the other, at an angle which, with it, formed a triangle, and together with the door, a pentagon. [Thus:

Vers. 36-38. And he built the inner court, &c. This designation presupposes a larger court, which is mentioned expressly in the Chronicles (2 Chron. iv. 9), and, in distinction from that of "the

laying was partial throughout the house, but that the interior was completely so overlaid. The very floor, upon which no figures were carved, was overlaid with gold; surely the walls and doors were not partially so only. The problematical addition in both verses renders conspicuous the fact that the overlaying with gold did not cover up the figures carved upon the wood, but that it was impressed upon all the elevations and the depressions alike, and that they could be distinctly seen (Keil).-The Chronicles mentions, besides the doors (2 Chron. iii. 7), the veil also (iii. 14), the presence of which is not to be doubted (after Ewald), since the object E. H.] of it was not to divide the two compartments, but But this is decisively contradicted by that which fol- rather to cover the ark with the throne (Exod. xl. lows in ver. 33 of the door of the larger compart-3, 21), and was an essential feature of the sancment, the corresponding, which cannot tuary. If even the Herodian temple, which did not contain the ark of the covenant, had neverpossibly be translated "out or of a four-cornered, theless "the veil of the covering" (Exod. xxxix. i. e., a square," but only "out of a fourth." Besides 34; xxxv. 12; Matt. xxvii. 51), how much less this, a pentagonal door is without an example in would Solomon have dispensed with it. The nonthe ancient East. Böttcher and Thenius translate, mention of it in the account now before us has no "the entrance-wall with posts of a fifth thickness." more significance than when, in the following But this is founded upon the wholly erroneous verses, the inner court alone is described, and the supposition that the wall before the holy of holies fact of the "outer" court is entirely passed by. was two cubits thick (see above, on ver. 16); of which two cubits, then, the door-posts must have taken in a fifth. Suppose that here means the entrance-wall, still can never be trans-priests," is described as "the great court." The lated "fifth thickness." "It is in the highest degree surprising that when the thickness of the of the size of the doors themselves" (Keil). Manentrance-wall door-posts is stated, nothing is said ifestly the text states just this, but still does not say that from each wall there were five cubits to the door: for the doors midway, there were ten cubits remaining (Lightfoot), but the entrance to the Debir took in, with the posts, a fifth of the wall, i. e., was four cubits broad.* The entrance to the chief compartment, on the other hand (ver. 33), measured one fourth of the wall, was consequently five cubits broad, and larger than that which opened into the Debir, which was appropriate enough for the main entrance. The height of the two entrances is not given. According to ver. 34 the two wings of the door of entrance into the holy place were folding leaves, i. e., either they were longitudinally like leaves bound together, which could be so folded that it would not be necessary always to open the whole door-wing (Thenius); or the two leaves were the upper and lower halves of each door-wing (Keil, Mertz, Ewald); probably the latter. From the words of ver. 32: "and spread gold upon the cherubim," as well as fitted upon the carved work (ver. 35), Thenius concludes that the figures only, both upon the doors and also the walls of the temple, were overlaid, so that "they must have contrasted splendidly with the brown-red cedar." But this tradicts vers. 20, 30, and especially ver. 22, where Dy is expressly added to the "whole house," which does not say merely that such gold-over

66

con

*[Mr. T. O. Paine (Solomon's Temple, &c., Boston, Geo. Phinney, 1861) makes the "posts, the door-posts," to be meant, and says that they were one-fifth of twenty cubits, the width of the wall. Each door-post was, according to this author, six feet wide. Bp. Patrick says: "a fifth" "may be understood to signify that they held the proportion of a fifth part of the doors" (on the place). But our author's exposition is the better-E. H.]

inner court is called, in Jer. xxxvi. 10, the "higher,"
because it lay somewhat above the level of the
The statements
No one doubts that they were square-shaped
court intended for the people.
about the structure of both are singularly meagre.
(comp. Exod. xxvii. 9 sq.; Ez. xl. 47). The words,
the enclosing walls. There were three rows of
"three rows of hewed stones," &c., can refer only to
squared stones, one over the other, and a layer of
cedar. nn are certainly not beams properly,
but planks, thick boards, for of what use would
beams have been here? The opinion that up-
right cedar beams, resting upon the uppermost row
of stones, formed a low palisade, is erroneous
(Merz). The people in the outer court, by such an
arrangement, would have been deprived of a view
of the sanctuary and of the holy offices in the
inner court. It was manifestly but a low enclo
Chron. vii. 3). The outer court doubtless had stone
sure, over which those outside of it could look (2
walls surrounding it because, according to 2 Chron.
iv. 9, doors overlaid with brass led into it. Our
account mentions nothing of cells or chambers in
the forecourt spoken of in 2 Kings xxiii. 11; Jer.
xxxv. 2; xxxvi. 10. But perhaps Solomon built
some of them; at least they were, according to 1
Chron. xxviii. 12, originally intended.-We can
but offer conjectures about the dimensions of the
courts. "Following the analogy of the taberna-
cle, by doubling the spaces we may estimate the
court of the priests at 200 cubits long from east to
west, and 100 cubits wide from north to south...
The outer or great court must have been at least
as large " (Keil). In the temple of Ezekiel, whose
measurements and definitions, especially in the
matter of the courts, are to be regarded as least
of all purely historical, both of them are perfect
squares (Ezek. xlii. 15-20; Thenius). The very
carefully stated length of time for the building of
the temple, given in vers. 37, 38, was reasonably

This would not have been the case if an architectonic work, or a building giving evidence of power and wealth simply, were concerned. It is its thoroughly religious character which causes it to appear as such a momentous transaction, and for the sake of which it is so circumstantially described. The product of theocratic ideas, it is likewise the expression of them. If the entire cultus were no idle ceremony, still less could the structure, where this cultus became concentrated, be an empty, meaningless piece of architectural splendor. All the ancients so founded, arranged, and adorned their temples that they were the expression and the representation of their specific religious contemplation (comp. Symb. des Moɛ. Kult., i. s. 91 sq.). The temple of Solomon would have been an exception to all the sacred buildings of high antiquity, had it not been the expression of the specifically Israelitish, Old Testament ideas of religion. Weighty as an inquiry into its outward material may be, the need of investigation and in formation respecting its religious meaning is much greater.

2. The significance of the temple as a whole and in general is sufficiently stated by the builder himself in the discourse delivered at its solemn consecration, and in the longer prayer connected with it (chap. viii. 10–53).

short. and shows with what zeal the work was car- 38) manifestly places it high above the series of ried on, especially when we consider that, accord- ordinary events, and proclaims it as an especially ing to Pliny (Hist. Nat., xxxvi. 12), all Asia was weighty, epoch-making occurrence in the theo200 years building the temple of Diana at Ephe-cratic history (Heilsgeschichte). Comp. Introd. § 3. sus. As the month Zif was the second, and the month Bul the eighth, the time occupied in the building was about seven and a half years. Whether in this the time also is to be reckoned for the substructions* which Josephus mentions, and also for the cutting of the wood, and the hewing of the stones, is an idle question. If now we cast a glance over the whole of the description of the temple, full and explicit as it is in details. it is not sufficient to enable us to delineate a complete, well-assured drawing of it, because, as Winer very properly remarks, many points which must be clear in a drawing are passed over without a word, and others remain more or less uncertain. This is especially true in respect of outward forms and architectural style, which, in a drawing, are matters of supreme importance. Upon this point scarcely anything more can be said than that the building on the whole was "rectilinear, and of box-form" (Merz). It is certain that the builders, artists, and workmen who executed it, were all Phoenicians (chap. v. 6; vii. 14), whence it follows that the style of the building, in so far as the preserved ground-plan and design of the tabernacle was not required by Solomon, was Phoenician. But since all adequate descriptions of Phoenician buildings, and all memorials, such as are still extant in Egypt, are wanting, we know nothing of the distinguishing peculiarity of Phoenician architecture, which certainly, since the material employed was chiefly wood, must have differed essentially from the much later Græco-Roman, and especially from the Egyptian, which made use exclusively of hard stone (Schnaase, Gesch. der bild. Künste, i. s. 238, 249). The older drawings, therefore, in Græco-Roman style, by Villalpand, Lundy, &c., as also the later, in Egyptian style, by Hirt and Kopp, are wholly unsatisfactory. Had Solomon wished to build in the Egyptian style, he would not have summoned Phoenician workmen, but Egyptian, whom he could have easily procured from his royal father-in-law. The most recent drawings by Thenius and Keil (bibl. Archæologie) rest upon a careful study of the text, and are therefore much to be preferred to all the earlier ones; but even they, from the considerations already adduced, cannot lay claim in all respects to truth. Strong but not unfounded is the view of Romberg and Steger (Gesch. der Baukunst, i. s. 26): "It is just as easy to portray a living man from a tolerably well preserved skeleton, as to succeed in copying a building which shall correspond to its reality, when but few and uncertain remains of its style of architecture are in our possession." Many as are the gaps of the biblical account in respect of architecture, it nevertheless contains all which can contribute to the knowledge of the religious ideas upon which the temple was founded; it serves also to our understanding of its significance, and this is the chief concern here.

THE SOTERIO-HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF
THE TEMPLE.

1. The unusually careful chronological date about the building of the temple (vers. 1 and 37, Upon these sibstructions, see Robinson and "The Re3overy of Jerusalema," as above.-E. H.]

(a) Solomon begins the discourse with the words, "I have built thee an house to dwell in (2), a settled place for thee to abide in forever" (1 Kings viii. 13; 2 Chron. vi. 2). The first and most general destination of the temple was, to be a dwelling-place of Jehovah. But that this dwelling was not in the remotest degre3 connected with the heathenish superstition, that God stood in need of a shelter, like a man, and could be confined within a given space, the words which soon follow demonstrate (ver. 27): "behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee: how much less this house that I have builded." The dwelling of Jehovah with or in the midst of Israel is rather the immediate result of the choice of them to be His peculiar and covenant people, and in a measure coincides with it. As, according to the Hebrew use of speech in general, dwelling with any one is as much as to be bound to, to be in fellowship with (comp. e. g. Ps. i. 1; v. 5; cxx. 5), and even the marriage relation is expressed by "dwelling with " (Gen. xxx. 20; Ezra x. 2, 10; Neh. xiii. 23, 27), so also Jehovah's dwelling with Israel denotes His connection and fellowship with this people, and stands in the closest relation to the "covenant." Comp. Exod. xxix. 45, 46: "And they shall know that I am the Lord their God that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them." Lev. xxvi. 12 sq.: "And I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people." So also Ezek. xxxvii. 27. Immediately upon the "election," and the conclusion of the covenant, follows the command, Exod. xxv. 8: "And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them." But inasmuch as the Old Testa ment covenant relation moves in the sphere of bodily, visible forms, so 3.so is Jehovah's dwelling

local, visible, and requires consequently a dwell- The name of Jehovah is hence essentially the ing-place, which can be a tent as well as a temple. name of His holiness" (Lev. xx. 3; Ps. xxxiii. 21; As little as Jehovah, by the choice of Israel from ciii. 1; cv. 3; cvi. 47; cxlv. 21; Is. lvii. 15; Ezek. among all peoples, has ceased to be the God of the xxxix. 7, 25), and that the house was to be built whole earth (Exod. xix. 5), just so little has He, to this name, David announced solemny efore by His dwelling-place in the midst of His people, all Israel (1 Chron. xxix. 16), "to build to thee an ceased to be everywhere in heaven and upon house for thy holy name." With this end in view, earth. This dwelling-place does not contain Him; the house is called in the Psalms "the temple of He is not banished to a particular place, but in thy holiness" (Ps. v. 8; lxxix. 1; cxxxviii. 2); its the place where Israel dwells there He is, and two divisions are named simply "holy" and "holy dwells also in their midst, for "He has not chosen of holies" (Exod. xxvi. 33; 1 Kings viii. 6, 8), and the people for the sake of the dwelling-place, but the whole, usually, p (Exod. xxv. 8; Lev. xii. the dwelling-place for the sake of the people (2 Maccab. v. 19). So His dwelling-place is the 4; Ps. lxxiv. 7; 1 Chron. xxviii. 10; Isa. lxiii. 18; visible sign and pledge of the covenant relation. The that He who is and dwells here, is before all Ezek. viii. 6; ix. 6, &c.)—all of which presupposes "dwelling-house" is, as such, the house of the cov- things and essentially, holy. So then the house enant. To this first signification of the house an- of the dwelling is not so much in general the other immediately attaches itself. The dwelling dwelling-place of the divine witnessing and reveof Jehovah in a specific place, includes within it-lation, as of the divine holiness revealing itself in self the conception of witnessing, and of revealing himself, in so far as God, where He makes and declares himself to be known, is and remains, and so dwells. Hence the conceptions of dwelling and of revealing himself coincide. Jacob named the place where a revelation was made to him the house of God, though there was no house or dwelling-place there. Subsequently he built an altar and called the place Beth-el, for "there had God revealed himself to him" (Gen. xxviii. 1219; xxxv. 7). By from to dwell, the Rabbins, as is known, express the highest form of revelation. Christ says of him to whom He and the Father reveal themselves, we will "make our abode with him" (John xiv. 21-23). The place of the dwelling of Jehovah is eo ipso the place of divine attestation and revelation, the place where He will speak with Israel, and declare himself to him (Exod. xxix. 42 87.): in the innermost portion of the dwelling, hence, is the testimonial of the covenant, which means simply the witness, and the dwelling itself consequently is named "the dwelling (tent) of the testimony" (Numb. ix. 15; xvii. 23; xviii. 2).

(b) Solomon repeatedly refers to the design of the house, according to the word of Jehovah Himself "that my name might be therein," &c., "my name shall be there" (1 Kings viii. 16, 29; comp. 2 Chron. vi. 5; 2 Kings xxiii. 27). In other places it is expressed thus: "to put my name there forever" (1 Kings ix. 3; 2 Kings xxi. 7; comp. 1 Kings xi. 36; xiv. 21; 2 Kings xxi. 4), or "that my name may dwell there" (Deut. xii. 11; xiv. 23; xvi. 11; xxvi. 2; Neh. i. 9), or in an abbreviated form, "to (for the) name of Jehovah" (1 Kings viii. 17-20, 48; iii. 2; v. 17, 19; 2 Sam. vii. 13; 1 Chron. xxii. 7, 19; xxviii. 3, &c.). That the "name of Jehovah " has the same sense here as in Exod. xxiii. 21, "for my name is in him "-the angel who leads Israel, that the formula does not say simply that the house is built to the glory of God, or that here God will be called upon and honored, scarcely needs mention. The name of God is God himself in so far as He makes himself known, declares and reveals himself. But in His relation to Israel, Jehovah declares himself essentially as the One who is holy and who will make holy; that He may be known as such, is the aim and object of the covenant, the 'sign and pledge of which is His dwelling in the midst of Israel (Exod. xxix. 43-46; Liv. xi. 45).

particular. It is an abode of holiness and of sancti-
derstood by Israel as the Holy One and as Sancti-
fication. Here will Jehovali be known and un-
er, and thereby will be hallowed (Exod. xxix. 43–
46; Liv. xx. 3, 7; Ezek. xxxvii. 26-28).
to the supplication of thy servant and of thy peo
(c) In his prayer Solomon says, "hearken thou
ple Israel when they shall pray toward this place:
and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place (1 Kings
"heaven
viii. 30). So also in the following verses
thy dwelling-place" is placed repeatedly over-
against "this house" (comp. vers. 34, 39, 43, 49).
This parallelizing of the temple and of heaven ex-
tends through the whole Scripture.
Both are
named alike, so that often we can scarcely decide
whether the temple or heaven be meant. ap
stands for the temple in 1 Kings viii. 13; 2 Chron.
vi. 2: for heaven in Isai. Ixiii. 15.

is

applied to the temple in 1 Kings viii. 13; Exod. xv. 17, to heaven in 1 Kings viii. 30, 39, 43, 49; 2 Chron. vi. 30, 33; Ps. xxxiii. 14. y=temple in Ps. lxxvi. 9; = heaven in 2 Chron. xxx. 27; Deut. xxvi. 15; Jer. xxv. 30; Ps. lxviii. 6. S vip

temple in Ps. v. 8; lxxix. 1; cxxxviii. 2: = heaven in Mich. i. 2 sq.; Hab. ii. 20; Ps. xi. 4; (cii. 20; xviii. 7; Isai. lvii. 15). The Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. ix. 24) names the sanctuary "made with hands," "the figure (antitype) of the true," viz., of heaven, and the whole comparison between the high-priesthood of Christ and the Levitical is based upon this antitypical relation between heaven and the earthly, Old Testament sanctuary (chap. iv. 14; vi. 19, 20; viii. 1, 2; x. 21), so that v. Gerlach on the place says, with propriety, "the earthly sanctuary is also an image of heaven itself." When Solomon also at first designates the house he had built as a settled place (for thee to abide in), and then declares heaven to be the peculiar "place of thy dwelling," he regards the temple itself as a heavenly dwelling-place. As Jacob named the place where God had de. clared and revealed himself to him, "the house of God" and the "gates of heaven” (Gen. xxviii. 17), so the place where Jehovah dwells and is euthroned must needs appear as a counterpart of heaven. Not, however, as if the temple were a copy of the visible heaven, it is rather a symboli cal representation which, by its symbols, points to the peculiar and true dwelling-place of God

66

heaven itself. The Jewish theology takes cogni- | represented as a whole, complete and independ zance of an upper and a lower dwelling ()ent in itself: and this must be well considered. of God, and lays down this proposition: "The house of the sanctuary which is below () is built after the house of the sanctuary which is above ()" (comp. the places in Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr., p. 1213). The apocalyptic GK TOU ε μτà τv v páry, which are His people and whose God He is, comes down from heaven, and has the cube form (four-square) of the holy of holies of the temple (Rev. xxi. 3, 16).

This whole in the interior is divided into a front and rear compartment, which are not separated by a stone wall equally strong, but only by a board partition, and they are thereby designated as di The object and visions of the one "dwelling." meaning of these two divisions, as well as their relation to each other, are shown by their names. The whole house is called p, the front division "holy," the rear division "holy of holies." Con(d) The widely-spread notion that the temple sentially is the place of revelation and attestation sequently the one dwelling of Jehovah, which es(tabernacle) is on the whole and generally "a rep of the holy and sanctifying God of Israel, has, as resentation of the theocracy of the kingdom of God such, two divisions, which, since each bears the in Israel" (Hengstenberg, Kurtz, Keil, and others) impress of the whole, cannot be two diverse dwellis decidedly erroneous. The house of dwelling for Jehovah" is like heaven, before all, a place (1 from each other by way of grade. Divine revelaings, one by the other; but only divisions distinct Kings viii. 13, 29, 35); but the theocracy, the king- tion, in its nature and being, is a matter of degree dom of God, is not a place, but a divine-human-it is gradual, progressive. God is everywhere relation. The dwelling of Jehovah in a house, in and always, but He does not make himself known the midst of Israel, is, indeed, the outward sign everywhere and always, in the same manner. The and pledge of this relation, but not a figurative heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool representation of it, and the conception of "the dwelling of Jehovah," which expresses the funda- (Matt. v. 34); He has revealed himself of old mental idea of the temple, is in itself in no way through Ilis Son-the brightness of His glory through His servants the prophets, but at last identical with the theocracy or the kingdom of (Heb. i. 1 sq.). But especially is the revelation God. While temple and heaven have the same names, which would not be possible were there human depravity, gradual, in so far as the greater and attestation of the divine holiness over-against no parallel relation between them, temple and spread and extension of sin demands a higher atkingdom of God, or theocracy, have no one name testation and confirmation of divine holiness, i. e., in common. The very definite expression in Heb. of the sanctifying power of God atoning for sin. ix. 24 comes especially into notice here: according Since now the dwelling of Jehovah amongst His to it the earthly sanctuary made by hands is by no means a "copy of the kingdom of God," but people was especially the dwelling-place of a selfis the antitype of the true sanctuary, i. e., of revealing holiness, and the entire cultus which was there concentrated had for its object and aim Just as little as Christ, the high-priest, the sanctification of the nation (see above, 2. b), so by His ascension went into the New Testament kingdom of God, but into heaven itself, there to by means of its two distinct compartments did it appear before God for us, even so little did the Le- which was fitted to bring to and to keep in the present itself as a complete holy dwelling-place vitical high-priest, on the day of atonement, go consciousness of the people both the sinfulness of into the kingdom of God, the theocracy, but into the earthly sanctuary, which represented the man and the holiness of God. The act of expiation and of purifying to be consummated in the dwelling-place of God in heaven. There is no propriety in the appeal to the pattern of the tab- front compartment, concerned the particular transernacle which was shown to Moses "on the mount".gressions of individual persons; the act to be con'summated in the rear and nobler compartment, on (Exod. xxv. 9, 40), as if it were heavenly indeed, the other hand, concerned the entire nation, and but not a figure of heaven itself. For this pattern the transgressions during the entire year. Ordiwas itself only n'am (υπόδειγμα and σκιὰ τῶν nary priests could attend to the former, the high¿ñovpavíwv, Heb. viii. 5), and showed to Moses how priest alone could perform the latter (Lev. i-v. and he must make and arrange the earthly sanctuary xvi.).-From all this it is clear to satisfaction how (rò âyiov koσjukáv, Heb. ix. 1) in order that it might untenable the position of recent writers is when, be a figure of the øînvỳ ý áîŋýŋvà où xεipoñoinτos, with Hengstenberg, they understand the two comi. e., of heaven, Heb. ix. 11, 24). Christ did not partments as two distinct dwelling-places, namely, enter into the "pattern " of the tabernacle, but the holy place as the "abode of the people," and into that which this pattern itself represented the holy of holies as "the dwelling-place of God," (comp. Delitzsch, Comm. zum Hebr. Br., s. 327, 336- and then explain this "combined dwelling-place 338). as a figurative representation of the communion and fellowship of God with His people, and so that the "entire sanctuary is a symbol of the kingdom of God under the old covenant." Nothing can be more clearly and distinctly stated than that the whole house is one dwelling-place-the dwelling-place of Jehovah. Jehovah dwells indeed amongst His people, but of a dwelling, side by side, of God and the people under one roof, there is nowhere a syllable. As the whole house, so also each compartment, the holy place and the holy of holies, are called "the dwelling-place," but not the former as the dwelling-place of the

heaven.

3. The significance of the temple in detail depends necessarily upon its significance in general, which is more fully defined and carried out by means of it. Here especially, above everything else, the ground-plan, i. e., the formal arrangement, is brought into consideration. This is like that of the tabernacle, the place of which was occupied by the temple, yet in so far forth modified and enlarged as the difference between the "house" and the "tent" carried with it. The component parts singly are as follows.

(a) The house, by its strongly enclosed walls, is