{"commentary":{"id":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","website":"https://worthy.bible/commentaries/keil-delitzsch-commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"bb5cc0f9cfe0a93b3c903bb6972c6bc8c4e9f2bd3be6c2a6d276737cf9c5edce","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":39,"totalNumberOfChapters":909,"totalNumberOfVerses":6516,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"1KI","commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","name":"1 Kings","commonName":"1 Kings","introduction":"The Books of Kings\n\nIntroduction\n\nContents- and Character- Origin and Sources- of the Books of the Kings.\n\nThe books of the Kings, which were but one book originally like the books of Samuel, and which like the latter, were divided into two books by the Alexandrian translators (see the Introduction to the books of Samuel), contain, in accordance with their name (מלכים), the history of the Israelitish theocracy under the kings, from the accession of Solomon to the extinction of the monarchy on the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Chaldaeans and the people were carried away into exile in Babylon. they embrace a period of 455 years, from 1015 to 560 b.c., that is to say, to the reign of the Babylonian king Evil-merodach. And as every kingdom culminates in its king, and the government of the kings determines the fate of the kingdom, the contents of the books before us, which are named after the kings of Israel, consist for the most part of a history of those kings; inasmuch as, whilst on the one hand the reigns of the several kings form the historical and chronological framework for the description of the historical development of the people and kingdom, on the other hand the leading phases which the monarchy assumed furnish the basis of the three periods, into which the history of this epoch and the contents of our books are divided.\n\nThe first period (1015-975 b.c.) embraces the forty years of Solomon's reign over the undivided kingdom of the twelve tribes of Israel, when the Israelitish kingdom of God stood at the summit of its earthly power and glory; though towards the end of this period it began to decline inasmuch as the rebellion of Solomon against the Lord in the closing years of his reign prepared the way for the rebellion of the ten tribes against the house of David. - The second period commences with the division of the one kingdom into the two kingdoms, Israel (or the ten tribes) and Judah, and stretches over the whole period during which these two kingdoms existed side by side, terminating with the destruction of the kingdom of the ten tribes by the Assyrians, i.e., from 975 to 722 b.c. - The third period embraces the still remaining years of the continuance of the kingdom of Judah, until its eventual dissolution by the Chaldaeans and the carrying away of the people into exile in Babylon, viz., from 722 to 560 b.c.\n\nThe first part of our books (1 Kings 1-11) therefore contains a description of the reign of Solomon, (a) in its commencement, viz., his ascent of the throne and the consolidation of his power (1 Kings 1 and 2); (b) in the gradual development of the strength and glory of his government, by his marriage, his sacrifice and prayer at Gibeon, his judicial wisdom, and his court (1 Kings 3:1-5:14)-also by the building of the temple and royal palace and the dedication of the temple (1 Kings 5:15-9:9), by the erection of his other edifices and the introduction of navigation and commerce (1 Kings 9:10-28), by the spreading abroad of the fame of his wisdom, and by the increase of his wealth (1 Kings 10); and (c) in its eventual decline in consequence of the sin into which the aged monarch fell through his polygamy and idolatry (1 Kings 11). The second part opens with an account of the falling away of the ten tribes from the royal family of David, and relates in a synchronistic narrative the history of the two kingdoms in the three stages of their development: viz., (a) the early enmity between the two, from Jeroboam to Omri of Israel (1 Kings 12:1-16:28); (b) the establishment of friendship and intermarriage between the two royal houses under Ahab and his sons, down to the destruction of the two kings Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah by Jehu (1 Kings 16:29-2 Kings 10); (c) the renewal of hostilities between the two kingdoms, from Jehu's ascent of the throne in Israel and Athaliah's usurpation of the throne in Judah to the overthrow of the kingdom of Israel in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign in Judah (2 Kings 11-17). And, lastly, the third part contains the history of the kingdom of Judah from Hezekiah to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldaeans, and carries it down to the thirty-seventh year of the imprisonment of king Jehoiachin in exile (2 Kings 18-25).\n\nNow, although the history of the kings, or the account of both the duration and character of their reigns, and also of their various enterprises, so far as they promoted or hindered the progress of the kingdom of God, forms the principal substance of these books, they do not consist of a mere chronicle of the deeds and fortunes of the several kings, but describe at the same time the ministry of the prophets in the two kingdoms, and that to some extent in so elaborate a manner, that whilst some have discovered in this a peculiarly \"prophetico-didactic purpose\" (Hvernick, De Wette, etc.), others regard it as an endeavour \"to set forth the history of the Israelitish and Jewish kings in its relation to the demands, the doings, the proclamations, and the predictions of the prophets, from Solomon to the Babylonian exile\" (Kern). But however unmistakable the prophetico-didactic character may be, which the books of Kings have in common with the whole of the historical writings of the Old Testament, a closer investigation of their character will show that there is no ground for the assertion that there is any prophetico-didactic purpose in the mode in which the history is written. For the account of the ministry of the prophets is introduced into the history of the kings as the spiritual leaven which pervaded the Israelitish monarchy from the beginning to the end, and stamped upon its development the character of the theocracy or divine rule in Israel. Jehovah, as the invisible but yet real King of the covenant nation, had created the peculiar instruments of His Spirit in the prophets who maintained His law and right before the kings, standing by their side to advise and direct, or to warn and punish, and, wherever it was necessary, proving their utterances to be words of God by signs and wonders which they did before the people. Thus the Lord directed the prophet Samuel to anoint Saul and David princes over His people, and the prophet Nathan to communicate to David the promise of the everlasting endurance of his throne (2 Sam 7). But when at a later period David sinned (2 Sam 11 and 24), it was the prophets Nathan and Gad who threatened him with punishment from God, and on his confession of sin and repentance announced the forgiveness and favour of God (Sa2 12:1-15; Sa2 24:11-19). Through the medium of the prophet Nathan, Solomon was also appointed the successor of David upon the throne (Sa2 12:25), and not only anointed king, but installed in defiance of the machinations of Adonijah (1 Kings 1). But since the monarchy was transmitted from Solomon in a direct line through his descendants by virtue of the divine promise in 2 Sam 7, it is only in connection with important enterprises, or when the kingdom is involved in difficulties, that we find the prophets coming forward in after times to help or advise those kings who walked in the ways of the Lord; whereas under the idolatrous and godless rulers they offer, in the power of God, such energetic resistance to idolatry and to everything evil and ungodly, that princes and people are compelled to bow before them and succumb to their divine words. In this way the prophets accompanied the monarchy in all its course from Solomon to the Captivity as guardians of the rights of the God-King, and as interpreters of His counsel and will. Under Solomon, indeed, there was apparently a long period, during which prophecy fell into the background; since the Lord Himself not only appeared to this king in a dream at Gibeon shortly after he ascended the throne, but also appeared to him a second time after the dedication of the temple, and promised him the fulfilment of his prayers, and the glorification and eternal continuance of his kingdom, on condition of his faithful observance of the divine commands (Kg1 3:5., Kg1 9:1.). But towards the end of his reign it rose up again in all the more threatening attitude, against the king who was then disposed to fall away from Jehovah. It was no doubt a prophet who announced to him the separation of ten parts of his kingdom (Kg1 11:11.)-possibly the same Ahijah who promised Jeroboam the government over ten tribes (Kg1 11:29.). But after the division of the kingdom, when Jeroboam proceeded, in order to fortify his throne, to make the political division into a religious one, and to this end exalted the image-worship into the state religion, the prophets continued to denounce this apostasy and proclaim to the sinful kings the destruction of their dynasties. And when at a still later period Ahab the son of Omri, and his wife Jezebel, endeavoured to make the Phoenician worship of Baal and Asherah into the national religion in Israel, Elijah the Tishbite, \"the prophet as fire, whose words burned as a torch\" (Ecclus. 48:1), came forward with the irresistible power of God and maintained a victorious conflict against the prophets and servants of Baal, warding off the utter apostasy of the nation by uniting the prophets into societies, in which the worship of God was maintained, and the godly in Israel were supplied with a substitute for that legal worship in the temple which was enjoyed by the godly in Judah. And in the kingdom of Judah also where were never wanting prophets to announce the judgments of the Lord to idolatrous kings, and to afford a vigorous support to the pious and God-fearing rulers in their endeavours to promote the religious life of the nation, and to exalt the public worship of God in the temple. But since the kingdom of Judah possessed the true sanctuary, with the legal worship and an influential body of priests and Levites; and since, moreover, the monarchy of the house of David was firmly established by divine promises resting upon that house, and among the kings who sat upon the throne, from Rehoboam onwards, there were many godly rulers who were distinguished for their lofty virtues as governors; the labours of the prophets did not assume the same prominent importance here as they did in the kingdom of the ten bribes, where they had to fight against idolatry from the beginning to the end.\n\nThis explains the fact that the ministry of the prophets assumes so prominent a position in the books of the Kings, whereas the history of the kings appears sometimes to fall into the background in comparison. Nevertheless the historical development of the monarchy, or, to express it more correctly, of the kingdom of God under the kings, forms the true subject-matter of our books. It was not a prophetico-didactic purpose, but the prophetico-historical point of view, which prevailed throughout the whole work, and determined the reception as well as the treatment of the historical materials. The progressive development of the kingdom was predicted and described by the Lord Himself in the promise communicated to David by the prophet Nathan: \"And when thy days shall be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name; and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his Father, and he shall be my son, that if he go astray, I may chasten him with man's rod, and with stripes of the children of men; but my mercy will not depart from him, as I caused it to depart from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thy house and thy kingdom shall be for ever before thee, thy throne will be established for ever\" (Sa2 7:12-16). This thoroughly glorious promise forms the red thread which runs through the history of the kings from Solomon to the Babylonian captivity, and constitutes the leading idea in the record of this history in our books. The author's intention is to show in the history of the kings how the Lord fulfilled this gracious word, how He first of all chastised the seed of David for its transgressions, and then cast it off, though not for ever. To this end he shows in the history of Solomon, how, notwithstanding the usurpation of the throne attempted by Adonijah, Solomon received the whole of his father's kingdom, as the seed of David promised by the Lord, and established his power; how the Lord at the very beginning of his reign renewed to him at Gibeon the promise made to his father on the condition of his faithful observance of His law, and in answer to his prayer gave him not only a wise and understanding heart, but also riches and honour, so that his equal was not to be found among all the kings of the earth (1 Kings 1:1-5:14); how Solomon then carried out the work of building the temple, entrusted to him by his father according to the will of the Lord; and how, after it was finished, the Lord again assured him of the fulfilment of that promise (1 Kings 5:15-9:9); and, lastly, how Solomon, having attained to the highest earthly glory, through the completion of the rest of his buildings, through the great renown of his wisdom, which had reached to nations afar off, and through his great riches, acquired partly by marine commerce and trade, and partly from tributes and presents, forgot his God, who had bestowed this glory upon him, and in his old age was led astray into unfaithfulness towards the Lord through his numerous foreign wives, and had at last to listen to this sentence from God: \"Because thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and give it to thy servant: notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it, for David thy father's said; but I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all thy kingdom; but will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen\" (1 Kings 9:10-11:13). Thus, because God had promised to the seed of David the eternal possession of the throne (Sa2 7:12.), one portion of the kingdom was to be left to the son of Solomon, with the chosen city of Jerusalem, and his servant (Jeroboam, Kg1 11:26-40) was only to obtain dominion over ten tribes. The historical realization of this prophecy is shown in the history of the two divided kingdoms.\n\nIn the synchronistic account of these kingdoms, according to the principle already adopted in the book of Genesis, of disposing of the subordinate lines of the patriarchs before proceeding with the main line, the reigns of the kings of Israel are described before those of the contemporaneous kings of Judah, and to some extent in a more elaborate manner. The reason of this, however, is, that the history of the kingdom of Israel, in which one dynasty overthrew another, whilst all the rulers walked in the sin of Jeroboam, and Ahab even added the worship of Baal to that sin, supplied the author with more materials for the execution of his plan than that of the kingdom of Judah, which had a much quieter development under the rule of the house of David, and of which, therefore, there was less to relate. Apart from this, all the events of the kingdom of Judah which are of any importance in relation to the progress of the kingdom of God, are just as elaborately described as those connected with the kingdom of Israel; and the author does equal justice to both kingdoms, showing how the Lord manifested Himself equally to both, and bore with them with divine long-suffering and grace. But the proof of this necessarily assumed different forms, according to the different attitudes which they assumed towards the Lord. Jeroboam, the founder of the kingdom of Israel, when told that he would be king over the ten tribes, had received the promise that Jehovah would be with him, and build him a lasting house as He built for David, and give Israel to him, on condition that he would walk in the ways of God (Kg1 11:37-38). This implied that his descendants would rule over Israel (of the ten tribes) so long as this kingdom should stand; for it was not to last for ever, but the separation would come to an end, and therefore he is not promised the everlasting continuance of his kingdom (see at Kg1 11:38). But Jeroboam did not fulfil this condition, nor did any of the rulers of Israel who succeeded him. Nevertheless the Lord had patience with the kings and tribes who were unfaithful to His law, and not only warned them continually by His prophets, and chastised them by threats of punishment and by the fulfilment of those threats upon the kings and all the people, but repeatedly manifested His favour towards them for the sake of His covenant with Abraham (Kg2 13:23), to lead them to repentance-until the time of grace had expired, when the sinful kingdom fell and the ten tribes were carried away to Media and Assyria. - In the kingdom of David, on the contrary, the succession to the throne was promised to the house of David for all time: therefore, although the Lord caused those who were rebellious to be chastised by hostile nations, yet, for His servant David's sake, He left a light shining to the royal house, since He did not punish the kings who were addicted to idolatry with the extermination of their family (Kg1 15:4; Kg2 8:19); and even when the wicked Athaliah destroyed all the royal seed, He caused Joash, the infant son of Ahaziah, to be saved and raised to the throne of his fathers (2 Kings 11). Consequently this kingdom was able to survive that of the ten tribes for an entire period, just because it possessed a firm political basis in the uninterrupted succession of the Davidic house, as it also possessed a spiritual basis of no less firmness in the temple which the Lord had sanctified as the place where His name was revealed. After it had been brought to the verge of destruction by the godless Ahaz, it received in Hezekiah a king who did what was right in the eyes of Jehovah, as his father David had done, and in the severe oppression which he suffered at the hands of the powerful army of the proud Sennacherib, took refuge in the Lord, who protected and saved Jerusalem, \"for His own and His servant David's sake,\" at the prayer of the pious king of Jerusalem (Kg2 19:34; Kg2 20:6). But when at length, throughout the long reign of Manasseh the idolater, apostasy and moral corruption prevailed to such an extent in Judah also, that even the pious Josiah, with the reformation of religion which he carried out with the greatest zeal, could only put down the outward worship of idols, and was unable to effect any thorough conversion of the people to the Lord their God, and the Lord as the Holy One of Israel was obliged to declare His purpose of rejecting Judah from before His face on account of the sins of Manasseh, and to cause that purpose to be executed by Nebuchadnezzar (Kg2 23:26-27; Kg2 24:3-4); Jehoiachin was led away captive to Babylon, and under Zedekiah the kingdom was destroyed with the burning of Jerusalem and the temple. Yet the Lord did not suffer the light to be altogether extinguished to His servant David; but when Jehoiachin had pined in captivity at Babylon for thirty-seven years, expiating his own and his fathers' sins, he was liberated from his captivity by Nebuchadnezzar's son, and raised to honour once more (Kg2 25:27-30). - The account of this joyful change in the condition of Jehoiachin, with which the books of the Kings close, forms so essential a part of their author's plan, that without this information the true conclusion to his work would be altogether wanting. For this event shed upon the dark night of the captivity the first ray of a better future, which was to dawn upon the seed of David, and with it upon the whole nation in its eventual redemption from Babylon, and was also a pledge of the certain fulfilment of the promise that the Lord would not for ever withdraw His favour from the seed of David.\n\n(Note: Sthelin makes the following remark in his Einleitung (p.122): \"The books of the Kings form an antithesis to the history of David. As the latter shows how obedience to God and to the utterances of His prophets is rewarded, and how, even when Jehovah is obliged to punish, He makes known His grace again in answer to repentance; so do the books of the Kings, which relate the overthrow of both the Hebrew states, teach, through the history of these two kingdoms, how glorious promises are thrown back and dynasties fall in consequence of the conduct of individual men (compare Kg1 11:38 with Kg1 14:10, and still more with Kg2 21:10. and Kg2 23:27). The sins of one man like Manasseh are sufficient to neutralize all the promises that have been given to the house of David.\" There is no need to refute this erroneous statement, since it only rests upon a misinterpretation of Kg2 21:10., and completely misses the idea which runs through both books of the Kings; and, moreover, there is no contradiction between the manifestation of divine mercy towards penitent sinners and the punishment of men according to their deeds.)\n\nThus the books of the Kings bring down the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God, according to the divine plan of the kingdom indicated in 2 Sam 7, from the close of David's reign to the captivity; and the fact that in Kg1 1:1 they are formally attached to the books of Samuel is an indication that they are a continuation of those books. Nevertheless there is no doubt that they formed from the very first a separate work, the independence and internal unity of which are apparent from the uniformity of the treatment of the history as well as from the unity of the language. From beginning to end the author quotes from his original sources, for the most part with certain standing formulas; in all important events he gives the chronology carefully (Kg1 6:1, Kg1 6:37-38; Kg1 7:1; Kg1 9:10; Kg1 11:42; Kg1 14:20-21, Kg1 14:25; Kg1 15:1-2, Kg1 15:9-10, etc.); he judges the conduct of the kings throughout according to the standard of the law of Moses (Kg1 2:3; Kg1 3:14; Kg2 10:31; Kg2 11:12; Kg2 14:6; Kg2 17:37; Kg2 18:6; Kg2 21:8; Kg2 22:8., Kg2 23:3, Kg2 23:21, etc.); and he nearly always employs the same expressions when describing the commencement, the character, and the close of each reign, as well as the death and burial of the kings (compare Kg1 11:43; Kg1 14:20, Kg1 14:31; Kg1 15:8, Kg1 15:24; Kg1 22:51; Kg2 8:24; Kg2 13:9; Kg2 14:29; and for the characteristics of the several kings of Judah, Kg1 15:3, Kg1 15:11; Kg1 22:43; Kg2 12:3; Kg2 14:3; Kg2 15:3, etc.; and for those of the kings of Israel, Kg1 14:8; Kg1 15:26, Kg1 15:34; Kg1 16:19, Kg1 16:26, Kg1 16:30; Kg1 22:53; Kg2 3:2-3; Kg2 10:29, Kg2 10:31; Kg2 13:2, Kg2 13:11, etc.). And so, again, the language of the books remains uniform in every part of the work, if we except certain variations occasioned by the differences in the sources employed; since we find throughout isolated expressions and forms of a later date, and words traceable to the Assyrian and Chaldaean epoch, such as כּר for חמר in Kg1 5:11; צדנין in Kg1 11:33; רצין in Kg2 11:13; מדינות in Kg1 20:14-15, Kg1 20:17, Kg1 20:19; קבל in Kg2 15:10; החילים שׂרי in Kg1 15:20; Kg2 25:23, Kg2 25:26; טבּחים רב in Kg2 25:8; פּחה in Kg1 10:15; Kg1 20:24; Kg2 18:24; and many others, which do not occur in the earlier historical books. - The books of the Kings are essentially distinguished from the books of Samuel through these characteristic peculiarities; but not so much through the quotations which are so prominent in the historical narrative, for these are common to all the historical books of the Old Testament, and are only more conspicuous in these books, especially in the history of the kings of the two kingdoms, because in the case of all the kings, even of those in relation to whom there was nothing to record of any importance to the kingdom of God except the length and general characteristics of their reign, there are notices of the writings which contain further information concerning their reigns. - The unity of authorship is therefore generally admitted, since, as De Wette himself acknowledges, \"you cannot anywhere clearly detect the interpolation or combination of different accounts.\" The direct and indirect contradictions, however, which Thenius imagines that he has discovered, prove to be utterly fallacious on a closer inspection of the passages cited as proofs, and could only have been obtained through misinterpretations occasioned by erroneous assumptions. (See, on the other hand, my Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das A. T. p. 184ff.)\n\nAll that can be determined with certainty in relation to the origin of the books of Kings is, that they were composed in the second half of the Babylonian captivity, and before its close, since they bring the history down to that time, and yet contain no allusion to the deliverance of the people out of Babylon. The author was a prophet living in the Babylonian exile, though not the prophet Jeremiah, as the earlier theologians down to Hvernick have assumed from the notice in the Talmud (Baba bathra, f. 15, 1): Jeremias scripsit librum suum et librum Regum et Threnos. For even apart from the fact that Jeremiah ended his days in Egypt, he could hardly have survived the last event recorded in our books, namely, the liberation of Jehoiachin from prison, and his exaltation to royal honours by Evil-merodach. For inasmuch as this event occurred sixty-six years after his call to be a prophet, in the thirteenth year of Josiah, he would have been eighty-six years old in the thirty-seventh year after Jehoiachin had been carried away into exile, even if he had commenced his prophetic career when only a young man of twenty years of age. Now, even if he had reached this great age, he would surely not have composed our books at a later period still. Moreover, all that has been adduced in support of this is seen to be inconclusive on closer inspection. The similarity in the linguistic character of our books and that of the writings of Jeremiah, the sombre view of history which is common to the two, the preference apparent in both for phrases taken from the Pentateuch, and the allusions to earlier prophecies-all these peculiarities may be explained, so far as they really exist, partly from the fact that they were written in the same age, since all the writers of the time of the captivity and afterwards cling very closely to the Pentateuch and frequently refer to the law of Moses, and partly also from the circumstance that, whilst Jeremiah was well acquainted with the original sources of our books, viz., the annals of the kingdom of Judah, the author of our books was also well acquainted with the prophecies of Jeremiah. But the relation between Kg2 24:18. and Jer is not of such a nature, that these two accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the remnant of the people could have emanated from the hand of Jeremiah; on the contrary, a closer inspection clearly shows that they are extracts from a more elaborate description of this catastrophe (see at Kg2 24:18.).\n\nAs sources from which the author has obtained his accounts, there are mentioned, for the history of Solomon, a שּׁלמה דּברי ספר, or book of the acts (affairs) of Solomon (Kg1 11:41); for the history of the kings of Judah, יהוּדה למלכי הימים דּברי ספר, book of the daily occurrences of the kings of Judah (Kg1 14:29; Kg1 15:7, Kg1 15:23; Kg1 22:46; Kg2 8:23; Kg2 12:20, etc.); and for that of the kings of Israel, ישׂראל למלכי הימים דּברי ספר, book of the daily occurrences of the kings of Israel (Kg1 14:19; Kg1 15:31; Kg1 16:5, Kg1 16:14, Kg1 16:20, Kg1 16:27; Kg1 22:39; Kg2 1:18). These are quoted as writings in which more is written concerning the life, the deeds, and the particular undertakings, buildings and so forth, of the several kings. The two last-named works were evidently general annals of the kingdoms: not, indeed, the national archives of the two kingdoms, or official records made by the מזכּירים of the reigns and acts of the kings, as Jahn, Movers, Sthelin, and others suppose; but annals composed by prophets, and compiled partly from the public year-books of the kingdom or the national archives, and partly from prophetic monographs and collections of prophecies, which reached in the kingdom of Israel down to the time of Pekah (Kg2 15:31), and in that of Judah to the time of Jehoiakim (Kg2 24:5). Moreover, they were not written successively by different prophets, who followed one another, and so carried on the work in uninterrupted succession from the rise of the two kingdoms to the death of the two kings mentioned; but they had been worked out into a \"Book of the history of the times of the Kings\" for each of the two kingdoms, a short time before the overthrow of the kingdom of Judah, by collecting together the most important things that had been written both concerning the reigns of the several kings by annalists and other historians who were contemporaneous with the events, and also concerning the labours of the prophets, which were deeply interwoven with the course of public affairs, whether composed by themselves or by their contemporaries. And in this finished form they lay before the author of our work. This view of the annals of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel follows unquestionably from the agreement which exists between our books of the Kings and the second book of the Chronicles, in the accounts common to both, and which can only be explained from the fact that they were drawn from one and the same source. But in the Chronicles there are different writings of individual prophets quoted, beside the day-books of the kings of Judah and Israel; and it is expressly stated in relation to some of them that they were received into the annals of the kings (compare Ch2 20:34 and Ch2 32:32, and the Introduction to the books of the Chronicles). Moreover, there are no historical traces of public annalists to be found in the kingdom of the ten tribes, and their existence is by no means probable, on account of the constant change of dynasties. The fact, however, that the frequently recurring formula \"to this day\" (Kg1 9:13; Kg1 10:12; Kg2 2:22; Kg2 10:27; Kg2 14:7; Kg2 16:6; Kg2 17:23, Kg2 17:34, Kg2 17:41; Kg2 20:17; Kg2 21:15) never refers to the time of the captivity, except in the passages enclosed in brackets, but always to the time of the existing kingdom of Judah, and that it cannot therefore have emanated from the author of our books of the Kings, but can only have been taken from the sources employed, is a proof that these annals of the kingdom were composed towards the close of the kingdom of Judah; and this is placed beyond all doubt, by the fact that this formula is also found in many passages of the books of the Chronicles (compare Kg1 8:8 with Ch2 5:9; Kg1 9:21 with Ch2 8:8; Kg1 12:19 with Ch2 10:19; and Kg2 8:22 with Ch2 21:10). - In a similar manner to this must we explain the origin of the שּׁלמה דּברי ספר, since three prophetic writings are quoted in Ch1 29:29 in connection with Solomon's reign, and their account agrees in all essential points with the account in the books of the Kings. Nevertheless this \"history of Solomon\" never formed a component part of the annals of the two kingdoms, and was certainly written much earlier. - The assumption that there were other sources still, is not only sustained by no historical evidence, but has no certain support in the character or contents of the writings before us. If the annals quoted were works composed by prophets, the elaborate accounts of the working of the prophets Elijah and Elisha might also have been included in them. - Again, in the constant allusion to these annals we have a sure pledge of the historical fidelity of the accounts that have been taken from them. If in his work the author followed writings which were composed by prophets, and also referred his readers to these writings, which were known and accessible to his contemporaries, for further information, he must have been conscious of the faithful and conscientious employment of them. And this natural conclusion is in harmony with the contents of our books. The life and actions of the kings are judged with unfettered candour and impartiality, according to the standard of the law of God; and there is no more concealment of the idolatry to which the highly renowned Solomon was led astray by his foreign wives, than of that which was right in the eyes of God, when performed by the kings of the ten tribes, which had fallen away from the house of David. Even in the case of the greatest prophet of all, namely Elijah, the weakness of his faith","order":11,"numberOfChapters":22,"sha256":"58b0dcfb6399324d9958a1b0d99d90cfbb6615327995e64837aaf6496ed8e6ec","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/1KI/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"1KI","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":22,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/1KI/22.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"1KI","chapter":22},"totalNumberOfVerses":122},"chapter":{"number":8,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["This solemn transaction consisted of three parts, and the chapter arranges itself in three sections accordingly: viz., (a) the conveyance of the ark and the tabernacle, together with its vessels, into the temple, with the words spoken by Solomon on the occasion (vv. 1-21); (b) Solomon's dedicatory prayer (vv. 22-53); (c) the blessing of the congregation, and the offering of sacrifice and observance of a feast (Kg1 8:54-66). - The parallel account to this in 2 Chron 5:2-7:10, in addition to certain minor alterations of words and constructions, introduced for the most part merely for the sake of elucidation, contains here and there, and more especially towards the end, a few deviations of greater extent, partly omissions and partly additions. But in other respects it agrees almost word for word with our account.\nWith regard to the time of the dedication, it is merely stated in Kg1 8:2 that the heads of the nation assembled at Jerusalem to this feast in the seventh month. The year in which this took place is not given. But as the building of the temple was finished, according to Kg1 6:38, in the eighth month of the eleventh year of Solomon's reign, the dedication which followed in the seventh month cannot have taken place in the same year as the completion of the building. Ewald's opinion, that Solomon dedicated the building a month before it was finished, is not only extremely improbable in itself, but is directly at variance with Kg1 7:51. If we add to this, that according to Kg1 9:1-10 it was not till after the lapse of twenty years, during which he had built the two houses, the temple, and his palace, that the Lord appeared to Solomon at the dedication of the temple and promised to answer his prayer, we must decide in favour of the view held by Thenius, that the dedication of the temple did not take place till twenty years after the building of it was begun, or thirteen years after it was finished, and when Solomon had also completed the building of the palace, which occupied thirteen years, as the lxx have indicated at the commencement of Kg1 8:1 by the interpolation of the words, καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς συνετέλεσε Σαλωμὼν τοῦ οἰκοδομῆσαι τὸν οἶκον Κυρίου καὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ μετὰ εἴκοσι ἔτη.\n(Note: From the whole character of the Alexandrian version, there can be no doubt that these words have been transferred by the lxx from Kg1 9:1, and have not dropped out of the Hebrew text, as Thenius supposes.)\n1 Kings 8:1-21\nThe First Act of the solemnities consisted (1) in the removal of the ark of the covenant into the Most Holy Place of the temple (Kg1 8:1-11); and (2) in the words with which Solomon celebrated the entrance of the Lord into the new temple (Kg1 8:12-21).\nKg1 8:1-11\nRemoval of the ark of the covenant into the temple. - This solemn transaction was founded entirely upon the solemnities with which the ark was conveyed in the time of David from the house of Obed-edom into the holy tent upon Zion (Sa2 6:12.; Ch1 15:2.). Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers' houses (האבות נשׂיאי, contracted from האבות בּית נשׂיאי) of the Israelites, as representatives of the whole congregation, to himself at Jerusalem, to bring the ark of the covenant out of the city of David, i.e., from Mount Zion (see the Comm. on Sa2 6:16-17), into the temple which he had built upon Moriah. (On the use of the contracted form of the imperfect יקהל after אז, see Ewald, 233, b.)\nKg1 8:2\nAccordingly \"all the men of Israel (i.e., the heads of the tribes and families mentioned in Kg1 8:1) assembled together to the king in the month Ethanim, i.e., the seventh month, at the feast.\" Gesenius explains the name האתנים (in 55 codd. האיתנים) as meaning \"month of the flowing brooks,\" after איתן in Pro 13:15; Bttcher, on the other hand, supposes it to denote the equinox. But apart from other grounds, the plural by no means favours this. Nor does the seventh month answer to the period between the middle of our September and the middle of October, as is supposed by Thenius, who founds upon this supposition the explanation already rejected by Bttcher, viz., \"month of gifts;\" but it corresponds to the period between the new moon of October and the new moon of November, during which the rainy season commences in Palestine (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 96ff.), so that this month may very well have received its name from the constant flowing of the brooks. The explanation, \"that is the seventh month,\" is added, however (here as in Kg1 6:1, Kg1 6:38), not because the arrangement of the months was a different one before the captivity (Thenius), but because different names came into use for the months during the captivity. בּחג is construed with the article: \"because the feast intended was one that was well known, and had already been kept for a long time (viz., the feast of tabernacles).\" The article overthrows the explanation given by Thenius, who supposes that the reference is to the festivities connected with the dedication of the temple itself.\nKg1 8:3-4\nAfter the arrival of all the elders (i.e., of the representatives of the nation, more particularly described in Kg1 8:1), the priests carried the ark and brought it up (sc., into the temple), with the tabernacle and all the holy vessels in it. The expression אתם ויּעלוּ, which follows, introduces as a supplementary notice, according to the general diffuseness of the early Hebrew style of narrative, the more precise statement that the priests and Levites brought up these sacred vessels. מועד אהל is not the tent erected for the ark of the covenant upon Zion, which can be proved to have been never so designated, and which is expressly distinguished from the former in Ch2 1:4 as compared with Kg1 8:3, but is the Mosaic tabernacle at Gibeon in front of which Solomon had offered sacrifice (Kg1 3:4). The tabernacle with the vessels in it, to which, however, the ark of the covenant, that had long been separated from it, did not belong, was probably preserved as a sacred relic in the rooms above the Most Holy Place. The ark of the covenant was carried by priests on all solemn occasions, according to the spirit of the law, which enjoined, in Num 3:31 and Num 4:5., that the ark of the covenant and the rest of the sacred vessels should be carried by the Levites, after the priests had carefully wrapped them up; and the Levites were prohibited from directly touching them, on pain of death. When, therefore, the ark of the covenant was carried in solemn procession, as in the case before us, probably uncovered, this could only be done by the priests, more especially as the Levites were not allowed to enter the Most Holy Place. Consequently, by the statement in Kg1 8:3, that the priests and Levites carried them (אתם), viz., the objects mentioned before, we are to understand that the ark of the covenant was carried into the temple by the priests, and the tabernacle with its vessels by the Levites.\n(Note: Instead of כּהנים in Kg1 8:3, we have הלּויּם in Ch2 5:4; and instead of והלּויּם הכּהנים in Kg1 8:4, we have הלּויּם הכּהנים, \"the Levitical priests.\" These variations are to be attributed to inexactness in expression. For it is obvious that Thenius is wrong in his notion that the chronicler mentioned the Levites instead of the priests, from the simple fact that he states in Kg1 8:7 that \"the priests carried the ark,\" etc., in exact agreement with our account.)\nKg1 8:5\n\"And king Solomon and the whole congregation, that had gathered round him, were with him before the ark sacrificing sheep and oxen in innumerable multitude.\" This took place while the ark of the covenant was carried up, no doubt when it was brought into the court of the temple, and was set down there for a time either within or in front of the hall. Then was this magnificent sacrifice \"offered\" there \"in front of the ark\" (הארון לפני).\nKg1 8:6-7\nAfter this sacrificing was ended, the priests carried the ark to its place, into the back-room of the house, into the Most Holy under the wings of the cherubim (already described in Kg1 6:23.). The latter statement is explained in Kg1 8:7. \"For the cherubim were spreading out wings towards the place of the ark, and so covered (lit., threw a shade) over the ark and over its poles from above.\" If the outspread wings of the great cherubic figures threw a shade not only over the ark of the covenant, but also over its poles, the ark was probably so placed that the poles ran from north to south, and not from east to west, as they are sketched in my Archologie.\nKg1 8:8\n\"And the poles were long, and there were seen their heads (i.e., they were so long that their heads were seen) from the Holy Place before the hinder room; but on the outside (outside the Holy Place, say in the porch) they were not seen.\" יאכוּ cannot be rendered: they had lengthened the poles, from which Kimchi and others have inferred that they had made new and longer carrying-poles, since the form of the tense in this connection cannot be the pluperfect, and in that case, moreover the object would be indicated by את as in Kg1 3:14; but האריך is used intransitively, \"to be long,\" lit., to show length, as in Exo 20:12; Deu 5:16, etc. The remark to the effect that the poles were visible, indicates that the precept of the law in Exo 25:15, according to which the poles were to be left in the ark, was observed in Solomon's temple also. Any one could convince himself of this, for the poles were there \"to this day.\" The author of our books has retained this chronological allusion as he found it in his original sources; for when he composed his work, the temple was no longer standing. It is impossible, however, to ascertain from this statement how the heads of the poles could be seen in the Holy Place, - whether from the fact that they reached the curtain and formed elevations therein, if the poles ran from front to back; or whether, if, as is more probable, they ran from south to north, the front heads were to be seen, simply when the curtain was drawn back.\n(Note: The proof which Thenius has endeavoured to give by means of a drawing of the correctness of the latter view, is founded upon untenable assumptions (see Bttcher, Aehrenl. ii. p. 69). It by no means follows from the expression דביר על־פּני that the heads of the poles were visible as far off as the door of the Holy Place, but simply that they could be seen in the Holy Place, though not outside.)\nKg1 8:9\n\"There was nothing in the ark but the two tables of stone, which Moses had put there at Horeb, when Jehovah concluded the covenant with Israel.\" The intention of this remark is also simply to show that the law, which enjoined that the ark should merely preserve the stone tables of the covenant (Exo 25:16; Exo 40:20), had not been departed from in the lapse of time. אשׁר before כּרת is not a pronoun, but a conjunction: when, from the time that, as in Deu 11:6, etc. כּרת without בּרית, signifying the conclusion of a covenant, as in Sa1 20:16; Sa1 22:8, etc. Horeb, the general name for the place where the law was given, instead of the more definite name Sinai, as in Deuteronomy (see the Comm. on Exo 19:1-2).\n(Note: The statement in Heb 9:4, to the effect that the pot of manna and Aaron's rod that budded were also to be found in the ark, which is at variance with this verse, and which the earlier commentators endeavoured to bring into harmony with it by forced methods of different kinds, simply rests upon an erroneous interpretation of העדוּת לפני in Exo 16:33-34, and Num 17:10, which had become traditional among the Jews; since this merely affirms that the objects mentioned had been deposited in front of the testimony, i.e., in front of the ark which contained the testimony, and not within it, as the Jews supposed. - Still less are De Wette and others warranted in deducing from this verse an argument against the existence of the Mosaic book of the law in the time of Solomon, inasmuch as, according to the precept in Deu 31:26, the book of the law was not to be kept in the ark, but by the side of it, or near it.)\nKg1 8:10-11\nAt the dedication of the tabernacle the glory of Jehovah in the cloud filled the sanctuary, so that Moses could not enter (Exo 40:34-35); and so was it now. When the priests came out of the sanctuary, after putting the ark of the covenant in its place, the cloud filled the house of Jehovah, so that the priests could not stand to minister. The signification of this fact was the same on both occasions. The cloud, as the visible symbol of the gracious presence of God, filled the temple, as a sign that Jehovah the covenant-God had entered into it, and had chosen it as the scene of His gracious manifestation in Israel. By the inability of the priests to stand, we are not to understand that the cloud drove them away; for it was not till the priests had come out that it filled the temple. It simply means that they could not remain in the Holy Place to perform service, say to offer an incense-offering upon the altar to consecrate it, just as sacrifices were offered upon the altar of burnt-offering after the dedicatory prayer (Kg1 8:62, Kg1 8:63).\n(Note: Bertheau's opinion (on Ch2 5:14), that the priests could not remain in the hall and in front of it on account of the cloud, namely, \"the cloud of smoke, which, ascending from the sacrifices burned upon the altar of burnt-offering, concealed the glory of the Lord,\" is decidedly erroneous. For the cloud which hindered the priest from performing the service was, according to the distinct words of the text, the cloud which filled the house; and the explanatory clause, \"for the glory of the Lord filled the house of Jehovah,\" indicates in the most unmistakeable terms that it was the vehicle of the glory of God, and therefore was no a cloud of smoke formed by the burning sacrifices, but the cloud in which God manifested His invisible being to His people, - the very same cloud in which Jehovah was to appear above the Capporeth, when the high priest entered the Most Holy Place on the day of atonement, so that he was commanded not to enter it at all times, and, when he entered, to cover the Capporeth with the cloud of the burning incense (Lev 16:2, Lev 16:13).\nThe glory of the Lord, which is like a consuming fire (Exo 24:17; Deu 4:24; Deu 9:3), before which unholy man cannot stand, manifested itself in the cloud. This marvellous manifestation of the glory of God took place only at the dedication; after that the cloud was only visible in the Most Holy Place on the great day of atonement, when the high priest entered it. - The Chronicles contain a long account at this place of the playing and singing of the Levites at these solemnities (vid., Ch2 5:12-14).\nKg1 8:12-15\nSolomon extols this marvellous proof of the favour of the Lord. - Kg1 8:12. Then spake Solomon, \"Jehovah hath spoken to dwell in the darkness.\" \"Solomon saw that the temple was filled with a cloud, and remembered that God had been pleased to appear in a cloud in the tent of Moses also. Hence he assuredly believed that God was in this cloud also, and that, as formerly He had filled the tabernacle, so He would now fill the temple and dwell therein\" (Seb. Schmidt). וגו יהוה אמר, which Thenius still renders incorrectly, \"the Lord intends to dwell in the darkness,\" refers, as Rashi, C. a Lap., and others have seen, to the utterances of God in the Pentateuch concerning the manifestation of His gracious presence among His people, not merely to Lev 16:2 (I will appear in the cloud), but also to Exo 19:9, where the Lord said to Moses, \"I come to thee הענן בּעב,\" and still more to Exo 20:21 and Deu 4:11; Deu 5:19, according to which God came down upon Sinai בּערפל. Solomon took the word ערפל from these passages. That he meant by this the black, dark cloud which filled the temple, is perfectly obvious from the combination והערפל הענן in Deu 5:19 and Deu 4:11.\n(Note: Thenius, however, has built up all kinds of untenable conjectures as to alterations of the text, upon the erroneous assumption that ענן means the light and radiant cloud, and cannot be synonymous with ערפל. Bttcher adopts the same opinion, without taking any notice of the striking remarks of Bertheau on Ch2 5:14.)\nSolomon saw this word of Jehovah realized in the filling of the temple with the cloud, and learned therefrom that the Lord would dwell in this temple. Hence, being firmly convinced of the presence of Jehovah in the cloud which filled the sanctuary, he adds in Kg1 8:13 : \"I have built Thee a house to dwell in, a place for Thy seat for ever.\" We are not to understand עולמים as signifying that Solomon believed that the temple built by him would stand for ever; but it is to be explained partly from the contrast to the previous abode of God in the tabernacle, which from the very nature of the case could only be a temporary one, inasmuch as a tent, such as the tabernacle was, is not only a moveable and provisional dwelling, but also a very perishable one, and partly from the promise given to David in Sa2 7:14-16, that the Lord would establish the throne of his kingdom for his seed for ever. This promise involved the eternal duration of the gracious connection between God and Israel, which was embodied in the dwelling of God in the temple. This connection, from its very nature, was an eternal one; even if the earthly form, from which Solomon at that moment abstracted himself, was temporal and perishable. - Solomon had spoken these words with his face turned to the Most Holy Place. He then (Kg1 8:14) turned his face to the congregation, which was standing in the court, and blessed it. The word \"blessed\" (יברך) denotes the wish for a blessing with which the king greeted the assembled congregation, and introduced the praise of God which follows. - In Kg1 8:15-21 he praises the Lord for having now fulfilled with His hand what He spake with His mouth to his father David (2 Sam 7).\nKg1 8:16\nThe promise of God, to choose Jerusalem as the place for the temple and David as prince, is taken freely from Sa2 7:7-8. In Ch2 6:6, before \"I chose David,\" we find \"and I chose Jerusalem, that my name might be there;\" so that the affirmation answers more precisely to the preceding negation, whereas in the account before us this middle term is omitted.\nKg1 8:17-19\nDavid's intention to build the temple, and the answer of God that his son was to execute this work, are so far copied from Sa2 7:2, Sa2 7:12-13, that God approves the intention of David as such. הטיבת, \"Thou didst well that it was in thy mind.\"\nKg1 8:20-21\n\"And Jehovah has set up His word.\" וגו ויּקם supplies the explanation of בידו מלּא (hath fulfilled with his hand) in Kg1 8:15. God had caused Solomon to take possession of the throne of David; and Solomon had built the temple and prepared a place there for the ark of the covenant. The ark is thereby declared to be the kernel and star of the temple, because it was the throne of the glory of God. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":22,"content":["Second Act of the feast of dedication: Solomon's dedicatory prayer (cf. 2 Chron 6:12-42). - Kg1 8:22. \"Then Solomon stood before the altar of Jehovah in front of all the assembly of Israel, and stretched out his hands towards heaven.\" It is evident from Kg1 8:54 that Solomon uttered the prayer which follows upon his knees. The Chronicles contain the same account as we have here, with this addition, that it is said to have taken place on a \"scaffold,\" or kind of pulpit (כּיּור) specially erected for the purpose.\n(Note: Bttcher is right in his assertion, that the opinion expressed by Thenius and Cappellus, that this passage in the Chronicles has been dropped out of our text through a copyist's oversight, is a very improbable one; although the reasons he assigns are for the most part untenable. The omission may be explained in a very simple manner, from the fact that the introduction of this circumstance had no bearing upon the design or contents of the dedicatory prayer.)\nThe altar, to the front of which Solomon went, was the altar of burnt-offering in the court, where the congregation was gathered together. The expression ישׂ כּל־קהל נגד favours the idea that Solomon offered the prayer upon his knees with his face turned towards the congregation, and not with his back to the people and his face turned towards the temple, as Thenius supposes. - The substance of the prayer is closely connected with the prayer of Moses, especially with the blessings and curses therein (vid., Lev 26 and Deut 28). Commencing with the praise of God, who \"keepeth covenant and truth\" towards His servants, and has thus far performed to His servant David the promise that He gave him (Kg1 8:23, Kg1 8:24), Solomon entreats the Lord still further to fulfil this promise of His (Kg1 8:25, Kg1 8:26), and to keep His eyes constantly open over the temple, to hearken to the prayers of His people, and to avert the curse threatened against sinners from all who shall call upon Him in this temple (vv. 27-53).\nKg1 8:23-24\nBy granting the blessing promised to His people, the Lord has hitherto proved Himself to be the true and only God in heaven and on earth, who keepeth covenant and mercy with those who walk before Him with all their heart. This acknowledgment provides the requisite confidence for offering the prayer which is sure of an answer (Mat 21:22; Mar 11:24; Jam 1:6). For אל אין־כּמוך, compare Exo 15:11 with Deu 4:39; Sa2 7:22; Sa2 22:32; Psa 86:8. \"Who keepeth covenant and mercy,\" verbatim the same as in Deu 7:9. The promise given to His servant David (2 Sam 7), the fulfilment of which the commencement now lay before their eyes (cf. Kg1 8:20, Kg1 8:21), was an emanation from the covenant faithfulness of God. \"As it is this day,\" as in Kg1 3:6.\nKg1 8:25\nThe expression \"and now\" (ועתּה) introduces the prayer for the further fulfilment of the promise, never to allow a successor upon the throne to be wanting to David, in the same conditional form in which David had uttered the hope in Kg1 2:4, and in which the Lord had renewed the promise to Solomon during the building of the temple (Kg1 6:12-13). In על־כּסּא ישׁב מלּפני, instead of כּסּא מעל in Kg1 2:4, the divine rejection is more distinctly indicated.\nKg1 8:26\nKg1 8:26 is not merely a repetition of the prayer in Kg1 8:25, as Thenius supposes, but forms the introduction to the prayers which follow for the hearing of all the prayer presented before the Lord in the temple. The words, \"let Thy words be verified, which Thou spakest unto Thy servant David,\" contain something more than a prayer for the continual preservation of the descendants of David upon the throne, for the fulfilment of which Solomon prayed in Kg1 8:25. They refer to the whole of the promise in Sa2 7:12-16. The plural דּבריך (Chethb) points back to כּל־הדּברים in Sa2 7:17, and is not to be altered into the singular after the Keri. The singular יאמן is used as it frequently is with the subject in the plural, when the verb precedes (cf. Ewald. 316, a., 1). Solomon has here in mind one particular point in the promise, viz., that God would not withdraw His mercy from the seed of David, even when it sinned. This is evident from what follows, where he mentions simply cases of transgression, and prays that they may be forgiven.\nKg1 8:27-28\nKg1 8:26 are closely connected in this sense: keep Thy words that were spoken to David; for although this temple cannot hold Thine infinite divine nature, I know that Thou wilt have respect to the prayer of Thy servant, to keep Thine eyes open over this temple, to hear every prayer which Thy people shall bring before Thee therein. וּפנית in Kg1 8:28 continues the optative נא יאמן in Kg1 8:26; and Kg1 8:27 contains an intermediate thought, with which Solomon meets certain contracted ideas of the gracious presence of God in the temple. כּי (Kg1 8:27) signifies neither but, nevertheless, atque (Bttcher), nor \"as\" (Thenius, Bertheau); and the assertion that Kg1 8:27 is the commencement of a new section is overthrown by the inadmissible rendering of וּפנית, \"but Thou turnest Thyself\" (Thenius). - With the words, \"Should God really dwell upon the earth! behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens (i.e., the heavens in their widest extent, cf. Deu 10:14) cannot contain Thee, to say nothing (כּי אף; cf. Ewald, 354, c.) of this house which I have built,\" in which the infinitude of God and His exaltation above the world are expressed as clearly and forcibly as possible, Solomon does not intend to guard against the delusion that God really dwells in temples (J. D. Mich.), but simply to meet the erroneous idea that He dwells in the temple as men dwell in a house, namely, shut up within it, and not also outside and above it, - a delusion which sometimes forced its way into the unspiritual nation but which was always attacked by the prophets (cf. Mic 3:11; Jer 7:4, etc.). For it is evident that Solomon did combine with his clear perception of the infinite exaltation of God a firm belief in His real presence in the temple, and did not do homage to the abstract idealism of the rationalists, not merely from his declaration in Kg1 8:12. that he had built this temple as a dwelling-place for God, but also from the substance of all the following prayers, and primarily from the general prayer in Kg1 8:28, Kg1 8:29, that God would take this temple under His special protection, and hearken to every prayer directed towards it. The distinction between תּפלּה, תּחנּה, and רנּה is the following: תּפלּה denotes prayer in general, praise, supplication, and thanksgiving; תּחנּה, supplication or entreaty, prayer for help and mercy; and רנּה, jubilation, prayer as the joyous utterance of praise and thanksgiving.\nKg1 8:29-32\n\"That Thine eyes may be open upon this house night and day.\" אל־הבּית, speciali quadam providentia in hanc domum directi (Mich.). The following clause, \"upon the place of which Thou hast said, My name shall be there\" (namely, Sa2 7:13, implicite), contains within itself the ground upon which the prayer rests. Because the name of God will be in the temple, i.e., because God will manifest His gracious presence there, He will also keep His eyes open upon it, so as to hear the prayer of Solomon directed towards it. הזּה המּקום אל (toward this place): because Solomon also was prayer in the court towards the temple. - In Kg1 8:30, \"and hear the supplication of Thy servant and of Thy people Israel,\" he begins by asking that those prayers may be heard which the king and people shall henceforth bring before God in the temple. ושׁמעתּ corresponds to וּפנית in Kg1 8:28, and is more precisely defined by the following תּשׁמע ואתּה (as for these prayers), Thou wilt hear them up to the place of Thine abode, to heaven. אל שׁמע is a pregnant expression: to hear the prayer, which ascends to heaven. In the Chronicles we find throughout the explanatory מן. The last words, \"hear and forgive,\" must be left in their general form, and not limited by anything to be supplied. Nothing but forgiveness of sin can remove the curse by which transgression is followed.\nThis general prayer is then particularized from Kg1 8:31 onwards by the introduction of seven special petitions for an answer in the different cases in which, in future, prayers may be offered to God in the temple. The first prayer (Kg1 8:31, Kg1 8:32) has reference to the oaths sworn in the temple, the sanctity of which God is asked to protect. \"If a man sin against his neighbour, and an oath be laid upon him, to cause him to swear, and he come (and) swear before the altar in this house, then wilt Thou hear,\" etc. אשׁר את does not mean either \"granted that\" (Thenius) or \"just when\" (Ewald, 533, a.), although אם is used in the Chronicles, and we might render it freely \"when;\" but את is simply an accusative particle, serving to introduce the following clause, in the sense of \"as for,\" or \"with regard to (such a case as) that a man sins\" (vid., Ewald, 277, a.). אלה וּבא cannot be taken as anything but an asyndeton. For if אלה were a substantive, it would have the article (האלה) provided it were the subject, and the verb would be written בּאה; and if it were the object, we should have בּאלה, as in Neh 10:30 (cf. Eze 17:13). The prayer refers to the cases mentioned in Exo 22:6-12 and Lev 26:17, when property entrusted to any one had been lost or injured, or when a thing had been found and the finding was denied, or when an act of fraud had been committed; in which cases the law required not only compensation with the addition of a fifth of its value, but also a trespass-offering as an expiation of the sin committed by taking a false oath. But as this punishment could only be inflicted when the guilty person afterwards confessed his guilt, many false oaths might have been sworn in the cases in question and have remained unpunished, so far as men were concerned. Solomon therefore prays that the Lord will hear every such oath that shall have been sworn before the altar, and work (עשׂית), i.e., actively interpose, and judge His servants, to punish the guilty and justify the innocent. The construction השּׁמים תּשׁמע (Kg1 8:32, Kg1 8:34, Kg1 8:36, etc.) can be explained more simply from the adverbial use of the accusative (Ewald, 300, b.), than from השּׁמים אל in Kg1 8:30. בּראשׁו דּרכּו תּת, to give (bring) his way upon his head, i.e., to cause the merited punishment to fall upon him (cf. Eze 9:10; Eze 11:21, etc.). רשׁע הרשׁרע and צדּיק הצדּיק recall Deu 25:2. For כּצדקתו לו תּת compare Sa2 22:21, Sa2 22:25. - The following cases are all taken from Lev 26 and Deut 28.\nKg1 8:33-34\nThe second petition, - \"If Thy people Israel are smitten by the enemy, because they have sinned against Thee, and they turn to Thee and confess Thy name, ... then hear ... and bring them back into the land,\" - refers to the threatenings in Lev 26:17 and Deu 28:25, where the nation is threatened with defeat and subjugation on the part of enemies, who shall invade the land, in which case prisoners of war are carried away into foreign lands, but the mass of the people remain in the land, so that they who are beaten can pray to the Lord in the temple, that He will forgive them their sin, save them out of the power of the enemy, and bring back the captives and fugitives into their fatherland.\nKg1 8:35-36\nThe third prayer refers to the remission of the punishment of drought threatened against the land, when the heaven is shut up, according to Lev 26:19; Deu 11:17; Deu 28:23. תענם כּי, because Thou humblest them (lxx, Vulg.); not \"that Thou hearest them\" (Chald. and others). תורם כּי, because Thou teachest them the good way. These words correspond to כי תענם, and contain a motive for forgiveness. Because God teaches His people and seeks by means of chastisements to bring them back to the good way when they fail to keep His commandments, He must forgive when they recognise the punishment as a divine chastisement and come to Him with penitential prayer.\nKg1 8:37-40\nThe fourth prayer relates to the removal of other land-plagues: famine (Lev 26:19-20, and Lev 26:26; Deu 28:23); pestilence (Lev 26:25); blight and mildew in the corn (Deu 28:22); locusts (חסיל, devourer, is connected with ארבּה without a copula, - in the Chronicles by Vv, - to depict the plague of locusts more vividly before their eyes after Deu 28:38); oppression by enemies in their own land; lastly, plagues and diseases of all kinds, such as are threatened against the rebellious in Lev 26:16 and Deu 28:59-61. יצר is not the imperfect Kal of צוּר (Ges., Dietr., Frst, Olsh. Gramm. p. 524), but the imperfect Hiphil of הצר in Deu 28:52, as in Neh 9:27; and the difficult expression שׁעריו בּארץ is probably to be altered into שׁ בּארץ, whilst שׁעריו is either to be taken as a second object to יצר, as Luther supposes, or as in apposition to בּארץ, in the land (in) his gates, as Bertheau assumes. The assertion of Thenius, that all the versions except the Vulgate are founded upon the reading עריו בּעחת, is incorrect. יהיה כּי is omitted after kaal-machalaah, since Solomon dropped the construction with which he commenced, and therefore briefly summed up all the prayers, addressed to God under the various chastisements here named, in the expression כּל־תּחנּה כּל־תּפלּה, which is placed absolutely at the opening of Kg1 8:38. וגו ידעוּן אשׁר, \"when they perceive each one the stroke of his heart,\" i.e., not dolor animi quem quisque sentit (Vatab., C. a Lap.), but the plague regarded as a blow falling upon the heart, in other words, as a chastisement inflicted upon him by God. In all these cases may God hear his prayer, and do and give to every one according to his way. תּדע אשׁר, \"as Thou knowest his heart,\" i.e., as is profitable for every one according to the state of his heart of his disposition. God can do this, because He knows the hearts of all men (cf. Jer 17:10). The purpose assigned for all this hearing of prayer (Kg1 8:40), viz., \"that they may fear Thee,\" etc., is the same as in Deu 4:10.\nKg1 8:41-43\nThe fifth prayer has reference to the hearing of the prayers of foreigners, who shall pray in the temple. Solomon assumes as certain that foreigners will come and worship before Jehovah in His temple; even Moses himself had allowed the foreigners living among the Israelites to offer sacrifice at the temple (Num 15:14.), and the great name and the arm of the Lord, that had manifested itself in deeds of omnipotence, had become known in the times of Moses to the surrounding nations (Exo 15:14; Exo 18:1; Jos 5:1), and the report of this had reached Balaam even in Mesopotamia (see the Comm. on Num 22). הנּכרי אל does not mean \"as for the foreigners\" (Thenius), for אל is never used in this sense; but it is to be connected with תּשׁמע in Kg1 8:43, as אל שׁמע frequently occurs (Bertheau).\nKg1 8:42\nKg1 8:42 is a parenthesis inserted in explanation of שׁמך למען: \"for they will hear,\" etc. The strong hand and the outstretched arm are connected together as a standing expression for the wondrous manifestations of the divine omnipotence in the guidance of Israel, as in Deu 4:34; Deu 5:15, etc. With והתפּלּל וּבא the מארץ וּבא in Kg1 8:41 is resumed, and the main thought continued.\nKg1 8:43\nThe reason for the hearing of the prayers of foreigners is \"that all nations may know Thy name to fear Thee,\" etc., as in Deu 28:10. An examination of this original passage, from which וגו על נקרא שׁמך כּי is taken and transferred to the temple, shows that the common explanations of this phrase, viz., \"that this house is called after Thy name,\" or \"that Thy name is invoked over this temple (at its dedication),\" are erroneous. The name of the Lord is always used in the Scriptures to denote the working of God among His people or in His kingdom (see at Sa2 6:2). The naming of this name over the nation, the temple, etc., presupposes the working of God within it, and denotes the confession and acknowledgment of that working. This is obvious from such passages as Jer 14:9, where the expression \"Thy name is called over us\" is only a further explanation of the word \"Thou art in the midst of us;\" and from Isa 63:19, where \"we are they over whom Thou hast not ruled from eternity\" is equivalent to \"over whom Thy name has not been called.\" The name of Jehovah will be named over the temple, when Jehovah manifests His gracious presence within it in such a manner, that the nations who pray towards it experience the working of the living God within His sanctuary. It is in this sense that it is stated in Sa2 6:2 that the name of Jehovah is named above the ark of the covenant (see the Comm. in loc.). - There are no cases on record of the worship of foreigners in connection with Solomon's temple, though there are in connection with the temple built after the captivity (vid., Josephus, Ant. xi. 8, 5, that of Alexander the Great; xii. 2, 5ff., that of Ptolemaeus Philadelphus; and 2 Macc. 3:2, 3, that of Seleucus).\nKg1 8:44-45\nFinally, in Kg1 8:44-50 Solomon also asks, that when prayers are directed towards the temple by those who are far away both from Jerusalem and the temple, they may be heard. The sixth case, in Kg1 8:44, Kg1 8:45, is, if Israel should be engaged in war with an enemy by the appointment of God; and the seventh, in Kg1 8:46-50, is, if it should be carried away by enemies on account of its sins.\n(Note: Bertheau (on Chron.) has already proved that there is no force in the arguments by which Thenius attempts to show, on doctrinal grounds, that Kg1 8:44-51 are an interpolated addition. As he correctly observes, \"it is, on the contrary, quite in harmony with the original plan, that the two cases are also anticipated, in which the prayers of Israelites who are at a distance from the seat of the sanctuary are directed towards the temple, since it is perfectly appropriate that the prayers of the Israelites at the place of the sanctuary are mentioned first, then the prayers of foreigners at the same place, and lastly the prayers of Israelites, who, because they are not in Jerusalem, are obliged to content themselves with turning their faces towards the temple. We might also point to the fact that it is probably intentional that exactly seven cases are enumerated, inasmuch as in enumerations of this kind, which are not restricted by the nature of the case to any definite measure, such a number as seven easily furnishes an outward limit,\" - or more correctly: because seven as a sacred or covenant number was more appropriate than any other to embrace all prayers addressed to God.)\nBy the expression in Kg1 8:44, \"in the way which Thou sendest them,\" the war is described as one undertaken by the direction of God, whether wages against an enemy who has invaded the land, or outside the land of Canaan for the chastisement of the heathen dwelling around them. \"And shall pray וגו העיר דּרך:\" i.e., in the direction towards the chosen city and the temple, namely, in faith in the actual presence of the covenant God in the temple. יהוה אל, \"to Jehovah,\" instead of \"to Thee,\" is probably introduced for the sake of greater clearness. משׁפּטם ועשׂית, and secure them justice (cf. Deu 10:18; Psa 9:5, etc.).\nKg1 8:46-49\nIn the seventh prayer, viz., if Israel should be given up to its enemies on account of its sins and carried away into the land of the enemy, Solomon had the threat in Lev 26:33, Lev 26:44 in his eye, though he does not confine his prayer to the exile of the whole nation foretold in that passage and in Deu 28:45., Deu 28:64, and Deu 30:1-5, but extends it to every case of transportation to an enemy's land. לבּם אל והשׁיבוּ, \"and they take it to heart,\" compare Deu 4:39, and without the object, Deu 30:1; not \"they feel remorse,\" as Thenius supposes, because the Hiphil cannot have this reflective signification (Bttcher). The confession of sin in Kg1 8:47, רשׁענוּ והעוינוּ חטאנוּ, was adopted by the Jews when in captivity as the most exhaustive expression of their deep consciousness of guilt (Dan 9:5; Psa 106:6). חטא, to slip, labi, depicts sin as a wandering from right; העוה, to act perversely, as a conscious perversion of justice; and רשׁע as a passionate rebellion against God (cf. Isa 57:20).\nKg1 8:50-53\nלרחמים וּנתתּם: literally, \"and make (place) them for compassion before their captors, that they may have compassion upon them,\" i.e., cause them to meet with compassion from their enemies, who have carried them away. - In Kg1 8:51-53 Solomon closes with general reasons, which should secure the hearing of his prayer on the part of God. Bertheau follows the earlier commentators in admitting that these reasons refer not merely to the last petitions, but to all the preceding ones.\n(Note: Seb. Schmidt has already given the following explanation: \"These things which I have asked for myself and for my people do Thou, O Lord, because it is for Thy people that I have prayed, and I am their king: therefore hear Thou the prayers of Thy servant and Thy people. For in Kg1 8:52 he makes mention of his own case and of the cases of all the rest, in which they would call upon the Lord.)\nThe plea \"for they are Thy people,\" etc. (Kg1 8:51), is taken from Deu 4:10; and that in Kg1 8:53, \"Thou didst separate them,\" etc., is taken from Lev 20:24, Lev 20:26, compared with Exo 19:5. וגו עיניך להיות, \"that Thine eyes may be opened,\" follows upon ושׁמעתּ (\"then hear Thou\") in Kg1 8:49; just as Kg1 8:29 at the commencement of the prayer follows upon וּפנית in Kg1 8:28. The recurrence of the same expression shows that the prayer is drawing to a close, and is rounded off by a return to the thought with which it opened. \"As Thou spakest by Moses\" points back to Exo 19:5. - In Ch2 6:40-42 the conclusion of the prayer is somewhat altered, and closes with the appeal to the Lord to cause salvation and grace to go forth from the temple over His people. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":54,"content":["Concluding Act of the dedication of the temple. Kg1 8:54-61. Blessing the congregation. - After the conclusion of the prayer, Solomon rose up from his knees and blessed all the assembled congregation. פּרוּשׂות וכפּיו is a circumstantial clause, which must be connected with the previous words and rendered thus: \"from lying upon his knees with his hands spread out towards heaven.\" \"And he stood,\" i.e., he came from the altar and stood nearer to the assembled congregation. The blessing begins with praise to the Lord for the fulfilment of His promises (Kg1 8:16), and consists in the petition that the Lord will always fulfil his (Solomon's) prayers, and grant His people the promised salvation.\n(Note: This blessing is omitted from the Chronicles, because it is simply a recapitulation of the longer prayer; but instead of it we have a statement, in Ch2 7:1-4, to the effect that fire fell from heaven and consumed the burnt-offering upon the altar. This statement, which even Movers regards as a traditional, i.e., a legendary addition, according to his erroneous view of the sources of the Chronicles, is confirmed by the similar miracle which occurred at the dedication of the temple. It is omitted, like so many other things in the account before us, because all that was essential in this occurrence was contained implicite in the filling of the temple with the glory of the Lord. Just as at the consecration of the Mosaic sanctuary the Lord did not merely manifest His gracious presence through the cloud which filled the tent, but also kindled the first sacrifice with fire from heaven (Lev 9:24), to sanctify the altar as the legitimate place of sacrifice; so also at the temple the miraculous kindling of the first sacrifice with fire from heaven was the immediate and even necessary consequence of the filling of the temple with the cloud, in which the presence of Jehovah was embodied.) \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":56,"content":["The praise of Jehovah rests, so far as the first part is concerned, upon the promise in Deu 12:9-10, and upon its fulfilment in Jos 21:44-45 and Jos 23:14; and the second part is founded upon Lev 26:3-13 and Deu 28:1-14, where the \"good word, which the Lord spake by Moses,\" is more precisely described as the blessing which the Lord had promised to His people and had hitherto bestowed upon them. He had already given Israel rest by means of Joshua when the land of Canaan was taken; but since many parts of the land still remained in the hands of the Canaanites, this rest was only fully secured to them by David's victories over all their enemies. This glorious fulfilment warranted the hope that the Lord would also fulfil in the future what He had promised His servant David (Sa2 7:10), if the people themselves would only faithfully adhere to their God. Solomon therefore sums up all his wishes for the good of the kingdom in Kg1 8:57-61 in the words, \"May Jehovah our God be with us, as He was with our fathers; may He not leave us nor forsake us, to incline our heart to Himself, that we may walk in all His ways,\" etc. - that the evil words predicted by Moses in Lev 26:14., Deu 28:15, may not fall upon us. For Kg1 8:57 compare Deu 31:6, Deu 31:8, and Jos 1:5. יטּשׁנוּ אל corresponds to ירפּך אל in these passages. In the Pentateuch נטשׁ is used but once of men who forsake the Lord, viz., Deu 32:15; in other cases it is only used in the general sense of casting away, letting alone, and other similar meanings. It is first used of God, in the sense of forsaking His people, in Psa 27:9 in connection with עזב; and it frequently occurs afterwards in Jeremiah. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":59,"content":["May these my words, which I have prayed (vv. 25-43), be near to Jehovah our God day and night, that He may secure the right of His servant (the king) and of His people, as every day demands. בּיומו יום דּבר, as in Exo 5:13; Exo 16:4. - For Kg1 8:60 compare Kg1 8:43. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":61,"content":["Let your heart be יי עם שׁלם, wholly, undividedly devoted to the Lord (cf. Kg1 11:4; Kg1 15:3, Kg1 15:14, etc.). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":62,"content":["Sacrifices and feast. - Kg1 8:62, Kg1 8:63. The dedicatory prayer was followed by a magnificent sacrifice offered by the king and all Israel. The thank-offering (שׁלמים זבח) consisted, in accordance with the magnitude of the manifestation of divine grace, of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. This enormous number of sacrificial animals, in which J. D. Michaelis found serious difficulties, Thenius endeavours to set aside as too large, by calculating that as these sacrifices were offered in seven days, reckoning the sacrificial day at twelve full hours, there must have been about five oxen and about twenty-five sheep slaughtered and offered in sacrifice every minute for the king alone. This calculation would be conclusive, if there were any foundation for the three assumptions upon which it rests: namely, (1) that the number of sacrifices mentioned was offered for the king alone; (2) that the slaughtering and preparation of the sacrificial animals could only be performed by the priests and Levites; and (3) that the whole of the flesh of these sacrificial animals was to be consumed upon the altar. But these three assumptions are all erroneous. There is nothing in the account about their being \"for the king alone.\" For it is obvious that the words \"and Solomon offered a sacrifice\" are not to be understood as signifying that the king had these sacrifices offered for himself alone, but that the words refer to the sacrifices offered by the king and all Israel for the consecration of the temple, from the simple fact that in Kg1 8:62 \"Solomon and all Israel\" are expressly mentioned as offering sacrifice, and that after the statement of the number of the sacrifices we find these words in Kg1 8:63 : \"so the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of Jehovah.\" Moreover it is very evident from the law in Lev 1 and 3 that at the offering of sacrifice the slaughtering, flaying, and preparation of the sacrificial animals were performed by any Israelite, and that it was only the sprinkling of the blood against the altar and the burning of the sacrificial portions upon the altar which were the exclusive province of the priests. In order to form a correct idea of the enormous number of sacrifices which could be slaughtered on any one day we will refer again to the notice in Josephus (Bell. Jud. vi. 9, 3) already mentioned in the Comm. on the Pentateuch, p. 683 (translation), that in the reign of the emperor Nero the procurator Cestius directed the priests to count the number of the paschal lambs, and that they counted 250,000, which were slaughtered for the passover between the ninth and eleventh hours of the day, and of which the blood was sprinkled upon the altar. If then it was possible at that time to slaughter more than 250,000 lambs in three hours of the afternoon, and to sprinkle the blood upon the altar, there can have been no difficulty in slaughtering and sacrificing 3000 oxen and 18,000 sheep at the dedication of the temple on each of the seven days of the festival. As all Israel from Hamath to the brook of Egypt came to Jerusalem to this festival, we shall not be above the mark if we estimate the number of the heads of houses present at 100,000. And with very little trouble they could have slaughtered 3000 oxen and 18,000 sheep a day and prepared them for sacrificing. How many priests took an active part in this, we do not indeed know, in fact we have no information as to the number of the priests in Solomon's time; but we know that in the time of David the number of Levites qualified for service, reckoning from their thirtieth year, was 38,000, so that we may certainly assume that there were two or three thousand priests. Now if only the half of these Levites and priests had come to Jerusalem to the dedication of the temple, they alone could have slaughtered 3000 oxen and 18,000 sheep every day. And would not a thousand priests have been sufficient to sprinkle the blood of so many animals upon the altar and to turn the fat between the morning and evening sacrifice? If we divided these sacrifices among a thousand priests, each one would only have had to attend to the sprinkling of the blood and burning of the fat of three oxen and eighteen sheep each day. - But the brazen altar of burnt-offering might not have been large enough for the burning of so many sacrifices, notwithstanding the fact that only the fat portions of the thank-offerings were consumed, and they did not require much room; since the morning and evening burnt-offerings were added daily, and as festal offerings they would certainly not consist of a lamb only, but at least of one bullock, and they were burned whole, although the altar of burnt-offering with a surface of 144 square yards (see my bibl. Archol. i. p. 127) would hold a very large quantity of sacrificial flesh at once. In v. 64, however, it is expressly stated that Solomon sanctified the middle of the court, which was before the house of Jehovah, to burn the burnt-offering and meat-offering and the fat portions of the thank-offerings there, because the brazen altar was too small to hold these sacrifices. \"The middle of the court\" (החצר תּוך) is the whole of the inner portion of the court of the priests, which was in front of the temple-house and formed the centre of the court surrounding the temple. Of course we have not to imagine that the sacrifices were offered upon the stone pavement of the court, but must assume that there were auxiliary altars erected in the inner court around the brazen altar. By the burnt-offering and the meat-offering (belonging to it: ואת־המּנחה את־העולה) we are not to understand certain burnt-offerings, which were offered for a definite number of thank-offerings, as Thenius supposes. The singular and the definite article are both at variance with this. The reference is rather to the (well-known) daily morning and evening burnt-offerings with their meat-offering, and in this case, no doubt, to such a festal sacrifice as is prescribed in Num 28 for the great yearly feasts. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":65,"content":["Thus Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great assembly from the neighbourhood of Hamath to the brook of Egypt, i.e., from the whole land in its fullest extent from north to south. \"The district of Hamath,\" i.e., Epiphania on the Orontes, is mentioned as the northern boundary (cf. Num 34:8; Num 13:21; Jos 13:5, etc.); and \"the brook of Egypt\" (מצרים נחל), Rhinocorura, as the southern boundary (cf. Num 34:8; Jos 15:4). \"The feast\" (החג), which Solomon held with the people \"seven days and seven days, fourteen days,\" is not the feast of the dedication, but, as in Kg1 8:2, the feast of tabernacles, which fell in the seventh month; and the meaning of the verse is, that on that occasion the feast of the seventh month was kept for fourteen days, namely, seven days as the feast of the dedication, and seven days as the feast of tabernacles. We are obliged to take the words in this way, partly on account of the evident reference to בּחג (at the feast) in Kg1 8:2 in the expression את־החג (the feast) in this verse, and partly on account of the statement which follows in Kg1 8:66, \"and on the eighth day he sent the people away.\" The \"eight day\" is not the first day of the feast of tabernacles (Thenius); but the eighth day, as the conclusion of the feast of tabernacles, עצרת (Lev 23:36). The correctness of this view is placed beyond all doubt by the context in the Chronicles, which states more clearly that, \"Solomon kept the feast seven days, and all Israel with him ... and they kept עצרת (the closing feast) on the eight day; for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days and the feast seven days; and on the twenty-third day of the seventh month he sent the people away.\" The feast of tabernacles lasted seven days, from the 15th to the 21st, with a closing festival on the eighth day, i.e., the 22nd of the month (Lev 23:33-39). This festival was preceded by the dedication of the temple from the 8th to the 14th of the month. The statement in Kg1 8:66, \"on the eighth day he sent the people away,\" if we take the words in their strict sense, is at variance with the statement in the Chronicles, \"on the 23rd day,\" since the eighth day of the feast of tabernacles was the 22nd day of the month; but it may easily be accounted for from want of precision in a well-known matter. Solomon sent the people away on the eighth day, i.e., on the afternoon or evening of the atzereth of the feast of tabernacles, so that on the morning of the next day, i.e., on the 23rd of the month, the people took their journey home, \"joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the Lord had shown to His servant David and to the people.\" David is mentioned, because the completion of the building of the temple was the fulfilment of the divine promise given to him. \"Tents,\" for houses, as in Sa2 10:1; Jdg 7:8, and other passages. \n"]}]},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/1KI/8.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"1KI","chapter":8},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/1KI/9.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"1KI","chapter":9},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/1KI/7.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"1KI","chapter":7},"numberOfVerses":8}