1 Kings 7:15-22

B. THE BRONZE PILLARS 7:15-22

TRANSLATION

(15) And he formed the two bronze pillars, eighteen cubits was the height of one pillar and the circumference of the second pillar was twelve cubits. (16) And two capitals he made to put on top of the pillars, cast of bronze, the height of the one capital was five cubits, and five cubits was the height of the other capital. (17) Nets of network and cords, chainwork, were upon the capitals which were on top of the pillars, seven to one capital and seven to the other. (18) And he made the pomegranates, even two rows round about the one network to cover the capitals that were upon the top of the pillars[197]; and so did he for the other capital. (19) And the capitals which were upon the top of the pillars were of lily-work in the manner of the porch, four cubits. (20) And the capitals upon the two pillars (he made) also above the belly which was on the other side of the network, and the pomegranates were two hundred in rows round about upon the other capital. (21) And he set up the pillars at the porch of the Temple, and set up the right pillar, and called its name Jachin, and he set up the left pillar and called its name Boaz. (22) And upon the top of the pillars he made lily-work; and the work of the pillars was finished.

[197] In this verse it appears that the Hebrew word for pomegranates and pillars have been transposed. Most commentaries follow the order as given in the Septuagint which is also supported by two Hebrew manuscripts.

COMMENTS

Two enormous pillars of bronze are first mentioned as being, no doubt, the most prominent work of Hiram. Each of these two pillars was twenty-seven feet tall not counting the 7 1/2 feet of the capital, but probably including the height of the pedestals. The height of these pillars would thus approximate that of a modern three story building. The pillars were hollow, the metal being four finger breadths thick (Jeremiah 52:21). The circumference (lit., a line went around) was eighteen feet (1 Kings 7:5). The statement of the height of one pillar and the circumference of the other is to be understood as an abbreviated expression signifying that the two pillars were identical in size.

A problem arises concerning the height of these pillars when one studies the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 3:15. The Chronicler gives a figure for the height (?) of the pillars equivalent to 52½ feet. It is interesting, however, that Chronicles does not use the Hebrew word for height which is used in Kings (qomah), but the Hebrew word usually translated length (-orech). Chronicles may be giving the total length of both pillars minus the pedestals to which they were anchored; Kings may be giving the height of each pillar individually, including the height of the pedestal.[198]

[198] Another possibility is that the actual height of each pillar of 17 1/2 cubits and that Kings has rounded off the figure to eighteen cubits. The 17 1/2 cubits of each pillar combined would yield the thirty-five cubits of 2 Chronicles 3:15. Most conservative scholars, however, concede that the figure in Chronicles has been corrupted in the course of transmission of the text and should read eighteen cubits as in Kings.

A bronze capital or crown adorned the top of each pillar, These capitals were five cubits high[199] (1 Kings 7:16). The capitals were each elaborately decorated, but it is almost impossible to speculate on what the exact form of these decorations might have been.

[199] 2 Kings 25:7 gives the height as three cubits. This figure is usually regarded as a scribal miscopying.

A row of one hundred (1 Kings 7:20) pomegranates ran around the pillars below the network (chainwork) with a second row of one hundred above. The pomegranates would thus form a double border to the chainwork (1 Kings 7:18). Probably the pomegranate was selected for its beautiful form rather than because of any symbolic import.[200] This fruit was also portrayed in various colors on the hem of the robe of the high priestly ephod (Exodus 28:33-34; Exodus 39:24).

[200] Some have suggested that the pomegranates signified fruitfulness in good works; others, that the fruit was an image of the law or covenant of the Lord, and the seeds symbolic of the separate commands of the law.

1 Kings 7:19 has been taken by some to refer to a second capital which was superimposed on the one which was just described. It is better, however, to regard this verse as further describing the single capital which crowned each pillar. It would seem that the lower part of the capital to which the braided work (network) was fastened, was rounded in the form of a pitcher or caldron.[201] The decoration of the upper part of the capitals consisted of sculpture in the form of flowering lilies. The lily-work covered six feet of the total 7½ feet occupied by the capitals. The phrase in the manner of the porch (lit., in the porch) is difficult. Keil's interpretation, though not without its difficulties, is perhaps the best, viz., that the lily-work on the capitals resembled some lily-work which, it would appear, was in or on the porch of the Temple.[202]

[201] See 1 Kings 7:41-42; 2 Chronicles 3:16; 2 Chronicles 4:12-13; Jeremiah 52:23.

[202] The construction of this porch is not minutely described, hence there is no other reference to this decorative lily-work.

1 Kings 7:20 should be regarded as a further amplification of 1 Kings 7:19 indicating exactly where the crowns of lily-work were placed on the capitals. The belly (bowl in 1 Kings 7:41) was the rounding of the lower portion of the capitals which was behind or under the plait or network. Two hundred pomegranates were on each capital, one hundred to a row; according to Jeremiah 52:23 ninety-six of the hundred faced the four quarters, the remaining four occupied the four corners. Thus it would appear that this part of the capital was four-square.

1 Kings 7:21 raises questions about the precise location and function of the two massive bronze pillars. It would appear that they stood within the porch, not in front of it as some have suggested. Whether the pillars were functional or whether they were ornamental is a much discussed question. The following lines of thought suggest that these pillars were ornamental rather than functional.

1. The size of these pillarsover thirty-four feetseems to preclude their being used as supports for the roof.
2. If the pillars had been a functional part of the building, they would almost certainly have been of the same material, i.e., wood or stone. Their metallic composition is certainly an argument for their monumental character.
3. While these columns received special names, no architectural portion of the building was so designated.
4. These two pillars were not mentioned in connection with the building of the Temple and the porch, but are referred to here for the first time in the enumeration of the sacred vessels of the court that were made of bronze.
But if these renowned pillars were ornamental and symbolicand most modern scholars concede that they werewhat religious function did they serve? Some have tried to associate them with the forbidden Canaanite massebhoth, the memorial monoliths which were a regular feature of Canaanite sanctuaries. Others see a connection with the Egyptian solar cult. Still others regard them as fire-altars or incense burners which may have symbolized the wilderness pillar of fire and pillar of cloud, i.e., God's leadership during the period of the wandering.[203] The first two suggestions can be immediately dismissed as unworthy of the Temple of God. The third suggestion, while not impossible, is improbable in as much as the text gives not the slightest hint that these pillars had any more than a symbolic significance.

[203] A theory originally proposed by Robertson-Smith and recently more or less supported by Albright, ARI, pp. 144-48.

The two pillars in the porch before the sanctuary symbolized the power and eternity of the God to whom this sacred building was dedicated. The pillar on the right (south) was called Jachin, i.e., He shall establish, and the pillar on the left, Boaz, i.e., in Him is strength. These pillars thus pointed to God as the true support of His sanctuary, and emphasized as well the stability and strength of the kingdom of God of which the Temple was an outward symbol.

1 Kings 7:22 repeats 1 Kings 7:19 and serves to underscore the significance of the lily-work atop the two pillars. The capitals themselves roughly resembled a full blown lily-cup, and furthermore had representations of the leaf of the lily superimposed upon it. The two pillars would thus resemble two giant plants, the column answering to the stalk, the capital to the flower.[204] The implication of 1 Kings 7:22 is that the columns, capitals and decorations were cast separately, and that when the columns were set up, the work was not finished until the decorations had been affixed.

[204] Hammond, PC, p. 131.