The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 148

EXPOSITION. OHAPTER vm. 1-66. viii. 1, "Then Solomon BSeembled," &c. To the cursory reader it appears no doubt as if THE DEDI0ATION OJI' THE TEMPLE, -The this "then" must refer to the completion stately and impressive service with which of the work of which we have just heard, the Temple, the character and contents of and which we.a not effected until the eighth month of the year (eh. vi. 38). But (1) tl$ which have now been described, wae dedi- though probably e. mark of time (=tune), cated, is related in this chapter, e.nd divides is clearly e. word of great latitude of mean- itself into four sections. We have (1) the ing, e.nd may apply e.s well to one month removal of the ark and Solomon's ascrip- before completion (the time specified in eh. tion of praise on the occasion (vers. 1-22). vii. 61) as to eleven months after ; and (2) (2) The prayer of consecration (vers. 23-54). it would be quite consistent with the usus loquendi of the sacred writers to describe (3) The benediction of the congregation the temple as finished, when in reality it (vers. 55-61), e.nd (4) the festal sacrifices was incomplete in a few minor particulars which followed on e.nd completed the dedi- (De minimui non curat scriptura). Further- cation (vers. 62-66). The ine.ugura.l rites, more, if the temple we.s finished in every it is clear, were on a sea.le corresponding detail, e.nd in a.11 its furniture e.nd appoint. ments, in the eighth month, as we learn from with the magnitude e.nd renown of the eh. vi. 38, we may be perfectly sure it would undertaking (1 Chron. ui.i. 5). or could be practically finished-finished eo as to be ready for consecration-by the SEOTION I.-The Remo11al of the .Ark. seventh month. Indeed, it is not e.n un- reasonable presumption, that it hardly would Ver. 1.--Then [i.e., when the work of the be perfect e.nd complete on the day of dedi- house of tho Lord we.a practice.lly ended, cation. Those who have bnilt or restored as stated in eh. vii. 61. But the precise churches, not to speak of ce.thedre.ls, which date of the dedication is e. matter of dispute would perhaps afford a closer analogy to the and uncertainty. We know that it took temple, know how extremely difficult, if not place in the seventh month of the year, but impossible, it is to have every dete.il finished of what year we cannot be so sure. We.sit e.nd arranged for the day of consecration. the same year in the eighth month of which Some few e.ccidenta.l omissions will have to (eh. vi. 38) the house was finished (Ewald)? be supplied afterwards, or experience will Was the dedication, that is to ee.y, one suggest certain a.ltere.tions e.nd improve- month anterior to the completion of the ments which have to be made. There is no house and its appointments? Or a.re we to inherent improbability, therefore, that the understand " the seventh month" to mean temple should be dedicated in the seventh the Ethe.ni.m of the following year (Bahr)? are we to assign the dedioation, that is, to month, though it was not finished ll'H1 ~~~ o. date eleven months after completion? until the eighth month, i.e., three or four Or, finally, a.re we to believe with the Ve.t. weeks le.ter. And there we.a e. strong reason LXX. µmi l,icocn ET7J (the LXX. text is why the dedication should take place at the here, however, in great confusion), that the earliest possible date. There had been B long temple was not dedicated until the pa.laces period of preparation, extending back into were a.leo built (see eh. ix. 1-9); e.re we to the preceding reign (1 Chron. xxviii., :nix.); hold, i.e., that though finished e.nd ready the dedication consequently had long been for use, it remained unused for e. period of eagerly looked for ; moi;eover, the erection thirteen years (Thenius, Keil)? These are had evidently been hurried forward, a pro- questions whioh we cannot perhaps answer digious number of labourers having been with e.bsolutfl certainty, but, to my mind, employed in order to expedite the work. h every consideration is in favour of the date is a.lmost inconceiTo.ble, therefore, that, first mentioned, i.e., the seventh month of after these energetio measures had been the eleventh year of Solomon's reign. It is taken, either the king or the nation should true Biihr says that this opinion "needs no hBve bean content to we.it thirteen yeo.re- 1-efutation," while Keil pronounces it "directly nee.rly twice the time it hBd taken to build at variance with chap. vii. 61." But it is the temple-until the palaces, which were worth while to inqnire whether this is eo? entirely independent and secular buildings, And, first, e,e to the bee.ring of the passage were also completed. If the great n:i.tione.l just cited, " So we.a ended e.ll the work eanotue.ry, which we.a the glory of the land, which," &c., taken i1;1 connexion with eh. was reBdy for use, e.s we know it we.a, Wi 1 KINGS, L 146 THE FIRST nooK OF KINGS. [err. vm.1-66.