Charles Ellicott Commentary 2 Chronicles 4

THE PRINCIPAL VESSELS OF THE TEMPLE (2 Chronicles 4:1–10).

THE BRAZEN ALTAR (2 Chronicles 4:1).

An altar of brass. The brazen altar, or altar of burnt offering, made by Solomon, is not recorded in the parallel chapters of Kings (1 Kings 6:7) which describe the construction of the temple and its vessels of service, but it is incidentally mentioned in another passage of the older work (1 Kings 9:25), and its existence seems to be implied in 1 Kings 8:22; 1 Kings 8:64. This altar stood in the inner court of the temple.

It rose from a terraced platform. (Compare to Ezekiel 43:13-17.) The Hebrew of this verse suggests that it must have existed in the original document. The style is the same. (Compare the construction of the numerals with the noun, and note the word qômâh, “height,” now used for the first time by the chronicler.) It would appear, therefore, that the verse has been accidentally omitted from the text of Kings.

THE BRAZEN SEA (2 Chronicles 4:2–5).

(Compare to 1 Kings 7:23–26.)

Also he made a molten sea. And he made the sea (i.e., the great basin) molten, i.e., of cast metal.

Of ten cubits ... thereof. Ten in the cubit from its lip to its lip, circular all round; and five in the cubit was its height. This is word for word as in 1 Kings 7:23, except that Kings has one different preposition (‘ad, “unto,” instead of ‘el, “to”). “Lip.” Compare “lip of the sea,”Genesis 22:17; “lip of the Jordan,” 2 Kings 2:13; a metaphor which is also used in Greek.

And a line of thirty cubits ... Line, i.e., measuring-line, as in Ezekiel 47:3. The Hebrew is qâw. In Kings we read a rare form, qâwèh. The rest of the clause is the same in both texts.

Did compass. Would compass, or go round it.

Even if pôthôth is correct in Kings, the chronicler might have understood the word to mean openings, rather than hinges, and so substituted the common word pethah, which has that sense. The resemblance of the one word to the other would be a further consideration in its favour, according to ancient notions of interpretation.

And under it was the similitude of oxen. —Literally, And a likeness of oxen (figured oxen) under it around surrounding it, ten in the cubit encompassing the sea around: two rows were the oxen, smelted in the smelting of it.

In the parallel passage (1 Kings 7:24) we read: And wild gourds underneath its lip around surrounding it,” etc., as here; two of rows were the gourds, smelted in the smelting thereof. The Hebrew words for “oxen” and “gourds” might easily be confused by a transcriber, and accordingly it is assumed by most commentators that the text of the chronicler has suffered corruption, and should be restored from that of Kings. But there seems no reason—unless we suppose that each writer has given an exhaustive description, which is clearly not the case—why the ornamental rows which ran round the great basin should not have included both features, small figures of oxen, as well as wild gourds.

Reuss objects on the ground of the diminutive size of the axon (“ten in a cubit”); but such work was by no means beyond the resources of ancient art. (Comp. the reliefs on the bronze doors of Shalmaneser 11. (859-825 B.C.); 1 Kings 7:29 actually gives an analogous instance.) The word pĕqâ’îm, “wild gourds,” only occurs in one other place of Kings, viz., 1 Kings 6:18. (Comp. paqqû‘ôth, 2 Kings 4:39.) A copyist of Kings might nave inadvertently repeated the word from the former passage in 1 Kings 7:24. In any case it is sheer dogmatism to assert that “the copyists (in the Chronicle) have absurdly changed the gourds into oxen” (Reuss). The Syriac and Arabic omit this verse; but the Septuagint and Vulgate have it.

It stood. —The whole verse coincides verbally with 1 Kings 7:25, with one slight exception: the common form of the numeral “twelve,” shnêm ‘âsâr, is substituted for the rare shnê ‘âsâr.

And the thickness ... a cup. — Identical with 1 Kings 7:26.

With flowers of lilies. — See margin. “Lily” here is shôshannâh; in Kings, shôshân. Septuagint, “graven with lily buds.” Syriac and Arabic, “and it was very beautiful.” Vulgate, “like the lip of a cup, or of an open lily.”

And it received and held three thousand baths. — Literally, holding (whole) baths: three thousand would it contain. The bath was the largest of Hebrew liquid measures. Perhaps the true reading is, “holding three thousand baths,” the last verb being a gloss borrowed from Kings. So Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic omit the clause.

The Septuagint had the present reading. 1 Kings 7:26 reads, two thousand baths would it contain. Most critics assume this to be correct.

Some scribe may have read ’alâphîm, “thousands,” instead of ‘alpayim, “two thousand,” and then added “three” (shĕlôsheth) under the influence of the last verse. But it is more likely that the numeral “three” was inadvertently omitted from the text of Kings, and the indefinite word “thousands” was then made definite by changing it to the dual “two thousand.” Either mistake would be possible because, in the unpointed text, ‘alâphîm and ’alpayim are written alike.

The Syriac has the curious addition, “And he made ten poles, and put five on the right and five on the left, and bore with them the altar of burnt offerings.” Similarly the Arabic version.