TEMPLE, JERUSALEM (Temple: בַּ֫יִת֒, H1074, properly, house; הֵיכָל, H2121, Sumer. loan word é-gal, great house, through Akkad. ekallu; ἱερόν, G2639, temple; νάος, sanctuary [inner], temple). The terms designate variously the Tabernacle (1 Sam 1:9), the Temple of Solomon, the Temple of Ezekiel, Zerubbabel’s Temple (Hag 2:15) and the Temple of Herod. (Scripture quotations are from the KJV unless otherwise noted.)
I. Historical background
A. Sacred places of mankind. Evidences of the religious outlook of mankind are found wherever man has been able to establish some continuity of habitation. The Fertile Crescent of Mesopotamia-Egypt furnishes examples of some of the oldest sacred sites and temples, with Jericho providing one of the oldest, dating from Mesolithic times (c. 6800 b.c.; Kenyon, Archaeology of the Holy Land, 420). A characteristic feature is the presence of an enclosing wall, setting the area off from its surroundings, thus emphasizing the implied superiority and sanctity of the place and its deity.
In Egypt, the earliest discernible temple form was a small house similar to that of the worshiper. In front of it was placed the symbol of the god, the whole enclosed by a fence or low wall (BA, VII, 44). In later times, this house was replaced by a large and complex series of courts and halls (viz., Karnak and Luxor temples of the 15th cent. b.c.) inside an enclosing wall, within which were not only the principal deity but also other related and subsidiary deities.
Ceremonially, there developed a need to express theological concepts, demonstrated by the “pilgrimages” of Amon in Karnak through various “stations” in the temple complex (op. cit., 45).
B. Mesopotamian examples. Southern Mesopotamia (Sumer) in the earlier periods erected simple temple structures built mostly of reeds. Expansion came with the advent of building with sun-dried brick. Plan variations occurred until toward the end of the third millennium when temples were formalized in a large hall with the idol placed at the narrow end, usually in a shallow room opposite a doorway. The worshiper assembled in an outer court and looked into the main hall where, at the far end, he saw the gorgeously arrayed god framed by a monumental portal. The design was to impress the worshiper and inspire him with fear and awe. This was not, however, the purpose of the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem (see below).
In Assyrian times in the northern Mesopotamian area (Assyria), the outer court familiar from Babylonian temples was lacking; the worshiper entered by a door in the side wall into the sanctuary where the idol was present and then turned to face the image. Pilasters or short walls on the side walls at that end framed the deity, which stood on a low dais. In Babylonian times, the entrance was frequently given flanking towers.
The southern Mesopotamian temples show derivation from houses, whereas the Assyrian temple stressed the more private relationship of deity and worshiper. This temple was usually found at the base of the ziggurat, on which the deity alighted when he descended to earth. It is recorded that small shrines were erected on the top for the convenience of the deity at his arrival, but no example has survived.
C. Worship and theology. The proof of the presence of the divinity in both Egypt and Mesopotamia was the presence of the image, thus explaining how it could be said that the people went into captivity when the images were carried off by a conqueror. Both in Egypt and southern Mesopotamia, the gods were taken out in procession among the people. In Assyria, however, at least down to Assurnasirpal II (883-859 b.c.), they remained in their sanctuaries. In such processions they were objects of rejoicing and singing of the common people, but in no case in the Early or Middle Kingdom periods in Egypt did they have entry to worship the deity. Other than the royal family and priests, only the nobility and upper class achieved this status in later times.
In Egypt the complexity of later forms provided an easy vehicle or stimulus to the concept that it was a microcosm of the world: the god was in the sanctuary, and the temple complex represented the universe around him. This concept was absent in both the Mesopotamian and Canaanite forms. The Assyrians adopted the ziggurat at a later time, indicating Babylonian influence. The Palestinian, or Canaanite temples, witness to a simpler outlook.
D. Subsidiary quarters. The Mesopotamian temple had additional quarters for the priests, and storehouses for offerings and receipts from temple lands, to which frequent references are made in the clay cuneiform business documents. There were also school buildings for training scribes in writing the cuneiform to provide recorders for the temple receipts and the administration of its holdings. For the Temple in Jerusalem there were the chambers built around the sides and rear, and in the Herodian structure a small section provided for the use of the priests immediately attending the Temple, but not on the grand scale of the Babylonian temples. The need for such quarters to that extent did not exist in Jerusalem.
E. Canaanite prototypes. One of the earlier forms of Canaanite temples is found at Megiddo (c. 3000 b.c.), which consists of a simple, rectangular large room containing the idol. Three others at Megiddo date from c. 1900 b.c. having the same plan; all place the door on the long side. A particularly notable example of this type occurs at Ai (c. 2500 b.c.). About 1500 b.c., the plan is square, with an added porch. A further refinement occurs at Bethshan in the addition of a small room or cubicle at the rear raised above the room floor, containing the idol; this constitutes one of the earliest examples of a holy of holies (Heb. דְּבִיר֒, H1808, debîr), as in Solomon’s Temple.
A strictly Phoen. style temple for the period post-1000 b.c. was found in the Tel Tainat (ancient Hattina) in Syria. This consists of a porch, a holy place, and a holy of holies, remarkably like the description in 1 Kings 6ff. (BA, IV, 2; fig. 3; Oriental Institute Bulletin, I [1937], 13.) The same plan form is seen in the Gr. temples without surrounding colonnades, indicating Syrian influence.
II. Significance of Solomonic Temple
A. Distinctive purpose. The outstanding feature of the Solomonic Temple is that there was no idol in it, having only the mercy seat over the Ark and the Cherubim (֝כְּרוּבִ֗ים) overshadowing the former, declaring to the world that idols are unnecessary to define the presence of God or His sanctity. Because the lightless room could only be reached through a specific ritual at a specified annual time for the purpose of making reconciliation for the people, the “house of Yahweh” in Jerusalem was not considered a cosmic house of God, but emphasized the way of salvation to the penitent and assured to him the grace of God for his joy and blessing (1 Kings 8:27-30). God was not localized in any sense conveyed by an image, either Egyptian, Babylonian, or Canaanite, nor bound to any other form such as the Ark (see also Mercy Seat). The Temple, therefore, was not necessary because of God’s nature; He had no need of it (Acts 7:48, 49). It was an accomodation to the limitations and needs of His people (1 Kings 8:27ff.).
B. Cause of existence. That contemporary peoples had temples is not sufficient grounds to justify the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Though David saw this lack as invidious (2 Sam 7:2), it was not the cause by which David sought to build God’s house. A sufficient cause, among others, is that found in Deuteronomy 12, where the Temple was to be a protective memorial for believing Israel, designed to turn their hearts away from the idols of their Palestinian contemporaries and provide them with an incentive (thus protective) not to practice the iniquities of the Canaanites (M. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 80), and with a memorial to the person of their God who had delivered them from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the land of Canaan.
In addition to the practical good of centralized worship, a central cultic house was important to the Covenant structure of Yahweh with Israel. The loyalty of Israel to Yahweh her God was expressed in the sacrifices and offerings that were presented at the Temple. The high places of the various tribes divided the people and were disruptive of their loyalty to God; they diverted from Him His rightful due as their Creator and Lord, and in this sense the high places were roundly condemned. The Temple thus became an affirmation by Israel of the Covenant. This view makes it unnecessary to hold that the law of the central sanctuary was a late development; it was delayed until Israel should be a stable people, dwelling in peace in her land, when Yahweh would take up His abode in her midst in a more obvious manner (cf. Kline, op. cit., 80ff.; Deut 12:10). The establishment of the altar in one place is the distinctive element in Deuteronomy, in contrast to the removal of the Shekinah glory from one place to another in times from Moses to David (although not the thought that such centralization never existed). The Temple was needed to express clearly Israel’s attachment to the Covenant. That David was not allowed to build the Temple, does not mean that Yahweh would not dwell in one, but rather that the time was not propitious (cf. 2 Sam 7:5-7, 11 with Deut 12:11).
C. A unifying force. The Temple was for Israel to be the place where, in three annual festivals particularly, they were to rejoice before their God and remember His great blessings to them (Deut 12:12). David was the recipient of the centuries of this outlook in a particular way and came to realize the need for this central sanctuary for unity among the people. Thus Israel’s Temple in Jerusalem was from the first to differ from those of their contemporaries. That there was cause for division because of the attraction of adverse temples set up elsewhere (cf. Josh 22:11-31) is evident in the conduct of Sanballat in the days of Alexander (Jos. Antiq. XI. viii. 1-4) who sought to tie to himself the priest Manasseh and his cohorts by the promise of a temple, and in the policies of Jereboam I in erecting the idols at Dan and Bethel to tie the ten tribes to himself (cf. 1 Kings 12:25-33). Neither in Samaria nor in Dan or Bethel, was to be the site of the house of Yahweh; only the place that He would choose was to be the center of their worship, where God’s judgments were to be sought, and where they were to remember particularly their deliverances (Deut 26:1-3).
D. Designation of the site. The selection of the place of the dwelling for the name of Yahweh came in the peculiar happenings of David’s numbering the people (2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chron 21, 22). In the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, David was commanded to set up an altar of propitiation to God to stay the plague. This was declared to be the house, i.e., the Temple, of God and the place of the altar, i.e. the sole altar, of the people Israel (1 Chron 22:1). It became the place of obedience and propitiation for Israel.
E. Temporary character. This place symbolized the hearing ear of God (1 Kings 8:27-29), the resort of the stranger (vv. 41-43) and the house of prayer for all people (Isa 56:7), to the end that all nations of the earth should fear God (1 Kings 8:43). In the NT, it symbolized the body of Christ (John 2:18-21) as the obedient servant of God for propitiating God’s wrath on the sinner. Further, the Temple as God’s dwelling place symbolizes the Christian as the dwelling place of God (1 Cor 3:16).
In the early days of the Church, Stephen, slain for his faith, was evidently going to declare that the people were putting the Temple above God, forgetting that He did not really need a temple building in the sense of rooms of stone and wood (Acts 7:44ff.; cf. Acts 17:24, 25) but that he desired the believing heart of flesh (Ezek 36:26, 27) on which He could impress His law, i.e., His nature, which would result in obedience and holiness of life.
There is a prior step to the achievement of this result. The millennium will see a Temple raised to God, the refuge of all nations; but it will be primarily memorial. When the millennium runs its course and the new age of perfection is established, there will be no Temple, for the Lamb will be there in the midst of His people (Rev 21:22). Thus the Temple is mediatorial in all ages, justifying Stephen’s position.
III. Location
A. Araunah’s threshing floor. The location of Solomon’s Temple is identified with the threshing floor of Araunah (alternately Ornan, 2 Chron 3:1), known as Mt. Moriah, the locale of the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:2), where David founded the altar of the Temple (2 Sam 24:24, 25; 1 Chron 22:1; cf. 1 Chron 21:18-26). The location of the altar was to be determined as follows: Araunah and his sons hid themselves at the presence of the angel (1 Chron 21:20); the concealment was the area of the threshing floor (v. 21), for Araunah went out of it to meet David. The place of concealment was the cave where doubtless they stored their grain after it was separated from the chaff. Since the rock under the Dome of the Qubbet es-Sakhra, where the cave is, shows the effects of quarrying above the level of the cave, it is logical to hold that this rock stood higher originally and that the threshing floor surrounded the rock and the cave.
The altar, therefore, would not be placed on top of the rise forming the cave. David demanded the threshing floor at a price to erect there the altar of God. It would appear that David referred to the flatter area around this rise, for it was there that the actual threshing was done. Hence, one must consider that the altar was located to the E of the rise, or even to the NE or SE where there was in any of these areas ample space for the location of the altar and its ritual. Moreover, more room was required for the altar ritual, for the laver was to be in the immediate neighborhood of the altar, and there was insufficient room on the rock over the cave. Let it also be recalled that there was a foundation of great stones for the Temple (1 Kings 5:17), forming the great platform on which the Temple and adjacent store rooms were built (cf. BA, XIV I, 6; 2, 3). Such a platform of the approximate height of four to five cubits would raise the interior Temple floor level above the top, or nearly to the top, of the present rock in the Qubbet es-Sakhra, the present domed structure covering the rise at the cave in Araunah’s threshing floor. Any further elevation of the rock above this floor would be covered by the higher floor of the Holy of Holies. (Cf. Simons, Jerusalem in OT, 381ff.)
On the site of the threshing floor David made it a practice to sacrifice to Yahweh (cf. 1 Chron 1:28) and determined the location of the altar of Israel (22:1).
B. Character of the site. The researches and excavations of Warren, Wilson, Conder, Schick, and others in Jerusalem have established the topography of the city quite conclusively (cf. Wilson and Warren, The Recovery of Jerusalem, 50ff.). The area of the city divides principally into an eastern and western ridge, separated by a wide valley known by the name Tyropoean. The eastern ridge is bounded on the E side by the deep, narrow valley of the Kidron. At the S end of the western hill is the Valley of Hinnom into which ran the Tyropoean (now mostly filled), and then the Hinnom continues eastward past the S end of the E ridge to the Kidron. (See topographic sketch.)
The E ridge was further divided toward the N by a small offshoot of the Kidron to the W and then quickly turned generally northward, known as St. Anne’s Valley. The valley is now covered by the northern end of the Haram. The S end of the E ridge was the site of both the cities of David and Nehemiah, with Ophel about midway toward St. Anne’s Valley. The ridge continued to rise toward the N quite rapidly to a high elevation at the threshing floor of Araunah and an even higher peak at the location of Antonia; the site was more level to the E of the Sakhra before dropping off sharply away to the Kidron, and on the W side dropping sooner to the Tyropoean, thus limiting the extent of the original Solomonic construction more considerably on the W side than on the E. The Tyropoean Valley is now mostly filled in with debris from over the centuries.
The location of the Temple was influenced by the location of David’s city and by the attraction of the upper rocky platform. It was near the city but outside it, free from interferences offered by existing city structures, and on an eminence appropriate to its character, not even today overpowered by the city on the western ridge.
IV. Solomon’s Temple
A. David’s preparations
1. The inspiration for the Temple. The inspiration for the Temple plan and structure came to David from Yahweh when He had given him rest from all his enemies (2 Sam 7:1-3; cf. Deut 12:10ff.), when in peace he had been able to build his own house. David assembled all the officials of Israel (1 Chron 28:1) and commissioned them and his son Solomon to build the Temple. After giving this charge, he delivered to Solomon the “pattern” (28:11) that he had received by God’s Spirit (v. 12) and in writing (v. 19). God thus determined the pattern of the approach of the worshiper as well as the elements of his worship, so that the right way to Him was known. God determined the character of the Temple as He did for the Tabernacle. The provision for entry to the high priest once a year with blood was sufficient to provide the atonement necessary for the people to maintain their sanctity for fellowship with God. The outer chamber was sufficient for the daily intercession and communion with their God made necessary by His nature. Beyond these rooms was no need for an elaborate system of courts as in the Egyp. temples. The pattern of the sanctuary of Tel Tainat, dated shortly after the time of Solomon (see above I, E), was therefore not a source of the plan, but the similar pattern means that the Canaanites adopted it as a convenient way to express the manner of their worship and that there was not in Jerusalem an introduction of pagan forms in any syncretistic expression of religion.
2. The collection of materials. The amassing of materials was begun early by David when Solomon was young (1 Chron 29:1ff.). The materials included 100,000 talents of gold, 1,000,000 talents of silver (22:14) and from his own private fortune David had set aside for gilding and plating ornamentation 3,000 talents of the gold of Ophir—a most prized gold, and 7,000 talents of high grade (refined) silver (29:3-5). The officers of the people gave 5,000 talents and 10,000 darics (see Daric) of gold, 10,000 talents of silver, “brass” (a crude alloy of copper) amounting to 18,000 talents, and of iron 100,000 talents. Others gave precious jewels of which there was no reckoning. In addition, weights were specified and established for many articles of furniture (28:13-19) by David (cf. above no. 1), indicating that size and pattern of the articles had been fixed by this time by Yahweh.
David also prepared stones in the quarry, iron nails without number, cedar for framing and paneling (22:1-4), to which Solomon was free to add (v. 14). Craftsmen also were readied by David to contribute their skills to building the House of Yahweh (v. 15).
3. The people obligated to build. The people from the highest prince under David down to the lowliest were put under obligation to Solomon (28:21), and to Yahweh, that they should walk with Him, that they should build the Temple in affirmation of their allegiance to the covenant and therefore to Yahweh (vv. 10-21). Their willingness to build the Temple was at once their affirmation of the Covenant given by Yahweh and their precondition of continued occupation of the land (cf. Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 76ff.).
4. The Temple service given by God. The Temple service was also set out by David by the command of God’s Spirit (28:13), the priests to officiate at the altar and the Levites to care for the subsidiary functions (cf. 24:1, 3 with v. 19).
Thus the pattern of the Temple, the size of furniture, and the worship were ordained by Yahweh. It is to be understood that no thing of worship, implements, ritual or buildings was left to human invention lest by the inclusion of a single element formed solely according to human thinking or ingenuity be present to cast suspicion on the entire worship center, and justify in any way the idea of human cooperation in establishing the way of reconciliation with God.
B. Data. The principal sources of information relating to Solomon’s Temple are OT references (1 Kings 5-8; 1 Chron 17; 21; 22; 28; 29 and 2 Chron 2-7), though there are other references scattered through the rest of the Scriptures. Any reconstruction of Solomon’s Temple is limited primarily to these, though other architectural and archeological data shed light on some features, such as plan and furniture.
1. Date of beginning. 1 Kings 6:1 and 2 Chronicles 3:2 establish the start of construction of the Temple in Solomon’s fourth year. His reign ended 931/30 b.c. (Thiele, Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, 2nd ed., 53), which would require 971/970 b.c. for the first year of his forty year reign (1 Kings 11:42), placing the beginning of the Temple in 967/966 b.c. (see Chronology of the Old Testament).
2. Workmen. The foundryman was a Phoen., Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 7:13). Other workmen were Sidonians of another Hiram, king of Tyre (5:6), whose workmen felled the Lebanese cedars for the Temple. They were called into service because there were no Israelites proficient in this work. In addition, Solomon conscripted 30,000 Israelites (5:13) to labor in courses in Lebanon with the lumbering operation (v. 14). In addition there were 153,600 “strangers” (RSV “aliens”) in Israel (2 Chron 2:17) over whom were 3,600 overseers to direct their labors (v. 18). These laborers were divided into 70,000 bearers of burdens and 80,000 hewers. On the basis that fifty men form a company with a captain over them (2 Kings 1:9), the 30,000 and 150,000 make 180,000 for which 3,600 overseers would be required.
3. Construction. Timber and stone were made ready beforehand (1 Kings 5:18) so as to eliminate the noise on the site (6:7). The total interior length of the house (6:2) was sixty cubits with an interior breadth of twenty cubits, and an interior height of thirty cubits for the Holy Place (הֵיכָל, H2121) and the Holy of Holies (דְּבִיר֒, H1808) of twenty cubits. In addition, there was an open porch ten cubits deep with a length of twenty cubits, the same as the interior of the Holy Place (v. 3; see Porch). The stones were precut at the quarry, squared, dressed, and transported to the site to be set in position. Both at Megiddo of this period and at Samaria in the next cent. are examples of finely shaped cut stones for building, with carefully cut edges for alignment and joining (1 Kings 5:18). This work, however, appears to be exceptional, for most other construction in the nation was rubblework. Israelite workmen did not know how to do this specialized building; hence, the importation of Phoen. craftsmen.
The description of the side chambers follows (1 Kings 6:5, 6; summary, v. 10); with a platform (יָצוּעַ֒, H3661) (vv. 5, 10) against all sides of the house. According to Ezekiel there was a platform (Ezek 41:9 RSV) on which were built the side chambers. Since the two buildings were much alike, one concludes that Ezekiel’s Temple was basically Solomon’s Temple with modifications made through the centuries. In support of this view, the word יָצוּעַ֒, H3661, (1 Kings 6:5) does not mean “chamber” but “bed” (BDB 426b; JNES, II, 286); here the tr. “foundation” is quite appropriate architecturally and eliminates the inane repetition (in tr.) of “chambers,” which really is another word (צֵלָע֒, H7521), thus indicating two different structures. The side chambers were built on a raised platform, the height of five cubits indicated in v. 10, where the word יָצוּעַ֒, H3661, is mistranslated “chambers,” and should be read “platform.”
The rest of v. 10 mentions the chambers but is so abrupt that one suspects accidental omission in the copying process of part of the original, which should be read: “And he built...(here follows the Heb. sign of the accusative: ’eth, the accusative immediately next) the platform against the whole house, five cubits was its height; and he made (plus, the sign of the accusative: ’eth) the side chambers....The part dropped out was that between the two “signs of accusative,” thus giving the tr. of the KJV and causing a seeming change in the meaning of יָצוּעַ֒, H3661.
The construction of the side chambers is given as a series of rooms one above another (6:6; Ezek 41:6), with each successive upper story one cubit wider than the next lower. This increase was obtained by the fact that the upper portions of the wall on the Holy Place side were set back by one cubit (i.e., the wall became one cubit thinner in each of the second and third story). The lowest chamber was five cubits wide, the middle six, and the upper seven, with story height being five cubits (although when the thickness of beams and flooring is deducted the clear height would be rather low); these dimensions may then be clear heights as in the Holy Place. The inner wall, i.e., Temple wall, was six cubits (Ezek 41:5) and the outside chamber wall five cubits (v. 9) with the width of the open space between walls as noted above. Floors consisted of wood on beams and planks with the inner ends of the beams resting on the setbacks of the Temple walls. It is probable also that at the roof level the wall of the Holy Place set back another cubit so that the roof beams would not be built into the wall of the House (1 Kings 6:6).
Access to the upper stories of the side chambers was by stairways (6:8) built against the walls of the Holy Place, accessible from that room. Ezekiel (41:7 RSV) describes some sort of access to the chambers, and it is possible to construe the text to locate stairs on the S side and the N side of Solomon’s Temple.
Windows (חַלּﯴן, H2707) are referred to (1 Kings 6:4) as having a framework (שָׁקוּף, actually meaning “covered”) the windows were covered, i.e., covered with lattice work (Ezek 41:16). The framework (שָׁקוּף) consisted of successive rebates around the opening.
The roof structure in Solomon’s Temple was of beams and cedar boards (1 Kings 6:9). Ezekiel (41:16) notes a ceiling of wood in the side chambers; 2 Chronicles 3:5 (KJV) notes the same in the holy place, cf. 1 Kings 6:17, and likely in the Holy of Holies (1 Kings 6:5, 16, 19-23, 31). The roof structure was constructed of wood beams (cf. 2 Chron 3:7) overlaid with smaller, close-laid wood members forming a bed on which clay was packed and covered with a pulverized limestone marl, rolled flat, smooth, and hard, providing a cement-like surface which was practically impervious to water. The rolling stones for consolidating the marl have been found in ancient sites.
The Temple porch (אֵילָם, H395) was reached by a series of steps at the front from the level of the court (cf. Ezek 40:6), prob. not less than ten.
Interior walls and ceilings were finished with cedar (1 Kings 6:9, 15) and the floor was finished with fir (v. 15) over cedar planks. “Walls of the ceiling” (v. 15) may have been introduced through a mispronunciation of the word actually meaning “beams,” indicating that finished woodwork was laid over the rougher beams, perhaps achieving something in the nature of coffers.
The Holy of Holies was a cube (6:20) and also lined with paneling (v. 16), separated from the Holy Place by a partition of cedar paneling with double doors of olivewood. The lintel and jamb posts were also made of olivewood. The expression “fifth part” of v. 31, which may be tr. “fivefold,” offers a problem. If, however, one considers that the wall between the posts and the side walls of the room was nearly equal in thickness to the posts, that the corners of the posts on the door side were chamfered, then the jamb face at the door (one), the chamfered faces (two) and the face of the posts by the walls (three) provide the “fivefold,” or “five-sided,” appearance of the posts. A wood lintel lay over them to provide the top pivot for the door leaves.
Against this partition on the ark side, a veil was hung (2 Chron 3:14), woven or sewn in colored patterns with blue, purple, and crimson thread, and onto the whole were applied patterns of cherubim (֝כְּרוּבִ֗ים).
A door was provided for the Holy Place (1 Kings 6:33, temple), from the porch with square-cut posts of olivewood, against the ends of the stone walls (jambs) forming the rear wall of the porch, with bifolding door leaves to fold against each other and then to swing open against the jamb. Usual construction had a wood pintle as the pivot at the edge of the leaves that were attached with metal straps, and the pintles let into sockets at the lintel and set into stone base sockets or into pockets in the stone sills. Bars within held the doors closed, passing through cleats on the inside of the doors. A stone threshold completed the opening at the floor line. The Temple doors were made of fir because of the greater strength of this wood.
Around the Temple building a court was formed by the erection of a stone wall three courses high with a row of three timbers holding it together (6:36). The area thus enclosed was called the priest’s court (2 Chron 4:9) and had doors in the wall covered with brass plates.
4. Decoration. Much of the wall surfaces in the Holy Place and Holy of Holies were carved (1 Kings 6:18) with scroll-like flower patterns and cherubim (v. 29). The doors to these rooms were also carved with palm trees and cherubim on both sides, and the carvings in turn were overlaid with gold. The woodwork elsewhere (vv. 18-20) was plated or gilded or inlaid, presenting a brilliant sight to the viewer. The combination of palm leaves (signifying victory) and cherubim (signifying the holiness of God) declared that man’s spiritual triumph came only by and through the holy God.
5. Temple furniture. The Ark with its mercy seat from the Tabernacle was placed at the back of the Holy of Holies under the cherubim, which were made of olivewood (6:23ff.) and were gold plated. These were ten cubits high and their wings extended to ten cubits, half the width of the room. They functioned symbolically as guardians of the way to God, solemnizing the heart of the worshiper in his approach to God. Their faces were turned toward the dividing partition. They were composite figures well enough known to the people of that day, requiring no description of their form. They may have been similar to the four-faced cherubim of Ezekiel and were usually represented with hands and feet, therefore having basically a human-like body.
In the Holy Place before the door to the Holy of Holies was placed the altar of incense (6:20; 7:48; cf. Exod 30:1-10) prob. new and made of cedar, since it was overlaid with gold. Presumably (cf. Exod 40:22) the table for the showbread was also new, overlaid with gold and placed on the right side of the room as in the Tabernacle. In this room were the ten candlesticks (better: lampstands RSV), five on the right side and five on the left, all of gold, with their oil cups and ornamentation, to give light in the Holy Place (1 Kings 7:49).
Before the Temple on the platform surrounding the Temple stood the two brass pillars, Jachin (יָכִ֔ין) and Boaz (בֹּֽעַז). The form of the first term is an old participle causative from כון, meaning “sustainer” (JBL, LXVIII, 317ff.), stressing the positive side of God’s character. Boaz is the participle form of the simple stem from the Arab bâgiz meaning “smiter,” giving the negative aspect of the character of Yahweh as Keeper of Israel (ibid.).
It is questionable that these pillars were for incense burning, since their height would make it difficult to reach their tops to replenish the incense. They were approximately four cubits in diameter and eighteen cubits high (7:15) for the shaft with chapiters (capitals, RSV) five cubits high on each. The chronicler (2 Chron 3:15) gives the total height of both pillars as thirty-five cubits, apparently just the shaft length. The additional cubit of length most likely was a separate cast base similar to some that have been found. The capitals are described as “of lily work” (1 Kings 7:19) and having a bowl-shaped member (v. 41; cf. v. 20, belly); lily petals were below, four cubits broad (v. 19), prob. set downward as examples from this period show. 2 Kings 25:17 states them to be three cubits high, but this refers to the chain network; it would appear that this measurement would refer to the upper portion of the capital, leaving two cubits for the height of the lily work.
The bowls (1 Kings 7:41) had a network (checker work, v. 17, q.v.) of chains supporting two rows of pomegranates. The chains were seven in number (v. 17), which were divided, i.e., four chains draped down from the center point at the top with three strands set around the bowl with the pomegranates attached to the bottom strand, fastened one below the other.
6. Court furniture. The prominent feature of the court was the molten sea (v. 23), ten cubits in diameter, thirty cubits in circumference, and five cubits high—thus bowl-shaped, about as thick as the hand and containing 2,000 “baths” (vv. 24-26; 2 Chron 4:5 gives the number as 3,000 “baths”). The figures are possible of reasonable interpretation if one assumes (from Ezek 41:8) the use of the great cubit (royal cubit). On this basis the capacity would have been about 10,000 gallons using the usual formula for spherical volume. In Chronicles, another method of computation seems to have been used, the volume of a cylinder, which in this case turns out to be 3,000 baths. Thus the problem is one of method by which the writers viewed the shape of the sea, not an essential contradiction in the text (cf. BA, XII, 86-90). The sea was located in the altar court to the SE (2 Chron 4:10).
The rim was finished off with the petal (lily) work familiar from the pillar capitals. It also had knops (1 Kings 7:24) under the brim in two rows of ten per cubit, referring to some distinctive type of decoration.
The sea stood on a base composed of twelve oxen in sets of three, one set toward each of the compass points (v. 25). These corresponded to the twelve tribes of Israel, bearing the sanctifying witness of God.
The wheeled stands for movable lavers (7:27ff. RSV) were ten in number, formed of boxes four cubits square and three cubits high, the sides made up of divided panels and having ornamental work (see Beveled Work). The boxes were worked onto short columns (undersetters, v. 30 KJV) to which axles were attached for wheels one and a half cubits in diameter. The wheels were like chariot wheels, six-spoked as archeological remains show. As indicated in v. 34, the undersetters extended upward to form the corners of the boxes. The plates of v. 30 were parts of the sides of the box.
Into the stands at the top were fitted the lavers containing the water for washing the sacrificial animals (2 Chron 4:6) for the great laver (sea) was for the ablutions of the priests (v. 6). These lavers held about forty baths, or two hundred gallons of water. They could be moved about as the washings required. Normally they were distributed five on the N side and five on the S side of the court before the Temple. In addition there were ten tables (4:8) for the flaying of the sacrifices brought by the people. These were placed in the same court as the lavers, prob. five on each side.
The focal point in the court was the great brass altar (4:1). It was twenty cubits square and ten cubits high. Its transportation from the Jordan required its sides to be of panel construction with corner pieces and a grate through which the ashes could fall; some method for removing these also was provided, either by the removal of the grating or through the side panels. The description of Ezekiel (43:13ff.) does not shed much light on the Solomonic altar because too many events came between (see below: [http://biblegateway/wiki/V. Ezekiel’s Temple EZEKIEL’s TEMPLE]).
Other implements are listed (1 Kings 7:38ff., and 2 Chron 4:6, 19ff.). There were basins for water and to catch the blood of the sacrifices, tongs, picks, snuffers (to quench candle lights?), spoons of one sort or another with which to ladle and handle the meat offerings, as well as flat implements such as cake turners for cooking the cake offerings. Likewise the incense containers for the priests are listed.
7. The courts. Little is said in Kings or Chronicles concerning the courts surrounding the Temple building. 1 Kings 6:36 lists an inner court which, due to the slope of the site, was the upper court (Jer 36:10 RSV). The latter was formed by an enclosing wall of three courses of cut stone and a row of cedar beams to tie it together (cf. 2 Chron 4:9, court of the priests). With the Temple on a base of six cubits, the whole presented a terraced scene exposing the Temple building for an easy view of its imposing character. The great court, or outer court (1 Kings 7:9, 12), enclosed both the Temple and the palace works of Solomon.
Access to the outer court was through gates; though they are not specifically listed, the door leaves for them are enumerated (2 Chron 4:9; see below). From the outer court, access to the inner court was also by gates, to which the ordinary person (laity) had access (Jer 36:10). Ezekiel 44:1 mentions the gate, and because of the departure and return of the Shekinah of God from this gate, it was the principal gate to the outer court of the Temple, prob. the gate of 2 Chronicles 4:9. Between the Temple court (inner) and Solomon’s palace, there was access from the palace court to the inner court by a gate, presumably in the S wall of the inner court, the gate of the guard (2 Kings 11:19). A N gate also existed, known as Sur (11:6; cf. Vet Test, XIV, 335-337).
8. Dedication. The work of building the Temple occupied seven years and six months (1 Kings 6:1, 38; 2 Chron 3:1). The seven years (1 Kings 6:38) were years based on a Tishri-to-Tishri (fall-to-fall) civil calendar (cf. Thiele, Mysterious Numbers [1951], 31).
The dedication occurred in the month Ethanim, the seventh month, in later times called Tishri. The intervening months between Bul (1 Kings 6:38), the eighth month, and Ethanim (8:2) of the following year (to Tishri) would be occupied with bringing up the furniture, the most difficult of which would have been the transportation of the bronze sea and its pedestals from the Jordan to Jerusalem. On the first day of the month occurred the feast of Trumpets, when the Ark was brought into the Holy of Holies from its tent in Jerusalem (8:6) and was placed under the wings of the cherubim. When the carrying staves were drawn out, it symbolized that the journey of Israel to her land was complete. When the priests withdrew from the Holy Place, the Shekinah of God filled the Temple, thus signifying Yahweh’s approval and acceptance of the Temple. Henceforth the house was to be representative of His presence (v. 29), the place to which the heart in repentance may turn to find God’s mercy (vv. 30ff.).
C. Supplementary data. 1 Kings 7:1ff. indicates the palace of Solomon was built near the Temple, and from this it is believed that the Temple amounted to no more than a royal chapel. Psalms 96:8; 116:19, however, speak of worship in the courts of Yahweh’s house in Jerusalem, in whose Temple are the people of God (Ps 116:18), thus invalidating the above assumption.
At a later period after the completion of the Temple, among the inventory of goods carried in Solomon’s ships was algum (or almug; Ugar. algm) wood, possibly the red sandalwood of India and Ceylon, prob. the latter because the ships went for gold nearer to Ophir. The wood was finished and formed part of the woodwork of the walls of the Holy Place (10:11, 12).
Concerning the monies of the Temple, a treasury was recorded (Josh 6:19, 24) as an institution well-known by that time pertaining to Yahweh, the repository of the booty of various battles of Israel against her adversaries. In it was deposited the spoil of Jericho (v. 24). Officers were appointed over the house of the treasures of Yahweh (1 Chron 26:20ff.). From his victories over surrounding peoples, David dedicated (26:26) numerous objects to Yahweh. These were used to maintain Yahweh’s house (1 Chron 26:27). Samuel (v. 28) and Saul also had dedicated spoils to Yahweh. Solomon brought out the things dedicated by his father and put them among the treasures of Yahweh’s house (1 Kings 7:15), prob. including all the other treasures, for the references above indicated they had been delivered to the Levites, the keepers of the Temple.
It is likely that the treasury rooms were the three-storied rooms around the Temple, for 1 Chronicles 28:11 includes the treasuries with the rest of the rooms of the Temple. As such they were accessible only from the Holy Place.
D. History of Solomon’s Temple. When Rehoboam, Solomon’s son became king, his repressive policy became the immediate cause of the division of the kingdom. Shrines were set up by Jeroboam at Dan and Bethel, thus splitting the allegiance of Israel to God (1 Kings 12:25-33). In Judah, a widespread apostasy of the people quickly grew by Rehoboam’s fifth year (14:23, 24; 926/25 b.c.), characterized by the erection of high places and idol pillars on every “high hill.” Then, in divine judgment, Shishak (Sheshonk), king of Egypt, came up against them (2 Chron 12:2, 5) and took the treasures both of the Temple and the king, including the 300 gold shields Solomon had made.
Asa placed in the Temple the spoils of his father (1 Kings 15:15). When Baasha, king of Israel, made war against Judah, quite obviously by fortifying Ramah (v. 17), Asa collected all the treasures in the Temple and in his treasury and sent them to Ben-hadad of Damascus to seal an alliance with him against Israel (v. 18ff.). In his earlier years (2 Chron 15:10), Asa turned to the ways of Yahweh and renewed the altar in the inner court (before the porch, v. 8), prob. replacing some of its parts now evidently badly decomposed because of the heat of the fires. However, his consecration and trust of Yahweh was lacking when in his thirty-sixth year he made the alliance with Ben-hadad (2 Chron 15:18-16:4). In the days of Jehoshaphat, a new court of the house of God is noted (2 Chron 20:5). He may have reconstructed the gate.
When Ahaziah was slain by Jehu, Athaliah, his mother, usurped the kingdom of Judah from Joash (Jehoash, 2 Kings 11:1ff.) until her seventh year. During this period, Joash was hidden in the Temple until he was old enough to be proclaimed king (2 Chron 22:1-23:15). Athaliah was taken out of the inner court (cf. 23:13) through the “ranges” (2 Kings 11:15), i.e., porticoes along the E wall of the inner court (Ezek 40:6, 7; cf. Vet Test, xiv, 331-343). Previous to his reign, the Temple precincts had fallen into disrepair because of Athaliah (2 Chron 24:7) and of priestly carelessness (2 Kings 12:1ff.), and this condition continued until the twenty-third year (v. 6), when Jehoash summoned Jehoiada the high priest for an accounting (cf. 2 Chron 24:4ff.). Since there was no money available from the Temple treasuries nor from the king’s funds, the priest set up offering boxes for freewill gifts for that purpose (v. 9ff.). At periodical intervals the money was removed, from which materials for the repairs were bought and workers were paid (v. 10ff.). So far had Athaliah gone in her depredations that even vessels, etc., needed replacing (v. 13). After the death of Jehoiada, the people, still infected with the idolatry of Athaliah, conspired with Joash to apostatize from Yahweh (24:17ff.). When Zechariah the prophet rebuked Joash and the princess (v. 20), they stoned him to death in the Temple court (v. 21). For this sin, a small Syrian force inflicted great damage on Jerusalem and on the military of Judea (vv. 23, 24), and Joash had to deliver up the treasures of the Temple and the palace to Hazael, king of Syria (2 Kings 12:18).
In the reign of Amaziah, son of Joash, Jehoash of Israel invaded Judah, broke into the city (14:13) and carried off the treasures of the Temple and palace because Amaziah had exalted himself in pride against Israel because of his victories over the Edomites (v. 7, 8; cf. 2 Chron 25:23ff.).
Uzziah, an energetic, able king, rebuilt the city of Jerusalem, but he fell into the error of pride and sought to usurp priestly functions in the Temple (26:16ff.).
Jotham succeeded his father Uzziah and built the “upper gate” (2 Kings 15:35 RSV).
Ahaz, who succeeded his father, Jotham, desecrated the house of Yahweh. He robbed the Temple of its treasures, added his own, and sent them (734, 733 b.c.) to the Assyrian monarch Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 b.c.) to secure his aid against the Israelite-Syrian alliance against him (2 Kings 16:7, 8). To pay homage to Tiglath, Ahaz went to Damascus and there saw an altar of which he had a copy made (v. 10). He set it before the Solomonic altar, which was removed to the N (v. 14), and made an offering on the altar, prob. as a condition of the alliance. Further depredations included closing the Temple (2 Chron 28:24) and breaking up its vessels. Furthermore, he cut off the bases of the laver and set it on a stone pedestal (2 Kings 16:17), and as a sign of his subservience, made a place in the Temple for Tiglath-pileser (v. 18). This parallels alliances forbidden in the Hitt. suzer-eignty treaties (Kline, op. cit., 32) and indicates treason against the sovereign God of Israel.
Hezekiah reversed the policies of Ahaz. He opened the closed doors of the Temple and demanded that the Levites restore it to its former sanctity (2 Chron 29:5); this they did in eight days (v. 17) and restored the vessels, such as were whole, which Ahaz had cast away (v. 19). He restored the Levites to their places in the Temple and commanded the people to present offerings (31:4ff.). When they brought munificently, he built storehouses on the Temple grounds to preserve the offerings (v. 11). Hezekiah, however, became proud and made alliances with foreign nations; he forgot the power of God, and for this was struck with illness. His example assured the future downfall of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Chron 32:24ff., 3; 2 Kings 20:14ff.).
Manasseh reversed the good deeds of his father Hezekiah, raised up idolatrous altars in the Temple courts and placed a graven image in the Temple (21:3ff.; 2 Chron 33:3ff.). For his sins he was taken captive to Babylon (33:11). Manasseh repented, and God allowed him to return to Jerusalem. In confirmation of his repentance, he destroyed what he had done (v. 15) and repaired the altar of burnt sacrifice. His idolatrous example to his son and others after him, however, brought closer the ultimate destruction of the Temple (2 Kings 21:11ff.).
Amon worshiped the image of his father Manasseh, and after a reign of two years his servants assassinated him (21:19ff.). The “people of the land” slew the conspirators and made Josiah king.
Josiah directed the repair of the Temple in his days (22:3ff.; 2 Chron 34:8ff.). The stone work was repaired and certain timbers replaced (34:11). He removed the Asherah from the Temple (2 Kings 23:4 RSV), the horses in honor of the sun (v. 11) placed by kings before him, the altars on top of the rooms Ahaz had added, and the altars Manasseh had made, which Amon had restored in the two courts of the Temple. In spite of all this, the people did not truly turn to Yahweh, and sins tracing back to Manasseh continued (cf. 2 Kings 23:26,