twenty cubits long, twenty cubits wide, and twenty cubits high
The dimensions of the inner sanctuary are significant, as they form a perfect cube. In ancient Near Eastern architecture, a cube often symbolized perfection and completeness. The use of the number twenty, doubled from the number ten, which often represents divine order, suggests a heightened sense of divine perfection and holiness. This perfect cube foreshadows the New Jerusalem described in Revelation 21:16, which is also a cube, symbolizing the ultimate dwelling place of God with His people.

He overlaid it with pure gold
The use of "pure gold" (Hebrew: "זָהָב סָגוּר", zahav sagur) signifies the immense value and purity required in the presence of God. Gold, being the most precious metal, represents the glory and majesty of God. The overlaying of the inner sanctuary with gold illustrates the heavenly reality and the divine nature of God's dwelling place. It also points to the richness of God's grace and the worthiness of worship that He deserves.

and overlaid the altar of cedar
The altar, made of cedar and overlaid with gold, was a place of sacrifice and atonement. Cedar wood, known for its durability and resistance to decay, symbolizes the enduring nature of God's covenant with His people. The overlaying with gold further emphasizes the sanctity and divine approval of the sacrifices made there. This altar prefigures the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus Christ, who offered Himself once for all, fulfilling the requirements of the law and providing eternal redemption for believers.

Covered the altar . . .--Our translators have been misled by the context to anticipate what is said below (1Kings 6:22). The meaning is "he covered the altar" (presumably of stone) "with cedar."

(20-22) These verses describe the overlaying with pure gold of the panelling of the house and of the Oracle, the partition dividing them, and the altar of incense. Even the floor was similarly covered. (See 1Kings 6:30.)

(2) In either case, was the height of thirty cubits, or any uniform height, maintained throughout, or was the roof of the oracle some ten cubits lower than that of the house? The analogy of the tabernacle, of which the temple was a copy, would lead us to suppose that the ridge - if there was a ridge - of the entire building was level and unbroken, though the analogy of the Gothic church, which, we have already seen, is almost a reproduction of the temple, suggests that the oracle (like the chancel, and, it may be added, like the adytum of Egyptian temples) may possibly have had a lower roof. But

(3) supposing the same height was maintained from end to end, to what use, if any, was the vacant space of ten cubits (15 feet) between cieling and roof of oracle applied? It has been held by some that there was a chamber here, but that it was empty, being formed, in fact, not for use, but in order to procure the cubical shape of the oracle. Others contend that this upper room, or one which ran the entire length of the building, was designed to serve as a receptacle for the reliques of the tabernacle, and they would identify it with the עֲלִיות. (LXX, τὸ ὑπερῷον) of 2 Chronicles 3:9. And untrustworthy as Josephus is when not supported by independent evidence, it is worth mentioning here that beth he and the Talmud "persistently assert that there was a superstructure on the temple equal in height to the lower part" (Fergusson, who, consequently, is of opinion that there undoubtedly was some such superstructure, as in the tomb of Darius, near Persepolis (see Dict. Bib. 3. pp. 1456, 1-457), and that it was used for worship (2 Kings 23:12), where see note). Bahr, however, argues forcibly against this idea. He says, inter alia, that there was no approach provided to these chambers; but our account is so manifestly imperfect that this argument is at the best a precarious one. He sees in the "upper chambers" (the Hebrew word is plural) the upper stories of the side structure. He agrees, however, with Ewald that there was a chamber over the oracle, but thinks it was unoccupied. Keil identifies this space with the "upper chambers" of 2 Chronicles 3:9, and upon the whole this appears to be the most feasible view.

(4) How was the cieling, whether with or without this upper chamber, and whether at the height of twenty or thirty cubits - how was it supported? For "no cedar beam could be laid across a space of twenty cubits without sinking in the centre by its own weight." Fergusson hence argues that the roof must have been carried on pillars - four in the sanctuary and ten in the hall. He remarks that they were used in the house of the Forest of Lebanon, where they were less suitable than here]: and he overlaid it [lit. made it shine] with pure gold [marg. shut up (from סָגַר clausit). Cf. Job 28:15 (Heb.) The same gold is described as טָהור (Exodus 25:11) and טוב (2 Chronicles 3:8). It is called "shut up gold," not because it was concealed (κειμέλιον), but because of the exclusion of impure ingredients (Vulg. aurum purissimum). The lavish use of gold in the interior of the temple - its weight 600 talents (75,000 lbs.), its value almost incalculable - was not for mere display (for most of it was never seen except by the priests), but was symbolical of light and purity (Job 37:22, 23; Revelation 21:18), and stamped the place as the abode of Him who dwelleth in light (1 Timothy 6:16). See Bahr in loc. The palace of the Lord must be "exceeding magnifical." The overlaying was not gilding, but laminae of gold were attached to the woodwork with nails. This art was probably derived from Egypt (Exodus 25:11, 13). Egyptian figures ornamented with gold plates are found both in the Louvre and British Museum. See Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyptians," 2. p. 233 sqq.) Rawlinson remarks that "such ornamentation was common in Babylon, in Assyria, and in Media." See Isaiah 46:6; Herod. 1:98; Layard, 2:264. In addition to the gold, the house was garnished with precious stones (2 Chronicles 3:6). Cf. 1 Chronicles 29:2, 8]; and so covered the [Heb. an] altar which was of cedar. [The italics in the A.V. lead us to suspect a mistranslation, and such it proves to be. What the writer means, supposing the present text to be retained, is, not that Solomon covered the cedar altar with gold, but that he overlaid the (stone?) altar with cedar. It is true the article is wanting, but this may perhaps be accounted for by the fact that the altar is now mentioned for the first time (Keil). It is much more probable, however, that the text has been slightly corrupted. The LXX. reads, καὶ ἐποίησε θυσιαστήριον (Cod. Alex. adds κέδρου), which proves that the Seventy had וַיַּעַשׂ instead of וַיְּצַפ in their text. If so, the absence of the article is at once explained, and an unmeaning repetition in ver. 22 avoided. The mention of the altar - of course it is the altar of incense that is meant: the altar of burnt sacrifice was outside the building - in connexion with the oracle is significant. In ver. 22 it is called the "altar that (belonged) to the oracle," because it stood just outside it. In the tabernacle it was placed "before the vail" (Exodus 30:6; Exodus 40:5, 26; Leviticus 16:12-18), and it occupied this position because the incense burned upon it was offered before the Invisible Presence within. It is an argument in favour of the textual emendation suggested above that the altar in the tabernacle was of wood (Exodus 30:1), and that Ezekiel speaks of the "altar of wood" (Ezekiel 41:22), the altar of sacrifice being of earth stones (Exodus 20:24, 25), or brass (2 Chronicles 4:1) If we retain the Received Text we are almost compelled to believe that this altar was also of stone, as they would hardly cover a wooden altar with wood.

Parallel Commentaries ...