BibleTools.info

18. Stonesquarers. The correct reading is “Giblites,” as in the margin. They were the inhabitants of Gebal, or Byblos, (see Eze. 27:9), a coastal city of Phoenicia. It seems that they were skillful workers in stone and were employed any other experts for the performance of tasks requiring special skills.

1. Four hundred and eightieth year. This verse synchronizes the 480th year from the Exodus with the 4th year of Solomon’s reign. This information is of prime importance, for upon it may be based the Hebrew chronological reckoning from Solomon back to Moses, and earlier. On the accuracy of the b.c. date assigned to the 4th year of Solomon depends the accuracy of all other dates based upon it. There is no evidence for taking 480 as a round number or as 12 generations, and none for making it cover the time of the judges by totaling the years of all the judges and omitting the years of oppression or foreign rule (p. 130). This commentary takes it as the actual 480th year (p. 131), counting the Exodus year as the first (just as Moses numbered the 40 years of wandering; see Vol. I, p. 187).

What was this 480th year, synchronized with Solomon’s 4th year? By the chronological method outlined on pages 143-144 above, and by Assyrian synchronisms (p. 159), his 40th and last regnal year (ch. 11:42) can be dated 931/30 b.c. (This would be a Jewish civil year, fall to fall, beginning with the 7th month; see p. 116) Then his year 4 would be 967/66, in which the 2d month, Zif (later called Iyyar), fell in the spring of 966 b.c.

If, then, this 2d month in the 480th year was in 966 b.c., the 2d month in the 1st year of the 480 was 479 years earlier than 966—in 1445 b.c. This was the month after the Exodus (see Vol. I, p. 187; for the computation of 1445, see Vol. I, pp. 191, 192; Vol. II, pp. 134, 135). The Old Testament dates adopted for this commentary are based on synchronizing Zif in Solomon’s 4th year—in the 480th year, inclusive, from the Exodus—with 966 b.c.

It should be noted that this chronological item, “in the four hundred and eightieth year,” is given formally and categorically, without any hesitation or reserve, and with unusual precision precession. Not only the year of Solomon and of the Exodus era, but also the month, is given. It is evidently meant to be an exact synchronism, such as 2 Kings 18:9, 10; Jer. 25:1; etc.

In the LXX the figure is given as 440 instead of 480, and in Josephus it is given variously as 592 or 612 ( Antiquities viii. 3. 1; xx. 10 1); both the LXX and Josephus have numerous variations from the Hebrew numbers in Kings. But careful study of the figures of Josephus show them to be late and erroneous, and the numbers of the Hebrew text to be the earliest and the most reliable. Josephus is notorious for his conflicting and erroneous figures, and his numbers are not to be relied upon for the establishment of a sound chronology.

Month Zif. This is the early Hebrew name for the second month. After the Exile it was commonly called Iyyar. The rare and archaic names of the Hebrew months here and in v. 38 are evidence for the early date of the book.

Began to build. Solomon’s decision to build the Temple was not an arbitrary, self-devised act, nor was it prompted solely through the wish and will of his father David. The motive that prompted Solomon was not personal ambition, the love of glory or pomp, but the carrying out of the purpose of Heaven. The hour had clearly come for the house of the Lord to be built, and Solomon gave himself whole-heatedly to the task. The period was one of rest and peace, both within the nation of Israel and among the nations round about. It was a time also of prosperity, enabling Solomon to secure the necessary materials. The people were able and willing to build.

The account of the building of Solomon’s Temple is found also in 2 Chron. 3 and 4, but the record in Kings is the older and the more complete. The parallel account in 2 Chronicles agrees with it in all essential details. Although this account is significantly briefer than that in Kings, it contains some supplementary details.

In addition to the Biblical accounts, we have Josephus’ description of Solomon’s Temple (Antiquities viii. 3. 1-9). That account, however detailed, is not wholly trustworthy. Christian literature has nothing significant to add concerning the details of the Temple, nor, because of the thorough and repeated destruction Jerusalem has experienced since Solomon’s time, has research made any notable contributions.