The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Kings — Section 162

two o.nd twenty thousand oxen, and a.n been a.t the very least at this period two or hundred a.nd twenty thousand sheep. [It three thousand priests (Keil), 11,nd we oan is very possible that these numbers have hardly think that at tho dedication of so been altered in course of transc1iption, as glorious a. temple, in which they were so is the case with numbers elsewhere, but profoundly interested, many of them would t,here is no ground for suspecting exaggera- be absent from Jerusalem. But if thero tion or mistake. For, in the first place, the were only one thousand present, that num- Chronicles a.nd a.ll the Versions agree with ber would have been amply suffioient to the text, a.nd, secondly, the numbers, com- perform a.ll the priestly functions. For it . pared mth what, we know of the saciifices was no necessary part of the priests' office offered on other occasions, are not unduly either to slay the victim, or to prepare it large, nor were they such that (as ha.s been for sacrifice-that ltllY Israelite ·might do alleged) it would be impossible to offer them (Levit. i. 5, 6, 11 ; iii. 2, 8, &c.); the duty of rit,hin the time specified. If, at an ordi- the priest was strictly limited to " sprink- nn.ry Passover, o. quarter of a. million of ling the blood round about upon the altar" lambs could be sacrificed within the space (Levit. iii. 2, 8; cf. i. 5), and burning the fat, of two or three hours (Jos., Bell. Jud. the kidneys, &c., upon the altar (ib. iii. 5). vi. 9. 3), there can obviously have been "no It is clear, consequently, that there is no difficulty in sacrificing 3000 oxen a.nd difficulty whatsoever e.s to the manual aots 18,000 sheep on each of the seven days of required of the priests. It only remains to the festival" (Keil). (But were not the sacri- notice one other objection, viz., that the fices spread over fourteen days? ver. 65.) people could not possibly have eaten all the And it is to be remembered (1) that" pro- flesh of these peace offerings. But here fusion was a. usual feature of the sacrifices a.gain the answer is conclusive, viz. (1) that of antiquity. . . . Sacrifices of a. thousand it was not necessary that a.ll should be eaten, oxen (x.XwµJ3a,) were not infrequent. Ac- for the law expressly provided that if any of cording to an Arabian historian (Koto- the flesh remained over until the third day, beddyn), the Caliph Moktader sacrificed it should be burnt with fire (Levit. vii. 15; during his pilgrimage to Mecca. . . . 40,000 xix. 6), and (2) no one can say what the camels and cows e.nd 50,000 sheep. Taver- number of people may not have been (see nier speaks of 100,000 victims as offered by below on ver. 65), and (3) the sacrifices were the King of Tonquin" (Rawlinson, Stanley); spread over fourteen days.] So the king and (2) that the context insists on the ex- a.nd all the children of Israel dedicated the tra.ordinary number of victims. They were house of the Lord. so numerous, we are told, that the brazen Ver. 64.-The ea.me day did the king altn.r was quite inadequate to receive them hallow the middle of the court [i.e., the (ver. 64). It has been already pointed out entire area. of the court of the priests (eh. (note on ver. 62) that the people joined the vi. 36). Ewe.Id (287 g) translates "the king in the sacrifices. Indeed it is against inner court." The whole space may have not only ver. 62, but vers. 63, 65, to suppose been regarded ae " one huge altar" (Rawlin- that all the victims were offered by Solomon son), or temporary altars may have been alone (Ewald, Stanley). If these numbers, erected a.ll over the area. As already ob- therefore, include those offered by the served, this faot a.lone points to an enor- people, we can the more readily understand mous number of victims] that was before them. For, by the lowest computation, the house of the Lord : for there he offered there could hardly be lees than 100,000 burnt offerings [Heh. the burnt offerings, heads of houses present at the feast (Bii.hr, i.e., either the usual daily burnt offerings Keil), and if the numbers of David's census (Num. xxviii 3), or more probably, those (2 Sam. xxiv. 9) may be trusted, there may appropriatetoeuche. special function (Num. very well have been four or five times that xxix. 13 sqq.; cf.1 Kings iii. 4)], and meat number, and on such e.n occasion as that, offerings [Heb. the meat offering. Doth this e.n occasion altogether without precedent, every Israelite would doubtless offer his and the preceding word (i17VQ) a.re singular sacrifice of thanksgiving-the more so as e. (generic) in the original], and the fat of the large number of victims would be required peace offerings : because the brazen altar for the purposes of the subsequent feast. that was before the Lord [i.e., house of the And as to the impossibility of the priests Lord J was too llttle to receive the burnt offering so prodigious a nwnber within the offerings and meat offerings, and the fat specified time (Thenius, at), we have only of the peace offerings [and yet it was 20 to remember (1) that if th<lre were 38,000 cubits (30 feet) square, a.nd so would offer Levites (men over thirty years of age) in the a. surface of 100 (Keil 144) square yards]. time of David (1 Chron. xxiii. 3), or any- Ver. 65.-And at that time Solomon held thing like that Ilnmber, there must have a feast [the necessary sequel to such a 08. vm. 1-66.) THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS. 161