TEXT [Commentary]

3. The Temple’s interior (6:14-38)

14 So Solomon finished building the Temple. 15 The entire inside, from floor to ceiling, was paneled with wood. He paneled the walls and ceilings with cedar, and he used planks of cypress for the floors. 16 He partitioned off an inner sanctuary—the Most Holy Place—at the far end of the Temple. It was 30 feet deep and was paneled with cedar from floor to ceiling. 17 The main room of the Temple, outside the Most Holy Place, was 60 feet[*] long. 18 Cedar paneling completely covered the stone walls throughout the Temple, and the paneling was decorated with carvings of gourds and open flowers.

19 He prepared the inner sanctuary at the far end of the Temple, where the Ark of the LORD’s Covenant would be placed. 20 This inner sanctuary was 30 feet long, 30 feet wide, and 30 feet high. He overlaid the inside with solid gold. He also overlaid the altar made of cedar.[*] 21 Then Solomon overlaid the rest of the Temple’s interior with solid gold, and he made gold chains to protect the entrance[*] to the Most Holy Place. 22 So he finished overlaying the entire Temple with gold, including the altar that belonged to the Most Holy Place.

23 He made two cherubim of wild olive[*] wood, each 15 feet[*] tall, and placed them in the inner sanctuary. 24 The wingspan of each of the cherubim was 15 feet, each wing being 7¹/2 feet[*] long. 25 The two cherubim were identical in shape and size; 26 each was 15 feet tall. 27 He placed them side by side in the inner sanctuary of the Temple. Their outspread wings reached from wall to wall, while their inner wings touched at the center of the room. 28 He overlaid the two cherubim with gold.

29 He decorated all the walls of the inner sanctuary and the main room with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. 30 He overlaid the floor in both rooms with gold.

31 For the entrance to the inner sanctuary, he made double doors of wild olive wood with five-sided doorposts.[*] 32 These double doors were decorated with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. The doors, including the decorations of cherubim and palm trees, were overlaid with gold.

33 Then he made four-sided doorposts of wild olive wood for the entrance to the Temple. 34 There were two folding doors of cypress wood, and each door was hinged to fold back upon itself. 35 These doors were decorated with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers—all overlaid evenly with gold.

36 The walls of the inner courtyard were built so that there was one layer of cedar beams between every three layers of finished stone.

37 The foundation of the LORD’s Temple was laid in midspring, in the month of Ziv,[*] during the fourth year of Solomon’s reign. 38 The entire building was completed in every detail by midautumn, in the month of Bul,[*] during the eleventh year of his reign. So it took seven years to build the Temple.

NOTES

6:14 So Solomon finished building the Temple. This is probably another resumptive reference (see note on 6:10).

6:16 the Most Holy Place. Lit., “the Holy of Holies”; this kind of phrase in Hebrew connotes the superlative, the best of all (as in the “Song of Songs” or the “Lord of Lords”). This sacred space, a cube of 20 cubits, corresponded with the “Most Holy Place” in the Tabernacle (see Exod 26:31-34; that place was probably a cube). Both “rooms” served, in their respective time periods, primarily to house the Ark (cf. 6:19). Parallel references to cedar paneling in 6:15 and 6:18 (yet another example of inclusio) further accentuate the importance of this text.

paneled with cedar from floor to ceiling. Such lavish use of cedar paneling is also mentioned in 6:18; the point is that no stonework at all was to be seen from the inside. One can also vividly imagine the delightful fragrance this lavish use of cedar would provide.

6:18 with carvings of gourds and open flowers. A likely translation of the Hebrew; some see these symbols as representing fertility (Jones 1984:168-169), but Wiseman (1993:109) simply characterizes them (in essence “wild fruits and rosettes”) as well-known decorative motifs in wide use at this time.

6:20 He also overlaid the altar made of cedar. As the NLT mg note indicates, the Hebrew here is uncertain (is the altar made of cedar, overlaid with gold, or vice versa?). Cogan (2001:243) prefers the former, and equates it with the altar of incense (cf. Exod 30:1-3, where the altar there is made of acacia wood, overlaid with gold).

6:20-22 with solid gold . . . with solid gold . . . with gold. Commentaries vary on the details, especially in regard to the “gold chains” of 6:21, but the repeated references to such lavish gilding, although seemingly quite unrealistic to the present-day reader, do find rather close parallels elsewhere in the ancient world (Kitchen 1977:103). In addition, in 10:21 we are reminded that all of Solomon’s drinking vessels were solid gold; they were not made of silver, “for silver was considered worthless in Solomon’s day!”

6:23 two cherubim. “Cherubim” (the plural of kerub [TH3742, ZH4131], “a winged creature”) are well known from extrabiblical as well as biblical contexts. Most likely Akkadian in derivation (i.e., the language of Assyria and Babylonia), the term “cherub” probably originally meant “tutelary spirit; sculpted mythical gatekeeper” or the like (HALOT 497; but contrast Cogan [2001:244], who doubts this etymology). Mentioned as early as Gen 3:24 as guardians of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden, cherubim are also featured in several of the great theophanies found in Ezekiel (implied in Ezek 1–2 with the winged beasts bearing the throne of God, each with four wings and four faces; specified as such in Ezek 9:3 and throughout Ezek 10). Yahweh also rides on the wings of a cherub in Ps 18:10 (cf. 2 Sam 22:11). But the most famous cherubim are the two figures that flanked the “atonement cover” in the Holy of Holies of the Mosaic Tabernacle (see Exod 25:18-22; 37:7-9). Those surely are the direct antecedents of the cherubim described in the present passage. Presumably their forms were winged sphinxes (sphinxes have the head of a human and the body of a lion, or the like), in line with Akkadian parallels rather than the later, modified versions described in Ezek 1 and 10. Two distinguishing characteristics of cherubim are their remarkable mobility and their intimate presence with the divine (ABD 1.900; Wiseman 1993:110). One final note: The “cherubs” of the OT and the ancient Near East are large, fearsome creatures and nothing like the cute, angelic baby “cherubs” found in Renaissance art and on modern valentines!

wild olive wood. Heb., ‘atse-shamen [TH6086/8081, ZH6770/9043] (lit., “trees of oil”; cf. NLT mg note on 6:23a). The translations differ on how to render this term, but Cogan (2001:244) makes a strong case for “pinewood” (i.e., wood taken from the Pinus halepensis or Aleppo pine, from which resinous pitch and oil can easily be extracted) as best fitting the requirements both of location and of magnitude (i.e., appropriate for carving large figures).

6:29, 32 with carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. These are decorative motifs akin to the gourds and open flowers mentioned in 6:18 (cf. the note on that verse; and concerning the “cherubim,” see the first note on 6:23). Wiseman (1993:110) points out that if the present motifs are meant to be symbolic, they may evoke images of the garden of God or Garden of Eden (see also Sweeney 2007:115). Cogan (2001:245) notes that the Hebrew term used here for “palm trees” (timoroth [TH8561, ZH9474]) may also denote a column style specifically found in Israelite buildings at this time (cf. the work of Yigal Shiloh [1977:39-52]); these so-called “proto-Aeolic” capitals look like stylized palm trees.

6:31 double doors . . . with five-sided doorposts. As the NLT mg note indicates, the Hebrew here is uncertain in meaning (that is to say, uncertain for us, surely not uncertain for the original audience). This is also the case in 6:33, where the NLT has the translation “four-sided doorposts.” Cogan (2001:246), following Millard (1989:134-139), has argued that the Hebrew should be understood as stating that the doorjamb and the doorposts were “a fifth” (of the wall), and “a fourth” (of the wall), respectively.

6:33 four-sided doorposts. See previous note.

6:36 one layer of cedar beams between every three layers of finished stones. This is the common construction used for masonry walls in earthquake-prone regions (Cogan 2001:247); similar construction for the walls of the great courtyard is mentioned in 7:12. Cf. Ezra 5:8; 6:4 for the same type of construction used in the postexilic Temple. Such construction fares better than straight masonry, which remains brittle and inflexible (cf. Baldwin 1972:41); in recent days, one thinks of the problem of cracks in the (brittle?) Washington Monument in Washington, DC.

6:38 month of Bul. Concerning the use of this ancient Phoenician name for the eighth month of the Hebrew calendar, see the first note on 6:1. The term “Bul” (bul [TH945, ZH1004]) possibly was a short form for yebul, the month of harvesting (HALOT 115, 382; Sweeney 2007:116). Interestingly, the actual period of some 7 years and 6 months was rounded down to an even 7 years (a similar procedure obtained for my reckoning of the 480-year regnal period underlying the era of the Davidic monarchy—see the third note on 6:1 for details). Alternatively, perhaps Cogan (2001:248) is more on target to note simply that the “seven years” here represents an ideal number.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Having completed one chapter concerning architectural and decorative details for the Solomonic Temple, we turn again to Bright’s statements (1981:218) about this Temple (see the commentary on 6:1-13 for more of his statement):

Since [the construction of the Temple] followed Phoenician models, much of its symbolism inevitably reflected a pagan background. For example, the bronze sea (I Kings 7:23-26) probably symbolized the underground fresh-water ocean, the source of life and fertility, while the altar of burnt offering (cf. Ezek. 43:13-17) seems originally to have suggested the mountain of the gods. This undeniably posed the danger that pagan concepts would insinuate themselves into Israel’s official religion. We may, however, take it as certain that, at least in official circles, these features were given a Yahwistic rationale and made to serve as symbols of Yahweh’s cosmic domain. The Temple cult, whatever it borrowed, remained essentially Israelite in character.

We have been pursuing both comparisons and contrasts between Solomon’s Temple and the Mosaic Tabernacle. Here it is appropriate to emphasize some of the contrasts, many of which are international in character—for that is surely what the cedar paneling, the lavish use of gold, the decorations of gourds, “open flowers,” palm trees, the large cherubim sculptures (6:23), and the sizable auxiliary buildings all represent. The Temple was very international in scope and design. This is not at all condemned in the text. Solomon’s paradigmatic sin will be that of syncretism, of religious compromise—yes, of internationalism of a sort (see ch 11). But not all internationalism is evil, nor is every kind of internationalism condemned by the biblical writer. Yahweh is uniquely God, and he must be worshiped, uniquely, above all possible rivals. But Yahweh may be worshiped with Egyptian, Phoenician (Canaanite!), and even Mesopotamian motifs. That was true then, and that is true today. As Paul put it, “I try to find common ground with everyone, doing everything I can to save some. I do everything to spread the Good News and share in its blessings” (1 Cor 9:22-23).

The cherubim call for special notice. In both the Tabernacle and in the Temple, the sacred “beast” was not the bull but the cherub. This stands in stark contrast to the pagan references found in the golden-calf incident of Exodus 32–34, and the bull (“calf,” NLT) iconography of Jeroboam I as described in 1 Kings 12. Some scholars consider bull imagery to be Egyptian in origin, but what is of more pressing importance here is that the bull iconography (with its patent fertility imagery) is typical of the Canaanite god Baal, a hometown deity. Yahweh, apparently from the very beginning, preferred cherub imagery—mysterious, Mesopotamian, but less likely to be connected with fertility religion. Whereas Baal rides on a bullock (Smith 1990:51), Yahweh rides on a cherub (see the first note on 6:23), easily “soaring on the wings of the wind” (Ps 18:10).

While some international imagery is permissible, some is not! Similarly, today, we must be discriminating when translating the gospel into cultures that may or may not have suitable imagery to appropriate. One quick, obvious example: The Christian cross is something quite different in appearance than the electric chair (although both represent places of capital punishment), but it is closer to the electric chair in significance than it is to the Egyptian ankh symbol (a kind of looped cross, a symbol for life), or, at least since the rise and fall of Nazism, to the swastika. Though the electric chair looks nothing like a Christian cross, and though both the ankh and the swastika are rather similar in appearance to the cross, simple intercultural awareness will lead us to suitable parallels. So it was with the bull and the cherub iconography. Yahweh did, does, and will appropriate apt symbols to further the gospel, but not just any parallel will do.