Then the king and all Israel with him offered sacrifices before the LORD.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ham·me·leḵ wə·ḵāl yiś·rā·’êl ‘im·mōw zō·ḇə·ḥîm ze·ḇaḥ lip̄·nê Yah·weh
The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Sacrifices of Dedication
1 Kings 8:62–66 — Sacrifices of Dedication. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
Then the king and all Israel with him offered sacrifices before the LORD.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·ham·me·leḵ wə·ḵāl yiś·rā·’êl ‘im·mōw zō·ḇə·ḥîm ze·ḇaḥ lip̄·nê Yah·weh
And Solomon offered as peace offerings to the LORD 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated the house of the LORD.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
šə·lō·mōh ’êṯ way·yiz·baḥ ze·ḇaḥ haš·šə·lā·mîm ’ă·šer zā·ḇaḥ Yah·weh ‘eś·rîm ū·šə·na·yim ’e·lep̄ bā·qār mê·’āh wə·‘eś·rîm ’ā·lep̄ wə·ṣōn ham·me·leḵ wə·ḵāl bə·nê yiś·rā·’êl way·yaḥ·nə·ḵū ’eṯ- bêṯ Yah·weh
On that same day the king consecrated the middle of the courtyard in front of the house of the LORD, and there he offered the burnt offerings, the grain offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings, since the bronze altar before the LORD was too small to contain all these offerings.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ha·hū bay·yō·wm ham·me·leḵ ’eṯ- qid·daš tō·wḵ he·ḥā·ṣêr ’ă·šer lip̄·nê ḇêṯ- Yah·weh kî- šām ’eṯ- ‘ā·śāh hā·‘ō·lāh wə·’eṯ- ham·min·ḥāh wə·’êṯ ḥel·ḇê haš·šə·lā·mîm kî- han·nə·ḥō·šeṯ ’ă·šer miz·baḥ lip̄·nê Yah·weh qā·ṭōn mê·hā·ḵîl ’eṯ- hā·‘ō·lāh wə·’eṯ- ham·min·ḥāh wə·’êṯ ḥel·ḇê haš·šə·lā·mîm
So at that time Solomon and all Israel with him—a great assembly of people from Lebo-hamath to the Brook of Egypt—kept the feast before the LORD our God for seven days and seven more days—fourteen days in all.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ha·hî ’eṯ- ḇā·‘êṯ- šə·lō·mōh wə·ḵāl yiś·rā·’êl ‘im·mōw gā·ḏō·wl qā·hāl mil·lə·ḇō·w ḥă·māṯ ‘aḏ- na·ḥal miṣ·ra·yim way·ya·‘aś he·ḥāḡ lip̄·nê Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hê·nū šiḇ·‘aṯ yā·mîm wə·šiḇ·‘aṯ yā·mîm ’ar·bā·‘āh ‘ā·śār yō·wm
On the fifteenth day Solomon sent the people away. So they blessed the king and went home, joyful and glad in heart for all the good things that the LORD had done for His servant David and for His people Israel.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
haš·šə·mî·nî bay·yō·wm hā·‘ām šil·laḥ ’eṯ- way·ḇā·ră·ḵū ’eṯ- ham·me·leḵ way·yê·lə·ḵū lə·’ā·ho·lê·hem śə·mê·ḥîm wə·ṭō·w·ḇê lêḇ ‘al kāl- haṭ·ṭō·w·ḇāh ’ă·šer Yah·weh ‘ā·śāh ‘aḇ·dōw lə·ḏā·wiḏ ‘am·mōw ū·lə·yiś·rā·’êl
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
After the longest prayer in the Former Prophets, the narrative restarts with a participle: זֹבְחִים (zō·ḇə·ḥîm, H2076), masculine plural, durative. Pulpit fastens on exactly this, arguing that the words prove the sacrifices were offered by the people as well as by the king. K&D turns the same grammar against Thenius's famous arithmetic: because 8:62 names Solomon and all Israel as offerers, and 8:63 closes with “the king and all the children of Israel dedicated,” the numbers were never a royal private expenditure, and under Leviticus 1 and 3 any Israelite could slaughter and flay, the priest's exclusive province being only the blood and the fire. Cambridge supplies the other half of the arithmetic from Leviticus 7:15: the greater part of a shelem is eaten, so 142,000 animals are a fortnight's provision for a nation encamped, not a bonfire. JFB measures it against the pagan world, where hecatombs of a hundred and chiliombs of a thousand were the known extremes, and judges that Solomon's offering surpassed all the other oblations on record. Only Ellicott dissents in tone, hearing under the profusion the heathen notion that God is pleased with thousands of rams, and warning that in these ideas lurked the evils which would make the Temple a heap of stones. ⚙ The Hebrew itself passes no verdict; it simply doubles the root, zābaḥ zebaḥ, slaughter and slaughtering, and leaves the reader to decide whether abundance here is worship or display.
The theological hinge of the unit is one adjective: קָטֹן (qā·ṭōn, H6996), “small.” The bronze altar, twenty cubits square by 2 Chronicles 4:1, the one piece of sacred furniture whose dimensions God specified, is reported inadequate. Pulpit cannot resist the irony that a surface of roughly a hundred square yards would not serve. The remedy is a Piel: קִדַּשׁ (qid·daš, H6942), the king made holy the תּוֹךְ (tō·wḵ, H8432) of the court. Barnes reads that noun as the whole area within the walls, which thus became one huge altar, on any part of which victims might be offered at one and the same time; Pulpit allows either that or temporary altars raised across the space; Poole and Benson restrict it to the priests' court. The commentators feel the pressure of a layman sanctifying ground: Poole and Benson both reach for Solomon as prophet as well as king to license it, and Poole is careful that the consecration was temporary, the improvised altars demolished after the solemnity. JFB says the same, a temporary erection in aid of the established altar. ⚙ Note the verb in the clause that explains the failure: מֵהָכִיל (mê·hā·ḵîl, kûwl, H3557), “from containing.” It is the root Solomon himself used in 8:27, where the heaven of heavens cannot contain God. Twice in one chapter a vessel is measured against what it must hold, and twice the vessel is too small. The house that cannot hold God stands over an altar that cannot hold the thanks for it.
The assembly is a קָהָל (qā·hāl, H6951), a convoked body, and the narrator measures it not in numbers but in borders, from the entering in of Hamath to the נַחַל (na·ḥal, H5158) of Egypt. Pulpit insists on the philology: nachal is a torrent bed, not nāhār, a river, and Ellicott identifies it with the wadi at El-Arish rather than the Nile, the same border Numbers 34:5 and Joshua 15:4 fix. K&D reads the pair as a merism, the whole land in its fullest extent from north to south; Geneva's marginal gloss says it plainly, from North to South, meaning all the country. On the doubled week the voices converge and then split. Geneva: seven days for the dedication, and seven for the feast. Pulpit: the two periods are thus distinguished because they were properly distinct. K&D argues from the article on הֶחָג (he·ḥāḡ, H2282), pointing back to 8:2, that “the feast” is Tabernacles, and that the eighth day of v. 66 is the atzereth of Leviticus 23:36. Poole, Benson and JFB press a further point from the odd phrasing: the fourteen were probably not continuous, since the Day of Atonement fell on the tenth of that month. ⚙ Whatever the calendar, the sentence does something the arithmetic cannot: it sets the full extent of the promised land inside the full sacred number, doubled. For fourteen days the land is as large as the promise and the nation is all in one place.
The dedication ends not with fire but with dismissal. שִׁלַּח (šil·laḥ, H7971), a Piel, is a formal release; and then the direction of blessing reverses. In 8:14 the king blessed the congregation; here וַיְבָרֲכוּ (way·ḇā·ră·ḵū, H1288, root sense “to kneel”) has the people as subject and the king as object. Poole offers both senses, that they prayed God to bless him and that they praised him; Pulpit adds a third, that the word here means to felicitate on taking leave, as at Proverbs 27:14 and 1 Samuel 25:6; Cambridge reports Josephus's version, that they went away thanking the king and praying God to give them Solomon for a long time to come. They go לְאָהֳלֵיהֶם, to their tents, and Barnes, Cambridge, K&D and Pulpit all note the fossil idiom from the nomadic years; Ellicott alone suggests the word may have been drawn up by the Feast of Tabernacles itself, which the writer has just recorded. The last clause reaches backward: the good was done לְדָוִד עַבְדּוֹ, for David his servant. K&D explains why the dead king is named at the close, because the completed house was the fulfilment of the promise given to him; Pulpit calls David the real founder, Solomon having entered into his labours. Henry draws the only application any of them draws: thus should we go home, rejoicing, from holy ordinances, thankful for God's Goodness.
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested against the text. Read the unit by its two measurements and it holds together. In 8:27 Solomon says the heaven of heavens cannot contain (kûwl, H3557) God; in 8:64 the bronze altar is small from containing (qāṭōn mê·hā·ḵîl, the same root) what the people bring. The house is too small for the God; the altar is too small for the gratitude. The narrator does not treat either as a failure. He reports the second the way one reports a flood: the remedy is not a bigger altar but a hallowed floor, the whole court turned altar for a season and then unmade. That is a strange thing for a book so attentive to divine specification to record without comment, and it is the honest centre of the passage: at the highest moment of Israel's cult, the prescribed apparatus is visibly exceeded, and the excess is accommodated by improvisation that will be demolished. The unit then measures time the same way, seven and seven, a week doubled past the ordinary week, ending on an eighth day that belongs to neither. ⚙ I would not press these into a system. But I notice that every container in the chapter, house, altar, week, is both honoured and overrun, and that the people go home to tents. Whatever was dedicated that day, the text's own vocabulary keeps declining to let it be final. Where the commentators divide, I follow the grammar rather than the harmonization: the plural participle of v. 62 and the plural verb of v. 63 make this the nation's act, and Ellicott's suspicion of the numbers, while it is a legitimate reading of Israel's later history, is not something this text says.
The house could not contain the God, and the altar could not contain the thanks. (This line is synthesis, not Scripture.)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The verb that dedicates the temple in 8:63, וַיַּחְנְכוּ (chânak, H2596), occurs in only four verses of the Hebrew Bible. At Deuteronomy 20:5 a man who has built a new house and not yet dedicated it is released from the army to go and do it; at Proverbs 22:6 the same root is used of training a child in the way he should go. Strong's root sense, “properly, to narrow,” holds both: to initiate a thing into the channel it is meant to run in. ⚙ Read together, the three occurrences say that dedication in Hebrew is not a ceremony of ownership but the first use of a thing for its purpose, which is precisely Benson's and Poole's gloss on this verse, that they began to set it apart for the work and service of God. The noun built on this root is the name of the later feast of Dedication.
Deuteronomy 20:5 · Proverbs 22:6
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H2596 chânak, which occurs in only 4 verses of the Hebrew Bible. The rarity makes this a genuine verbal link; it is a shared lexeme, not a quotation of one text by another.
2 Chronicles 7:4-10 narrates this same dedication, and the Verifier records overlapping lexemes at three points: 7:5 shares zâbach (H2076), zebach (H2077) and bâqâr (H1241) with 8:62-63; 7:7 shares shelem (H8002), Shᵉlômôh (H8010) and châtsêr (H2691) with the hallowing of the court in 8:64; 7:10 shares the numerals and the king's name with 8:66. These lexemes are all common, so the link is not established by rarity but by the two texts being accounts of one event. The Chronicler is the source of nearly every harmonization the commentators use here: JFB and Gill get the fire from heaven from 2 Chronicles 7:1, Cambridge gets the Levites' music from 7:6, and K&D, Ellicott, Barnes, Poole and Pulpit all reconcile the “eighth day” of 8:66 against the “twenty-third day of the seventh month” in 7:10. K&D concedes the two dates do not strictly agree and attributes the difference to imprecision about a well-known matter.
2 Chronicles 7:5 · 2 Chronicles 7:7 · 2 Chronicles 7:10
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H2076 zâbach (127 vv), H2077 zebach (153 vv), H1241 bâqâr (172 vv) at 7:5; H8002 shelem (84 vv), H8010 Shᵉlômôh (263 vv), H2691 châtsêr (163 vv) at 7:7; H8010 and H6242 at 7:10. All common lexemes: the relation is that of parallel narrative, not quotation, and the two accounts differ on the day of dismissal.
Leviticus 23:39 prescribes the חַג (chag, H2282) of the seventh month for seven days beginning on the fifteenth, with a closing assembly on the eighth (23:36). 1 Kings 8:65-66 counts seven and seven and then dismisses on “the eighth day.” K&D builds his whole reconstruction on that correspondence, taking the eighth day as the atzereth of Leviticus 23:36 rather than as the eighth day of the fourteen, and Pulpit, Barnes, Ellicott and Cambridge follow the same law text. ⚙ The link is at the level of shared legal institution and shared festal vocabulary, not citation: Kings never quotes Leviticus here, and Cambridge in fact argues from this passage that the Pentateuchal ordinances were not yet in full observance, which is a contested claim of nineteenth-century criticism rather than a datum of the text.
Leviticus 23:39 · Leviticus 23:36
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H2282 chag (55 vv), H6240 ʻâsâr (291 vv), H7651 shebaʻ (343 vv) at Leviticus 23:39. Shared festal vocabulary and a shared institution; no quotation is claimed in either direction.
Nehemiah 8:18 reports the returned exiles keeping the chag seven days with a solemn assembly on the eighth (shᵉmîynîy, H8066), the identical three-word skeleton the Verifier finds here. ⚙ The two scenes bracket the temple: Solomon's assembly goes out from a house just dedicated to their tents, and Nehemiah's assembly, after that house has been destroyed, is living in booths again. The archaism Barnes, Cambridge and K&D note in 8:66, “tents” for homes, becomes literal in Nehemiah. I offer that as a reading, not as something either text states.
Nehemiah 8:18
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H2282 chag (55 vv), H7651 shebaʻ (343 vv), H8066 shᵉmîynîy (27 vv). H8066 is comparatively uncommon and the three co-occur in the same festal formula, but since both texts are describing the same standing institution this is a shared-liturgy link, deliberately not tiered verbal.
Four chapters later, 1 Kings 12:32-33 reports Jeroboam making a חַג (chag, H2282) in the eighth month on the fifteenth day, going up to a מִזְבֵּחַ (mizbêach, H4196) to sacrifice (zâbach, H2076), “like the feast that is in Judah.” The narrator of Kings uses the same vocabulary for both scenes, and the Verifier confirms the overlap. ⚙ The comparison is the book's own: everything Solomon does here, Jeroboam will imitate with the calendar shifted a month and the altar of his own devising. What makes Solomon's improvised altar in 8:64 legitimate and Jeroboam's illegitimate is not stated in either text by any explicit rule, which is exactly why Poole and Benson feel compelled to invoke Solomon's prophetic office. That unease is worth keeping rather than resolving.
1 Kings 12:32 · 1 Kings 12:33
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H2076 zâbach (127 vv) and H4196 mizbêach (338 vv) at 12:32; H4196, H2282 chag (55 vv), H6240 ʻâsâr (291 vv) at 12:33. Common lexemes, but the same narrator is deliberately reusing the festal formula, so the link is literary and structural, not a quotation.
Exodus 24:5 has young men of Israel offering burnt offerings and sacrificing שְׁלָמִים (shelem, H8002) oxen to YHWH at the ratification of the covenant, after which the elders eat and drink before God. Exodus 20:24 had already authorized an altar of earth on which ʻolah and shelamim, sheep and oxen (bâqâr, H1241), could be offered wherever the Name is recorded. ⚙ That second text is the nearest thing in the Torah to a warrant for what Solomon does in 8:64 when he sanctifies open ground and sacrifices on it; I note it as a possible legal background, not as a citation the narrator makes. The commentators here do not appeal to it, preferring Solomon's prophetic status.
Exodus 24:5 · Exodus 20:24
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H2076 zâbach (127 vv), H2077 zebach (153 vv), H8002 shelem (84 vv) at Exodus 24:5; H2076, H1241 bâqâr (172 vv), H8002 at Exodus 20:24. Common sacrificial vocabulary, so this is a shared-institution link. The suggestion that Exodus 20:24 licenses the hallowing of the court in 8:64 is my inference and is not made by any voice in this unit.
John 10:22-23 places Jesus in the temple at the Feast of Dedication, walking in Solomon's Colonnade, and John 7:37 places him there on the last and greatest day of the Feast of Tabernacles. 1 Kings 8:62-66 is the founding instance of both observances in one week: the dedication (chânak, H2596, the root behind the later feast's name) and the chag of the seventh month, and it ends on the eighth day of the latter. ⚙ No verbal link can be claimed: John is Greek, Kings is Hebrew, and there is no shared Strong's lexeme to appeal to across the two languages. The connection is that of institution and setting, and it is historically solid on that ground alone: the calendar and the colonnade in John are named after what happens in this unit.
John 10:22 · John 7:37
basis: Cross-Testament Greek to Hebrew: shared Strong's numbers are impossible, so no verbal tier can apply. The recorded basis is institutional and topographical continuity, the Feast of Dedication and the Feast of Tabernacles and Solomon's portico, all of which trace to the events of 1 Kings 8:62-66.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
⚙ The narrator's own verdict in 8:64 is that the prescribed bronze altar was קָטֹן (qā·ṭōn), small, measured against what had to be brought, and the remedy was to hallow the floor for a season and then unmake it. The apostolic argument about the Levitical cult in Hebrews 10:11 runs along the same grain from the other end: the priest stands daily offering the same sacrifices repeatedly, which can never take sins away, whereas one offering has perfected for all time those who are sanctified (10:14). This unit does not say that. What it does say is that the apparatus was visibly exceeded on the day of its greatest triumph, and that the excess was met by an improvisation with a demolition date. ⚙ I read 8:64 as the cult's own recorded confession of insufficiency, and I mark this as my synthesis: the general Christian reading of the temple sacrifices as provisional is ancient and widely held, but grounding it specifically in the “altar too small” of this verse is my own move and should be tested. Ellicott, from a different angle, already reads the profusion of these very offerings as containing the seed of what would ruin the Temple.
Hebrews 10:11-14 · 1 Kings 8:64
⚙ 8:63 dedicates the house with the rare verb chânak, whose sense Poole and Benson gloss as beginning to set a thing apart for the work and service of God. John 2:19-21 has Jesus answer a demand for a sign in the temple courts by speaking of destroying and raising “this temple,” and the evangelist glosses it: he was speaking of the temple of his body. ⚙ The link is not verbal and cannot be, since John is Greek and Kings Hebrew; it is the transfer of a category. The reading that the temple is fulfilled in the person of Christ is ancient and widely held, taught by the evangelist himself. What this unit contributes to it is precise and often missed: the house was dedicated by blood, by a nation, and for fourteen days, and at the end of it everybody went back to tents. The permanence was always in the promise rather than the masonry, which is why 8:66 closes by naming David and the goodness done to him rather than the building.
John 2:19-21 · 1 Kings 8:63
⚙ The unit's final movement is a king dismissing a whole nation with a blessing, and Luke 24:50-52 ends the Gospel with Christ lifting his hands, blessing his disciples, parting from them, and their returning with great joy. Benson makes the typological connection explicitly on this passage, reading David his servant as a type of Christ, and applying the people's joy to believers, his spiritual Israel, under the covenant of grace; Henry turns the same verse into an instruction that we should go home rejoicing from holy ordinances. The Davidic typology is ancient and widely held, and 8:66 is unusually suited to it because the goodness the people rejoice in is said to have been done for David his servant, a man not present, whose promise the day has discharged. ⚙ The verbal echo with Luke is mine and is not a lexical link; what is sourced here is Benson's and Henry's reading of the joy, and K&D's observation that David is named because the finished house fulfilled the promise given to him.
Luke 24:50-52 · 2 Samuel 7:12-13 · 1 Kings 8:66
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
⚙ Honesty notes for this unit. (1) Numbers. The 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep of 8:63 are defended as transmitted by Ellicott (identical in Chronicles and Josephus), by Pulpit (all Versions agree; no ground for suspecting exaggeration, though numerals elsewhere are corrupted in transcription), by Barnes and by K&D. Cambridge reports that Josephus lowers the oxen to twelve thousand while keeping the sheep. The defenses turn on two claims from Leviticus, that non-priests could slaughter and flay (K&D) and that most of a peace offering was eaten (Cambridge, Pulpit); Ellicott alone floats the alternative that only representative victims of each hecatomb were actually offered, the rest dedicated and killed elsewhere. No voice here claims the text is corrupt.
(2) The eighth day. 8:66 says “the eighth day”; 2 Chronicles 7:10 says the twenty-third day of the seventh month. K&D states plainly that taken strictly the two are at variance and explains the Kings figure as want of precision in a well-known matter. Barnes, Ellicott, Poole, Gill, Cambridge and Pulpit all harmonize by taking the eighth day as the closing assembly of Tabernacles. The BSB's bracketed “[fifteenth]” in 8:66 is a translator's harmonization, not a reading of the Hebrew, which has only haš·šə·mînî, “the eighth.” I have kept the discrepancy visible rather than resolving it.
(3) Fire from heaven. JFB and Gill both describe fire descending to consume the sacrifice of 8:62. That is 2 Chronicles 7:1. The Kings text does not report it, and readers should know the image is imported.
(4) Solomon as prophet. Poole and Benson justify a king sanctifying the court by asserting he was endowed with God's Spirit as a prophet as well as a king. Nothing in 8:64 says this. It is their solution to a real difficulty, and I have flagged it rather than repeated it as fact.
(5) Cambridge's critical aside. On 8:65 Cambridge argues that Solomon's part in the ceremony shows the Pentateuchal ordinances were not yet in observance, while adding that this cannot of itself establish the non-existence of the Levitical law. That is a nineteenth-century critical position, carried here because it is in the public-domain source, not because this synthesis endorses it.
(6) Text of 8:65. Cambridge judges “our God” in “before the LORD our God” to have the appearance of an editorial addition unlikely to stand in the original narrative. Gill records that the Vatican copy of the Septuagint reads “seven days” only once. Both are noted as reported variants, not adopted.
(7) Word order. The interlinear in the brief is aligned to English phrase order at several points (notably 8:63, where bāqār is listed after the numerals, and 8:65-66, where the opening words are re-sequenced). The literal renderings above follow Hebrew order, so their sequence will not always match the index numbering of the notes.
(8) All cross-reference bases are the Verifier's computed shared-lexeme data; every cross-Testament link in this unit is tiered structural because shared Strong's numbers cannot exist across Hebrew and Greek.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)