Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Kings 6

In the four hundred and eightieth year - The entire earlier portion of what is called the “received chronology” depends on this statement. Despite minor differences, there is a general agreement that places Solomon's accession around 1000 BC (or 1018 BC, according to Oppert). However, we face great difficulties in determining the sacred chronology prior to this. Apart from this one statement, the Old Testament's chronological data is insufficient to fix the interval between Solomon's accession and the Exodus, since several of the periods that compose it are not specified. Consequently, chronologists have based the "received chronology" entirely on this verse. But the text itself is not free from suspicion for the following reasons:

1. It is the only passage in the Old Testament that contains the idea of dating events from a specific era.
2. It is quoted by Origen without the date and seems to have been known only in this form to Josephus, Theophilus of Antioch, and Clement of Alexandria.
3. It is hard to reconcile with other chronological statements in the Old and New Testaments.

Although the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel do not provide an exact chronology, they still supply important chronological data—data that seems to indicate a period considerably longer than 480 years for the interval between the Exodus and Solomon. The years that are actually recorded amount to at least 580, or 600 according to another computation. And though a certain deduction might be made from this sum because of the use of round numbers, this deduction would scarcely do more than balance the addition required for the four unspecified periods.

Again, in the New Testament, Paul (according to the received text) calculates the period from the division of Canaan among the tribes in the sixth year of Joshua (Joshua 14:1–15) to Samuel the prophet as 450 years, which would make the interval between the Exodus and the start of the temple's construction 579 years.

On the whole, it seems probable, therefore, that the words “in the four hundred and eightieth year, etc.” are an interpolation into the sacred text that was not widely accepted before the third century AD.

The size of Solomon’s temple depends on the true length of the ancient cubit, which is doubtful. It has been estimated as somewhat less than a foot, and again as between 19 and 20 inches—a difference of nearly 8 inches, which would produce a variation of nearly 40 feet in the length of the temple chamber and 46 feet in the length of the entire building. It is worthy of remark that, even according to the highest estimate, Solomon’s temple was a small building, less than 120 feet long and less than 35 feet wide.

It is also remarkable that the measures of the temple, for both the “house” and the porch (1 Kings 6:3), were exactly double those of the older tabernacle (Exodus 26:18). This identity of proportion amounts to an undesigned coincidence, indicating the thoroughly historical character of both Kings and Exodus.

Windows of narrow lights - This refers to one of two things: either, as a marginal note suggests, windows that were mere slits on the outside but opened wide on the inside, like those in old castles; or, more probably, windows with fixed lattices. These windows seem to have been placed high in the walls, above the chambers described in 1 Kings 6:5–8.

Chambers - (The marginal note reads, "floors.") Rather, it was a lean-to, which completely surrounded three sides of the building: the north, the west, and the south.

To preserve the temple's sanctity while allowing secular buildings—likely sleeping quarters for the priests and other attendants—to be attached, Solomon created "rebatements" in the temple wall. In other words, he built the outer wall with external steps.

The beams that formed the chamber roofs and the floors of the upper stories were then laid on these steps, or "rests," in the wall. This design ensured that the beams did not pierce the temple wall, thus preventing any true union between the secular and sacred structures. As a result, the lowest chambers were the narrowest and the uppermost were considerably wider, since the wall receded by one cubit at each level.