TEXT [Commentary]

4. Solomon builds his palace (7:1-12)

1 Solomon also built a palace for himself, and it took him thirteen years to complete the construction.

2 One of Solomon’s buildings was called the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon. It was 150 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high.[*] There were four rows of cedar pillars, and great cedar beams rested on the pillars. 3 The hall had a cedar roof. Above the beams on the pillars were forty-five side rooms,[*] arranged in three tiers of fifteen each. 4 On each end of the long hall were three rows of windows facing each other. 5 All the doorways and doorposts[*] had rectangular frames and were arranged in sets of three, facing each other.

6 Solomon also built the Hall of Pillars, which was 75 feet long and 45 feet wide.[*] There was a porch in front, along with a canopy supported by pillars.

7 Solomon also built the throne room, known as the Hall of Justice, where he sat to hear legal matters. It was paneled with cedar from floor to ceiling.[*] 8 Solomon’s living quarters surrounded a courtyard behind this hall, and they were constructed the same way. He also built similar living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter, whom he had married.

9 From foundation to eaves, all these buildings were built from huge blocks of high-quality stone, cut with saws and trimmed to exact measure on all sides. 10 Some of the huge foundation stones were 15 feet long, and some were 12 feet[*] long. 11 The blocks of high-quality stone used in the walls were also cut to measure, and cedar beams were also used. 12 The walls of the great courtyard were built so that there was one layer of cedar beams between every three layers of finished stone, just like the walls of the inner courtyard of the LORD’s Temple with its entry room.

NOTES

7:1 and it took him thirteen years to complete the construction. As is commonly pointed out (Seow [1999:67] is particularly eloquent here; cf. Provan 1995:69), there is quite a contrast between these 13 years and the 7 years that the construction of the Temple required (also cf. 9:10); Solomon’s priorities concerning the relative importance of those buildings were clearly not those of the Deuteronomic narrator. The palace complex was also considerably larger than the Temple proper, and it was located to the south, between the Temple and the old city of David. As Sweeney (2007:116) points out, “the proximity of the Temple and royal palace reflects the intimate association between the Davidic king and YHWH, who is consistently portrayed with royal imagery in the ideology of the Judean state.”

7:2 the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon. Probably the official reception hall (Cogan 2001:254), it was so named due to the large number of cedar columns holding up the roof. It also served as a state treasury (Wiseman 1993:111). For further information concerning cedars from Lebanon, see the first note on 5:6.

7:6 the Hall of Pillars. This is possibly more of a portico or foyer (Sweeney 2007:117; Wiseman 1993:112); it may have served as a waiting area for those seeking an audience with the king.

7:7 the throne room, known as the Hall of Justice. Whether the “Hall of Pillars” served as a porch to this place or to the palace mentioned in 7:2 is uncertain, but the latter is more likely. Indeed, the present “Hall of Justice” may have been part of that palace as well, since no additional dimensions are given here (Wiseman 1993:112). Solomon’s actual throne is described at length in 10:18-20.

from floor to ceiling. This is a common emendation; as the NLT mg note indicates, the Hebrew reads “from floor to floor” (which Wiseman [1993:112] suggests may mean “from one floor to another,” i.e., stretching all the way through the throne room to the pillared hall beyond).

7:8 similar living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter. See the first note on 3:1 for details concerning this eminent princess. “The queen’s quarters (and harem?) were not necessarily of separate or Egyptian design” (Wiseman 1993:112).

7:12 the great courtyard. Evidently an outer court surrounding the entire Temple complex is in view here (so Cogan 2001:256).

one layer of cedar beams between every three layers of finished stone. See the note on 6:36 concerning the nature of this type of construction.

COMMENTARY [Text]

Rather provocatively, Seow (1999:67) has characterized the entirety of the present chapter of 1 Kings as “mainly an intrusion” into the overall Temple narrative:

The preceding chapter ends with the completion of the Temple. The next chapter will give an account of its dedication. In between the two stands this odd chapter highlighting Solomon’s construction of his own palace and the emphasis that the building is the work of Hiram [NLT, “Huram”], the Tyrian artisan, and Solomon. It was they who made it; it was they who completed it. . . . The digression is, perhaps, not accidental. In any case . . . [it] is theologically important. It serves at once as a postscript to the account of the completion of the Temple and a preface to the account of the Temple’s dedication.

There is much wisdom in Seow’s comments, especially in regard to the theological import of these “digressions” in the text. Just as 6:11-12 shapes the initial Temple discussion in theologically subtle ways (see the commentary on 6:1-12), I would submit that 7:12 does the same. Solomon’s Temple, although great and grand, was only a relatively small part of the palace complex, and not particularly different in its level of construction than (seemingly) any other part. As Seow goes on to say (1999:67), “Most important, the passage also stresses the Temple and its furnishings as human handiwork, just as the palace complex is. This is the perspective of the martyr Stephen: ‘It was Solomon who built a house for [God]. Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands’ (Acts 7:47-48 NRSV).” Solomon himself will say much the same thing in his prayer of dedication (see 8:27—“even the highest heavens cannot contain [God.] How much less this Temple I have built”). But chapter after chapter, verse after verse, detail after detail—the extensive elaboration of the glories and the grandeur of the Temple and of its furnishings could serve to obscure this vital theological truth.