied " shut up gold," analogy of the Gothic church, which, we not because it was concealed (Ke,µi\,ov), but have already seen, is almost a reproduction because of the exclusion of impure ingre- of the temple, suggests that the oracle (like dients (Vulg. aurum puTissimum). The la.vi~h the chancel, and, it may be added, like the use of gold in the interior of the temple-its adytum of Egyptian temples) may possi~ly weight 600 talents (75,000 lbs.), its val~e have had a lower roof. But (3), supposmg almost incolculable-we.s not for mere dis- the so.me height was maintained from end play (for most of it was nev~ seen e:i:cept by to end, to what use, if any, was the vacant the priests), but was symbolica.l of lig~t and space of ten cubits (15 feet) between cieling purity (Job :uxvii. 22, 23; Rev. xxi. 18), and roof of oracle applied? It has been and stamped the place as the abode of Him held by some tho.t there wes a chamber who dwelleth in light (1 Tim. vi. 16). See here, but that it was empty, being formed, Bahr in loc. The pale.cc of the Lord must be in fact, not for US\), but in order to procure "exceedingmagnifica.l." The overlaying was the cubical shape of the oro.clc. Others not gilding, but laminae of gold were attached contend that this upper room, or one which to the woodwork with nails. This art was rau the entire length of the building, was probably derived from Egypt (Exod. ~v. 11, designed to serve as a receptacle for the 13). Egyptian figures ornamented W1th _g?ld reliques of the to.bcmacle, and they would plates are found both in the Louvre and B n tish Museum. See Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyp- identify it with the n1'?!! (LXX. TO v;rEpr~ov) tians," ii. p. 233 sqq.) Rawlinson remarks th!lt "such orne.mento.tion was common in of 2 Chron. iii. 9. And untrustworthy as Babylon, in Assyria., nnd in Media." See Isa. Josephus is when not supported by inde- xlvi. 6; Herod. i. 98; Lo.yard, ii. 264. In pendent evidence, it is worth mentioning addition to the gold, the house was garnished here that both he and the Tolmud "per- with precious stones (2 Chron. iii. 6). Cf. sistently assert that there was a superstruc- 1 Chron. xxix. 2, 8] ; and so covered the ture on the temple equal in height to tlie [Heb. a~] altar which was of cedar. [T!ie lower part" (Fergusson, who, consequently, is italics in the A. V. leo.d ns to suspect e. mis- of opinion that there undoubtedly was some translation, and such it proves to be. Wbo.t such superstructure, as in the tomb of the writer means, supposing the present text Darius, near Persepolis (see Diet. Bib. iii. to be retained, is, not that Solomon co,cred pp. 1456, 1457), and that it was used for the cedar altar with gold, but that he overlo.id worship (2 Kings x.xiii. 12), where see note). the (stone?) altar with cedar. It is true the Biihr, however, argues forcibly ago.inst this article is wanting, but this may perhaps ~e idea. He says, inter alia, tho.t there was no accounted for by the fo.ct that the altar 1s approach provided to these ohambers; but now mentioned for the first time (Keil). It our account is so manifestly imperfect that is much more probable, however, that the this argument is at the best a precarious text he.a been slightly corrupted. The LXX. one. He sees in the "upper chambers" reads, .:al i,ro17Jt1e 9v111at1n]ptov (Cod. Alex. (the Hebrew word is plural) the upper adds iciopov), which proves that the Seventy stories of the side structure. He agrees, however, with Ewald that there was a had i!IP~l instead of ~¥!1 in their text. If chamber over the oracle, but thinks it was so, the absence of the article is e.t once ex- unoccupied. Keil identifies this space with plo.ined, and an unmeaning repetition in the "upper chambers" of 2 Chron. iii. 9, ver. 22 avoided. The mention of the o.ltar e.nd upon the '!hole this appears to ~e. the -of course it is the altar of incense that is most feasible V1ew. (4) How w11s the cwling, meant: the alto.r of burut sacrifice was out- whether with or without tliis upper chamber,· side the builLling-in connol!..ion with the 108 THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS, [ CH. VI. 1-88,