Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 6

In the fourth year. — This date, given with marked precision, forms a most important epoch in the history of Israel, on which, indeed, much of the accepted chronology is based. In the Septuagint, 440 is read for 480, possibly by an interchange of two similar Hebrew letters, or perhaps by reckoning from the completion of Exodus at the death of Moses instead of its beginning. The Vulgate agrees with the Hebrew text. Josephus, on the other hand, without any hint of any other reckoning in the Scriptural record, gives 592 years.

The date itself, involving some apparent chronological difficulties, has been thought to be an interpolation. However, this view lacks sufficient ground, except for Josephus’s seeming ignorance of its existence and some early quotations of the passage by Origen and others that omit it.

Furthermore, this perspective overlooks the important fact that, disagreeing prima facie with earlier chronological indications in Scripture, it is infinitely unlikely to have been interpolated in this way by any mere scribe.

These indications are, however, vague. The period includes the conquest and rule of Joshua, the era of the Judges down to Samuel, the reigns of Saul and David, and the three years of Solomon’s reign already elapsed. Now, of these divisions, only the last three can be determined with any definiteness, totaling about 83 years. The time taken by the conquest and rule of Joshua cannot be gathered with any certainty from Scripture. The same is the case with the duration of some of the subsequent Judgeships.

Even the numerous chronological notices given in the Book of Judges are inconclusive. We cannot tell whether they are literally accurate or, as the recurrence of round numbers may seem to suggest, indefinite expressions for long periods; nor can we determine to what extent the various Judgeships were contemporaneous or successive. The tradition followed by St. Paul (Acts 13:19–21), assigning to the whole a period of 450 years, generally agrees with the latter idea.

The genealogies given (for example, of David, in Ruth 4:18-22; 1 Chronicles 2:3–15, and elsewhere) agree with the former idea. Therefore, these vague chronological statistics cannot constitute a sufficient ground for setting aside a date so formally and unhesitatingly given at an important epoch of the history, corresponding to the equally formal determination of the date of the Exodus in Exodus 12:40-41. The omission of the date in quotations, again, proves little.

The different date given by Josephus, without any mention of the one we now have in our text, presents the only real difficulty. But it is possible that he may have been inclined to tacitly harmonize his chronology with some other reckoning known in his time among pagan sources; and in any case, it is doubtful whether his authority can outweigh that of our present text and the ancient versions. On the whole, therefore, the reasons given for rejecting the chronological notice of this verse are insufficient.

The length. —By comparison with Exodus 26:16-23, we find that the Temple itself was in all its proportions an exact copy of the Tabernacle, each dimension being doubled, and the whole, therefore, in cubical contents, eight times the size. It was, therefore—whatever measure we take for the cubit—a small building. Taking the usual calculation of eighteen inches for the cubit, the whole would be ninety feet long, thirty feet wide, and forty-five feet high—not larger than a good-sized parish church, and in proportion not unlike a church of Gothic construction.

It is, indeed, curious to note that this likeness is carried out in the existence of the porch (which is even represented in 2 Chronicles 3:4 as rising into a lofty entrance tower), the division of the house into two parts, like a nave and chancel, the provision of something like aisles (though opening outwards) and of clerestory windows, and the high pitch of the roof.

This resemblance is probably not mere coincidence, for in the old Freemasonry, which had a great influence on medieval architecture, the plan of Solomon’s Temple was taken in all its details as a sacred guide. The “Oracle,” or Most Holy Place, was lower than the rest, forming an exact cube of thirty feet. The height of the Holy Place (sixty feet long and thirty feet wide) is not given, but was probably the same. Consequently, there would have been an upper chamber over the whole, under the roof—which, like that of the Tabernacle, appears to have been a high-pitched roof—fifteen feet high along the central beam, with sloping sides.

This is apparently alluded to in 2 Chronicles 3:9, and possibly in 2 Kings 23:12, and in the remark of Josephus, “There was another building erected over it, equal in its measures.” The Temple was, in fact, only a shrine for the ministering priests—the outer court, or courts, being the place for the great assembly of the congregation. It relied for magnificence not on size, but on costliness of material and wealth of decoration.

The porch was thirty feet wide and fifteen feet deep. The height is not here given; but in the present text of 2 Chronicles 3:4 (followed by some manuscripts of the Septuagint, and by Josephus) it is made 120 cubits, or 180 feet. This height is hardly in accordance with anything else known on ancient architecture. It is, however, not at all unlike the western tower of a Gothic church.

Windows of narrow lights. —The marginal reading, “windows broad within and narrow without”—splayed as in ordinary Gothic architecture—is supported by very good authorities; but the most probable meaning is “windows with fixed beams”—that is, with fixed lattices, like jalousies, useful for ventilation, but immovable, so that no one could look out or in.

The general meaning of these verses is clear, though some of the words are doubtful. Around three sides of the Temple was built a kind of aisle, opening, however, outwards and not into the Temple, having three stories of low chambers (each only five cubits high), so arranged that the beams of their roofs were supported on rests on the outside of the wall (each rest being a cubit wide), leaving the wall itself intact. Thus, the chambers of the lowest story were narrowest—five cubits wide; the second story six cubits, and the highest story seven cubits wide.

The higher stories (see 1 Kings 6:8), in which the chambers no doubt opened into one another, were approached by a staircase having an external entrance on the right side of the building; the chambers of the lowest story probably had their own external doors. Above the highest story, there were still five cubits of wall, which would provide room for the previously mentioned windows (like clerestory windows). Nothing is said about the use of these chambers; but they would be, no doubt, for the priests' residences, Temple stores, and furniture.

The word translated “chambers” in the first part of 1 Kings 6:5 is a singular noun, referring to the whole of this aisle or side building; the “chambers” in the latter part of the verse—properly, “side pieces” or “ribs”—denote the separate apartments, or perhaps each of the stories of the building.