The Book of Chronicles now continues with the reign of Solomon.

The Reign Of Solomon (1.1-9.31).

The reign of Solomon as depicted by the Chronicler is a strange mixture. To a large extent his reign is depicted as a period of peace and prosperity, making him a suitable person to build the Temple as a man of peace and rest (1 Chronicles 22.9), and a model of the coming King who will establish the everlasting kingdom. He is also seen as ‘the chosen of YHWH’ (1 Chronicles 28.5-6, 10; 29.1), and as such is magnified before the world. The problems of his accession are ignored (1 Kings 1-2), as they had been in 1 Chronicles 23.2; 29.22-25, and his problems due to foreign wives inducing him to idolatry, and with rebels at the end of his reign (1 Kings 11) are set aside. He is depicted as receiving wisdom from God, as the great Temple builder on whom God shows His favour, as building up massive wealth, as ruling a great empire, as admired for his wisdom and as magnified by kings. He appears to be the epitome of kingship.

But underneath there are clear cracks in the picture. As with David there is a darker side. It is true that he built the Temple. But his building of the Temple (which as we saw from 1 Chronicles was initially David’s idea not God’s), is clearly contrasted with the way in which the Tabernacle was built, and also with the way in which the second Temple was built where aliens were specifically excluded from participation (Ezra 4.1-3). Consider for example:

• 1). Exodus emphasises that the Tabernacle was built by the labours of all Israel (Exodus 39.41-42), an act of love, whilst in the case of Solomon’s Temple the Chronicler underlines the fact that the Temple was built by the labour of ‘strangers’, and thus idolaters (2.17-18). That this is the Chronicler’s own emphasis comes out in that 1 Kings 5.13 speaks of the Temple as being built by a levy out of all Israel for the purpose, because the writer of Kings shied away from connecting the building of the actual Temple with foreigners. This makes it clear that, in contrast, the Chronicler wanted to underline the fact that the Temple was built by ‘foreigners’ who were idolaters. This use of ‘foreigners’ for building purposes, including the Temple, is in fact emphasised three times (2.17-18; 8.1, 7-8; 1 Chronicles 22.2).
• 2). In Exodus the men of Israel were eager to build the Tabernacle, and threw themselves willingly into the work. Here the men who built the Temple were not Israelites, were forced to do so, and were subjected to bitter slavery for seven years and indeed a lot more (they were then required for other building work), whilst the work was enforced by taskmasters, who whipped them into line. It must be apparent that they were not eager to build at all. Unlike the Tabernacle (and the second Temple) Solomon’s Temple was not the product of willing hands.
• 3). The skilled makers of the Tabernacle were both portrayed as men of the Spirit into whom YHWH had put understanding, one being Bezalel from the tribe of Judah and the other being Oholiab from the tribe of Dan. It was emphasised that both were pure Israelites and both had wisdom and understanding given to them by YHWH. In stark contrast, whilst the skilled architects of Solomon’s Temple included King David from the tribe of Judah (as Bezalel the son of Uri had been), who drew up the plans led by the Spirit (1 Chronicles 8.12), the plans are actually seen as set in motion and carried out, and no doubt somewhat expanded on, by a man who was half Tyrian and half Danite, who was the servant of a Canaanite king (2.13-14), and was probably an idolater, concerning whom there is no mention of the Spirit. Bezalel’s assistant Oholiab had also been a Danite, so that it is being made clear that Huram-abi was a poor, and alien, copy of the original. He was only half-Danite, half pagan. It is true that from the king of Tyre’s viewpoint he was ‘endued with understanding’, but that was a very different matter from being endued with understanding by YHWH. His source of understanding was pagan, and indeed, he was an alien co-opted to the work by his Tyrian (Canaanite) master. So whilst there is an attempt to present a similar picture of him to that given in Exodus, in that he was a skilled workman, endued with understanding, it was as one who was without the Spirit and with pagan understanding. It is a contrast rather than a parallel. Furthermore there is something decidedly derisive about the fact that he is described as having a Tyrian father and a Danite mother, thus being a man who was defiled by his alien connections, a poor imitation of Oholiab. 1 Kings 7.14 tells us that his mother was a widow woman from the tribe of Naphtali. This is not necessarily a contradiction. It could have been:

  1). That she was a Danite by birth who had married into the tribe of Naphtali prior to her second marriage to her Tyrian second husband.
  2). That she was of Danite descent but had lived in Naphtali from birth.
  3). That one of her parents was from Dan and the other from Naphtali.

From our viewpoint it might not matter who built the Temple. We have no objection to unbelievers building our churches, chapels and cathedrals. We might therefore ask, ‘Did it matter who built the Temple?’ But that was not how Israelites would have seen it. To them a Temple built by idolaters was tainted with idolatry, both in their eyes and in the eyes of the outside world. We must remember that these words were written to men who had themselves built a Temple and who had refused to allow any alien participation in it lest it be defiled, especially from men who like Huram-abi were half Jew and half alien. In the same way the writer in 1 Kings had taken pains to avoid mention of foreigners working on the Temple. It was men like Huram-abi, who were precisely the kind who had sought to stop the building of the second Temple because they were forbidden participation (Ezra 4.1-3).

We should in this regard perhaps contrast Solomon’s attitude towards the building of the Temple by using on what he would have undoubtedly seen as ‘holy ground’, with his own attitude in not allowing his Egyptian wife, who would have been an idolater, to have any connection, however remote, with the holy Ark of the covenant of YHWH (8.11). He was concerned about the holiness of the Ark. It seems that he did not have the same inhibitions about the Temple site, and the Temple and its furniture. He was indeed a man of strange contradictions and clearly willing to compromise in order that his Temple might outshine all others.

We can therefore hardly doubt in consequence of all this that while the Chronicler does see the Temple as finally from God, and as having been a true place of worship (sanctified by those who worshipped there), he does so with reservations. His contemplation on its human origin and its building has made him recognise that it was not fully God-approved, or even fully approved of by Israel (10.4). It was Canaanite built. And as we have said, this is all the more significant in that the returnees from Exile would not allow aliens, or Canaanites, or even apostate Jews, to help with the building of their new Temple (Ezra 4.1-3). Thus the Chronicler clearly wished them to see that the second Temple was spiritually superior to the first. And it helped to answer the vexed question as to why God had allowed the Temple to fail.

As in the case of David’s desire to build a physical Temple, there is in Solomon’s building of the Temple too much of the king’s will and too little of wanting what God wanted, and, in Solomon’s case, not enough concern for its purity. His determination to build ‘the best’ overrode his religious concerns. God originally gave it His approval for David’s sake, and subsequently for Solomon’s sake, although it was only after He had initially refused David’s offer, and had then been persuaded to ‘change His mind’. It was thus presented as originally not of His desire in either the planning or the method of building. And Solomon’s actions confirm this. The Chronicler had earlier had his reservations, and these were confirmed by Solomon’s approach to the matter. He recognised that there was something not quite right about it. And such a view would certainly have given the returnees from Babylon a greater appreciation of their own Temple, and been seen as an explanation why the original Temple had to be destroyed. Previously they had tended to think of the first Temple as superior to the second (Ezra 3.12).

Solomon was not the only king whose idolatrous behaviour was omitted by the Chronicler, for he also does the same with Rehoboam and Abijah. In the case of Rehoboam the description of his sinfulness is made more generalised, whilst in the case of Abijah he is made to appear fully faithful to YHWH, whilst at the same time we are made aware of his failures. As with Solomon the cracks in the reign of Abijah are partly brought out by what happens afterwards in the following reign. It appears that the Chronicler wants the early reigns of the Davidic kings not to be tainted by the whiff of idolatry, and rather than seeing everything as black or white, rather demostrates that there is both good and bad in all.

Thes kings are followed by the worthy Asa, and by the even more worthy Jehoshaphat, even though both also suffer criticism. Perhaps one thing that the Chronicler had in mind was to establish the worthiness, with reservations, of the Davidic house in the minds of his readers.

Another factor also arises about Solomon’s reign. Whereas Solomon’s reign is on the whole shown to be a time of peace and rest for Israel, with the stirrings pictured in 1 Kings 11 ignored, the Chronicler in fact is alone in depicting him as actually going to war to obtain wealth (8.3), something not mentioned in Kings. The mention of this, whilst not prominent, can only be seen as a further criticism of Solomon (the Chronicler is careful in what he writes). Whilst it was true that God had promised Solomon great wealth, the whole point about him being a king of peace was that he would not amass it by warlike means. So whilst not destroying the overall picture, the Chronicler clearly wants us to know that Solomon was not the perfect model of the coming Prince of peace that he appeared at first sight to be. The model was marred. In the end Solomon proved to be only too human even from the Chronicler’s perspective.

We should note in this regard the movement of the Chronicler’s thinking:

• In chapter 1 Solomon worships at the true Tabernacle and the true altar, which, it is stressed, were both in accordance with God’s Law and God-given. His heart is seen as dedicated in full obedience. It is as a consequence of this that he receives the wisdom to be a wise ruler, and consequently becomes wealthy as God promised. But sadly even in this he disobeyed God’s Law by trading in horses with Egypt contrary to Deuteronomy 17.16.
• In chapter 2 he draws back from his full obedience to God’s Law by arranging for the Temple to be built by idolatrous strangers and aliens, directed by an alien syncretist. His desire for magnificence has overcome his sense of what was spiritually right. His decline has begun.
• In chapters 3-4 the building of the Temple by an alien syncretist in collusion with Solomon is made clear, with the Temple being described in all its pagan splendour. But its glittering splendour cannot make up for its spiritual deficiency as history will reveal.
• In chapter 5 the Tabernacle and the Ark become a part of the Temple, brought up by the Levitical priests. But now Solomon sacrifices on a new altar, not the altar that YHWH had instituted from the beginning (1.5), which is notably absent from the list of items brought into the Temple. This is in direct contrast with the emphasis in chapter 1.

  Nevertheless, in view of the presence of the Ark on which His Name was called, when the Levite singers offer their praise to YHWH, YHWH accepts the worship of His people and descends in a cloud on the Sanctuary, graciously accepting it as His own because of the presence of the sacred Ark. And this in spite of the Temple’s deficiencies, deficiencies which even as a consequence of his God-given wisdom Solomon fails to recognise. He was probably quite confident that he had done his best, but only because his spiritual discernment was lacking. On the other hand what he had not done was obey God’s Law. Thus we are made aware already of signs of his spiritual deterioration. How quickly, if we do not obey God’s word our spiritual lives deteriorate.

• In chapters 6 and 7 Solomon renews the covenant with YHWH and calls on God who is above all to keep His promises made to David, and to hear Israel when they come to the Temple in repentance and faith. Once again the description of YHWH as descending in a cloud on the Temple is described, and His glory fills the house (7.1-2), signifying His renewal of the covenant and His acceptance of Solomon’s prayer. He recognises the genuineness of Solomon’s prayer in spite of his deficiencies. Only He knew at this stage that one day this Temple would have to be destroyed and replaced by another built in accordance with His Law. What an encouragement this would be to the returnees from Exile as they looked at their own modest Temple which they themselves had built as God’s holy people. (We are reminded by all this that fortunately God does not deal with us immediately as we deserve but has consideration for our weaknesses).

  Analysis of Solomon’s Reign (1.1-9.31).

  Chapters 1-9 are presented by the Chronicler in the form of a chiasmus as follows:

  • A Solomon worships at The Tabernacle in Gibeon and is promised riches, and wealth and honour - his chariot force and his trade in horses (1.1-17).
  • B Solomon’s relationship with a foreign ruler who gives an encomium to Israel’s God (2.1-16).
  • C The levy of the Canaanites, Solomon’s building activity - the Temple and its worship - YHWH’s glory descends on the House (2.17-5.14).
  • D Solomon’s prayers to YHWH (6.1-42).
  • E YHWH reveals Himself in the Temple and His glory descends on the House (7.1-3).
  • E The response of Solomon and the people to YHWH’s revelation of Himself (7.4-9).
  • D YHWH’s response to Solomon (7.11-22).
  • C Solomon’s building activity - including the Temple and its worship, and his levy of the Canaanites (8.1-16).
  • B Solomon’s relationship with a foreign ruler who gives an encomium to Israel’s God (8.17-9.12).
  • A Solomon’s wealth and riches, including his chariot force and his trade in horses (9.13-28).

  Solomon Worships At The Tabernacle In Gibeon (1.1-6).

  The reign of Solomon commenced well in that, having been firmly established on his throne, he called together the assembly of Israel, by this time made up of Israel’s chief men, and called on them to go with him to where the Tabernacle was sited at Gibeon. He recognised that that was where the true original altar was to be found, even though the Ark of God was elsewhere. There they worshipped God together, offering a multitude of sacrifices.

  Analysis.

  • A And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom, and YHWH his God was with him, and magnified him exceedingly (1.1).
  • B And Solomon spoke to all Israel, to the commanders of regiments, and of companies, and to the judges, and to every prince in all Israel, the heads of the fathers’ houses (1.2).
  • C So Solomon, and all the assembly with him, went to the high place which was at Gibeon, for there was the tent of meeting of God, which Moses the servant of YHWH had made in the wilderness (1.3).
  • C But the ark of God had David brought up from Kiriath-jearim to the place which David had prepared for it, for he had pitched a tent for it at Jerusalem (1.4).
  • B On the other hand the bronze (copper) altar, which Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, was there before the tabernacle of YHWH, and Solomon and the assembly sought to it (1.5).
  • A And Solomon went up there to the bronze altar before YHWH, which was at the tent of meeting, and offered a large number (a thousand) of burnt-offerings on it (1.6).

  Note that in A YHWH magnified Solomon exceedingly and in the parallel Solomon magnified God exceedingly. In B Solomon called on all the assembly of Israel, and in the parallel all the assembly of Israel consequently sought to the bronze altar at Gibeon. In C the Tent of Meeting was at Gibeon, and in the parallel the Jerusalem Tent containing the Ark was at Jerusalem.

  The description of Solomon’s establishment on his throne has already been supplied in 1 Chronicles 29.23-25. This is now confirmed in summary form.

  2.1.1 ‘And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom, and YHWH his God was with him, and magnified him exceedingly.’

  As the son of David Solomon was made strong in his kingdom, when all the princes and the mighty men and the king’s sons submitted to him. All dissension had been dealt with. The past was behind. All were united behind him. And what is more, YHWH was with him and would magnify him greatly (compare 1 Chronicles 29.24). This might mean that He did so in the eyes of the leaders of Israel, so that their loyalty was God-wrought. Or more generally that He did so in the eyes of the nations. Or it might include both. He would certainly impress King Huram of Tyre (chapter 2) and the Queen of Sheba (chapter 9). Solomon’s situation was thus secure. All augured well for the future.

  2.1.2 ‘And Solomon spoke to all Israel, to the commanders of regiments (large military units/thousands) and of companies (smaller military units/hundreds), and to the judges, and to every prince in all Israel, the heads of the fathers’ houses.’

  As a consequence Solomon called together the whole assembly of leaders in Israel, the military commanders, the judges, the princes, and the clan leaders, and called on them to go with him to the Tabernacle in Gibeon in order that they might worship YHWH in accordance with the Law of Moses. Note the great stress on Solomon’s concern that all should be done properly in accordance with the Law. It will be in stark contrast with how he goes about building the Temple. But that was four years later when he had begun to develop dreams of grandeur.

  It is noticeable that ‘all Israel’ is seen as referring to the widespread leadership of Israel. The personal connection with the common people, which had once been a feature of the gathering of all Israel to the Tabernacle, has been lost, possibly a necessary consequence of the expansion of their numbers.

  2.1.3 ‘So Solomon, and all the assembly with him, went to the high place which was at Gibeon, for there was the tent of meeting of God, which Moses the servant of YHWH had made in the wilderness.’

  So the whole assembly went with him to the high place at Gibeon, where the true Tabernacle which had been made by Moses in the wilderness was to be found. This was still the central place of worship for all Israel, and the Tabernacle was held in high esteem. It was the place established by God in ages past. There was a meeting here of old and new. On the one hand the mighty Solomon, secure in his kingdom, escorted by his commanders, and by the leaders of the people. On the other was the Tabernacle which connected Israel back to its past, and to the great Moses, and to the time in the wilderness. At that time it had pointed forward to the coming of God’s kingdom. But things had moved on. Now it had begun to appear as though God’s kingdom had come. And yet this was still God’s purpose, that He might dwell among them as the God of Moses and of the wilderness, a constant reminder of their past and of their redemption from Egypt. This was all He required (1 Chronicles 17.5-6). He did not require a magnificent building. The Tabernacle was sufficient for the worship of all Israel, and it was a reminder of their past and of the fact that they were a redeemed people who belonged to God, something David had forgotten when he numbered Israel.

  It is arguable whether the phrase ‘the tent of meeting of God’ was intended to signify ‘God’s Tent of Meeting’ or ‘The Tent for meeting God’. It was, of course both. God had supplied His Tent so that Israel could meet Him there.

  Normally worship at ‘high places’ was frowned on, because most high places (mountain sites or artificially raised altars) symbolised the old religion of Canaan. In such high places were to be found the sacred stones which represented Baal, and the Asherah images which represented Asherah. But this one had been converted to Yahwism, the Baalim and the Asherah had presumably been removed, and replaced by the Tabernacle of YHWH and the altar of YHWH.

  2.1.4 ‘ But David had brought up the ark of God from Kiriath-jearim to the place which David had prepared for it, for he had pitched a tent for it at Jerusalem.’

  But one thing the Tabernacle lacked. The Ark of God, which David had brought up from Kiriath-jearim was not there, for that had been situated in the place which David had prepared for it, in the magnificent Tent in Jerusalem, which was no doubt patterned on the Tabernacle. The main purpose for mentioning this was presumably in order to draw attention to the necessity for a place of worship which would unite all together. Even though the Ark of God was not visible to any but the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, the lack of its presence was felt keenly. (Of course, there was nothing preventing them from uniting the two together, either at Gibeon or in Jerusalem, without building a Temple. But by this time Solomon had big ideas).

  2.1.5 ‘On the other hand the bronze (copper) altar, which Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, had made, was there before the tabernacle of YHWH, and Solomon and the assembly sought to it.’

  On the other hand, that other sacred object, the bronze (or copper) altar which had been made in the wilderness by Bezalel the son of Uri was there in the sacred court before the Tabernacle of YHWH. This was the legitimate altar of sacrifice for all Israel. Bezalel’s genealogy in summary form has already been supplied in 1 Chronicles 2.19-20, and the altar connected directly back to him. It was a product of the activity of the Spirit of God. This made it far different from the altar that Solomon would erect for the new Temple, and the Chronicler’s very emphasis on it is suggestive. He would not have been happy to see it brushed aside as it seemingly was by Solomon.

  2.1.6 ‘And Solomon went up there to the bronze altar before YHWH, which was at the tent of meeting, and offered a large number (a thousand) of burnt-offerings on it.’

  So Solomon went up with all the assembly of the leaders of Israel, to the bronze altar which was ‘before YHWH’, that is, was in the court facing the door of the Sanctuary. And there, through the priests, he and they offered a large number of burnt-offerings, a number beyond assessment. (‘A thousand’ when used on its own regularly indicates a large number beyond easy assessment). Burnt offerings were offered to make atonement, and also as representing an act of total dedication to YHWH. Basically, by this act, Solomon, having been anointed king, was owning YHWH’s overlordship of himself and his people. He was indicating that whilst he was the true king, YHWH was his overlord. The large number of burnt-offerings indicated the total dedication of all Israel.

  Acknowledging Solomon’s Submission God Offers a Gift To Solomon In Recognition Of His Pledge Of Fealty (1.7-12).

  What had taken place was not only an act of worship, but also an acknowledgement of YHWH’s overlordship. In return YHWH appeared to him in a dream (1 Kings 3.5, 15) and offered him a gift. This was the gift of a suzerain lord to his faithful subject. The reception of it would bind Solomon to Him and would be an act of submission. YHWH was willing to give him a gift fit for a king as an acknowledgement of His own suzerainty (overlordship).

  Analysis.

  • A In that night God appeared to Solomon, and said to him, “Ask what I shall give you (1.7).
  • B And Solomon said to God, “You have shown great covenant love to David my father, and you have made me king in his stead” (1.8).
  • C “Now, O YHWH God, let your promise to David my father be established, for you have made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude” (1.9).
  • C “Now give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people, for who can judge this your people, which is so great?” (1.10).
  • B And God said to Solomon, “Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of those who hate you, nor yet have you asked long life, but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself, that you may judge my people, over whom I have made you king” (1.11).
  • A “Wisdom and knowledge is granted to you, and I will give you riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had who have been before you, nor shall there any after you have the like” (1.12).

  Note that in A God appears to Solomon and asks what he would like Him to give him, and in the parallel He tells him what He will give him over and above what he has asked. In B Solomon says to God, ‘you have made me king’, and in the parallel God speaks of the people over whom He has made him king. In C Solomon refers to the great people over whom he now reigns, and in the parallel he asks wisdom because of the greatness of the people over whom he reigns.

  2.1.7 ‘In that night God appeared to Solomon, and said to him, “Ask what I shall give you.’

  Acknowledging Solomon’s submission God responded by appearing to Solomon in a dream (1 Kings 3.15), and asking him what he would like as a gift from YHWH. Acceptance of such a gift, on such an occasion, would be an act of fealty by Solomon. It was an open offer, and it was open to Solomon to request even greater power, or wealth or greatness, or whatever else he desired. He was God’s favourite.

  2.1.8 ‘And Solomon said to God, “You have shown great covenant love to David my father, and you have made me king in his stead.” ’

  By his reply Solomon demonstrated that he was as yet mainly unspoiled. His sense of his own majesty had not yet taken possession of him. He acknowledged God’s great covenant love for his father, and clearly hoped for the same for himself as the one whom God had chosen to replace David. He wanted to be worthy of that covenant. He clearly saw his covenant relationship with God as important.

  The word ‘chesed’, translated as ‘covenant love’, was very much tied to the idea of God revealing His love through His covenant, as He played His part in response to the covenant faithfulness of His people. As they sought Him truly through the covenant, He revealed His lovingkindness towards them.

  2.1.9 “Now, O YHWH God, let your promise to David my father be established, for you have made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude.”

  For a people like the dust of the earth in multitude compare Genesis 13.16; 28.14. Solomon was remembering that he had been made king over the children of Abraham and Jacob, in the course of God’s promises. And he was deeply conscious of the great responsibility that had been put on him as he surveyed the great empire over which he ruled, and the vast number of people for whom he had responsibility. He also remembered YHWH’s promise given to David (1 Chronicles 17) that He would establish his throne and the thrones of his descendants, as long as they were faithful to Him. And he prayed that that promise might be established. But he realised that if it was to be so he must rule wisely. He must be an acceptable king to YHWH.

  2.1.10 “Now give me wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people, for who can judge this your people, which is so great?”

  And so he prayed that God would give him ‘wisdom and knowledge’ so that he might judge his people wisely, and might appear to them to be a just and wise ruler as he went ‘in and out among them’ acting as their guide and judge. His request was such that it already indicated that he was a wise man.

  2.1.11-12 ‘And God said to Solomon, “Because this was in your heart, and you have not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of those who hate you, nor yet have you asked long life, but have asked wisdom and knowledge for yourself, that you may judge my people, over whom I have made you king, wisdom and knowledge is granted to you, and I will give you riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had who have been before you, nor shall there any after you have the like.”

  God accepted the genuineness of his request as being from his heart, and informed him that he had chosen wisely. He granted him his request, the wisdom and knowledge by which to be able to judge and direct his people (not wisdom for building the Temple. That was a pagan king’s idea). ‘Judging’ meant more than acting as a law judge. It included making right decisions for his people’s welfare. If he remained faithful to YHWH he would be enabled to be a good king. The Chronicler here makes clear the type of wisdom that Solomon received. It was the wisdom to be a good and wise ruler. It was not the Chronicler but the idolatrous Hiram, king of Tyre, who saw it as expressed in the building of the Temple (2.12). He had after all every incentive to make Solomon feel good.

  And in acknowledgement of his wisdom and sincerity, God also promised him that he would receive from God riches, wealth, and honour which would far exceed any that any previous king had enjoyed, and any that any king who followed him would enjoy. And the underlying assumption was that this would come to him because he was ruling wisely. Note the omission by the Chronicler of a promise of ‘long life’ (1 Kings 3.14), an acknowledgement that Solomon did not finally walk in a way that was pleasing to YHWH.

  We have already seen that under him the kingdom was to be at rest so that peace reigned. The aim was that this would continue, and that would require wise government. Perhaps had he concentrated his attention on using the gift that God gave him his rule might have turned out differently. But sadly the building of the Temple which had been made his responsibility by his father would be the first step in his undoing, for it would give him grandiose ideas.

  Note that mentioned among the things that he did not ask for were ‘the lives of those who hate you’ and ‘long life’. The point was that he had not prayed greedily, vindictively, or with a passion for long life. He had not thought of himself but of his people. Note also the phrase ‘over whom I have made you king’, emphasising Solomon’s recognition of His overlordship

  Solomon Reigns Over Israel And Establishes The Security Of The Realm, Growing In Wealth Through Trading In Chariots And Horses, Trade Fit For A King, With The Consequence That He Purposes To Build The House For YHWH To Which His Father Had Committed Him (1.13-2.1).

  God’s promises to Solomon are now seen as fulfilled as he amasses great wealth through trade, until he finally feels that he has sufficient to go ahead with the Temple project.

  Analysis.

  • A So Solomon came from the high place which was at Gibeon, from before the tent of meeting, to Jerusalem, and he reigned over Israel (1.13).
  • B And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen, and he had one large unit and four smaller units of chariots, and twelve large units of horsemen, which he placed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem (1.14).
  • C And the king made silver and gold to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycomore-trees which are in the lowland, for abundance (1.15b).
  • C And the horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt, the king’s merchants received them in droves, each drove at a price, and they fetched up and brought out of Egypt a chariot for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty (1.16-17a).
  • B And so for all the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of Syria, did they bring them out by their means (1.17b).
  • A And Solomon purposed to build a house for the name of YHWH, and a house for his kingdom (2.1).

  Note that in A he reigns over Israel from Jerusalem, and in the parallel he purposes to build a House for YHWH’s Name, which will unite the whole kingdom together. In B he gathers chariots and horsemen in order to establish the security of his realm, and in the parallel he provides the same for the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Aram. Centrally in C Jerusalem becomes fabulously rich, in both gold and cedars (the latter indicating building projects) and in the parallel the source of some of the riches is described, his trade in horses and chariots.

  2.1.13 ‘So Solomon came from the high place which was at Gibeon, from before the tent of meeting, to Jerusalem, and he reigned over Israel.’

  Having dedicated himself and his people to YHWH before the Tent of Meeting, Solomon returned from Gibeon and commenced his reign. He had begun well and had acknowledged that he ruled under YHWH. And we are now given here an example of how he became powerful and rich

  2.1.14 ‘And Solomon gathered chariots and horsemen, and he had one large unit (a thousand) and four smaller units (hundred) of chariots, and twelve large units of (thousand) horsemen, whom he placed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.’

  One of his first acts was to build up his forces of chariots and horsemen, two of the most powerful weapons of the day. Whereas David had his mighty men, Solomon had his chariots. He had one large unit of chariots and four smaller units, together with twelve large units of horsemen. These he divided up, with a largish force of chariots and horsemen at Jerusalem, and the others installed in chariot cities around the country.

  Excavations at Megiddo revealed what appear to be large stables where such a force could be housed, although they are probably to be dated to the time of Ahab. They could, however, have replaced Solomon’s old stables. Megiddo was important as guarding the trade route between the north and Egypt. Other examples have been unearthed at Hazor, Tel-el-Hesi, Tel Abu-Hawam, and Tel Qasile. Chariots could only be used in quantity in relatively flat country, but their very presence would act as a deterrent.

  2.1.15 ‘And the king made silver and gold to be in Jerusalem as stones, and cedars made he to be as the sycomore-trees which are in the lowland, for abundance.’

  Solomon also made use of Palestine’s strategic trading position as the land bridge between Africa, Asia and Arabia. All traffic between Egypt and the north had to pass through Palestine, either along the coastal route, or along the King’s Highway in Transjordan. By utilising the resources himself through merchants, and by charging tolls on all who passed through the country, he amassed great wealth. As a result silver and gold were as common in Jerusalem as stones. And cedar timber was as common as the prolific, easily grown sycomore tree found in huge quantities in the lowlands, but of little use for timber. This valuable timber could be used both for building and for selling on to others. God had made Solomon rich without any necessity for warfare. Note how this is repeated in 9.27, forming part of the envelope into which the doings of Solomon are made known. It emphasises that Solomon was made rich as God had promised.

  How important in this regard were his chariot cities. Envious eyes would be directed at Solomon’s kingdom. But the size of his armed forces would make them think twice about invading. His wisdom was being truly revealed.

  2.1.16 ‘And the horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt, the king’s merchants received them in droves, each drove at a price.’

  An alternative favoured by scholars is to see Que as a place name rather than as meaning a drove. Then this would read, ‘the horses which Solomon had were brought out of Egypt and Que, the king’s merchants received them from Que at a price’. The Assyrian texts reveal that the Assyrians prized both the large Nubian horses from Egypt, and the smaller cavalry horses from Cilicia. Thus they would buy horses from both places. ‘Received them at a price’ may signify that there was no fixed price, but that it varied depending on the market. Paradoxically the alternative is that it does mean that they were bought at a fixed price.

  Nubian horses were certainly highly valued around the world (compare Deuteronomy 17.16). Assyrian texts make clear that they were highly prized there. And Solomon obtained these from Egypt, and, through his merchants, sold them on to other nations. But it is important to note that in doing so he ignored the restriction of Deuteronomy 17.16 which forbade too much trading connection with Egypt, and especially dealing in horses. In other words he turned a blind eye towards God’s commandment. Becoming cosmopolitan thus resulted in his watering down Yahwism, and the consequence was that he married an idolatrous Egyptian wife, whom he himself acknowledged did not fit in with Yahwism (8.11). Even though that was a treaty marriage it indicated that he was already losing his full dedication to YHWH, and willing to compromise with idolatry. Full consideration would certainly have had to be given to her wishes. He was planting permitted idolatry within the borders of Israel.

  2.1.17 ‘And they fetched up and brought out of Egypt a chariot for six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse for a hundred and fifty, and so for all the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of Aram, did they bring them out by their means.’

  Having mentioned his chariots and horsemen in verse 14 the Chronicler now provides the price at which they were bought from Egypt. A chariot cost six hundred shekels of silver, and a horse one hundred and fifty. These Solomon purchased and sold on to the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Aram on both sides of the Euphrates (see 1 Chronicles 19.16).

  The ‘kings of the Hittites’ were kings of city states which were all that was left of the great Hittite empire of the past. These included Hamath and Carchemish. Solomon traded and intermarried with them (1 Kings 10.28 ff.; 11.1). The kings of Aram were kings over Aramean states to the north on both sides of the Euphrates, one of which was Syria.

  2.2.1 ‘Now Solomon purposed to build a house for the name of YHWH, and a house for his kingship.’

  This verse acts as an inclusio with 1.13. Both are also transitional, connecting together the preceding passage with the one that follows. It reminds us of Solomon’s intention, spurred on by his deceased father, to build a house for the Name of YHWH. The ‘NAME of YHWH’ was a way of describing God which linked Him with a particular place without limiting Him to it. He, as it were, left His Name (His essence and character) there. See Deuteronomy 12.5, 11, 21. Solomon intended it as a place through which men could approach God (2.4, 6). But the very permanence of the Temple would gradually make men of lesser spirituality see it as the residence of YHWH, not only immovable, but also inviolable.

  He would also build ‘a house for his kingship’. 7.11 and 8.1 make clear that this refers to a royal palace. His wealth had gone to his head. He already had a grand palace which David had built, but now he determined not only to build a magnificent Temple, but also an even more magnificent palace for himself. Instead of using his wealth for the good of his country (as he at least theoretically intended to use his wisdom) he would spend it on a magnificent Temple, built partly along pagan lines, and on a magnificent palace from which he would rule. The continual emphasis on seeing the two together is intended to bring out that with all his outward show of wanting to please God, he very much had in mind proclaiming his own glory as well. In his mind both went together. (The writer in Kings brings out that he spent twice as long on his own house as he did on God’s). For the dual description see also 2.12; 7.11; and 8.1. In contrast, in what follows we discover that the Chronicler (unlike 1 Kings) was only concerned to spell out the details of the building of the Temple. His concern was with the glory of YHWH, not with the glory of Solomon. Unlike Solomon he was not doubleminded.

  Solomon Prepares For The Building Of The Temple And Enters Into Agreements With Hiram, King of Tyre Over The Enterprise (2.2-18).

  One of the dangers of becoming cosmopolitan was that the distinctiveness of YHWH and Yahwism receded. It was a great problem. The believer was, and is, called to be ‘in the world, but not of the world’, and the more intimate contact and oneness that he has with the world the less becomes the effectiveness of his spiritual experience. It is a balance which needs great wisdom and much prayer to assess and maintain. The returnees from Exile were aware of the similar danger in their own day. They recognised that too much intercourse and agreement with the surrounding nations would lead to a dissipation of Yahwism, and a watering down of its truth. Thus to a certain extent they kept themselves to themselves, and especially refused to allow foreigners to have any part in the building of their Temple (Ezra 4.1-3). The Chronicler thus sees Solomon’s building of the Temple as an example of such watering down to which his people needed to take heed. It would also give them a greater appreciation of their own Temple, and an understanding of why God allowed Solomon’s Temple to be destroyed.

  David, in his enthusiasm to build the Temple, had studied carefully the book of Exodus which had come in ‘writing from the hand of YHWH’ (1 Chronicles 28.19), and had been guided by the Spirit to understand the pattern on which the Temple should be based (1 Chronicles 28.11-21). The next step should have been to arouse the enthusiasm of the people of Israel and encourage them to build the Temple along those lines as an act of worship and praise to God (as Moses had the Tabernacle, as the returnees from Exile had with their new Temple, and as Nehemiah would with the walls of Jerusalem). But what God had not guided him to do was to use idolatrous enforced labour in its construction (1 Chronicles 22.2), or to call on foreign expertise for its detailed construction. Solomon in his youthful enthusiasm went that one step further. He did exactly that. He called on the idolatrous ‘strangers’ to work on the building of the Temple, and called on idolatrous, foreign expertise to aid him in its construction. They were after all the experts in building Temples, for Tyre was famous for its Temples, and they had been building them for their idols for centuries. The Temple would therefore very much be a mixture of Tabernacle and Phoenician Temple. But it is clear that the Chronicler disapproves of the venture. This comes out in a number of ways:

  • 1). He alone clearly indicates, indeed emphasises, the participation of idolatrous ‘strangers’ in its construction (twice in this passage, and both in emphatic positions. See also 1 Chronicles 22.2), something of which he knows his readers will disapprove. He could easily have avoided doing so. We can compare how the author of 1 Kings had been careful to mention only Israelites as builders of the Temple (1 Kings 5.13). While he also referred to the Tyrians as having a part in supplying the timber, and shaping the timber and stones in readiness for commencing building (1 Kings 5.18), he abstains from suggesting that they had anything to do with building the Sanctuary itself. By him the use of Huram-abi was limited to the work in bronze, which would be outside the Sanctuary (1 Kings 7.13 ff.). He was clearly ashamed of the participation of the Canaanites and Tyrians in the building of the Temple. But the Chronicler goes out of his way to make it quite clear.
  • The Chronicler parodies the fact that whilst the Tabernacle was built by two men of the Spirit, one of whom was a Danite, and both of whom were stated by YHWH to be men of understanding, the Temple was built by a half-pagan, half-Danite. whose claim to be a man of understanding depended on the words of the idolatrous Hiram, king of Tyre. In other words he is depicted as having pagan understanding. He was an imitation of the real thing.
  • As we have already seen in 1 Chronicles the idea of a Temple was David’s idea not YHWH’s. YHWH had demonstrated that He did not require a Temple. But as He knew that David was going ahead with the idea anyway YHWH assisted him in the task merely out of His love for him, and in order to ensure that any Temple projected the right image of rest and peace. However, the use of foreign labour and foreign expertise on the project was inimical to the whole ethos of the construction of the Tabernacle in Exodus, and would have been equally inimical to the returnees from Exile.

  The passage is of complicated structure and is contained within an inclusio at both ends of which specific reference is made to the Strangers who were levied in order to play a major part in the construction of the Temple (2.2, 17-18). This thus serves to emphasise their participation. The whole is presented in a chiastic pattern:

  • A The Conscription of Strangers (2.2).
  • B Letter to the idolatrous King Huram for assistance (2.3-11).
  • B Letter from the idolatrous King Huram offering assistance (2.12-16).
  • A The Conscription of Strangers (2.17-18).

  The passage is then divided into two sections.

  The Conscription Of Strangers As Workers And Solomon’s Letter to Huram (2.2-11).

  After describing the strangers whom Solomon set aside to engage in forced labour in the building of the Temple, the Chronicler gives us a summary of Solomon’s letter to King Huram of Tyre. Tyre, as well as being a seafaring nation, was also famous for the cedar trees which it possessed (the cedars of Lebanon), and Solomon explained that he was building a House for God and desired that Huram would send him some cedar wood for the purpose. In 1 Kings Huram is called Hiram.

  Full numerical details of the conscripted Strangers are first given. It is made clear that they were Strangers again in verse 17, as distinctive from Israelites.. As such they would be idolaters, and thus seen by the returnees from Exile as not suited to such a holy task.

  As we consider what follows we should recognise the fact that it is not likely that either Solomon or Huram sent only one letter. Large matters were at stake, large amounts of timber would be required, and there would be detailed negotiation between the two. Messengers would hurry to and fro, until final agreement had been reached. Alternately the negotiations might have taken place through trusted servants, but they too would at times need to consult with their respective kings. We must therefore see both 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles as giving a very abbreviated picture of the negotiations which took place, presented in the form of two pieces of communication. This may well explain some of the differences between them.

  Solomon here offered a downpayment of twenty thousand measures of wheat, twenty thousand measured of barley, twenty thousand baths of wine and twenty thousand baths of oil. This would cover the initial cost, but as work progressed more would be required, so that 1 Kings 5 gives details of the yearly instalments that followed the downpayment. These amounted to twenty thousand measures of wheat per year, and twenty measures (two hundred baths) of finest olive oil. In 1 Kings 5 it was Solomon who had asked Huram to name his price. Negotiations presumably then resulted in the above downpayment plus yearly instalments. The instalments finally agreed and paid were twenty thousand baths of wheat, and twenty baths of pure oil every year, which were to be given year by year as the work proceeded.

  Analysis.

  • A And Solomon counted out seventy thousand men to bear burdens, and eighty thousand men who were hewers in the mountains, and three thousand, six hundred to oversee them (2.2).
  • B And Solomon sent to Huram the king of Tyre, saying, “As you dealt with David my father, and sent him cedars to build him a house to dwell in, (even so deal with me.” (2.3).
  • C “Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of YHWH my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him incense of sweet spices, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt-offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts of YHWH our God. This is (an ordinance) for ever to Israel” (2.4).
  • D “And the house which I build is great, for great is our God above all gods” (2.5).
  • D “But who is able to build him a house, seeing heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain him?” (2.5).
  • C “Who am I then, that I should build him a house, save only to burn incense before him?” (2.6).
  • B “Now therefore send me a man skilful to work in gold, and in silver, and in bronze and in iron, and in purple, and crimson, and blue, and who knows how to engrave engravings, to be with the skilful men who are with me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my father provided. Send me also cedar-trees, fir-trees, and algum-trees, out of Lebanon, for I know that your servants know how to cut timber in Lebanon.” (2.7-8).
  • A “And, see, my servants will be with your servants, even to prepare me timber in abundance. For the house which I am about to build will be great and wonderful. And, see, I will give to your servants, the hewers who cut timber, twenty thousand measures of beaten wheat, and twenty thousand measures of barley, and twenty thousand baths of wine, and twenty thousand baths of oil (2.9-10).

  Note that in A the servants of David are described, and in the parallel David’s servants will be with Huram’s servants, who will be paid accordingly. In B he reminds Huram that he sent to David cedars for him to build himself a house, and in the parallel he calls on Huram to send him both cedars and a skilful master builder so as to build YHWH’s house. In C the House is among other things a place where he will burn incense before Him, and in the parallel the House is for burning incense before Him. Centrally in D he describes the greatness of God, and in the parallel He is the One Whom even the haven of heavens cannot contain.

  2.2.2 ‘And Solomon counted out seventy thousand men to bear burdens, and eighty thousand men who were hewers in the mountains, and three thousand, six hundred to oversee them.’

  That these were foreigners is made clear in verse 22. These Strangers do not appear to have been given any choice in the matter. They were dragged away from their homes and fields, enslaved and employed in permanent forced labour, which was exacted on them by the use of the lash (10.11). And it was something that continued long after the Temple had been built. There was nothing ‘holy’ about this. Indeed, it was contrary to the Law of Moses, and it could hardly have been described as showing them ‘love’, a requirement of Leviticus 19.34. Solomon had clearly forgotten that his people had once themselves been strangers in a foreign land (Exodus 22.21; 23.9; Leviticus 19.34). This was therefore a total and blatant breach of the covenant of YHWH.

  It should be noted that in this context the Chronicler speaks only of them as ‘strangers’, and not as Canaanites. This can hardly be accidental (he specifically refers to Canaanites later as working on other building projects). It strongly suggests that he has in mind the statements in the Law about not vexing strangers, and about loving them as ourselves (Exodus 22.21; 23.9; Leviticus 19.33).

  If it be argued that they were Canaanites (although the term used is against that, being more inclusive of all foreigners), and therefore should not have been in the land, it can only be pointed out that, apart from the Gibeonites, the Canaanites had (contrary to God’s command) been allowed to stay as free men, had been befriended, and had even been joined in marriage with Israelites. Expelling them might have been acceptable on the grounds that they were idolaters and led God’s people into idolatry, but after such a long time, enslaving them was not, and especially when it was for such a purpose. Such behaviour was that of earthly despotic royalty, not that of God, as the Chronicler recognised. Had David and Solomon listened more to God this would not have happened, and the Temple would have been much more acceptable in the long run.

  Seventy ‘large labour groups’ (thousands) of these men were set aside to act as the equivalent of beasts of burden, whilst eighty ‘large labour groups’ were set aside to work in the mountains, hewing trees and fashioning large stones. They would live in appalling conditions and were overseen by three large groups of taskmasters, and six smaller groups. There was no peace and rest for them. This last number (600 or six smaller groups) is explicable in terms of the five hundred and fifty foremen described in 1 Kings 9.23 who were additional to the major body of taskmasters and were part Canaanite and part Israelite.

  Note.

  If we add the 3.600 mentioned here to the 250 Israelite foremen in 8.10, this brings us to the same figure as the 3,300 taskmasters plus 550 foremen (both Israelite and Canaanite) in 1 Kings. In other words the figure for foremen of 550 included 300 Canaanites and 250 Israelites. The Chronicler combines the 300 Canaanite foremen with the 3,300 Canaanite taskmasters to make 3,600 Canaanite overseers.

  End of note.

  2.2.3 ‘And Solomon sent to Huram the king of Tyre, saying, “As you dealt with David my father, and sent him cedars to build him a house to dwell in, (even so deal with me).”

  Solomon wrote to Huram, King of Tyre, and requested that in the same way as he had sent cedar wood to his father so that he could build himself a palace to dwell in, so he would send him cedar wood so that he could build a house for YHWH to dwell in. This apparently followed an initial letter from Huram commiserating with him on his father’s death (1 Kings 5.1). Tyre was famous for its cedar wood which grew on the mountains of Lebanon. Payment is not mentioned, but it was probably at standard rates previously agreed. Huram’s full name would have been ’Ahiram, a well known Phoenician name. Josephus informs us that he succeeded to the throne of Tyre in around 970 BC, in the latter part of David’s reign, and reigned for 34 years.

  2.2.4 “Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of YHWH my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him incense of sweet spices, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt-offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the set feasts of YHWH our God. This is (an ordinance) for ever to Israel.’

  Solomon explained his purpose. He wanted to build a house for the Name of YHWH his God (note the sense of personal relationship), and to dedicate it to Him as a house of offerings and sacrifices. These offerings would include the offering of incense on the altar of incense in the Holy Place (e.g. Exodus 30.1-10); the continual presentation of the showbread which was replaced weekly and was set on a table in front of the Veil which separated the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place (e.g. Exodus 25.23-30; Leviticus 24.5-9); the morning and evening offerings which were required to be offered daily (Numbers 28.4); the special Sabbath and New Moon offerings (Numbers 28.9-10); and the offerings at the set feasts of YHWH (Numbers 28.11-29.38). All these were requirements laid down in the Law of Moses, and most will be mentioned in another context in 13.11. But many other offerings and sacrifices would be offered there as well (Numbers 29.39). His aim, however, was to demonstrate that the fixed requirements of YHWH needed to be met as they were required in perpetuity.

  Whether Huram would be aware of all these ritual offerings we do not know, but his religious experts, or Solomon’s messengers, would no doubt explain them to him.

  2.2.5 “And the house which I build is great, for great is our God above all gods.”

  Then he explained that because the God of Israel is great above all gods, the House that he had to build must also be great. He seemingly failed to recognise that to attempt to build a House great enough to represent God was folly. To compare God with a building would be to demean Him.

  This was a sign that already the idea of the Temple had begun in his mind to replace what the Tabernacle represented, for however holy the Tabernacle might be considered to be, it could not be described as ‘great’. The Tabernacle suited God because He did not want His greatness linked to the greatness of some physical thing. That would be to limit Him. His greatness was something invisible and intangible. Solomon appeared to be overlooking the fact that God was so great that no House could be great enough to represent Him.

  2.2.6 “But who is able to build him a house, seeing heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain him? Who am I then, that I should build him a house, save only to burn incense before him?”

  However, he now puts that right. He points out that even heaven, and the heaven of heavens cannot contain YHWH. Who then could possibly build Him a House which was great enough? (But on those grounds he should not have proceeded with the Temple).

  He then expresses his own presumption in even seeking to build a house for God, and stresses that he only does so in order that he might be able to offer incense before Him. Here the idea of the offering of incense takes up within it, and sums up, all the offerings that he has previously described. It indicates that Solomon was thus aware that God transcends man’s buildings. The Temple would not be His dwelling place but simply a place to offer offerings to Him. But that was not how most men would see it. That was one of its dangers.

  Similar theology to this is found in Solomon’s prayer to YHWH on completion of the Temple (see 6.18), but there are no real grounds for thinking that what is written here has been introduced from there. It merely confirms the depths of his beliefs held over the years. It was an essential part of his wisdom.

  2.2.7 “Now therefore send me a man skilful to work in gold, and in silver, and in bronze and in iron, and in purple, and crimson, and blue, and who knows how to engrave engravings, to be with the skilful men who are with me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my father provided.”

  He then asked Huram to send him an expert Temple builder, presumably on the grounds that he knew that Tyre was a place where a number of magnificent Temples had been built, something evidenced archaeologically. And he specified that the man must be an expert in working gold and silver and bronze and iron. This made clear his intention that the man would have overall charge of building the Temple and the Sanctuary, for gold was the essential metal in the Sanctuary. Similar gifts as he speaks of here were given by God through His Spirit to Bezalel and Oholiab (Exodus 35.31-35), but those were specifically seen to be of God. Nothing like that is suggested of this man. Thus Solomon was looking to human abilities rather than to God-given gifts. The thought that a Tyrian idolater should be given such a task must have appalled the Chronicler, as it would appal his readers who, when they built their own Temple, had considered it so holy that they had insisted that it be done by true believers (Ezra 4.1-3). In their view no profane hand must be involved.

  The man must also be an expert in the use of dyes. Purple (a reddish purple) and crimson and blue represented well known and expensive dyes, (there would be limitations on what dyes were available), which would be used on hangings and curtains, and would be lavishly used in contemporary Temples. He must also be an expert in engraving. In other words he must be skilled in all aspects of Temple building.

  Purple dye (argevan) was manufactured by the Phoenicians from a marine mollusc known as Murex trunculus. The shell was broken in order to give access to a small gland which was removed and crushed. The crushed gland then produced a milky fluid that became red or purple on exposure to the air. Piles of these broken shells still remain on the coast at Sidon and Tyre. This purple gland was found in various species of Murex and also of Purpura. Crimson (carmil) was probably an old-Persian word and applied to the brilliant dye obtained from a beetle. Blue (tekeleth) was a colour obtained from the cerulean mussel. The word was applied only to fabrics dyed with a special blue dye obtained from this shellfish. The Israelites were not very interested in colour and tended to use borrowed words for their limited range of colours.

  And the aim was clearly that this man should act as mentor and guide to the skilled Israelite workmen who were set aside as his assistants, men who were at that moment present with Solomon in Judah and Jerusalem (thus within a limited area) awaiting guidance, men who had been provided for him by his father. It is quite clear from this that the man was to be given overall control under Solomon.

  When the Tabernacle was made, it was made by men who were filled with the Spirit of God and given wisdom by God to perform the tasks required. This man was a pagan, lacking the Spirit of God, who had gained his understanding by natural means, although he may well have imputed them to his god. There could have been no greater contrast. And the Chronicler is underlining the situation. Far from equating the two, he is distinguishing them to the man’s detriment.

  2.2.8-9 “Send me also cedar-trees, fir-trees, and algum-trees, out of Lebanon, for I know that your servants know how to cut timber in Lebanon, and, see, my servants will be with your servants, even to prepare me timber in abundance. For the house which I am about to build will be great and wonderful.”

  Solomon also asked for an abundance of timber out of Lebanon as he knew that the Tyrians knew how to cut timber which was plentiful there. His order included cedar trees, fir trees, and algum (or almug) trees. The cedar trees and fir trees grew prolifically on the mountains of Lebanon in the region of Tyre and Sidon. Algum trees may have been exotic trees which the Tyrians imported, partly for trading purposes. They are unidentified, although some see the reference as referring to sandalwood trees. They were used in the Temple for stairs and pillars and musical instruments (9.11; 1 Kings 10.12) and were obtained from Ophir (9.10; 1 Kings 10.11). The Tyrians would no doubt cut them to a suitable size.

  And knowing how much timber he would require Solomon assured Huram that he would send him many of his own servants (eighty large labour units of men - verse 2) to assist Huram’s servants in the work. All this was necessary because Solomon planned a massive and wondrous Temple. We can see already how the planned Temple was turning him into a despot. Human considerations were being ignored. How different this was from the ideal king pictured in Deuteronomy 17.18-20 who would read God’s Law and be considerate to his brother men.

  2.2.10 “And, see, I will give to your servants, the hewers who cut timber, twenty thousand measures of beaten wheat, and twenty thousand measures of barley, and twenty thousand baths of wine, and twenty thousand baths of oil.”

  Solomon then named the initial price that he would pay for the timber and for the use of Huram’s skilled workmen. One thing that Tyre was short of was commodities which grew in Israel in abundance. Thus Solomon promised payment in such commodities (money was unknown and payment in commodities was quite common). These included beaten wheat, barley, wine and olive oil in the amounts shown above. But as the contract proceeded further payments by instalments would be needed and these appear to have been twenty thousand measures of wheat, and twenty measures (two hundred baths) of high grade olive oil paid yearly, a price which was finally accepted (1 Kings 5.9). Harum would, of course, determine what use was made of the commodities. They were the price that he was being paid. Olive oil was one of Israel’s most prolific and valued exports.

  King Huram’s Response To King Solomon 2.11-18).

  Huram’s reply is a model of delicacy and flattery. He was by then an experienced communicator and negotiator. It may be seen as suggesting that whilst they were in a treaty relationship, continued on from David’s reign, Huram recognised Solomon’s superiority in strength and wanted to ensure that the treaty held firm. What follows does not appear to be in the form of a chiasm, although included in the overall chiasm as described above. This may well be because his reply given here was in writing and is copied exactly. It was a letter which was brought by Huram’s servants, whilst what is written in 1 Kings was delivered orally.

  2.2.11 ‘Then Huram the king of Tyre answered in writing, which he sent to Solomon, “Because YHWH loves his people, he has made you king over them.”

  So Huram, the king of Tyre, wrote a personal letter to Solomon to assure him that he was taking the matter into his own hands. Specimen letters which have been discovered from around that time suggest that the opening greetings are omitted here in that no reference is made to who sent the letter. That only excerpts are included by the Chronicler is shown by the introductory words of verses 11 and 12. What we have here thus begins the letter proper with an encomium, which no doubt followed the king’s greetings.

  Having been approached concerning a Temple to be built for YHWH, Whom he knew to be Israel’s sole God, Huram, who would have been an idolater, and probably a worshipper of Baal, makes reference to Solomon’s God, YHWH. Solomon’s desire to build a magnificent Temple for Him, in the place of the Jerusalem Tent and the Tabernacle, would naturally appear to him as evidence of Solomon’s concern for his people. To him a Temple was what every worthwhile god should have, and in his friendship with David he may well often have wondered at the lack of such in Israel. In his view, Solomon, by his act, was raising YHWH to the level of other gods (one of the great dangers of a Temple. We would rightly say lowering YHWH to the level of other gods). Thus he was enthusiastic about it and declared that this demonstrated how much YHWH must love His people to make such a king as Solomon king over them (compare for a similar idea the words of the Queen of Sheba in 9.9). He could only see Solomon’s act as having the consequence of YHWH showing His favour to Israel. This did not mean that he was a believer in YHWH, except as the God of Israel Who might show favour or disfavour, just as he saw his own gods as doing (and the same was true of the Queen of Sheba). He was not, however, thinking of replacing his own gods with YHWH.

  The repetition by the Chronicler of these words was no doubt deliberately intended to bring out that YHWH does indeed ‘love His people’, even though he might have questioned the logic behind it. The words were spoken by a pagan king and were undoubtedly true to a far greater extent than he realised, and equally so at this stage for most Israelites, although they would not feel that way about Solomon later on (10.4). But they were certainly true for the Chronicler and the returnees from Exile who saw their return to Palestine as proof of His love (compare Deuteronomy 7.7-8, words spoken of previous returnees).

  2.2.12 Moreover Huram said, “Blessed be YHWH, the God of Israel, who made heaven and earth, who has given to David the king a wise son, endued with discretion and understanding, who should build a house for YHWH, and a house for his kingdom.’

  The ‘moreover’ suggests that a piece of what was written has been omitted, prior to what was now stated, presumably because it was seen by the Chronicler as unimportant, or even unwelcome. The missing part may well have been Huram blessing his own gods prior to blessing Solomon’s God. Huram then goes on to bless ‘the God of Israel Who made Heaven and earth’. Blessing the god of the person you were talking to was seemingly a common courtesy of life in those days. As polytheists, those outside Israel accepted the genuineness of many gods including the gods of other nations. Compare again the words of the Queen of Sheba in 9.9 (and see Daniel 3.28)

  ‘YHWH, the God of Israel, who made heaven and earth.’ YHWH as the God Who made Heaven and earth is referred to in the Davidic Psalm 124.8. Compare also Psalm 115.15; 121.2; 2 Kings 19.15; Isaiah 37.16. It may well be how the nations saw the God of Israel at that time due to the way that the Israelites described Him. Compare how in later times the Israelites spoke of YHWH as ‘the God of Heaven and earth’ when speaking to outsiders (Ezra 5.11). At that time ‘the God of Heaven’ was the regularly accepted name for YHWH (Ezra’s official Persian title was ‘the Scribe of the Law of the God of Heaven’). It does not mean that Huram was himself personally committed to YHWH, only that he recognised ‘YHWH the God of Israel Who made Heaven and earth’ as His title. But to the Chronicler and to us it has a deeper significance.

  ‘Who has given to David the king a wise son, endued with discretion (the ability to discern) and understanding, who should build a house for YHWH, and a house for his kingdom.’ Huram rejoices that the son of his friend David the king is wise and endued with discretion and understanding. To him this is revealed in the fact that Solomon is building a great Temple for his God and a great palace for himself (from both of which Huram would profit). He thought the idea was magnificent. It would bring Israel and its religion in line with the religions of other nations (one of the dangers of the Temple), and it would exalt Solomon. Alternately ‘a house for YHWH and a house for his kingdom’ could indicate that the Temple would benefit both God and the kingdom, but 2.1; 7.11 and 8.1 suggest otherwise.

  But the words ‘discretion and understanding’ are a repetition of what David prayed would be true for Solomon in 1 Chronicles 22.12 where they were specifically related to him observing and fulfilling the Law of God. The Chronicler may therefore have seen something ironic in the use of the same words as he sees Solomon going about the building of the Temple in a way contrary to the Law of God.

  If only Solomon had listened to the Law of God he would have ensured that the Temple was built by willing volunteers who were true believers, not by men whom he had unjustly enslaved who were idolaters. And he would have used men full of the Spirit of God, not an idolatrous half and half pagan. In Exodus Bezalel and Oholiab were recommended by God for having understanding and discernment from Him. Here Solomon is recommended by a pagan king for having understanding and discernment in general, not necessarily a good parallel. When the ungodly praise us we need to beware. At this stage Solomon’s heart was, at least partly, in the right place, but he was going about it in the wrong way. The returnees from Exile who had themselves avoided this danger would have seen immediately that this was so.

  2.2.13-14 “And now I have sent a skilful man, endued with understanding, by the name of Huram-abi, the son of a woman of the daughters of Dan, and his father was a man of Tyre, skilful to work in gold, and in silver, in bronze, in iron, in stone, and in timber, in purple, in blue, and in fine linen, and in crimson, also to engrave any manner of engraving, and to devise any device, that there may be a place appointed to him with your skilful men, and with the skilful men of my lord David your father.”

  It should be noted that King Huram was doing his best for Solomon, and was indeed responding to Solomon’s request as best he could. He sent him Huram-abi, who was the son of a Tyrian father and a Danite mother and was highly skilled in all that Solomon required. He probably hoped that Solomon would be pleased that he had found someone capable who was at least half Israelite. But the Chronicler’s readers would not have seen it like that. To them the man he described would have been seen as a syncretist, the worst person possible.

  Consider the facts. He was the product of a mixed marriage, something which was anathema to the community of the returnees from Exile and caused them many problems (Ezra 10; Nehemiah 13.23-30). He was almost certainly a worshipper of Baal, and at the best a syncretist (again anathema to the returnees from Exile), for although his Israelite mother may have taught him the Law, his Tyrian father would have insisted in his taking part in the family religion (and there is no suggestion otherwise). And his expertise was pagan approved and not God approved. He was thus the product of pagan wisdom and would use Phoenician techniques. So while he was clearly deliberately paralleled with Oholiab (Exodus 35.34) both as to skill and as to ancestry (both shared descent from Dan) it was a parallel of contrast and not of approval, emphasising that, in contrast with the Tabernacle (and the second Temple) Solomon’s Temple was tainted. It was produced by ‘unclean’ hands. Huram-abi was a parody of Oholiab, not a parallel, bringing out Solomon’s failure.

  And it was this man under whose guidance and expertise the gold and silver used in building the Sanctuary and its furniture was to be fashioned. Again the returnees from Exile must have recoiled in horror.

  The fact that Solomon accepted him and allowed him to do the work (although the Chronicler avoids describing his activity in the Sanctuary, imputing it all to Solomon in 3.1 to 4.10, and only connecting it with Huram in a vague footnote (4.11)) revealed Solomon’s lack of sensitivity to the holiness of the Sanctuary, even though he was so conscious of the holiness of the Ark of YHWH that he would not allow his idolatrous Egyptian wife to dwell near where it had rested (8.11). His enthusiasm for a marvellous Temple seemingly overrode his religious sensitivities.

  First there was the use of strangers for forced labour contrary to the Law, then the use of those strangers in building the Temple, and now the use of an idolatrous syncretist to head up the whole. This demonstrates the downward path on which Solomon was treading as a consequence of his father’s determination to build a grand Temple at all costs. It may have been acceptable to most in his own day (although we are not told so). But it would not have been acceptable in any way to the returnees from Exile, and we can add, to the Chronicler. For rather than hiding the problems, he underlined them.

  The name ‘-abi’ as part of the name of Huram-abi, may signify ‘my master craftsman’ or ‘my valuable servant’. Compare Genesis 45.8; Judges 17.10. Elsewhere he is named only as ‘Hiram/Huram’. It may even have been an attempt to relate Huram’s name to that of Oholiab (which ends in -ab). But if so it was in parody. The use of such a man to build the Sanctuary would have given sufficient grounds for the returnees from Exile to find in it an explanation for the Temple’s final failure, and a reason for its destruction, and would have given them more confidence in their own Temple. Understanding it would have enhanced their faith considerably.

  2.2.15 “Now therefore the wheat and the barley, the oil and the wine, which my lord has spoken of, let him send to his servants.”

  Unaware of the problem that he had posed to Solomon, king Huram accepted the terms of the contract, and asked that the downpayment be forwarded to him. Let Solomon send the wheat, barley, wine and olive oil that ‘my lord’ had proposed. Whilst ‘my lord’ may indicate a subordinate status it was not necessarily so. He might have been speaking courteously as one ‘my lord’ to another.

  2.2.16 “And we will cut wood out of Lebanon, as much as you will need, and we will bring it to you in floats by sea to Joppa, and you will bear it up to Jerusalem.”

  In return for the payment the Tyrians would cut down the cedars required, and trim them as necessary, before forwarding them by sea to Joppa ‘in floats’, from where Solomon would convey them to Jerusalem using the road that passed by Gezer. This would suggest that he had already received Gezer as a wedding present (1 Kings 9.16-17). One way of conveying such timber by sea would be to form it into huge rafts which could be towed along the coast. The massive task would have been the conveying of it to Jerusalem, which would, of course, have been by forced labour.

  2.2.17 ‘And Solomon numbered all the sojourners who were in the land of Israel, in accordance with the numbering with which David his father had numbered them, and they were found (to be) a hundred and fifty three thousand, six hundred.’

  The use by Solomon of these people for forced labour over many years forms an inclusio with verse 2. The envelope and the repetition underline the fact. The Chronicler wants it to be very clear that building Solomon’s Temple involved forced labour, and that that labour was of ‘sojourners in the land of Israel’, that is, non-Yahwists, and therefore idolaters. (Had they become Yahwists they would have been seen as Israelites).

  The numbering probably refers to the numbering by David when he first conscripted them (1 Chronicles 22.2), but it may have reference to the ill fated census. However, the numbering of sojourners would not have been seen as a sin. And their number was one hundred and fifty three large units, and six smaller units (the latter of supervisors). Compare the 570 in 1 Kings 9.23 who could be seen as forming six ‘hundreds’.

  2.2.18 ‘And he set seventy large units (thousand) of them to bear burdens, and eighty large units (thousand) who were hewers in the mountains, and three thousand, six hundred overseers to set the people at work.’

  The one hundred and fifty three large units were divided up as seventy for bearing burdens, eighty for hewing in the mountains, and three made up of taskmasters. For further details on these see verse 2. The fact that they are so closely involved with all that is required for the building of the Temple including the Sanctuary, and that the Chronicler mentions no Israelites as involved, confirms that they would not only do forced labour outside the Sanctuary, but would also be involved as labourers in the building of the Sanctuary, certainly as far as his readers were concerned.

  We can contrast with this the fact that when Herod’s Temple was being built he trained priests as builders so that they could have the responsibility of building the Sanctuary. It is remarkable that a Solomon who was concerned lest the noise of building disturb the Sanctuary when it was being built (1 Kings 6.7) should be impervious to it being built by idolaters. It was his blind spot.

  The Building Of The Temple And The Fashioning Of Its Furniture (3.1-5.1).

  The whole of the description of the work on the Temple and its furniture is enclosed within an inclusio formed by 3.1 and 5.1. ‘Then Solomon began to build the house of YHWH at Jerusalem --- then all the work that Solomon wrought for the house of YHWH was finished.’ In between these two verses details are provided as to the building, and the fashioning of the Temple and its furniture. They are necessarily in somewhat limited form, indeed even more limited than 1 Kings. His aim is not to present us with the full details which would enable us to build up a specification, but to demonstrate its glory on the one hand, and its pagan content on the other. As we have seen he saw it as magnificent, but flawed. This explains why he concentrates so much on the furniture and vessels rather than on the Sanctuary itself.

  For it is noteworthy that the Chronicler gives greater detail when he deals with the Temple furniture. His aim may well have been to bring out its pagan connections and its divergence from the Tabernacle. He wanted his readers to recognise the pagan influence that he so deprecated. They were not present in the second Temple.

  So we can see these descriptions as merely that, descriptions of what was built and fashioned without any ulterior motive being involved, or we can see it in the light of its context following chapter 2 and recognise that he was bringing out to his readers the pagan elements within the Temple which would depreciate it in their eyes.

  God had not called on His people to ensure that His Sanctuaries were built by those with ‘clean’ hands, those who were true worshippers of YHWH, for nothing. It was precisely in order to maintain a true pattern and in order to keep out pagan elements. Two examples of these pagan elements in Solomon’s Temple are the Cherubim in the Holiest Place, and the bulls that bore up the brazen sea in the inner court. The former at least would not be seen, but the latter would be seen by all who entered the inner court, and they could hardly remind many of them of anything else other than Baal who was represented by a bull. It was not a far cry from this to mixing up YHWH with Baal resulting in the syncretism which YHWH strove to prevent. It may even have made Jeroboam consider that it was therefore reasonable to set up bull calves to represent YHWH.

  Note how the passage;

  • Commences with the description of the making of the Sanctuary, which was made in gold (3.1-14).
  • Centres on the Sanctuary furniture, which was also made in gold (4.7-8).
  • And ends with the description of the making of the Sanctuary furniture and vessels in gold (4.19-5.1).

  The bronze working is placed in between its gold casing. As we see from 3.15 onwards this is demonstrated by an internal chiasmus (for which see on 3.15).

  The Site (3.1).

  2.3.1 ‘Then Solomon began to build the house of YHWH at Jerusalem on mount Moriah, where he appeared to David his father, which he made ready in the place which David had appointed, in the threshing-floor of Ornan the Jebusite.’

  Work commenced at the site which had been purchased by David for the purpose and was connected with the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. The site itself, which included the threshingfloor, would have been larger than the threshingfloor and David had paid a generous price for it. It was situated on Mount Moriah. When Abraham had prepared to offer his son Isaac as a child sacrifice to God, and was relieved at the last moment and consequently offered a ram in Isaac’s place, it had been on the mountains ‘in the land of Moriah’ (Genesis 22.2). The description there was general and not specific, and thus there is no real reason for thinking that it was on this very mountain that it occurred, nor does Scripture claim that it was. Had it been certain, or believed at the time of the Chronicler, we would presumably have been informed. On the other hand there is something very significant about the fact that Jerusalem had been delivered from plague, resulting in the offering of sacrifices, on a mountain with the same name as the area in which Abraham was when he was delivered from having to offer up his son and offered up a sacrifice instead. It could be seen as a divine ‘coincidence’. But the ‘coincidence’ is not noted by the Chronicler even though he mentions Mount Moriah, nor is Mount Moriah spoken of anywhere else. The ‘coincidence’ was seen as more important in later Jewish tradition. We are therefore not justified in seeing the Temple mount as the mountain on which Abraham ‘offered’ his son Isaac, however convenient it might be for sermons. But we are justified in connecting the two in thought. The Chronicler may well have had Abraham’s sacrifice in mind, although it will be noted that his emphasis was on the Mount as being that on which David had offered sacrifices to avert the plague.

  So what the Chronicler undoubtedly considered was of most importance was that the Temple was being built on a site where a great deliverance from plague had been granted through repentance and prayer. Indeed, repentance and prayer would later be the theme of Solomon’s prayer to God at the dedication of the Temple (6.19 ff.). Thus the mountain was the mountain of repentance and prevailing prayer, and would be so in the continuing future whenever men were willing to repent. Repentance is one of the themes of this book (see e.g. 7.14; 12.12; 15.3-4, 9-16; 32.26; 33.12-13, 19; 34.27).

  The Commencement Of The Work (3.2).

  2.3.2 ‘And he began to build on the second of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign.’

  The date of the actual commencement of the work of building the Temple, as opposed to the preparation work, was considered to be so important (in spite of the Temple’s inadequacies) that it was specifically recorded. It commenced on the second day of the second month in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign. The recording of the date demonstrated that, in spite of his justified strictures, the Chronicler still saw the Temple as God’s ‘house’ and as having great significance for Israel. Thus he saw the date of its commencement as significant, and rightly so, for the Temple would be the centre of ‘Israel’s’ worship for the next few hundred years. Its adulterated beginning did not cancel out the benefit that it would be to Israel, once God had accepted Solomon’s pleading before Him. But it did help to explain why God allowed it to be destroyed, something which later puzzled post-exilic Israel.

  The four years between the commencement of his reign and the commencement of the building of the Temple would have given Solomon plenty of time to think over the magnificent project that his father had charged him with and as a consequence to plan things which were even more magnificent. But if his concentration had been on ruling his kingdom wisely and not on planning magnificent building projects he might have turned out differently, and the future of Israel might have been different. He had, however, had a charge from his now deceased father and it overruled his thinking. David, in his enthusiasm, had not considered what his charge might do to his son.

  We will, of course, never know what would have happened to Israel’s history if the Tabernacle had been retained as the place of worship, united with the Ark, and Solomon had not embarked on his grandiose building schemes, but had remained humble. He would have had a different perspective. He would have ruled more wisely. Thus the building schemes were an essential part of his downfall. They turned his eyes in the wrong direction. Many a Christian has lost his spiritual experience and ruined his spiritual work because he has embarked on grandiose schemes.

  Some would omit the first ‘second’ (the second day) on the grounds of dittography (repeating the same word twice in error). They point out that it is omitted in 1 Kings 6.1, and in the versions, and that the day of the month is usually indicated with a cardinal number followed by ‘day’. But as with today there were probably a number of ways of indicating dates in the Chronicler’s time, whilst the Chronicler regularly adjusts 1 Kings on the basis of his other sources, and the translators of the versions may simply have found the way he expressed it difficult and thus have omitted it. What is more 7.10 confirms that we should expect to find here reference to the day of the month. It should therefore be retained.

  The Measurements And Essential Components Of The Temple Building (3.3-9).

  The Temple would, of course, be magnificent, and the Chronicler wants us to know it. But he abbreviates considerably the information given in 1 Kings. Thus he only gives us the very basics of the building, emphasising, however, that all was covered with gold and precious stones. Possibly he did not want to glory overmuch concerning something that he saw as partly defective, and pagan in its splendour, and which from his point of view was then in the past. Or perhaps he did not feel that the detail was important. So whilst he certainly wanted to bring out the glory of the Solomon’s Temple, emphasising that internally it was covered in gold, and recognising that it finally had God’s approval, he also emphasises the things that could only bring a frown to the brows of the more austere returnees from Exile, such as the bulls below the molten sea which in contrast to 1 Kings he emphasises twice. These were most probably the conception of Huram-abi. Such bulls were a feature of pagan worship. Baal was often portrayed in the form of a bull, and Huram-abi was probably a Baal-worshipper.

  On the one hand then, the Chronicler did recognise that YHWH accepted the Temple and the importance that it would have for Israel’s future, but on the other he was aware of the part that it would play in Israel’s downfall because its worshippers had themselves become syncretistic. He recognised that the syncretism that Solomon had sown, Israel would reap.

  2.3.3 ‘Now these are the foundations which Solomon laid for the building of the house of God. The length by cubits after the first measure (by the original standard) was sixty cubits, and the breadth twenty cubits.’

  The total dimensions of the Sanctuary were to be sixty cubits by twenty cubits. Depending on whether this was the long cubit (51.1 centimetres or 20.4 inches) or the short cubit (44.45 centimetres or 17.5 inches) it would be approximately 30 metres (105 feet) by 10 metres (35 feet) or 27 metres (90 feet) by 9 metres (30 feet). We do not know which was ‘the original standard’.

  These were probably the combined measurements of the two inner chambers, the Holy Place and the Holiest Place, excluding the porch (which was ‘before the house’), so as to maintain precise measurements for the two. The Holiest Place was 20 cubits by 20 cubits (verse 8), and the Holy Place was 40 cubits by 20 cubits.

  The height of the building was 30 cubits (1 Kings 6.2) although that included storage space, and possibly repair facilities, above the Most Holy Place. As no one was allowed to enter it repair work would be difficult, but a loft above would at least make it easier. There was also possibly a platform below the Holiest Place, raising it above the Holy Place, in line with other Temples, for the Most Holy Place itself was only 20 cubits high (1 Kings 6.20) making it a perfect cube symbolic of the perfection of God. But the Chronicler tells us none of this.

  2.3.4 ‘And the porch which was before (the house), the length of it, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and the height a hundred and twenty, and he overlaid it within with pure gold.’

  In front of the Sanctuary was a porch which extended the whole 20 cubits of the width of the building (and was 10 cubits broad). This was 120 cubits high, something only mentioned by the Chronicler. Like a steeple it might have been intended to point toward Heaven, as it towered above the Temple (four times the height of the Sanctuary proper). Possibly it was indicating that it opened the way into the presence of God. The insides of this porch were overlaid with pure gold. (Note the grades of gold, ‘pure gold’ for the porch, ‘fine gold’, which was superior, for the Sanctuary). The whole thing was unquestionably magnificent.

  Many commentators dispute the 120 cubits high by suggesting that ’mwth (cubits) should be read instead of m’wth (hundred). This would give a reading of twenty cubits. But it cannot be done without changing the Hebrew text, and such a large pinnacle is not impossible.

  2.3.5 ‘And the greater house he covered with fir-wood, which he overlaid with fine gold, and wrought on it palm-trees and decorative chains.’

  The ‘greater house’ (largest chamber) was probably the Holy Place in contrast with the Holiest Place. The stones of which it was built were covered with fir-wood, which in turn was overlaid with fine gold. On these were engraved palm trees and decorative chains, the palm trees indicating creation, the decorative festal chains indicating joy. No stonework was to be seen inside the Temple.

  2.3.6 ‘And he garnished the house with precious stones for beauty, and the gold was gold from Parvaim.’

  The walls and ceiling were then imbedded with precious stones, representative of beauty. And the gold that was used came from Parvaim. Seemingly such gold was seen as especially valuable. Parvaim was probably the name of a place noted at the time for its fine gold, but the word later resulted in much speculation among the ancients, none of which was based on fact. Then, as now, the word of God was subjected to speculations and fabrications.

  2.3.7 ‘He overlaid also the house, the beams, the thresholds, and its walls, and its doors, with gold, and engraved cherubim on the walls.’

  Every part of the interior was coated, or inlaid, with gold; beams, thresholds, walls and doors. The cost must have been enormous. And pictures of cherubim were then engraved on the walls. The cherubim were from the beginning the protectors of, and proclaimers of, God’s holiness, and of all that was good and pure. They watched over the covenant in the Ark, and were bearers of His invisible throne. They may well be the seraphim of Isaiah 6. In Exodus 25.18-20 they were winged, and their wings stretched out over the mercy seat. In the Tabernacle they were also pictured on the curtains of the Tabernacle so that the priests would know what they looked like. We, however, are provided with no certain knowledge of what they looked like (in the first century AD Josephus also did not know).

  It seems likely that the cherubim in Solomon’s Temple would be made to look like the cherubim in the Tabernacle, although it must seem probable that Huram-abi introduced at least some elements of Phoenician models, for representations of winged composite creatures were common throughout the Ancient Near East. Both Ezekiel and Revelation in different ways bring out their connection with creation, representing them in terms of lion (wild beasts), eagle (birds), ox (domestic animals) and man so that they are seemingly depicted as composite creatures (see Ezekiel 1.10; 10.21; compare 41.18 ff.; Revelation 4.7). But note how the symbolic descriptions differ. They are not to be seen as exact portrayals of the real thing. They rather represent the whole of animal creation.

  They may well have been similar in form to representations found for example at Samaria, where ivory panels depicted a composite figure with a human face, an animal body with four legs, and two conspicuous and elaborate wings (note verse 13, ‘they stood on their feet’). Excavations at Byblos (ancient Gebal) revealed carved figures of two similar representations supporting the throne of Hiram, king of Gebal who reigned about 1000 BC, roughly the time of David (consider how the Cherubim are depicted as supporting the throne of YHWH in Ezekiel 10). Many other representations of symbolic winged creatures were to be found around the Ancient Near East. The Hittite griffin was a highly composite creature consisting of the body of a lion, and the head and wings of an eagle, and crouched like a sphinx.

  2.3.8 ‘And he made the most holy house. The length of it, according to the breadth of the house, was twenty cubits, and the breadth of it twenty cubits, and he overlaid it with fine gold, amounting to six hundred talents.’

  A brief description of the Holiest Place is now given, although it is not complete. He does not bring out that it was a perfect cube, being also twenty cubits in height. What he is more concerned to bring out is the huge amount of fine gold involved in decorating it. He describes this as six hundred talents worth of fine gold. The walls, floor and ceiling must have been overlaid with it very thickly. It is remarkable but not inconceivable. The amount is not large compared with the total amount of gold that David had set aside for the building of the Temple (1 Chronicles 22.14), and to which Solomon had added, and the Holiest Place was seen as above and beyond anywhere else. Such thickly laid gold would be seen as a fitting tribute to God. And it was a place which was rarely entered. It was God’s earthly abode. The gold amounts to twenty one metric tons of gold (23 tons). (We can compare how the streets of the New Jerusalem would be paved with gold (Revelation 21.21). Practicality did not enter into it).

  The charge against Solomon was not that he stinted in his giving to YHWH, it was that he thoughtlessly and unspiritually allowed the Temple to be built by unholy hands, and in the main by hands of men who were brutally treated. He failed to ‘enquire of YHWH’.

  2.3.9 ‘And the weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold. And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold.’

  The golden sheets would need to be nailed on to the underlying wood, and this was done by using ‘golden nails’. In view of the softness of gold these may have been made of iron overlaid with gold. But the gold in each nail weighed fifty shekels. All that the onlooker would see was gold.

  The upper chambers would be rooms built above the Sanctuary, especially over the Holiest Place as mentioned above. They too were covered with gold.

  The Cherubim In The Holiest Place (3.10-13).

  2.3.10 ‘And in the most holy house he made two cherubim of sculpture work, and they overlaid them with gold.’

  These cherubim may have had the face of a man, the body of a lion and the wings of an eagle, with some part of them being oxen-like (in Ezekiel 1.7 they have the feet of calves), standing on four feet, with their wings outstretched, guarding the Ark. These were, of course additional to the cherubim on the Ark, and in this case each wing was five cubits long. They were thus quite large.

  2.3.11-12 ‘And the wings of the cherubim were twenty cubits long. The wing of the one (cherub) was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house, and the other wing was (similarly) five cubits, reaching to the wing of the other cherub. And the wing of the other cherub was five cubits, reaching to the wall of the house, and the other wing was five cubits also, joining to the wing of the other cherub.’

  In total their wings stretched from wall to wall, making twenty cubits. The cherubim stood side by side facing the Holy Place, their five cubit wings touching, whilst their other five cubit wings reached out to the two walls.

  2.3.13 ‘The wings of these cherubim spread themselves forth twenty cubits, and they stood on their feet, and their faces were toward the house.’

  Their four outstretched wings thus covered twenty cubits from wall to wall, and they stood on their, probably four, feet. And their faces were ‘towards the house’. Instead of looking at each other like the cherubim on the Ark did, they looked towards the Holy Place. They stood with their outstretched wings over the Ark (5.8), each at one side of the Ark like two sentries. These were clearly additional to anything previously within the Tabernacle, and in that sense were therefore ‘foreign’. The description might be intended to bring out that they were of Phoenician origin, whilst justified in the Temple (by Solomon) on the basis of the cherubim on the Ark. It is difficult to avoid the suggestion that they were ‘graven images’, although there is no suggestion that they were ever worshipped (for they were never seen). Whilst the small cherubim on the Ark faced each other with their wings stretched out over the Ark, and were not to be seen as separate from the Ark, these two large cherubim were specifically separate from the Ark, and images in themselves. As far as we know they were never repeated, neither in the second Temple, nor in Herod’s Temple. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they would not be looked on favourably by the Chronicler or the returnees from Exile.

  The Veil (3.14).

  The veil is not mentioned in 1 Kings where the Holiest Place is separated from the Holy Place by doors (1 Kings 6.31). But as the ends of the carrying poles for the Ark could be seen in the Holy Place (1 Kings 8.8) those doors were either open, or there was an open gap protected by the Veil, with the ends of the poles causing a bulge in the Veil. The Veil would therefore be necessary. It was certainly found in the Tabernacle, and later in Herod’s Temple (in spite of its similar doors), and we should therefore not be surprised to find one here. It was symbolic of non-access into the Holiest Place, and as a barrier between man and God.

  2.3.14 ‘And he made the veil of blue, and purple, and crimson, and fine linen, and wrought cherubim on it.’

  The veil was made of fine linen dyed blue and purple and crimson (or scarlet), the three colours commonly available in the Ancient Near East (2.7). And on the veil were wrought representations of the cherubim. Blue (tekeleth) was a colour obtained from the cerulean mussel. The word was applied only to fabrics dyed with a special blue dye obtained from this shellfish. Purple dye (argevan) was manufactured by the Phoenicians from a marine mollusc known as Murex trunculus, the shell being broken in order to give access to a small gland which was removed and crushed. The crushed gland then produced a milky fluid that became red or purple on exposure to the air. Crimson (carmil) was probably an old-Persian word and applied to the brilliant dye obtained from a beetle. The Israelites were not very interested in colour and tended to use borrowed words for their limited range of colours.

  The Temple Accoutrements (3.15-4.18).

  The Chronicler now considers the accoutrements to the Temple which were outside the Sanctuary. These commence with the two great bronze pillars which stood in front of the Temple porch. The description of these accoutrements appears to be mainly in chiastic form from 3.15-4.13, centring around the golden lampstands and the golden tables in the Sanctuary. By this means he commenced with the building of the Sanctuary (3.3-14), he made central the furniture in the Holy Place (4.7-8), and he ended with a description of the accoutrements and furniture of gold which were for the Sanctuary (4.19-5.1). Interspersed in 3.15-4.6 and 4.9-4.18 are the making of the items outside the Sanctuary, mainly made of bronze, and found in the Temple courts.

  Analysis.

  • A The casting of the two great pillars Yachin and Boaz (3.15-17).
  • B The making of the bronze altar (4.1).
  • C The making of the Sea and the Lavers (4.2-6a).
  • D The Sea was for the priests to wash in (4.6b).
  • E The ten golden lampstands (4.7).
  • E The ten golden tables (4.8).
  • D The inner court for the priests and the greater court and doors (4.9).
  • C The placement of the Sea (4.10).
  • B The making of the utensils for the altar (4.11a).
  • A The completion of the two great pillars (4.11b-13) and other bronze items (4.14-18).

  The Two Pillars, Yachin And Boaz (3.15-17).

  The two pillars that stood in front of the Temple were also a new feature. There was nothing like them in the Tabernacle and they did not appear in Herod’s Temple, suggesting that they were not a feature of the second Temple either. The idea was borrowed from other Ancient Near Eastern Temples, where they were a common feature. We do not know for certain whether they were free standing, serving no practical purpose, or whether they helped to support the porch. Pillars of both kinds have been found related to other Temples. But the majority of examples would support the idea that they were free standing and therefore symbolic and decorative.

  Compared with the description in 1 Kings, the description by the Chronicler is minuscule. 1 Kings gives them eight verses. This may have been because the Chronicler saw them as almost irrelevant, or because he disapproved of them. He does not even mention that they were made of bronze.

  2.3.15 ‘Also he made before the house two pillars of thirty five cubits in length, and the capital that was on the top of each of them was five cubits.’

  In front of the house he made two pillars. Two is the number of witness, and the pillars may have been intended to witness to YHWH as the one Who ‘establishes’ (yachin) and ‘gives strength’ (boaz). See verse 17.

  1 Kings 7.15 speaks of one of the pillars being eighteen cubits high, leaving the impression that the other was also. It seems probable that the Chronicler (who actually describes them a ‘thirty five cubits long’) is combining the two heights with the aim of producing a multiple of five, the covenant number. Up to this point all his described measurements have been multiples of five, a number which was standard in the Tabernacle. This may be seen as backed up by the contrast with the capitals where he says ‘each of them’. A ‘capital’ would be a ‘crown’ or ‘head’. These added five cubits to the height of the pillars and were presumably mainly decorative.

  2.3.16 ‘And he made decorative chains on the oracle (debir), and put them on the tops of the pillars; and he made a hundred pomegranates, and put them on the chains.’

  The description of the pillars as ‘the oracle’ (that which speaks) might be seen as confirming that the purpose of the pillars is to act as a witness to YHWH. The term is usually used of the Holiest Place. The decorative chains and the pomegranates could indicate joyfulness and fruitfulness as a consequence of YHWH’s upholding. It represents a joyous witness to YHWH. For a little more detail see 4.12-13.

  (It is all too easy to turn ‘debir’ (oracle) into ‘rebid’ (necklace) speaking of a confusion of letters because it does not fit in with our ideas, but there is no literary support for it).

  2.3.17 ‘And he set up the pillars before the temple, one on the right hand, and the other on the left; and called the name of that on the right hand Yachin, and the name of that on the left Boaz.’

  The pillars were set up before the Sanctuary to either side of the door. They were named Yachin and Boaz. Yachin means ‘He establishes’ and Boaz means ‘with strength’. They were witnesses to the power and might of YHWH. The word ‘chun’ which is the root of Yachin is constantly used of the house of David in the prophecy of Nathan (2 Samuel 7.12, 13, 16). The name Yachin was thus an underlining of YHWH’s covenant with the Davidic house that He would ‘establish’ his house’.

  Some see the words as the opening words in declarations about YHWH. E.g. ‘He will establish (yachin) the throne (of David) for ever’ (2 Samuel 7.13, 16), and ‘in the strength (be’oz) of YHWH will the king rejoice’ (compare Psalm 21.1, 13).

  The casting of these huge pillars in bronze, hollow inside, was a massive job in itself. Some have suggested that fires were kept alight in one or both of the heads, symbolising YHWH’s presence with His people in the pillar of fire. Herodotus tells us that that one of the pillars before the Temple of Baal in Tyre held a fire which glowed at night. And Huram-abi was from Tyre. If so it would be another recognised pagan trait, even though given an orthodox significance.

  The Making Of The Bronze Altar (4.1).

  2.4.1 ‘Moreover he made an altar of bronze (or copper), its length was twenty cubits, its breadth was twenty cubits, and its height was ten cubits.’

  I Kings makes no mention of the making of the bronze altar, although it is assumed in the later narrative. That may indicate disapproval of an altar not made in accordance with Exodus where it was intended to be five cubit by five cubits, and three cubits high (Exodus 27.1). In Exodus it was also clearly stated that an altar which required the use of steps, as this one would, should not be used (Exodus 20.26).

  The altar described here was four times as large as the original bronze altar and almost certainly required steps to be used in order to sacrifice on it, contrary to Exodus 20.26 (but compare Ezekiel 43.13-17). It would appear to have been built on a Phoenician pattern. The original bronze altar, made by Bezalel the son of Uri, on which Solomon caused a thousand sacrifices to be offered, and which the Chronicler had so emphasised in 1.6-7, was seemingly discarded along with other Tabernacle furniture (5.5). We are left to surmise whether the Chronicler and the returnees from Exile would frown on this new-fangled altar, but the emphasis on the old altar in 1.6-7 may indicate that they did. No word, however, is spoken against it when its use is described (6.12), but that may be because there was then no alternative.

  As in 6.12 the use of qowmah for height and the placing in the Hebrew of cubits after the numeral may suggest the use of a source. Qowmah occurs regularly in Exodus and 1 Kings, but only three times in Chronicles (4.1, 2; 6.12). Neither are said to be in accord with the Chronicler’s usual practise, although the evidence is not conclusive. The alternative gobahh is only used twice in Chronicles (3.4; 32.26), only one of which strictly means ‘height’.

  The Molten Sea (4.2-5).

  The molten sea was a hugely enlarged version of the laver in the Tabernacle described in Exodus 30.18-21. 1 Kings tells us that it was made of bronze, but the Chronicler does not mention bronze apart from in connection with the bronze altar. The sea was for the priests to wash in (they had to wash their hands and their feet each time they entered the Holy Place). That this was its purpose comes out in that Ahaz left the sea in situ, having replaced its bases, whilst he removed the lavers (verse 6), leaving only their bases. Jeremiah 27.19 confirms that this was so. Ahaz would, of course, have to leave something for the priests to wash in. It is true that the number of priests had multiplied so that the original laver might well have been insufficient, but the description of this ‘molten sea’ very much suggests Phoenician influence, and the fact that it was set on a base of oxen confirms this. Such graven images were forbidden by God but were a regular feature of Baalism. Their very presence in the Temple would encourage syncretism. There are no real grounds, apart indirectly from the name, for associating the molten sea with the primeval ocean or the waters of chaos (the water in it was certainly not chaotic). Its use was essentially practical. If we look for symbolism it lies in man’s need for inward cleansing and renewal. Compare Ezekiel 47.1 ff.

  2.4.2 ‘Also 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 compassed it round about.’

  The diameter of the sea was ten cubits (roughly five metres/fifteen foot), and its circumference was thirty cubits. As it is unlikely that the sea was exactly round (an impossible task to achieve in those days) the diameter would vary depending on where it was taken, so overall the ten cubits is an approximation. We can also not be sure that the circumference was measured at its rim. Indeed, as the metal was a handbreadth thick it would make a difference depending on whether it was measured from the outside or the inside. But the aim was to give an idea of size, not to be mathematically precise. It was five cubits high (roughly two and a half metres/eight foot high), thus considerably taller than a man. Using it would involve mounting steps, which was forbidden in a holy place because it revealed man’s nakedness (Exodus 20.26). The main concept was pagan.

  2.4.3 ‘And under it was the likeness of oxen, which compassed it round about, for ten cubits, compassing the sea round about. The oxen were in two rows, cast when it was cast.’

  Under the rim were two rows of knops in the likeness of oxen. The knops of 1 Kings 7.24 are here described as ‘the likeness of oxen’. The Chronicler is thus emphasising the connection with oxen, because he disapproves of their images in the Temple. They were not ‘add-ons’, but part of the original casting. ‘The likeness of’ indicates that they were not exact images.

  2.4.4 ‘It stood on twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and 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.’

  That these were graven images cannot be doubted. Whatever explanation was given they were contrary to God’s Law, and introduced the symbol of Baal into the Temple courts. They would have been open to misrepresentation and have been frowned on by the Chronicler and his readers. They were a sign of Solomon’s compromise as a consequence of using a syncretistic architect.

  The number twelve suggests that they were seen as representing the twelve tribes of Israel who on the journey through the wilderness surrounded the Tabernacle on its four sides, 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 (Numbers 2). We could see it as indicating that Israel bore the message of cleansing to the world. But that is the danger of such symbolism, and why it was forbidden, for it could equally be represented as indicating that the Baals bore on their shoulders the primeval sea.

  2.4.5 ‘And it was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily. It received and held three thousand baths.’

  The bronze was a handbreadth thick, and had a flaired lily-like rim. The whole ideally contained 3,000 baths. 1 Kings 7.26 has 2,000 baths, possibly indicating how much was actually put in it. But as with most large round numbers these are more symbolic than exact. Three represents completeness, and two represents witness. 1,000 represents a large inexact quantity. A bath was about 22 litres.

  The Ten Lavers For Washing Sacrificial Parts (4.6a).

  The ten lavers are here dealt with in one verse, with no mention of their bases (but see verse 14 where they are mentioned as a kind of postscript), whilst in 1 Kings 7.27-39 a great deal of detail is entered into, mainly concerning their moveable bases which enabled them to be moved round to where they were needed. It may be that he did not like the engravings of lions, bulls and cherubim which were on them (1 Kings 7.29). But he does not mention them. He may have felt that he had sufficiently drawn attention to the scandal of such things in YHWH’s house. The purpose of the lavers was to provide water for any necessary washing of parts of the sacrificial victims (e.g. Leviticus 1.9). There were no parallel lavers in the Tabernacle that we know of. In the Tabernacle the one laver may have served both priests and sacrificial parts, or the sacrificial parts may have been washed in basins.

  2.4.6a ‘He made also ten lavers, and put five on the right hand, and five on the left, to wash in them. Such things as belonged to the burnt-offering they washed in them.’

  The ten lavers were made of bronze and placed in movable bases. They were placed five to the right hand and five to the left, probably of the bronze altar. They were used for the purpose of washing the necessary parts of the burnt offerings.

  The Sea Was For The Priests To Wash In (4.6b).

  4.6b ‘But the sea was for the priests to wash in.’

  The sea, on the other hand, was for the priests to wash in. In the Tabernacle there was only one laver, and this may have been available for both tasks, or more probably the sacrificial parts were washed in basins.

  The Ten Lampstands And The Ten Tables (4.7-8).

  Quite unexpectedly we find in the midst of the description of the bronze items the fashioning of the items made of gold for use in the Sanctuary. This appears to have been in order to open the whole passage with the making of the Sanctuary (3.3-15), to put these Sanctuary items at the heart, and then to close the passage with the Sanctuary furniture and vessels (4.19-5.1), thus laying the emphasis on the Sanctuary. All else was secondary to it.

  The Ten Lampstands (4.7).

  One lampstand of gold was not good enough for Solomon, he had to have ten. He seems to have paid no thought to its significance. Perhaps had he listened to the prophets rather than to Huram he might have done so. For the prophets, and probably most of Israel, continued to think of one lampstand, as did the later King Abijah (2 Chronicles 13.11). They, of course, never entered the Holy Place to know any differently. Solomon’s act did, of course, destroy the symbolism of the one lampstand which either spoke of the one God as the light of the world, or of Israel as one before God and living before Him like a burning light as His light to the world. This is why Jesus could both claim to be the light of the world, and at the same time offer that light to men (John 8.12).

  In Zechariah the lampstand (chapter 4) signified the all-knowingness of God (Zechariah 4.10) and the presence of the living God feeding life to His anointed ones. Just as a man’s life was often called his ‘lamp’ (Job 21.17; Proverbs 20.20; 24.20 see also 2 Samuel 21.17; 1 Kings 11.36), and the lampstand, once removed, signified the death of the church (Revelation 2.5), so the lampstand represented spiritual life from God. Thus the lampstand represented the living God, ‘the Lord of the whole earth’, fully present and fully aware behind the veil, in His giving of that life to His people. This ties in with its multiplied sevenfoldness, multiplied perfection.

  2.4.7 ‘And he made the ten lampstands of gold according to the ordinance concerning them, and he set them in the temple, five on the right hand, and five on the left.’

  He ‘made the ten lampstands of gold according to the ordinance concerning them.’ This might mean that each lampstand was a seven-branched lampstand in accordance with Exodus 25.31-40, or more probably it may be referring to David’s ordinance to Solomon in 1 Chronicles 28.11-19 where multiple lampstands were spoken of. Once again we have to assume that, as with the bronze altar, the age-old lampstand in the Tabernacle was disposed of or put in storage. Had it also been brought into the Holy Place we would surely have been informed somewhere. We can understand why the fiercely conservative returnees from Exile might have bridled at such a thought. In their own Temple there was again only one lampstand (1 Maccabees 1.21; 4.49), as also in Herod’s Temple. Later Jewish tradition was so appalled at the idea that they insisted that the one lampstand from the Tabernacle had been placed in the Holy Place along with the ten lampstands. But this fails to explain why then it is not included in the list of things brought to the Temple in 5.5.

  These lampstands were placed in two sets of five on each side of the Holy Place. The lampstand was no longer ‘before the veil’. They were an unconscious prophecy of the dividing up of Israel. It may be that these ten lampstands and the ten golden tables were appropriated by Shishak when he later invaded Israel, being replaced by the originals which had been kept in storage in the storage room above the Holiest Place (see 13.11).

  The Ten Tables (4.8).

  In the Tabernacle there was one table before the veil on which would be placed the twelve loaves of showbread which continually represented the twelve tribes of Israel before God (Exodus 25.23-30; Leviticus 24.5-9). Solomon appears to have replaced it by ten tables.

  2.4.8 ‘He made also ten tables, and placed them in the temple, five on the right side, and five on the left. And he made a hundred basins of gold.’

  The ten tables were set in the Holy Place with five on one side and five on the other, possibly interspersed with the lampstands (or the lampstands may have been on them). We are not told the purpose of these tables although possibly showbread was set on each (4.19). On the other hand 28.19 knows of only one table of showbread. It seems likely therefore that the showbread was only set on one table (so 1 Kings 7.48. But note that the table in question there was made by Solomon. It was not the table from the Tabernacle). The other tables would then be used to hold Temple vessels and basins. Interestingly 1 Kings does not mention the ten tables. Perhaps the writer felt it wiser not to (he only mentions the lampstands as a note - 1 Kings 7.49). As we have seen he was concerned to make the Temple wholly acceptable. In contrast the Chronicler wants to bring out the flaws, whilst still honouring the Temple.

  Solomon also made one hundred basins (or wine flagons - Amos 6.6) of gold, perhaps assembled on the ten tables. They would be used for meal offerings and possibly wine libations.

  The Making Of The Two Courts With Their Doors And The Placing Of The Sea (4.9-10).

  Around the Sanctuary he built the court of the priests, or the ‘inner court’ (1 Kings 6.36), separated from ‘the great court’ (or the outer court by) a wall consisting of three rows of large hewn stones and a row of cedar beams (1 Kings 6.36; 7.12).

  2.4.9 ‘Furthermore he made the court of the priests, and the great court, and doors for the court, and overlaid the doors of them with bronze (copper).’

  Thus he made the two courts, the court of the priests and the great court, and separating them from each other by the wall described above, provided for them doors overlaid with bronze.

  2.4.10 ‘And he set the sea on the right side (of the house) eastward, toward the south.’

  It seems clear that the Chronicler wanted to put a stress on the sea for he mentions it here unexpectedly. In 1 Kings 7.39 these words are placed after the descriptions of the bases of the lavers and where they were placed, so that they fitted in nicely. But the Chronicler replaced them there by mentioning the purpose of the sea because he had explained the purpose of the lavers. He now catches up with the words here for no obvious reason, for although he has mentioned the courts he mentions the placing of nothing else. He points out that the sea was on the right side of the court (or of the house) eastwards, towards the south. This suggests that he felt particularly concerned about the sea with its oxen images underneath.

  The Things Which Are Said To Be Wrought By Huram-abi On Behalf Of King Solomon (4.11-18).

  Up to this point we were told that ‘Solomon’ did this or that, although they were things that no king would or could do. No one would doubt that it indicated that he worked through agents. Now we are told who his chief agent was in the matter. They were all wrought by Huram-abi, the expert in gold, silver, bronze, iron, stone and timber who was a Phoenician. The Chronicler’s readers must have been as bemused as he was at the use of such a man for building the sacred Sanctuary of YHWH.

  2.4.11a ‘And Huram made the pots, and the shovels, and the basins.’

  The Chronicler now informs us that Huram made the pots, the shovels and the basins (1 Kings 7.40). These were wrought of bronze and were for the use of the altar. They were all necessary for the intimate service of the Temple inner court and bore what was holy and yet they were made with unclean hands.

  Note the sudden change from ‘Solomon’ to ‘Huram’. The words are taken from 1 Kings 7.40 but there they follow a long list of bronze work done by Huram, and there is no sudden change. The writer in 1 Kings was striving to present Huram as only being involved in the bronze working, and therefore on what was outside the Sanctuary, in the same way as he had avoided mentioning the strangers as working on the Sanctuary itself. But it is very different with the Chronicler. He has made clear that Huram and the ‘strangers’ were involved in the whole building (2.14, 17-18).

  2.4.11b ‘So Huram made an end of doing the work that he wrought for king Solomon in the house of God,’

  These words apply both backwards and forwards. He had finished the work of which we have had a resume, some of which is now described. The words that follow are taken from 1 Kings 7.41-46 with minor alterations, or from a similar source. on which 1 Kings also drew.

  2.4.12-13 ‘The two pillars, and the bowls, and the two capitals which 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, 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 upon the pillars.’

  The Chronicler has previously described the making of the two free standing pillars by ‘Solomon’ (3.15-17). Now he makes it clear that they were in fact made by Huram-abi, and goes into greater detail about the decorations on the crown at the top. We have good cause to see that the pillars were of pagan origin, for they have been found on many pagan temples.

  2.4.14-15 ‘He made also the bases, and he made the lavers on the bases; one sea, and the twelve oxen under it.’

  He now mentions the making of the bases for the lavers, something he has not done before (1 Kings had earlier gone into great detail about them). These were on wheels and they contained within them the lavers, and were decorated with lions, oxen and cherubim (1 Kings 7.29). He then describes again the making of the lavers, which would presumably lift out of the bases, and the making of the molten sea, and the twelve oxen which were underneath it. All these were made by Huram-abi. So far did he take Solomon away from the simplicity of the Tabernacle where the only decorations were of cherubim.

  2.4.16 ‘The pots also, and the shovels, and the flesh-hooks, and all its vessels, did Huram-abi make for king Solomon for the house of YHWH of bright bronze.’

  These items were made by Huram-abi out of bronze. They would therefore be for use in the court of the priests and not in the Sanctuary, where all was silver and gold. The pots (and the basins - verse 11a) would, among other things, be used for catching the blood of sacrificed animals, and carrying the meal offerings. The shovels would be for shovelling the ashes and coals on the altar and disposing of them in pots, to be taken to a clean place. The flesh-hooks were for manoeuvring the animal sacrifices.

  2.4.17 ‘In the plain of the Jordan did the king cast them, in the clay ground between Succoth and Zeredah.’

  All the bronze work was cast in the clay ground (from which would be made the moulds) which was in the Plain of Jordan between Succoth and Zeredah. 1 Kings 7.46 says ‘between Succoth and Zarethan’. Zeredah and Zarethan were probably two names for the same town, and may indicate an updating by the Chronicler.

  Note the switch to ‘the king cast them’. He would not, of course, cast them himself, and we have already been told that Huram-abi was responsible for their casting, but the switch of names prepares for the verses which follow. The switch in names at this point parallels 1 Kings 7.46-51. Unlike the Chronicler (2.14) the writer of Kings never speaks of Huram as a worker in gold and silver (see 1 Kings 7.14). He did not want his readers to know that the things used in the Sanctuary itself were made by foreign hands.

  2.4.18 ‘Thus Solomon made all these vessels in great abundance, for the weight of the bronze could not be found out.’

  So many vessels were made for the Temple out of bronze that their weight could not be calculated. We are not told where the bronze and copper came from, but it may well have been imported. In Solomon’s day it would not have been seen as important. It was ‘cheap stuff’. Even silver was treated lightly (9.20).

  The Vessels And Furniture Made Of Gold (4.19-5.1).

  This whole passage, which opened with the making of the Sanctuary (3.3), now closes with the making of the accoutrements for the Sanctuary. These include the golden altar of incense, the golden tables for the showbread, and the golden lampstands, together with all the golden instruments used in the Sanctuary. In accordance with 1 Kings 7.48-51 these are all described as the work of Solomon, in other words of his appointees.

  2.4.19-20 ‘And Solomon made all the vessels which were in the house of God, the golden altar also, and the tables on which was the showbread, and the lampstands with their lamps, to burn according to the ordinance before the oracle, of pure gold.’

  It will be noted that the Chronicler specifically states that these, the golden altar, the tables and the lampstands, were all products of Solomon, and it is suggestive that he tells us little about them. Solomon had replaced what was most sacred with his own devices. In a nation so bound to the sacred as Israel, this would have appeared, had it been generally known, to be sacrilege. We already know that the sacred bronze altar (not this one) still existed as it is mentioned in chapter 1. So that that too must have been discarded (however reverently), in order to be replaced by Solomon’s grandiose altar. In other words the sacred bronze altar, which had been present in the Tabernacle in chapter 1, was conveniently put aside and forgotten. The Chronicler and his readers who later did know that it had happened, must have seen this as appalling.

  Furthermore Ahimelech bears witness to the fact that there was a table for the showbread still in the Tabernacle in the time of Saul (1 Samuel 21.6). Thus that too had been replaced. Whether the bronze altar and the table for the showbread were the original ones or not is hardly important, for whatever their origin they were by this time seen as sacred to Israel, and Israel no doubt saw them as the original ones. In the same way whilst we cannot be certain that a golden altar of incense and a golden lampstand were still present in the Tabernacle, it is probable that they were, and that they too were seen similarly. All were thus supplanted by Solomon, something that Israel as a whole may not have realised until 1 Kings was written. They probably thought that the originals were still present in the Temple. King Abijah later certainly mistakenly appears to have seen it in that way (13.11). (Alternately the ten lampstands my have been taken away by Shishak and have been replaced by the originals which had been kept in storage). Being in the Holy Place only the priests would actually ever see what was there. But the returnees found out when the contents of the books of the Kings were published.

  2.4. 21-22a ‘And the floral decorations, and the lamps, and the tongs, of gold, and that perfect gold, and the snuffers, and the basins, and the spoons, and the firepans, of pure gold.’

  All that was used within the Sanctuary was replaced with items of pure gold. The lamps may have been additional lamps. The tongs would be used on the fire in the golden altar. The snuffers would quench the lamps. The holy vessels are not mentioned. They were brought from the original Tabernacle (5.5).

  2.4.22b ‘And as for the entry of the house, the inner doors of it for the most holy place, and the doors of the house, to wit, of the temple, were of gold.’

  Both the doors into the Holiest Place and the doors into the Holy Place were overlaid with gold. All within was golden.

  2.5.1 ‘Thus all the work which Solomon wrought for the house of YHWH was finished. And Solomon brought in the things that David his father had dedicated, even the silver, and the gold, and all the vessels, and put them in the treasuries of the house of God.’

  Forming an inclusio with 3.1 this verse finalises the description of the completion of the House of YHWH, at which point Solomon brought within it all the things which his father had dedicated, the silver and the gold and the vessels, and put them in the treasuries of the house of God. These would be placed in the chambers built on to the main Sanctuary (1 Kings 6.5-10 - unmentioned by the Chronicler). The Temple was now complete.

  Return to Home Page
  Back to 1 Chronicles 1-5.

  Back to 1 Chronicles 6-9

  Back to 1 Chronicles 10-12

  Back to 1 Chronicles 13-18

  Back to 1 Chronicles 19-21

  Back to 1 Chronicles 22-29

  Forward to 2 Chronicles 5-9

  IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

  If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus. (But preferably not from aol.com, for some reason they do not deliver our messages).

  FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

  THE PENTATEUCH --- GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS --- NUMBERS --- DEUTERONOMY --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- THE BOOK OF RUTH --- SAMUEL --- KINGS --- EZRA---NEHEMIAH--- ESTHER--- PSALMS 1-58--- PROVERBS---ECCLESIASTES--- SONG OF SOLOMON --- ISAIAH --- JEREMIAH --- LAMENTATIONS --- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL --- --- HOSEA --- --- JOEL ------ AMOS --- --- OBADIAH --- --- JONAH --- --- MICAH --- --- NAHUM --- --- HABAKKUK--- --- ZEPHANIAH --- --- HAGGAI --- ZECHARIAH --- --- MALACHI --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- READINGS IN ROMANS --- 1 CORINTHIANS --- 2 CORINTHIANS ---GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS--- PHILIPPIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- PHILEMON --- HEBREWS --- JAMES --- 1 & 2 PETER --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- JUDE --- REVELATION --- THE GOSPELS & ACTS