Temple

VIEW:19 DATA:01-04-2020

TEMPLE.—1. The first Temple mentioned in connexion with the worship of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] is that of Shiloh (1Sa_1:9), ‘where the ark of God was’ (1Sa_3:3) in the period of the Judges, under the guardianship of Eli and his sons. It was evidently destroyed by the Philistines after their decisive victory which resulted in the capture of the ark, as recorded in 1Sa_4:10 ff.; for the descendants of Eli are found, a generation afterwards, acting as priests of a temple at Nob (1Sa_21:1 ff., 1Sa_22:9 ff.). With the capture of Jerusalem by David, and the transference thither of the ark, a new political and religious centre was provided for the tribes of Israel.
2. Solomon’s Temple.—The site.—The successive Temples of Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod were buildings of moderate dimensions, and were built, by every token, on one and the same site. Now, there is only one place in Jerusalem where this site is to be looked for, namely, on that part of the eastern hill which is now occupied by the large platform, extending to some 35 acres, known as the Haram esh-Sharif or ‘Noble Sanctuary’ (see Jerusalem, and below, § 11). There has, however, been considerable difference of opinion in the past as to the precise spot within the Haram area on which the ‘holy house’ itself was reared. Thus a few British writers, among whom Fergusson the distinguished architect, and W. Robertson Smith, in his article ‘Temple’ in the EBr [Note: Br Encyclopsedia Britannica.] 9, are the most influential, have maintained that the Temple and its courts occupied an area about 600 ft. square in the south-western portion of the Haram. But the great majority of scholars, both at home and abroad, are agreed in placing the Temple in close connexion with the sacred rock (es-Sakhra) which is now enclosed in the mosque named after it ‘the Dome of the Rock,’ also, less appropriately, ‘the Mosque of Omar.’
The remarkable persistence of sacred sites in the East is a phenomenon familiar to all students of religion, and there can be little doubt that the Chronicler is right in identifying the site of ‘the altar of burnt-offering for Israel’ (1Ch_22:1) with the spot ‘by the threshing-floor of Oman [in 2Sa_24:16 Araunah] the Jehusite,’ where the angel of the plague stayed his hand, and on which David by Divine command erected his altar of commemoration (see, further, § 6 (b)). This being so, the location of the Temple immediately to the west of the rock follows as a matter of course. The only possible alternative is to regard the rock as marking the site, not of the altar of burnt-offering, but of ‘the holy of holies’ of the successive Temples—a view beset with insuperable difficulties.
3. The Temple building—Its arrangement and dimensions.—The Temple and its furniture are described in 1Ki_6:1-38; 1Ki_7:13-51—two passages which are, unfortunately, among the most difficult in the OT, by reason of the perplexing technical terms employed and the unsatisfactory nature of the received text.
All recent study of these passages in commentaries and elsewhere is based on Stade’s brilliant essay in his ZATW [Note: ATW Zeitschrift far die Alttest. Wissenschaft.] iii. 129 ff., with which cf. Stade and Schwally’s edition of ‘Kings’ in Haupt’s SBOT [Note: BOT Sacred Books of Old Testament.] . Other aids, in addition to the standard commentaries, and works on archæology by Nowack, Benzinger, etc., are Kittel’s Bibl. Hebraica, Burney’s Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Kings, and Father Vincent’s exegetical notes in RB [Note: B Revue Biblique.] , Oct. 1907. To these must now be added G. A. Smith, Jerusalem (1908), vol. ii. (with plans), which deals fully with all the Temples (see Index, s.v. ‘Temple’).
The Temple proper was an oblong building, 60 cubits in length by 20 in breadth (1Ki_6:2), with a porch in front, facing eastwards, of the same width as the main building and 10 cubits in depth. These, however, are inside measurements, as is evident from 1Ki_6:20; 1Ki_6:24; 1Ki_6:27. The corresponding outside measurements depend, of course, upon the thickness of the walls, which is nowhere stated. But inasmuch as Ezekiel, the Temple of whose vision is in all essential points a replica of that of Solomon, gives 6 cubits as the thickness of its walls (Eze_41:5), except the walls of the porch, which were 5 cubits thick (Eze_40:48), those of the first Temple are usually assumed to have been of the same dimensions. Less they could scarcely have been, if, as will presently appear, rebatements of three cubits in all have to be allowed in the lower half, since a thickness of three cubits in the upper half seems necessary, in view of the thrust of a heavy roof of 20 cubits’ span.
The interior was divided into two chambers by a transverse partition, implied in 1Ki_6:31, but disregarded in the inside measurements given in 1Ki_6:2. The anterior chamher, termed the hçkâl, and corresponding to the holy place in the Tabernacle, measured 40 cubits by 20, being twice as large as the inner chamber, the dĕbîr (EV [Note: English Version.] ‘oracle’) or most holy place, which was only 20 cubits by 20 (1Ki_6:20). The latter in fact formed a perfect cube, since its height was also 20 cubits, as compared with that of ‘the holy place,’ which was 30 cubits (1Ki_6:2). Assuming that this was also the height of the porch, the whole building, we may conjecture, was covered by a flat roof of uniform height throughout, leaving an empty space 10 cubits in height over the inner chamber.
On all sides, except the front which was occupied by the porch, the Temple proper was surrounded by a lateral building of three storeys, the whole 15 cubits high (so the emended text of 1Ki_6:11), each storey containing a number of small chambers for storage purposes. The beams forming the floors and ceilings of these side chambers were not let into the Temple wall, but were supported by making three successive rebatements of a cubit each in the wall (1Ki_6:6). The chambers accordingly increased a cubit in width in each storey, from 5 in the lowermost storey to 6 and 7 in those above. The entrance to the side chambers was on the south side of the building. The nature and position of the windows which were made ‘for the house’ are alike uncertain. Openings fitted with lattice work are probably intended (1Ki_6:4). Their position was most likely in the side walls above the roof of the lateral building.
The question of the area covered by the complete building now described has usually been answered hitherto by a reference to Ezekiel’s Temple, which was exactly 100 cubits by 50. But a careful comparison of the measurements of the two Temples makes it extremely probable that the numbers just given are due to Ezekiel’s fondness for operating with 50 and its multiples. The present writer is convinced that the prophet has not only increased the depth of the porch from 10 to 12 cubits (Eze_40:49 LXX [Note: Septuagint.] ), but has likewise added to the thickness of the walls of the side-chambers and of the interior partition wall. For if the former are taken as 3 cubits in thickness, as compared with Ezekiel’s 5, i.e. of the same dimensions as the upper half of the Temple walls, and the partition as 1 cubit thick in place of 2 (Eze_41:3), we find the area of the whole building to be 96 cubits by 48, the same relative proportion (Eze_2:1), it will be noted, as is found in Ezekiel. Similarly, the outside width of the naos or sanctuary proper (32 cubits) stood to the total width as Eze_2:3.
In the existing uncertainty as to the length of the cubit employed by Solomon’s architects, it is impossible to translate these dimensions into feet and inches with mathematical exactness. If the long cubit of c. 201/2 inches employed by Ezekiel (see Eze_40:5 and cf. 2Ch_3:3) is preferred, the total area covered will be 164 ft. by 82 ft., while the dimensions of ‘the holy place’ will be approximately 70 by 35 by 50 ft. in height, and those of ‘the most holy place’ 35 by 35 by 35 ft. A serious objection to this adoption of the longer cubit, which was not foreseen when the art. ‘Weights and Measures’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. (see p. 907 f.) was written, is presented by the detailed measurements of the interior of Herod’s Temple in Josephus and the Mishna (see below, § 12). These are numerically the same as those of the first Temple, but the cubit employed in the 1st cent was the short cubit of 17.6 inches, as the present writer has shown by an inductive study of the Herodian masonry (ExpT [Note: Expository Times.] xx. [1908], p. 24 ff.). Now, it is certain that the actual dimensions of Herod’s Temple were not less than those of Solomon’s, as they would be if the cubits were in the ratio of 6 to 7. It is more than probable, therefore, that the dimensions above given should be reduced by one-sixth—the Chronicler notwithstanding; in other words, 140 by 70 ft. will be the approximate area of the building, 60 by 30 ft., and 30 by 30 ft.—that of the ‘holy’ and ‘most holy place’ respectively.
4. The interior of the Temple.—The entrance to the Temple was through the open porch or vestibule on the eastern front. ‘For the entering of the temple’ was provided a large folding-door of cypress wood (1Ki_6:34), each leaf divided vertically into two leaves, one of which folded back upon the other. According to 1Ki_6:35 in its present form, the leaves were ornamented with carved figures of cherubim, palms, and flowers, all overlaid with gold (but see below). The stone floor was covered with planks of cypress wood. That the latter should have been plated with gold (1Ki_6:30) is scarcely credible. The walls of both chambers were lined with boards (literally ‘ribs’) of cedar wood, ‘from the floor of the house to the rafters of the ceiling’ (so read 1Ki_6:15). There is no mention in this verse, it will he noted, of any ornamentation of the cedar panels, which is first found in 1Ki_6:18; 1Ki_6:29; but the former verse is absent from LXX [Note: Septuagint.] , and 1Ki_6:28-30 are recognized by all as a later addition. The ceilings, as we should expect, were formed of beams of cedar (1Ki_6:9; 1Ki_6:15). Over all was probably laid an outer covering of marble slabs.
The inner chamber of the Temple was separated from ‘the holy place,’ as has already been shown, by a partition wall, presumably of stone, which we have assumed above to have been a cubit in thickness. In it was set a door of olive wood, described obscurely in 1Ki_6:31, which seems to say that its shape was not rectangular like the entrance door (see the Comm. on 1Ki_6:31; 1Ki_6:33), but pentagonal; in other words, the lintel of the door, instead of being a single cross-beam, consisted of two beams meeting at an angle. In the centre of the chamber, facing the entrance (2Ch_3:13), stood two cherubim figures of olive wood, each 10 cubits high, with outstretched wings. The latter measured 10 cubits from tip to tip, so that the two sets of wings reached from the north to the south wall of ‘the most holy place’ (1Ki_6:23-28). It is entirely in accordance with ancient practice that these symbolic figures should be overlaid with gold (1Ki_6:28).
But with regard to the excessive introduction of gold plating by the received text throughout, including even the Temple floor, as we have seen, there is much to be said in favour of the view, first advanced by Stade, that it is due to a desire on the part of later scribes to enhance the magnificence of the first Temple. In the original text the gold plating was perhaps confined to the cherubim, as has just been suggested, or to these and the doors, which appear to have had a gold sheathing in the time of Hezekiah (2Ki_18:16).
5. The furniture of the Temple.—If 1Ki_7:48-51 is set aside as a later addition (see the Comm.), the only article of Temple furniture is the altar of cedar introduced in the composite text of 1Ki_7:20-22. As there are good grounds for believing that a special altar of incense was first introduced into the second Temple (see § 9), the former is now identified by most writers with the table of shewbread (see Shewbread; and Tabernacle, § 6 (a)). Its position is evidently intended to be in the outer chamber in front of the entrance to the inner shrine. The same position ‘before the oracle’ (dĕbîr 1Ki_7:49) is assigned to the ten ‘candlesticks,’ properly lampstands (Tabernacle, § 6 (b)), five probably being meant to stand on either side of the entrance. Although, from the date of the passage cited, we may hesitate to ascribe these to Solomon, they doubtless at a later time formed a conspicuous part of the Temple furniture (cf. Jer_52:19).
On the completion of the Temple, the sacred memorial of earlier days, the already venerable ark of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] , was brought from the tent in which David had housed it and placed within ‘the most holy place,’ where it stood overshadowed by the wings of the cherubim (1Ki_8:5 ff.). Another sacred object of like antiquity, the brazen serpent (see Serpent [Brazen]), found a place somewhere within the Temple.
6. The court of the Temple and its furniture—(a) The court and gates.—The Temple of Solomon formed part of a large complex of buildings, comprising an arsenal, a judgment-hall, the palace with its harem, and finally the royal chapel, the whole surrounded by ‘the great court’ of 1Ki_7:9; 1Ki_7:12. Within this enclosure, at its upper or northern end, was ‘the inner court’ of 1Ki_6:36, 1Ki_7:12 within which, again, stood the Temple (1Ki_8:34). It is of importance to note that this single court of the Temple was open to the laity as well as to the priests (1Ki_8:62), as is specially evident from Jer_35:1 ff; Jer_36:10 etc.
plan of royal buildings
(after Stade and Benzinger).
1. The great court. 2. The ‘other’ or middle court. 3. The inner (or Temple) court. 4. House of Lebanon. 5. Porch of pillars. 6. Throne porch. 7. Royal palace. 8. Harem. 9. Temple. 10. Altar.
Several gates of this court are mentioned by later writers, but their precise position is uncertain. The main entrance was doubtless in the east wall, and may be indicated by ‘the king’s entry without’ of 2Ki_16:13, and ‘the king’s gate eastward’ of 1Ch_9:18. The ‘gate of the guard’ (2Ki_11:19), on the other hand, may be looked for in the south wall separating the Temple court from ‘the other court’ (1Ki_7:8) in which the royal palace was situated (cf. Eze_43:7 f.). There were also one or more gates on the north side (Eze_8:3; Eze_9:2, Jer_20:2 ‘gate of Benjamin,’ etc.). Cf. art. Jerusalem, II. 4.
(b) The altar of burnt-offering.—It is surprising that no reference is made in the early narrative of 1Ki_7:1-51 to the making of so indispensable a part of the apparatus of the cult. In the opinion of most critics, this omission is due to the excision from the original narrative of the relative section by a much later editor, who assumed that, the brazen altar of the Tabernacle accompanied the ark to the new sanctuary (but see Burney, Notes on Heb. Text, etc., 102 f.). The Chronicler, whether informed by his text of 1Kings. or otherwise, tells us that Solomon’s altar of burnt-offering (1Ki_9:25) was of brass (cf. the ‘brazen altar’ 1Ki_8:64), 20 cubits in length and breadth and 10 in height (2Ch_4:1). Its position was on the site of the earlier altar of David (2Ch_3:1), which, it may be asserted with confidence, stood somewhere on the sacred rock still to be seen within the Mosque of Omar (see § 2 above). The precise position which the altars of the first and second Temples occupied on the surface of the rock, which measures at least some 50 ft. by 40 ft., must remain a matter of conjecture. Herod’s altar was large enough almost to cover the rock (§ 11 (c)). This question has recently been made the subject of an elaborate investigation by Kittel in his Studien zur heb. Archäologie (1908, 1–85). Solomon’s altar was superseded in the reign of Ahaz by a larger altar of more artistic construction, which this sovereign caused to be made after the model of one seen by him at Damascus (2Ki_16:10-16).
(c) The brazen sea.—In the court, to the south of the line between the altar and the Temple (1Ki_7:39), stood one of the most striking of the creations of Solomon’s Phœnician artist, Huram-abi of Tyre. This was the brazen sea (1Ki_7:23-26, 2Ch_4:2-5), a large circular basin or tank of bronze, 10 cubits ‘from brim to brim’ and 5 in depth, with the enormous capacity of 2000 baths, or more than 16,000 gallons. Even should this prove an exaggerated estimate, the basin must have bulged very considerably in the middle, and the medial diameter must have been at least twice that of the mouth. The brim curved outwards like the calyx of a flower, and underneath it the body of the ‘sea’ was decorated with two rows of gourd-shaped ornaments. The basin rested on the backs of twelve bronze oxen, which, in groups of three, faced the four cardinal points. Notwithstanding 2Ch_4:6, written centuries after it had disappeared (Jer_52:17; Jer_52:20), recent writers are inclined to give the brazen sea a purely symbolical signification. But whether it is to be interpreted as a symbol of the primeval abyss (Gen_1:2) and of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] ’s power as Creator, or in the terms of the Babylonian mythology as symbolizing the upper or heavenly sea, bounded by the zodiac with its twelve signs (the 12 oxen), or otherwise, must be left to the future to decide (cf. G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, ii. 65 f.).
(d) The brazen lavcrs.—A similar symbolical significance is probably to be assigned to the ten lavers of bronze (1Ki_7:27-39). These were smaller editions of the brazen sea, being only four cubits in diameter, holding only 40 baths (c [Note: circa, about.] . 325 galls.), and resting on wheeled carriers, or bases. The peculiarly difficult description of the latter has been the subject of special study by Stade (ZATW [Note: ATW Zeitschrift far die Alttest. Wissenschaft.] , 1901, 145 ff., with which cf. Haupt’s SBOT [Note: BOT Sacred Books of Old Testament.] ), and more recently by Kittel (op. cit. 189–242). It must suffice here to say that each carrier was 4 cubits in length and breadth and 3 cubits in height. The sides were open frames composed of uprights of bronze joined together by transverse bars or rails of the same material, the whole richly ornamented with palm trees, lions, oxen, and cherubim in relief. Underneath were four wheels of bronze, 11/2 cubits in diameter, while on the top of each stand was fitted a ring or cylinder on which the laver directly rested.
(e) The pillars Jachin and Boaz.—Nowhere is the symbolical element in these creations of Huram-abi’s art more apparent than in the twin pillars with the mysterious names Jachin and Boaz, which were set up on either side of the entrance to the Temple porch. They have been discussed in the art. Jachin and Boaz (where ‘chapiter’ is explained) (see also Kittel’s art. ‘Temple’ in PRE [Note: RE Real-Encykl. für protest. Theol. und Kirche] 3 xix. [1907] 493 f.).
7. General idea and plan of Solomon’s Temple.—The building of the Temple occupied seven years and six months (1Ki_6:37 f.). After standing for three centuries and a half it was burned to the ground by the soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar in b.c. 587–6, having first been stripped of everything of value that could be carried away. Before passing to a study of its successor, it may be well to note more precisely the purpose for which it was erected, and the general idea underlying its plan. As expressly implied by the term ‘the house’ (bayith) applied to it by the early historian, the Temple was intended to be, before all else, the dwelling-place of Israel’s God, especially as represented by the ark of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] (see, for this, 2Sa_7:2; 2Sa_7:5 ff.). At the same time it was also the royal chapel, and adjoined the palace of Solomon, precisely as ‘the king’s chapel’ at Bethel was part of the residence of the kings of Israel (Amo_7:13). There is no reason for supposing that Solomon had the least intention of supplanting the older sanctuaries of the land—a result first achieved by the reformation of Josiah (2Ki_23:1-37).
As regards the plan of the new sanctuary as a whole, with its threefold division of court, holy place, and holy of holies (to adopt, as before, the later terminology), its origin is to be sought in the ideas of temple architecture then current not only in Phœnicia, the home of Solomon’s architects and craftsmen, but throughout Western Asia. Syria, as we now know, was influenced in matters of religious art not only by Babylonia and Egypt, but also by the so-called Mycenæan civilization of the Eastern Mediterranean basin. The walled court, the porch, fore-room, and innermost cella are all characteristic features of early Syrian temple architecture. Whether or not there lies behind these the embodiment of ideas from the still older Babylonian cosmology, by which the threefold division of the sanctuary reflects the threefold division of the heavenly universe (so Benzinger, Heb. Arch.,2 330, following Winckler and A. Jeremias), must be left an open question. In certain details of the furniture, such as the wheeled carriers of the lavers and their ornamentation, may also be traced the influence of the early art of Crete and Cyprus through the Phœnicians as intermediaries.
8. The Temple of Ezekiel’s vision (Eze_40:1-49; Eze_41:1-26; Eze_42:1-20; Eze_43:1-27).—Although the Temple of Ezekiel remained a dream, a word may be said in passing regarding one of its most characteristic features, on account of its influence on the plan of the actual Temples of the future. This is the emphasis laid throughout on the sacrosanct character of the sanctuary—a reflexion of the deepening of the conception of the Divine holiness which marked the period of the Exile. The whole sacred area covered by the Temple and its courts is to be protected from contact with secular buildings. One far-reaching result of this rigid separation of sacred and secular is the introduction of a second Temple court, to which the priests alone, strictly speaking, are entitled to access (Eze_40:28 ff.). For the details of Ezekiel’s sketch, with its passion for symmetry and number, see the Comm. and Witton Davies’ art. ‘Temple’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 704 ff.
9. The Temple of Zerubbabel.—The second Temple, as it is frequently named, was built, at the instigation of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, under the leadership of Zerubbabel. According to the explicit testimony of a contemporary (Hag_2:18), the foundation was laid in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (b.c. 520)—a date now generally preferred to that of the much later author of Ezr_3:8 ff. The building was finished and the Temple dedicated in b.c. 516. We have unfortunately no description of the plan and arrangements of the latter, and are dependent for information regarding it mainly on scattered references in the later canonical and extra-canonical books. It may be assumed, however, that the altar of burnt-offering, previously restored by the exiles on their return (Ezr_3:3), occupied the former site, now consecrated by centuries of worship, and that the ground plan of the Temple followed as nearly as possible that of its predecessor (cf. G. A. Smith, op. cit. ii. ch. xii.).
As regards the furnishing of Zerubbabel’s Temple, we have not only several notices from the period when it was still standing, but evidence from the better known Temple of Herod, in which the sacred furniture remained as before. Now, however scantily the former may have been furnished at the first, we should expect that after the introduction of the Priests’ Code under Ezra, the prescriptions therein contained for the furniture of the Tabernacle would be carried out to the letter. And this is indeed to a large extent what we find. Thus only one golden lampstand illuminated ‘the holy place’ (1Ma_1:21) instead of ten in the former Temple. The table of shewbread succeeded ‘the altar of cedar’ of 1Ki_6:20 (for which see § 5 above). The golden altar of incense, which belongs to a later stratum of P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] (Tabernacle, § 6 (c)), was most probably introduced at a somewhat late date, since pseudo-Hecatæus in the 3rd cent. b.c., quoted by Josephus (C. Apion. [ed. Niese] i. 198 f.), knows only of ‘an altar and a candlestick both of gold, and in weight two talents’—the former presumably the altar or table of shewbread. There is no reason, however, to question the presence of the incense altar by the second century, as attested by 1Ma_1:21 ff. (cf. 1Ma_4:49), according to which Antiochus Epiphanes robbed the Temple of ‘the golden altar and the candlestick of light … and the table of shewbread,’ where the first of these must be identified with the altar in question (see, against the scepticism of Wellhausen and others, the evidence collected by Schürer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes.] 4 ii. [1907] 342 f. [= 3 285f.]).
In one point of cardinal importance the glory of the second house was less than that of the first. No attempt was made to construct another ark; ‘the most holy place’ was empty. A splendid curtain or veil replaced the partition wall between the two divisions of the sanctuary, and is mentioned among the spoils carried off by Antiochus (1Ma_1:22). In another way the second Temple was distinguished from the first; it had two courts in place of one, an inner and an outer (1Ma_4:38; 1Ma_4:49, 1Ma_9:54), as demanded by Ezekiel. This prophet’s further demand, that the laity should be entirely excluded from the inner court, was not carried out, as is evident from the experience of Alexander Jannæus. Having given offence to the people while officiating at the altar on the occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles, he was pelted with the citrons which they carried. Alexander in consequence had the altar and Temple railed off to keep the worshippers henceforth at a more respectful distance (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XIII. xiii. 5).
The altar was no longer of brass but of unbewn stone (1Ma_4:47), as required by Exo_20:25, and attested by the earlier writer above cited (ap. Jos. [Note: Josephus.] c. Apion., l.c.), who further assigns to it the same dimensions as the Chronicler gives to the brazen altar of Solomon (§ 6 (b)). In b.c. 168, Antiochus iv., as already stated, spoiled and desecrated the Temple, and by a crowning act of sacrilege set up a small altar to Zeus Olympius on the altar of burnt-offering. Three years later, Judas the Maccabee, after re-capturing Jerusalem, made new sacred furniture—altar of incense, table of shewbread, the seven-branched candlestick, and other ‘new holy vessels.’ The stones of the polluted altar were removed and others substituted, and the Temple dedicated anew (1Ma_4:41 ff.). With minor alterations and additions, chiefly in the direction of making the Temple hill stronger against attack, the Temple remained as the Maccabees left it until replaced by the more ambitious edifice of Herod.
10. If only for the sake of completeness, a brief reference must be made at this point to two other temples for the worship of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] erected by Jewish settlers in Egypt during the period covered by the previous section. The earlier of these has only recently come to light, through the discovery of certain Aramaic papyri on the island of Elephantine. The three last, published by Sachau in Drei aramäische Papyrusurkunden (2nd ed. 1908), describe this temple to Yâhû (Jabweh) which existed at Elephantine before Cambyses invaded Egypt in b.c. 525, and had been destroyed at the instigation of Egyptian priests in b.c. 411. It was probably re-built soon after 408. The story of the other, erected at Leontopolis in the Delta by Onias, son of the Jewish high priest of the same name, in the reign of Antiochus iv., has been told by Josephus, who describes it as a replica, ‘but smaller and poorer,’ of the Temple of Zerubbabel (BJ VII. x. 2 ff., Ant. XIII. iii. 1 ff.). This description has recently been confirmed by the excavation of the site, the modern Tel el-Yehudiyeh, by Flinders Petrie (Petrie and Duncan, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 1906, 19–27, with plans and models, plates xxiii–xxv.); not the least interesting feature of this temple in partibus infidelium is the fact that it seems to have been built according to the measurements of the Tabernacle. This is altogether more probable than the view expressed by Petrie, that Onias copied the dimensions of the Temple of Jerusalem (op. cit. 24).
11. The Temple of Heron.—It was in the eighteenth year of his reign that Herod obtained the permission of his suspicious subjects to re-build the Temple of Zerubbabel. The Temple proper was re-built by a thousand specially trained priests within the space of eighteen months; the rest of the buildings took years to finish, indeed the last touches were given only six or seven years before the final catastrophe in a.d. 70, when the whole was destroyed by the soldiers of Titus. For a fuller study of several of the points discussed in this section, see the present writer’s articles on ‘Some Problems of Herod’s Temple’ in ExpT [Note: Expository Times.] xx. [1908], 24 ff.
(a) The outer court, its size, cloisters, and gates.—It is advisable in this case to reverse the order of study adopted for the first Temple, and to proceed from the courts to the Temple proper. In this way we start from the existing remains of Herod’s enterprise, for all are agreed that the Haram area (see above § 2) and its retaining walls are in the main the work of Herod, who doubled the area of Zerubbabel’s courts by means of enormous substructure (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] BJ I. xxi. 1). There are good grounds, however, for believing that, as left by Herod, the platform stopped at a point a little beyond the Golden Gate in the eastern wall, its northern boundary probably running in proximity to the north wall of the present inner platform of the Haram. (The latter has been considerably extended in this direction since Herod’s day, and is indicated by double dotted lines on the accompanying plan.) This gives an area of approximately 26 acres compared with the 35 acres, or thereby, of the present Haram. The measurements were, in round numbers, 390 yards from N. to S. by 330 yards from E. to W. on the north, and 310 yards E. to W. on the south. If the figures just given represent, with approximate accuracy, the extended area enclosed by Herod, the outer court, called in the Mishna ‘the mountain of the house,’ and by later writers, ‘the court of the Gentiles,’ will have appeared to the eye as almost a square, as it is stated to be, although with divergent measurements, by our two chief authorities, the Mishna treatise Middoth (lit. ‘measurements,’ tr [Note: translate or translation.] . in Barclay’s Talmud, and in PEFSt [Note: Quarterly Statement of the same.] , 1886–87), and Josephus (BJ v. v., Ant. XV. xi. and elsewhere).
The climax of Herod’s architectural triumphs was reached in the magnificent colonnades which surrounded the four sides of this court. The colonnade along the south wall, in particular, known as ‘the Royal Porch’ (or portico, stoa), was ‘exceeding magnifical’ (1Ch_22:5). It consisted of four rows of monolithic marble columns of the Corinthian order, forming three aisles; the two side aisles were 30 ft. in breadth and 50 ft. in height, while the central aisle was half as broad again as the other two and twice as high (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XV. xi. 5, but see ExpT [Note: Expository Times.] , l.c.). The ceilings of the roofs were adorned with sculptured panels of cedar wood. On the other three sides of the court the colonnades had only two aisles, that along the east wall bearing the name of Solomon’s Porch (Joh_10:23, Act_3:11; Act_5:12), probably from a tradition that it occupied the site of one built by that monarch.
The main approaches to the court were naturally on the west and south. The principal entrance from the west was by the gate of Kiponos (Midd. i. 3), the approach to which was by a bridge over the Tyropœon, now represented by Wilson’s arch. On the south were the two gates represented by the present ‘double’ and ‘triple’ gates, and named the Huldah (or ‘mole’) gates, because the visitor passed into the court by sloping tunnels beneath the royal porch. These ramps opened upon the Court of the Gentiles about 190 ft. from the south wall (see plan and, for details, ExpT [Note: Expository Times.] , l.c.).
(b) The inner courts and their gates.—The great court was open to Jew and Gentile alike, and, as we learn from the Gospels, was the centre of a busy life, and of transactions little in accord with its sacred purpose. The sanctuary in the strict sense began when one reached the series of walls, buildings, and courts which rose on successive terraces in the northern half of the great enclosure. Its limits were marked out by a low balustrade, the sôrçg, which ran round the whole, and was provided at intervals with notices warning all Gentiles against entering the sacred enclosure on pain of death (cf. St. Paul’s experience, Act_21:26 ff.). From the sôrçg, flights of steps at different points led up to a narrow terrace, termed the chçl (XYZ in plan), 10 cubits wide, beyond which rose a lofty retaining wall enclosing the whole sanctuary, to which Jews alone had access.
The great wall by which the sanctuary was converted into a fortress, was pierced by nine gateways—h 1–9 on the plan—over which were built massive two-storeyed gate-houses ‘like towers’ (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] BJ V. v. 3), four in the N., four in the S., and one in the E. wall. The most splendid of all the gates was the last mentioned, the eastern gate, which was the principal entrance to the Temple. From the fact that it was composed entirely of Corinthian brass, and had been the gift of a certain Nicanor of Alexandria, it was known as ‘the Corinthian gate’ (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] ), and the gate of Nicanor’ (Mish.). There is little doubt that it is also ‘the Beautiful Gate of the temple’ (Act_3:2; Act_3:10), as shown by Schürer in his exhaustive study (ZNTW [Note: NTW Zeitschrift für die Neutest. Wissenschaft.] , 1906, 51–58). The other eight gates were ‘covered over with gold and silver, as were the jambs and lintels’ (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] BJ V. v. 3), at the expense of Alexander, the Jewish alabarch of Alexandria (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 20–40). All the gates were 20 cubits high by 10 wide, according to the Mishna (Josephus says 30 by 15).
Entering by the ‘Beautiful Gate,’ H [Note: Law of Holiness.] 5, one found oneself in the colonnaded court of the women—so called because accessible to women as well as men. This was the regular place of assembly for public worship (cf. Luk_1:10). The women were accommodated in a gallery which ran round the court (Midd. ii. 5), probably above the colonnades as suggested in the plan. Along by the pillars of the colonnades were placed thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes to receive the offerings and dues of the faithful. These boxes are ‘the treasury’ into which the widow’s mites were cast (Mar_12:42).
The west side of this court was bounded by a wall, which divided the sanctuary into two parts, an eastern and a western. As the level of the latter was considerably higher than that of the eastern court, a magnificent semicircular flight of fifteen steps led up from the one to the other. At the top of the steps was an enormous gateway, 50 cubits by 40, allowing the worshippers an uninterrupted view of the altar and the Temple. The leaves of its gate were even more richly plated with silver and gold by Alexander than the others, and hence many have identified this gate with ‘the gate that was called Beautiful’ (but see Schürer, loc. cit. and ExpT [Note: Expository Times.] , xx. [1908]).
(c) The court of the priests and the great altar.—There is some uncertainty as to the arrangements of the western court, which we have now reached, owing to the divergent data of our two authorities, Josephus and the Mishna. The simplest solution is perhaps to regard the whole western court as in one sense the court of the priests, ‘the court’ par excellence of the Mishna (Midd. v. 1, etc.). Alexander Jannæus, we learned (§ 9), railed off the Temple and altar, and restricted the male Israelites to the outer edge of the then inner court. This arrangement was retained when the courts were laid out anew by Herod. In Middoth ii. 6 a narrow strip by the entrance—only 11 cubits in width, but extending the whole breadth of the court from N. to S.—is named the court of Israel. Josephus, however, is probably right in representing the latter as running round three sides of the western court (as on plan bbb). Its small size was a reminder that the laity—apart from those actually taking part in the sacrifices, who had, of course, to be allowed even within the still more sacred precincts of the priests’ court—were admitted on suffrance to the western court; the eastern court, or court of the women, was, as has been indicated, the proper place of worship for the laity. Along the N. and S. walls of the enclosure were built chambers for various purposes connected with the Temple ritual (Midd. v. 3, 4), chambers and gatehouses being connected by an ornamental colonnade. Those whose location can he determined with some degree of certainty are entered on the plan and named in the key thereto.
The inner court is represented in the Mishna as a rectangle, 187 cubits by 135, the outer or women’s court as an exact square, 135 cubits by 135 (and so on most plans, e.g. DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 713). But the rock levels of the Haram, the oblique line of the E. side of the platform—due probably to the lie of the rock required for the foundation of the massive E. wall—and the repeated appearance of 11 and its multiplies (note that 187 = 11×17) in the details of the totals in Middoth v. 1, all combine to justify a suspicion as to the accuracy of the figures. On the accompanying plan the whole inner court, b and c, is entered as 170 cubits long from E. to W., and 160 broad. The outer court, A, has a free space between the colonnades of 135 by an average of about 110. The total dimensions of the sanctuary, including the surrounding buildings and the terrace (chçl) are as follows: (1) length from W to E. across the rock, 315 cubits or 462 ft.; (2) width from N. to S. 250 cubits or 367 ft. The data on which these measurements are based will be found in the essays in the Exp. Times, already frequently referred to.
In the latest, and in some respects the best, plan of Herod’s Temple by Waterhouse in Sanday’s Sacred Sites of the Gospels, the data of the Mishna are set aside, and a large ‘court of men of Israel’ is inserted in the western court in addition to those above described. Against this view it may be urged, (1) that it requires its author to remove the eastern court, which was an essential part of the sanctuary, from a place on the present inner platform of the Haram; (2) the consequence of this is to narrow unduly the space between the Beautiful Gate and Solomon’s Porch. If there is one statement of the Mishna that is worthy of credit, it is that ‘the largest free space was on the south, the second largest on the east, the third on the north, and the smallest on the west’ (Midd. ii. 1). But, as the plan referred to shows, this is not the case if the court of the women is removed so far to the east by the insertion of a large ‘court of Israel.’ The plan is also open to criticism on other grounds (cf. G. A. Smith, op. cit. ii. 508 ff.).
The altar of burnt-offering, D [Note: Deuteronomist.] , was, like that restored by Judas the Maccabee, of unhewn stone, and measured at the base 32 cubits by 32 (47 feet square, thus covering almost the whole of the sacred rock, see § 6 (b)), decreasing by three stages till the altar-hearth was only 24 cubits square. The priests went up by an inclined approach on the south side in accordance with Exo_20:25. To the north of the altar was the place where the sacrificial victims were slaughtered and prepared for the altar. It was provided with rings, pillars, hooks, and tables. A laver, O, for the priests’ ablutions stood to the west of the approach to the altar.
12. The Temple building.—A few yards beyond the great altar rose the Temple itself, a glittering mass of white marble and gold. Twelve steps, corresponding to the height (12 half-cubits) of the massive and probably gold-covered stereobate on which the building stood, led up to the porch.
The porch was probably 96 cubits in height and of the same breadth at the base. The Mishna gives its height, including the 6 cubits of the podium or stereobate, as 100 cubits. The real depth was doubtless, as in Solomon’s Temple (§ 3), 10 cubits in the centre, but now increased to 20 cubits at the wings (so Josephus). As the plan shows, the porch outflanked the main body of the Temple, which was 60—the Mishna has 70—cubits in breadth, by 18 cubits at either wing. These dimensions show that Herod’s porch resembled the pylons of an Egyptian temple. It probably tapered towards the top, and was surmounted by an Egyptian cornice with the familiar cavetto moulding (cf. sketch below). The entrance to the porch measured 40 cubits by 20 (Middoth, iii. 7), corresponding to the dimensions of ‘the holy place., There was no door.


KEY TO PLAN OF HEROD’S TEMPLE AND COURTS.
a b c d, the surrounding balustrade (sôrçg). X Y Z, the terrace (chçl).
A, Court of the Women. B B B, Court of Israel. C C C, Court of the Priests.
D, altar of burnt-offering. E F G, porch, holy place, and holy of holies. O, the laver.
H, 1–9, Gates of the Sanctuary (Middoth, i. 4, 5), viz.: 1, gate of the House Moked; 2, Corban gate; 3, gate Nitsus; 5, the gate of Nicanor, or the Beautiful Gate; 7, the water gate; 8, gate of the firstborn; 9, the fuel gate; 10, the ‘upper gate,’ wrongly called the gate of Nicanor.
K, the guardhouse Moked (= hearth). L, the ‘northern edifice that was between the two gates’ (see BJ vi. ii 7 [Niese, § 150]). Here, it is suggested, the sacrificial victims were examined by the priests, having been brought in either by the underground passage shown on the plan, or by the ramp also shown. The upper storey may have contained the important ‘chamber of the councillors’ (parhedrin) (Yômâ, i. 1).
M, the chamber Gazith, in which the priests on duty assembled for prayer (Tamîd, iv. end). There are not sufficient data for fixing the location of the other chambers mentioned in the Mishna. Their distribution on the plan is purely conjectural.
The ‘great door of the house’ (20 cubits by 10) was ‘all over covered with gold,’ in front of which hung a richly embroidered Babylonian veil, while above the lintel was figured a huge golden vine (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] Ant. XV. xi. 3, BJ V. v. 4). The interior area of Herod’s Temple was, for obvious reasons, the same as that of its predecessors. A hall, 61 cubits long by 20 wide, was divided between the holy place (40 by 20, but with the height increased to 40 cubits [Middoth, iv. 6]) and the most holy place (20 by 20 by 20 high). The extra cubit was occupied by a double curtain embroidered in colours, which screened off ‘the holy of holies’ (cf. Midd. iv. 7 with Yômâ, v. 2). This is the veil of the Temple referred to in Mat_27:51 and || (cf. Heb_6:19 etc.).
DIAGRAMMATIC SECTION OF TEMPLE AND PORCH.
As in Solomon’s Temple, three storeys of side-chambers, prob. 30 cubits in height, ran round three sides of the main building. But by the provision of a passage-way giving access to the different storeys, and making a third outside wall necessary, the surface covered by the whole was now 96 cubits in length by 60 in breadth, not reckoning the two wings of the porch. Over the whole length of the two holy places a second storey was raised, entirely, as it seems, for architectural effect.
The total height of the naos is uncertain. The entries by which the Mishna makes up a total of 100 cubits are not such as inspire confidence; the laws of architectural proportion suggest that the 100, although also given by Josephus, should be reduced to 60 cubits or 88 feet, equal to the breadth of the naos and lateral chambers. On the plan the lowest side chambers are intended to be 5 cubits wide and their wall 3 (both as in § 3), the passage-way 3, and the outside wall 3, giving a total width of 14 + 6 + 20 + 6 +14 = 60 cubits (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] V. v. 4; cf. DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 715 for the corresponding figures of Midd. iv. 7). The result of taking the principles of proportion between the various parts as the decisive factor when Josephus and the Mishna are at variance, is exhibited in the above diagram, which combines sections through the porch and holy place.
The furniture of ‘the holy place’ remained as in former days. Before the veil stood the altar of incense; against the south wall the seven-branched golden lampstand, and opposite to it the table of shewbread (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] BJ V. v. 5). A special interest attaches to the two latter from the fact, known to every one, that they were among the Temple spoils carried to Rome by Titus to adorn his triumph, and are still to be seen among the sculptures of the Arch of Titus.
‘The most holy place’ was empty as before (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] ib.), save for a stone on which the high priest, who alone had access to this innermost shrine, deposited the censer of incense on the Day of Atonement (Yômâ, v. 2).
All in all, Herod’s Temple was well worthy of a place among the architectural wonders of the world. One has but to think of the extraordinary height and strength of the outer retaining walls, parts of which still claim our admiration, and of the wealth of art and ornament lavished upon the porticoes and buildings. The artistic effect was further heightened by the succession of marble-paved terraces and courts, rising each above and within the other, from the outer court to the Temple floor. For once we may entirely credit the Jewish historian when he tells us that from a distance the whole resembled a snow-covered mountain, and that the light reflected from the gilded porch dazzled the spectator like ‘the sun’s own rays’ (Jos. [Note: Josephus.] BJ V. v. 6).
13. The daily Temple service in NT times.—This article may fitly close with a brief account of the principal act of Jewish worship in the days of our Lord, which centred round the daily or ‘continual’ (Heb. lamîd. Exo_29:42) burnt-offering, presented every morning and every evening, or rather mid-afternoon, throughout the year, in the name, and on behalf, of the whole community of Israel (see Exo_29:38-42, Num_28:3-8). A detailed account of this service, evidently based on reliable tradition, is given in the Mishna treatise Tamîd, of which English translations will be found in Barclay’s Talmud, and in PEFSt [Note: Quarterly Statement of the same.] 1885, 119 ff. (cf. also the full exposition given by Schürer, GJV [Note: JV Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes.] 3 ii. 288–299 = 4345–357 [HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] II. i. 273–299]).
The detachment of priests on duty in the rotation of their ‘courses’ (Luk_1:8) slept in the ‘house Moked’ (K on plan). About cock-crow the priests who wished to be drawn for the morning service bathed and robed, and thereafter repaired to the chamber Gazith (M) in order to determine by lot those of their number who should ‘officiate.’ By the first lot a priest was selected to remove the ashes from the altar of burnt-offering, and prepare the wood, etc., for the morning sacrifice. This done, ‘the presiding official said to them, Come and draw (to decide) (1) who shall slay, (2) who shall toss (the blood against the altar), (3) who shall remove the ashes from the incense altar, (4) who shall clean the lampstand, (5)–(10) who shall carry the parts of the victim to the foot of the altar [six parts are specified], (11) who shall prepare the (meal-offering) of fine flour, (12) the baked offering (of the high priest), and (13) the wine of the drink-offering’ (Mishna, Tamîd, iii. 1).
At the hour of dawn the preparations here set forth were begun, and the Temple gates thrown open. After the victim, a yearling lamb, had been slain, the incense altar prepared and the lamps trimmed, the officiating priests assembled in the chamber Gazith for a short religious service, after which there commenced the solemn acts of worship in which the tamîd culminated—the offering of incense and the burning of the sacrificial victim. The priest, chosen as before by lot (Luk_1:9), entered the Temple with a censer of incense, and, while the smoke was ascending from the altar within the Holy Place, the worshippers without prostrated themselves in adoration and silent prayer. After the priestly benediction had been pronounced from the steps of the porch (Tamîd, vii. 2), the several parts of the sacrifice were thrown upon the altar and consumed. The pouring of the drink-offering was now the signal for the choir of Levites to begin the chanting of the Psalm for the day. At intervals two priests blew on silver trumpets, at whose sound the people again prostrated themselves. With the close of the Psalm the public service was at an end, and the private sacrifices were then offered.
The order of the mid-afternoon service differed from the above only in that the incense was offered after the burning of the victim instead of before. The lamps, also, on the ‘golden candlestick,’ were lighted at the ‘evening’ service.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

(See JERUSALEM; TABERNACLE.) David cherished the design of superseding the tent and curtains by a permanent building of stone (2Sa_7:1-2); God praised him for having the design "in his heart" (1Ki_8:18); but as he had been so continually in wars (1Ki_5:3; 1Ki_5:5), and had "shed blood abundantly" (1Ch_22:8-9; 1Ch_28:2-3; 1Ch_28:10), the realization was reserved for Solomon his son. (See SOLOMON.) The building of the temple marks an era in Israel's history, the nation's first permanent settlement in peace and rest, as also the name Solomon," man of peace, implied. The site was the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, whereon David by Jehovah's command erected an altar and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings (2Sa_24:18-25; 1Ch_21:18-30; 1Ch_22:1); Jehovah's signifying by fire His acceptance of the sacrifice David regarded as the divine designation of the area for the temple.
"This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar ... for Israel" (2Ch_3:1). "Solomon began to build the house of Jehovah at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah (Hebrew in the mount of the vision of Jehovah) where He appeared unto David in the place that David had prepared in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." Warren identifies the "dome of the rock" with Ornan's threshing floor and the temple altar. Solomon's temple was there in the Haram area, but his palace in the S.E. of it, 300 ft. from N. to S., and 600 from E. to W., and Solomon's porch ran along the E. side of the Haram area. The temple was on the boundary line between Judah and Benjamin, and so formed a connecting link between the northern and the southern tribes; almost in the center of the nation. The top of the hill having been leveled, walls of great stones (some 30 ft. long) were built on the sloping sides, and the interval between was occupied by vaults or filled up with earth.
The lower, bevelled stones of the wall still remain; the relics of the eastern wall alone being Solomon's, the southern and western added later, but still belonging to the first temple; the area of the first temple was ultimately a square, 200 yards, a stadium on each side, but in Solomon's time a little less. Warren makes it a rectangle, 900 ft. from E. to W., and 600 from N. to S. "The Lord gave the pattern in writing by His hand upon David," and "by His Spirit," i.e. David wrote the directions under divine inspiration and gave them to Solomon (1Ch_28:11-19). The temple retained the general proportions of the tabernacle doubled; the length 60 cubits (90 ft.), the breadth 20 cubits (30 ft.): 1Ki_6:2; 2Ch_3:3. The height 30 cubits, twice the whole height of the tabernacle (15 cubits) measuring from its roof, but the oracle 20 cubits (double the height of the tabernacle walls, 10 cubits), making perfect cube like that of the tabernacle, which was half, i.e. ten each way; the difference between the height of the oracle and that of the temple, namely, ten cubits, was occupied by the upper rooms mentioned in 2Ch_3:9, overlaid with pure gold.
The temple looked toward the E., having the most holy place in the extreme W. In front was a porch as broad as the temple, 20 cubits, and ten deep; whereas the tabernacle porch was only five cubits deep and ten cubits wide. Thus, the ground plan of the temple was 70 cubits, i.e. 105 ft., or, adding the porch, 80 cubits, by 40 cubits, whereas that of the tabernacle was 40 cubits by 20 cubits, i.e. just half. In 2Ch_3:4 the 120 cubits for the height of the porch is out of all proportion to the height of the temple; either 20 cubits (with Syriac, Arabic and Septuagint) or 30 cubits ought to be read; the omission of mention of the height in 1Ki_6:3 favors the idea that the porch was of the same height as the temple, i.e. 30 cubits . Two brazen pillars (Boaz "strength is in Him", and Jachin "He will establish"), 18 cubits high, with a chapiter of five cubits - 23 cubits in all - stood, not supporting the temple roof, but as monuments before the porch (1Ki_7:15-22). The 35 cubits instead of 18 cubits, in 2Ch_3:15, arose from a copyist's error (confounding yah = 18 with lah = 35 cubits).
The circumference of the pillars was 12 cubits or 18 ft.; the significance of the two pillars was eternal stability and the strength of Jehovah in Israel as representing the kingdom of God on earth, of which the temple was the visible pledge, Jehovah dwelling there in the midst of His people. Solomon (1Ki_6:5-6) built against the wall of the house stories, or an outwork consisting of three stories, round about, i.e. against the longer sides and the hinder wall, and not against the front also, where was the porch. Rebates (three for the three floors of the side stories and one for the roof) or projecting ledges were attached against the temple wall at the point where the lower beams of the different side stories were placed, so that the heads of the beams rested on the rebates and were not inserted in the actual temple wall. As the exterior of the temple wall contracted at each rebate, while the exterior wall of the side chamber was straight, the breadth of the chambers increased each story upward. The lowest was only five broad, the second six, and the third seven; in height they were each five cubits.
Winding stairs led from chamber to chamber upward (1Ki_6:8). The windows (1Ki_6:4) were made "with closed beams" Hebrew, i.e. the lattice work of which could not be opened and closed at will, as in d welling houses (2Ki_13:17). The Chaldee and rabbiical tradition that they were narrower without than within is probable; this would adapt them to admit light and air and let out smoke. They were on the temple side walls in the ten cubits' space whereby the temple walls, being 30 cubits high, out-topped the side stories, 20 cubits high. The tabernacle walls were ten cubits high, and the whole height 15 cubits, i.e. the roof rising five cubits above the internal walls, just half the temple proportions: 20 cubits, 30 cubits, 10 cubits respectively. The stone was made ready in the quarry before it was brought, so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool heard in the house while it was building (1Ki_6:7).
In the Bezetha vast cavern, accidentally discovered by tapping the ground with a stick outside the Damascus gate at Jerusalem, evidences still remain of the marvelous energy with which they executed the work; the galleries, the pillars supporting the roof, and the niches from which the huge blocks were taken, of the same form, size, and material as the stones S.E. of the Haram area. The stone, soft in its native state, becomes hard as marble when exposed to the air. The quarry is 600 ft. long and runs S.E. At the end are blocks half quarried, the marks of the chisel as fresh as on the day the mason ceased; but the temple was completed without them, still they remain attached to their native bed, a type of multitudes, impressed in part, bearing marks of the teacher's chisel, but never incorporated into the spiritual temple.
The masons' Phoenician marks still remain on the stones in this quarry, and the unique beveling of the stones in the temple wall overhanging the ravine corresponds to that in the cave quarry. Compare 1Pe_2:5; the election of the church, the spiritual temple, in God's eternal predestination, before the actual rearing of that temple (Eph_1:4-5; Rom_8:29-30), and the peace that reigns within and above, in contrast to the toil and noise outside in the world below wherein the materials of the spiritual temple are being prepared (Joh_16:33), are the truths symbolized by the mode of rearing Solomon's temple. On the eastern wall at the S.E. angle are the Phoenician red paint marks.
These marks cut into or painted on the bottom rows of the wall at the S.E. corner of the Haram, at a depth of 90 ft. where the foundations rest on the rock itself, are pronounced by Deutseh to have been cut or painted when the stones were first laid in their present places, and to be Phoenician letters, numerals, and masons' quarry signs; some are well known Phoenician characters, others such as occur in the primitive substructions of the Sidon harbour. The interior was lined with cedar of Lebanon, and the floors and ceiling with cypress (berosh; KJV "fir" not so well). There must have been pillars to support the roof, which was a clear space of 30 ft., probably four in the sanctuary and ten in the hall, at six cubits from the walls, leaving a center aisle of eight cubits (Fergusson in Smith's Bible Dictionary.). Cherubim, palms, and flowers (1Ki_6:29) symbolized the pure and blessed life of which the temple, where God manifested His presence, was the pledge.
The costly wood, least liable to corruption, and the precious stones set in particular places, suited best a building designed to be "the palace of the Lord God" (1Ch_29:1). The furniture of the temple was the same mainly as that of the tabernacle. Two cherubim were placed over the ark, much larger than those in the tabernacle; they were ten cubits high, with wings five cubits long, the tips of which outstretched met over the ark, and in the other direction reached to the N. and S. sides of the house. Their faces turned toward the house (2Ch_3:13), not as in the tabernacle (Exo_25:20) toward the mercy-seat. Instead of the one seven-branched candlestick ten new ones were made of pure gold, five for the right or N. side and five for the left side of the temple. So there were ten tables of shewbread (2Ch_4:8; 2Ch_4:19). Still the candlestick and the shewbread table were each spoken of as one, and probably but one table at a time was served with shewbread.
The ten (the world number) times seven (the divine number) of the golden candlestick = 70; and the ten times twelve (the church number) of the shewbread = 120, implying the union of the world and the Deity and of the world and the church respectively. (See NUMBER.) The snuffers, tongs, basins, etc., were of pure gold. The brazen altar of burnt offering was four times as large as that of the tabernacle; 20 cubits on each side and in height, instead of five cubits (2Ch_4:1). Between this and the temple door was the molten sea of ten cubits from brim to brim, 45 ft. round, holding 2,000 baths, i.e. 15,000 or 16,000 gallons of water (3,000 in 2Ch_4:5 probably a copyist's error), supported by 12 oxen, three on each side (representing the 12 tribes). It was for the priests' washing, as the laver of the tabernacle. There were besides ten lavers, five on each side of the altar, for washing the entrails; these were in the inner (1Ki_7:36) or higher (Jer_36:10) or priests' court, raised above the further off one by three rows of hewed stone and one of cedar beams (1Ki_6:36; 2Ch_4:9).
The great court or that of the people, outside this, was surrounded by walls, and accessible by brass or bronze doors (2Ch_4:9). The gates noticed are the chief or E. one (Eze_11:1), one on the N. near the altar (Eze_8:5), the higher gate of the house of Jehovah, built by Jotham (2Ki_15:35), the gate of the foundation (2Ch_23:5), Solomon's ascent up to the house of Jehovah (1Ki_10:5; 2Ch_9:11; 2Ki_16:18). Hiram, son of a Tyrian father and Hebrew mother, was the skilled artisan who manufactured the bronze articles in a district near Jordan between Succoth and Zarthan (1Ki_7:13-14; 1Ki_7:46; 2Ch_4:16-17). Solomon dedicated the temple with prayer and thank offerings of 20,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep (1 Kings 8; 2 Chronicles 5 to 7). (See SOLOMON.) The ritual of the temple was a national, not a personal, worship. It was fixed to one temple and altar, before the Shekinah. It was not sanctioned anywhere else.
The Levites throughout the land were to teach Israel the law of their God; the particular mode was left to patriarchal usage and the rules of religious feeling and reason (Deu_33:10; Deu_6:7). The stranger was not only permitted but encouraged to pray toward the temple at Jerusalem; and doubtless the thousands (153,600) of strangers, remnants of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, and Jebusites, whom Solomon employed in building the temple, were proselytes to Jehovah (2Ch_2:17; 1Ch_22:2). (On its history (see JERUSALEM.) Shishak of Egypt, Asa of Judah, Joash of Israel, and finally Nebuchadnezzar despoiled it in succession (1Ki_14:26; 1Ki_15:18; 2Ch_25:23-24). After 416 years' duration the Babylonian king's captain of the guard, Nebuzaradan, destroyed it by fire (2Ki_25:8-9). Temple of Zerubabel.
Erected by sanction of Cyrus, who in his decree alleged the command of the God of heaven (Ezr_1:12), on the stone site ("the place where they offered sacrifices") and to reproduce Solomon's temple "with three rows (i.e. three stories) of great stones, and a row of new timber" (a wooden story, a fourth, called a talar: Josephus 11:4, 6; 15:11, section 1): Ezr_6:3-12, comp. 1Ki_6:36. The golden and silver vessels taken by Nebuchadnezzar were restored; the altar was first set up by Jeshua and Zerubbabel, then the foundations were laid (Ezra 3) amidst weeping in remembrance of the glorious former temple and joy at the restoration. Then after the interruption of the work under Artaxerxes I or Pseudo Smerdis, the temple was completed in the sixth year of Darius (chapter 6).(See ARTAXERXES I; EZRA; HAGGA; JESHUA; JOSHUA; NEHEMIAH; DARIUS.)
The height, 60 cubits (Ezr_6:3), was double that of Solomon's temple. Josephus confirms this height of 60 cubits, though he is misled by the copyist's error, 120, in 2Ch_3:4. Zerubbabel's temple was 60 cubits broad (Ezr_6:3) as was Herod's temple subsequently, 20 cubits in excess of the breadth of Solomon's temple; i.e., the chambers all around were 20 in width instead of the ten of Solomon's temple; probably, instead of as heretofore each room of the priests' lodgings being a thoroughfare, a passage was introduced between the temple and the rooms. Thus the dimensions were 100 cubits long, 60 broad, and 60 high, not larger than a good sized parish church. Not merely (Hag_2:3) was this temple inferior to Solomon's in splendour and costly metals, but especially it lacked five glories of the former temple:
(1) the ark, for which a stone served to receive the sprinkling of blood by the high priest, on the day of atonement;
(2) the sacred fire;
(3) the Shekinab;
(4) the spirit of prophecy;
(5) the Urim and Thummim.
Its altar was of stone, not brass (1Ma_4:45), it had only one table of shewbread and one candlestick. Antiochus Epiphanes profaned this temple; afterward it was cleansed or dedicated, a new altar of fresh stones made, and the feast of dedication thenceforward kept yearly (Joh_10:22). But "the glory of this latter house was greater than of the former" (Hag_2:9) because of the presence of Messiah, in whose face is given the light of the knowledge of the glory of God (2Co_4:6; Heb_1:2) as Himself said, "in this place is one (Greek 'a something greater,' the indefiniteness marking the infinite vastness whereby He is) greater than the temple" (Mat_12:6), and who "sat daily teaching in it" (Mat_26:55). The Millennial Temple at Jerusalem. (See Ezekiel 40-48.)
The dimensions are those of Solomon's temple; an inner shrine 20 cubits square (Eze_41:4); the nave 20 cubits by 40 cubits; the chambers round ten wide, including the thickness of the walls; the whole, with the porch, 40 cubits by 80 cubits; but the outer court 500 reeds on each of its sides (Eze_42:16), i.e. a square of one mile and one seventh, considerably more than the area of the old Jerusalem, temple included. The spiritual lesson is, the church of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit, hereafter to be manifested on earth, shall be on a scale far surpassing its present dimensions; then first shall Jehovah be worshipped by the whole congregation of the earth, led by Israel the leader of the grand choir. The temple of Herod had an outer court which with porticoes, measuring 400 cubits every way, was a counterpart on a smaller scale to the outer court of Ezekiel's temple and had nothing corresponding in Solomon's temple or Zerubbabel's. No ark is in it, for Jehovah the ark's Antitype shall supersede it (Jer_3:16-17; Mal_3:1).
The temple interior waits for His entrance to fill it with His glory (Eze_43:1-12). No space shall be within its precincts which is not consecrated; whereas in the old temple there was a greater latitude as to the exterior precincts or suburbs (2Ki_23:11). "A separation" shall exist "between the sanctuary and the profane place"; but no longer the partition wall between Jew and Gentile (Eph_2:14; Eze_42:20). The square symbolizes the kingdom that cannot be moved (Dan_2:44; Heb_12:28; Rev_21:16). The full significance of the language shall not be exhausted in the millennial temple wherein still secular things shall be distinguished from things consecrated, but shall be fully realized in the post-millennial city, wherein no part shall be separated from the rest as "temple," for all shall be holy (Rev_21:10-12). The fact that the Shekinah glory was not in the second temple whereas it is to return to the future temple proves that Zerubbabel's temple cannot be the temple meant in Ezekiel (compare Eze_43:2-4).
Christ shall return in the same manner as He went up, and to the same place, Mount Olivet on the E. of Jerusalem (Eze_11:23; Zec_14:4; Act_1:9-12). The Jews then will welcome Him with blessings (Luk_13:35); His triumphal entry on the colt was the type (Luk_19:38). As the sacrificial serrate at the tabernacle at Gibeon and the ark service of sacred song for the 30 years of David's reign, before separate (2Sa_6:17; 2Ch_1:3-4; called "the tabernacle of David" Amo_9:11-12; Act_15:16; 1Ch_13:3; 1Ch_16:37; 1Ch_16:39), were combined in Solomon's temple, so the priestly intercessory functions of our High priest in heaven and our service of prayer and praise carried on separately on earth, during our Judaeo universal dispensation, shall in the millennial temple at Jerusalem be combined in perfection, namely, Christ's priesthood manifested among men and our service of outward and inward liturgy.
In the final new and heavenly Jerusalem on the regenerated earth, after the millennium, Christ shall give up the mediatorial and sacerdotal kingdom to the Father, because its purpose shall have been fully completed (1Co_15:24; 1Co_15:28); so there shall be no temple, "the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb shall be the temple" (Rev_21:22). Herod's temple (which was essentially the continuation of Zerubbabel's temple: compare Hag_2:9). (See JERUSALEM.) Josephus gives the ground plan accurately; but the height he exaggerates. As the temple was prostrated by the Roman siege, there was no means of convicting him of error as to elevations. The nave was like Solomon's and still more Zerubbabel's; but surrounded by an inner enclosure, 180 cubits by 240 cubits, with porches and ten magnificent gateways; there was a high wall round the vast square with a colonnade of two rows of marble pillars, forming a flat roofed cloister, and on the S. side three rows, 25 ft. high.
Beyond this was an outer enclosure, 400 cubits or one stadium each way, with porticoes exceeding in splendour all the temples of the ancient world, supporting a carved cedar roof; the pavement was mosaic. Herod sought to rival Solomon, reconcile the Jews to his dynasty as fulfilling Hag_2:9 that the glory of the latter temple should be greater than that of the former, and so divert them from hopes of a temporal Messianic king (Josephus, Ant. 15:11 section 1,5; 20:9, section 7; B.J. 1:21, section 1): he employed 10,000 skilled workmen, and 1,000 priests acquainted with fine work in wood and stone; in one year and a half the temple was ready for the priests and Levites; in eight the courts were complete; but for the 46 years up to Jesus' ministry (Joh_2:20) various additions were being made, and only in the time of Agrippa II the works ceased. The temple occupied the highest of terraces rising above one another; it occupied all the area of Solomon's temple with the addition of that of Solomon's palace, and a new part added on by Herod at the S.W. corner by artificial works; Solomon's porch lay along the whole E. side. Gentiles had access to the outer court.
The gates were: on the W. side, one to Zion, two to the suburbs, and one by steps through the valley into the other city. Two subterranean passages on the S. led to the vaults and, water reservoirs of the temple. On the N. one concealed passage led to the castle Antonia, the fortress commanding the temple. The only remains of Herod's temple in situ are the double gates on the S. side at 365 ft. distance from the S.W. angle. They consist of a massive double archway on the level of the ground, opening into a square vestibule 40 ft. each way. In the center of this is a pillar crowned with a Corinthian capital, the acanthus and the waterleaf alternating as in the Athenian temple of the winds, an arrangement never found later than Augustus' time. From the pillar spring four flat segmental arches. From the vestibule a double tunnel 200 ft. long leads to a flight of steps which rise to the surface in the court of the temple just at the gateway of the inner temple which led to the altar; it is the one of the four gateways on the S. side by which anyone arriving from Ophel would enter the inner enclosure.
The gate of the inner temple to which this passage led was called "the water gate": Neh_12:37 (Talmud, Mid. ii. 6). Westward there were four gateways to the outer enclosure of the temple (Josephus, Ant. 15:11, section 5). The most southern (the remains of which Robinson discovered) led over the bridge which joined the stoa basilica of the temple to the royal palace. The second was discovered by Barclay 270 ft. from the S.W. angle, 17 ft. below the level of the S. gate. The third was about 225 ft. from the N.W. angle of the temple area. The fourth led over the causeway still remaining, 600 ft. from the S.W. angle. Previously outward stairs (Neh_12:37; 1Ki_10:5) led up from the western valley to the temple. Under Herod the causeway and bridge communicated with the upper city, and the two lower entrances led to the lower city, "the city of David."
The stoa basilica or royal porch overhanging the S. wall was the grandest feature of all (Josephus, Ant. 15: 11, section 5), consisting of the three rows of Corinthian columns mentioned above, closed by a fourth row built into the wall on the S. side, but open to the temple inside; the breadth of the center aisle 45 ft., the height 100; the side aisles 30 wide and 50 high; there were 40 pillars in each row, with two odd ones forming a screen at the end of the bridge leading to the palace. A marble screen three cubits high in front of the cloisters bore an inscription forbidding Gentiles to enter (compare Act_21:28). Ganneau has found a stone near the temple site bearing a Greek inscription: "no stranger must enter within the balustrade round the temple and enclosure, whosoever is caught will be responsible for his own death." (So Josephus, B. J. 5:2, Ant. 15:11, section 5.) Within this screen or enclosure was the flight of steps up to the platform on which the temple stood.
The court of the women was eastward (Josephus, B. J. 5:5, section 3), with the magnificently gilt and carved eastern gate leading into it from the outer court, the same as "the Beautiful gate" (Act_3:2; Act_3:11). "Solomon's porch" was within the outer eastern wall of the temple, and is attributed by Josephus (Ant. 15:11, section 3, 20:9, section 7; B.J. 5:5, section 1,3) to Solomon; the Beautiful gate being on the same side, the people flocking to see the cripple healed there naturally ran to "Solomon's porch." Within this gateway was the altar of burnt offering, 50 cubits square and 15 high, with an ascent to it by an inclined plane. On its south side an inclined plane led down to the water gate where was the great, cistern in the rock (Barclay, City of the Great King, 526); supplying the temple at the S.W. angle of the altar was the opening through which the victims' blood flowed W. and S. to the king's garden at Siloam. A parapet one cubit high surrounding the temple and altar separated the people from the officiating priests (Josephus, B.J. 5:5, section 6).
The temple, 20 cubits by 60 cubits, occupied the western part of this whole enclosure. The holiest place was a square cube, 20 cubits each way; the holy place two such cubes; the temple 60 cubits across and 100 E. and W.; the facade by adding its wings was 100, the same as its length E. and W. (Josephus, B. J., 5:5, section 4.) Warren (Athenaeum, No. 2469, p. 265) prefers the Mishna's measurements to Josephus' (Ant. 15:11, section 3), and assumes that the 600 ft. a side assigned by Josephus to the courts refer to orbits not feet, Josephus applied the 600 ft. of the inner court's length to the 600 cubits of the outer court. The E., W., and S. walls of the present Muslim sanctuary, and a line drawn parallel to the northern edge of the raised platform, eight cubits N. of the Golden gate, measuring respectively 1,090 ft., 1,138 ft., 922 ft., and 997 ft. (i.e. averaging 593 cubits), closely approach Josephus' 600.
Allow eight cubits for the wall all round, 30 for width of cloisters N., E., and W. sides, and 105 ft. for the S. cloister, and we have 505 cubits for inner sides of the cloisters, closely approaching the Talmudic 500 cubits. The Golden gate (its foundations are still existing) continues the double wall of the northern cloisters to the E., .just as Robinson's arch led from the southern cloisters to the W.; on this gate "was pourtrayed the city Shushan; through it one could see the high priest who burnt the heifer and his assistants going out to Mount Olivet." On the E. wall stood Solomon's porch or cloister (Josephus. Ant. 20:9, section 7). The temple's W. end coincides with the W. side of the raised platform, and its S. side was 11 ft. S. of the S. end of this same platform. Josephus states (Ant. 15:11, section 5; 20:8, section 11; B. J. 2:16, section 3) that king Agrippa built a dining room (overlooking the temple inner courts) in the palace of the Asmonaeaus, at the N. end of the upper city overlooking the xystus where the bridge (Wilson's arch) joined the temple to the xystus; it was the southern portion of the inner court that his dining room overlooked.
The altar stood over the western end of the souterrain, which was probably connected with the water system needed for the temple, and with the blood passage discovered at the S.E. angle of the Muslim sanctuary, and with the gates Mokhad, Nitzotz, and Nicanor (Ant. 15:11, section 6). Warren's plan of the temple is drawn from the Talmud. The Huldah gates answer to the double and triple gates on the S. side; the western gates are still in situ, that from the souterrain is the gate leading down many steps to the Acra. S. of this is the causeway still in, situated (except at Wilson's arch) over the valley N. of the xystus to the upper city along the first wall. The cubit assumed is 21 inches.
The Jews' "house was left desolate," according to Christ's prophecy, 37 years before the event; though Titus wished to spare it, the fury of his soldiers and the infatuation of the Jewish zealots thwarted his wish, and unconsciously fulfilled the decree of God; and fragments of old pottery and broken lamps now are found where the light of Jehovah's glory once shone, Hadrian, the emperor, in 130, erected on the site a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus. The apostate emperor Julian tried to rebuild the temple, POTTERY TRADE MARKS. but was thwarted by balls of fire which interrupted the workmen. The mosque of Omar has long stood on the site of the temple in the S.W. of the Harem area. But when "the times of the Gentiles shall be fulfilled, "and when the Jews shall look to Jesus and say, "Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord," the kingdom with its temple will come again to Israel (Luk_13:35; Luk_21:24; Act_1:6-7). (See VEIL.)
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

the house of God; properly the temple of Solomon. David first conceived the design of building a house somewhat worthy of the divine majesty, and opened his mind to the Prophet Nathan, 2 Samuel 7; 1 Chronicles 17; 1Ch_22:8, &c. God accepted of his good intentions, but refused him the honour. Solomon laid the foundation of the temple, A.M. 2992, completed it in 3000, and dedicated it in 3001, 1Ki_8:2; 2 Chronicles 5; 2Ch_6:7. According to the opinion of some writers, there were three temples, namely, the first, erected by Solomon; the second, by Zerubbabel, and Joshua the high priest; and the third, by Herod, a few years before the birth of Christ. But this opinion is, very properly, rejected by the Jews; who do not allow the third to be a new temple, but only the second temple repaired and beautified: and this opinion corresponds with the prophecy of Hag_2:9, “that the glory of this latter house,” the temple built by Zerubbabel, “should be greater than that of the former;” which prediction was tittered with reference to the Messiah's honouring it with his presence and ministry. The first temple is that which usually bears the name of Solomon; the materials for which were provided by David before his death, though the edifice was raised by his son. It stood on Mount Moriah, an eminence of the mountainous ridge in the Scriptures termed Mount Zion, Psa_132:13-14, which had been purchased by Araunah, or Ornan, the Jebusite, 2Sa_24:23-24; 1Ch_21:25. The plan, and the whole model of this superb structure, were formed after that of the tabernacle, but of much larger dimensions. It was surrounded, except at the front or east end, by three stories of chambers, each five cubits square, which reached to half the height of the temple; and the front was ornamented with a magnificent portico, which rose to the height of one hundred and twenty cubits: so that the form of the whole edifice was not unlike that of some ancient churches, which have a lofty tower in the front, and a low aisle running along each side of the building. The utensils for the sacred service were the same; excepting that several of them, as the altar, candlestick, &c, were larger, in proportion to the more spacious edifice to which they belonged. Seven years and six months were occupied in the erection of the superb and magnificent temple of Solomon, by whom it was dedicated, A.M. 3001, B.C. 999, with peculiar solemnity, to the worship of the Most High; who on this occasion vouchsafed to honour it with the Shechinah, or visible manifestation of his presence. Various attempts have been made to describe the proportions and several parts of this structure; but as scarcely any two writers agree on this subject, a minute description of it is designedly omitted. It retained its pristine splendour only thirty-three or thirty-four years, when Shishak, king of Egypt, took Jerusalem, and carried away the treasures of the temple; and after undergoing subsequent profanations and pillages, this stupendous building was finally plundered and burnt by the Chaldeans under Nebuchadnezzar, A.M. 3416, or B.C. 584, 2Ki_25:13-15; 2Ch_36:17-20.
After the captivity, the temple emerged from its ruins, being rebuilt by Zerubbabel, but with vastly inferior and diminished glory; as appears from the tears of the aged men who had beheld the former structure in all its grandeur, Ezr_3:12. The second temple was profaned by order of Antiochus Epiphanes, A.M. 3837, B.C. 163, who caused the daily sacrifices to be discontinued, and erected the image of Jupiter Olympus on the altar of burnt-offering. In this condition it continued three years, l Mac. 4. 42, when Judas Maccabaeus purified and repaired it, and restored the sacrifices and true worship of Jehovah. Some years before the birth of our Saviour, the repairing and beautifying of this second temple, which had become decayed in the lapse of five centuries, was undertaken by Herod the Great, who for nine years employed eighty thousand workmen upon it, and spared no expense to render it equal, if not superior, in magnitude, splendour, and beauty, to any thing among mankind. Josephus calls it a work the most admirable of any that had ever been seen or heard of, both for its curious structure and its magnitude, and also for the vast wealth expended upon it, as well as for the universal reputation of its sanctity. But though Herod accomplished his original design in the time above specified, yet the Jews continued to ornament and enlarge it, expending the sacred treasure in annexing additional buildings to it; so that they might with great propriety assert, that their temple had been forty and six years in building, Joh_2:20.
Before we proceed to describe this venerable edifice, it may be proper to remark, that by the temple is to be understood not only the fabric or house itself, which by way of eminence is called the temple, namely, the holy of holies, the sanctuary, and the several courts both of the priests and Israelites, but also all the numerous chambers and rooms which this prodigious edifice comprehended; and each of which had its respective degree of holiness, increasing in proportion to its contiguity to the holy of holies. This remark it will be necessary to bear in mind, lest the reader of Scripture should be led to suppose, that whatever is there said to be transacted in the temple was actually done in the interior of that sacred edifice. To this infinite number of apartments, into which the temple was disposed, our Lord refers, Joh_14:2; and by a very striking and magnificent simile, borrowed from them, he represents those numerous seats and mansions of heavenly bliss which his Father's house contained, and which were prepared for the everlasting abode of the righteous. The imagery is singularly beautiful and happy, when considered as an allusion to the temple, which our Lord not unfrequently called his Father's house.
The second temple, originally built by Zerubbabel after the captivity, and repaired by Herod, differed in several respects from that erected by Solomon, although they agreed in others.
The temple erected by Solomon was more splendid and magnificent than the second temple, which was deficient in five remarkable things that constituted the chief glory of the first: these were, the ark and the mercy seat: the shechinah, or manifestation of the divine presence, in the holy of holies; the sacred fire on the altar, which had been first kindled from heaven; the urim and thummim; and the spirit of prophecy. But the second temple surpassed the first in glory; being honoured by the frequent presence of our divine Saviour, agreeably to the prediction of Hag_2:9. Both, however, were erected upon the same site, a very hard rock, encompassed by a very frightful precipice; and the foundation was laid with incredible expense and labour. The superstructure was not inferior to this great work: the height of the temple wall, especially on the south side, was stupendous. In the lowest places it was three hundred cubits, or four hundred and fifty feet, and in some places even greater. This most magnificent pile was constructed with hard white stones of prodigious magnitude. The temple itself, strictly so called, which comprised the portico, the sanctuary, and the holy of holies formed only a small part of the sacred edifice on Mount Moriah, being surrounded by spacious courts, making a square of half a mile in circumference. It was entered through nine gates, which were on every side thickly coated with gold and silver; but there was one gate without the holy house, which was of Corinthian brass, the most precious metal in ancient times, and which far surpassed the others in beauty. For while these were of equal magnitude, the gate composed of Corinthian brass was much larger; its height being fifty cubits, and its doors forty cubits, and its ornaments both of gold and silver being far more costly and massive. This is supposed to have been the “gate called Beautiful” in Act_3:2, where Peter and John, in the name of Christ, healed a man who had been lame from his birth. The first or outer court, which encompassed the holy house and the other courts, was named the court of the Gentiles; because the latter were allowed to enter into it, but were prohibited from advancing farther. It was surrounded by a range of porticoes, or cloisters, above which were galleries, or apartments, supported by pillars of white marble, each consisting of a single piece, and twenty-five cubits in height. One of these was called Solomon's porch, or piazza, because it stood on a vast terrace, which he had originally raised from a valley beneath, four hundred cubits high, in order to enlarge the area on the top of the mountain, and make it equal to the plan of his intended building; and as this terrace was the only work of Solomon that remained in the second temple, the piazza which stood upon it retained the name of that prince. Here it was that our Lord was walking at the feast of dedication, Joh_10:23; and that the lame man, when healed by Peter and John, glorified God before all the people, Act_3:11. This superb portico is termed the royal portico by Josephus, who represents it as the noblest work beneath the sun, being elevated to such a prodigious height, that no one could look down from its flat roof to the valley below, without being seized with dizziness; the sight not reaching to such an immeasurable depth. The south-east corner of the roof of this portico, where the height was the greatest, is supposed to have been the πτερυγιον, pinnacle, or extreme angle, whence Satan tempted our Saviour to precipitate himself, Mat_4:5; Luk_4:9. This also was the spot where it was predicted that the abomination of desolation, or the Roman ensigns, should stand, Dan_9:27; Mat_24:15. Solomon's portico was situated in the eastern front of the temple, opposite to the mount of Olives, where our Saviour is said to have sat when his disciples came to show him the grandeur of its various buildings, of which, grand as they were, he said, the time was approaching when one stone should not be left upon another, Mat_24:1-3. This outer court being assigned to the Gentile proselytes, the Jews, who did not worship in it themselves, conceived that it might lawfully be put to profane uses: for here we find that the buyers and sellers of animals for sacrifices, and also the money-changers, had stationed themselves; until Jesus Christ, awing them into submission by the grandeur and dignity of his person and behaviour, expelled them; telling them that it was the house of prayer for all nations, and was not to be profaned, Mat_21:12-13; Mar_11:15-17. Within the court of the Gentiles stood the court of the Israelites, divided into two parts, or courts; the outer one being appropriated to the women, and the inner one to the men. The court of the women was separated from that of the Gentiles by a low stone wall, or partition, of elegant construction, on which stood pillars at equal distances, with inscriptions in Greek and Latin, importing that no alien should enter into the holy place. To this wall St.
Paul most evidently alludes in Eph_2:13-14 : “But now in Christ Jesus, ye, who sometimes were far off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ: for he is our peace, who hath made both one, (united both Jews and Gentiles into one church,) and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;” having abolished the law of ordinances, by which, as by the wall of separation, both Jews and Gentiles were not only kept asunder, but also at variance. In this court was the treasury, over against which Christ sat, and beheld how the people threw their voluntary offerings into it, for furnishing the victims and other things necessary for the sacrifices, Mar_12:41; Joh_8:20. From the court of the women, which was on higher ground than that of the Gentiles, there was an ascent of fifteen steps into the inner or men's court: and so called because it was appropriated to the worship of the male Israelites. In these two courts, collectively termed the court of the Israelites, were the people praying, each apart by himself, for the pardon of his sins, while Zacharias was offering incense within the sanctuary, Luk_1:10. Within the court of the Israelites was that of the priests, which was separated from it by a low wall, one cubit in height. This enclosure surrounded the altar of burnt- offerings, and to it the people brought their oblations and sacrifices; but the priests alone were permitted to enter it. From this court twelve steps ascended to the temple, strictly so called; which was divided into three parts, the portico, the outer sanctuary, and the holy place. In the portico was suspended the splendid votive offerings made by the piety of various individuals. Among other treasures, there was a golden table given by Pompey, and several golden vines of exquisite workmanship, as well as of immense size; for Josephus relates, that there were clusters as tall as a man. And he adds, that all around were fixed up and displayed the spoils and trophies taken by Herod from the barbarians and Arabians. These votive offerings, it should seem, were visible at a distance; for when Jesus Christ was sitting on the mount of Olives, and his disciples called his attention to the temple, they pointed out to him the gifts with which it was adorned, Luk_21:5. This porch had a very large portal or gate, which, instead of folding doors, was furnished with a costly Babylonian veil, of many colours, that mystically denoted the universe. From this the sanctuary, or holy place, was separated from the holy of holies by a double veil, which is supposed to have been the veil that was rent in twain at our Saviour's crucifixion; thus emblematically pointing out that the separation between Jews and Gentiles was abolished; and that the privilege of the high priest was communicated to all mankind, who might henceforth have access to the throne of grace through the one great Mediator, Jesus Christ, Heb_10:19-22. The holy of holies was twenty cubits square: into it no person was admitted but the high priest, who entered it once a year on the great day of atonement, Exo_30:10; Lev_16:2; Lev_16:15; Lev_16:34; Heb_9:2-7.
Magnificent as the rest of the sacred edifice was, it was infinitely surpassed in splendour by the inner temple, or sanctuary. Its appearance, according to Josephus, had every thing that could strike the mind, or astonish the sight: for it was covered on every side with plates of gold; so that when the sun rose upon it, it reflected so strong and dazzling an effulgence, that the eye of the spectator was obliged to turn away, being no more able to sustain its radiance than the splendour of the sun. To strangers who were approaching: it appeared at a distance like a mountain covered with snow; for where it was not decorated with plates of gold, it was extremely white and glistening. On the top it had sharp-pointed spikes of gold, to prevent any bird from resting upon it and polluting it. There were, continues the Jewish historian, in that building, several stones which were forty-five cubits in length, five in height, and six in breadth. “When all these things are considered,” says Harwood, “how natural is the exclamation of the disciples, when viewing this immense building at a distance: ‘Master, see what manner of stones' (ποταποι λιθοι, ‘what very large ones') ‘and what buildings are here!' Mar_13:1 : and how wonderful is the declaration of our Lord upon this, how unlikely to be accomplished before the race of men who were then living should cease to exist! ‘Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down.' Improbable as this prediction must have appeared to the disciples at that time, in the short space of about thirty years after it was exactly accomplished; and this most magnificent temple, which the Jews had literally turned into a den of thieves, through the righteous judgment of God upon that wicked and abandoned nation, was utterly destroyed by the Romans A.D. 70, or 73 of the vulgar era, on the same month, and on the same day of the month, when Solomon's temple had been razed to the ground by the Babylonians!”
Both the first and second temples were contemplated by the Jews with the highest reverence. Of their affectionate regard for the first temple, and for Jerusalem, within whose walls it was built, we have several instances in those Psalms which were composed during the Babylonish captivity; and of their profound veneration for the second temple we have repeated examples in the New Testament. They could not bear any disrespectful or dishonourable thing to be said of it. The least injurious slight of it, real or apprehended, instantly awakened all the choler of a Jew, and was an affront never to be forgiven. Our Saviour, in the course of his public instructions, having said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,”
Joh_2:19, it was construed into a contemptuous disrespect, designedly thrown out against the temple; his words instantly descended into the heart of the Jews, and kept rankling there for some years; for, upon his trial, this declaration, which it was impossible for a Jew ever to forget or to forgive, was immediately alleged against him, as big with the most atrocious guilt and impiety; they told the court they had heard him publicly assert, “I am able to destroy this temple,” Mat_26:61. The rancour and virulence they had conceived against him for this speech, was not softened by all the affecting circumstances of that wretched death they saw him die; even as he hung upon the cross, with triumph, scorn, and exultation, they upbraided him with it, contemptuously shaking their heads, and saying, “Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself! If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross!” Mat_27:40. It only remains to add, that it appears, from several passages of Scripture, that the Jews had a body of soldiers who guarded the temple, to prevent any disturbances during the ministration of such an immense number of priests and Levites. To this guard Pilate referred, when he said to the chief priests and Pharisees who waited upon him to desire he would make the sepulchre secure, “Ye have a watch, go your way, and make it as secure as ye can,” Mat_27:65. Over these guards one person had the supreme command, who in several places is called the captain of the temple, or officer of the temple guard. “And as they spake unto the people, the priests and the captain of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them,” Act_4:1; Act_5:25-26; Joh_18:12. Josephus mentions such an officer.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

A temple was a house for a god, a place where the god dwelt and was worshipped. This was so in the case of the false gods that Israel’s neighbours worshipped (1Sa_5:2; 1Sa_31:10; 1Ki_16:32; 2Ki_5:18), and in the case of the one and only true God whom Israel worshipped (Psa_5:7; Psa_134:1; Hag_1:8-9; Mat_12:4; Joh_2:16; cf. 1Co_6:19; Rev_11:19).
However, the true God, who is the eternal one and the creator of all things, cannot be contained in a building. The Israelite temple, like the tabernacle before it, was only a symbol of God’s presence. It symbolized that he dwelt among his people (Exo_25:8; 1Ki_8:10-13; Act_7:48-50). God’s original plan for such a dwelling place was the tabernacle, which, being a tent, was a movable shrine that could be set up anywhere. This demonstrated to the people that God was not limited to one locality. The people were to remember this when they built their permanent temple in Jerusalem (2Sa_7:5-7; Act_7:44-46).
The site of the temple in Jerusalem was a piece of land that David had bought from a local farmer on the hill of Zion (Moriah) (2Sa_24:18; 2Sa_24:22-25; 2Ch_3:1; Psa_74:2; Psa_78:68-69; cf. Gen_22:2). Each of the later temples was built on the same site, on top of the ruins of the previous temple. All three temples were based on the plan of the tabernacle, though they were larger and they included additional features.
Solomon’s temple

Simply described, the temple built by Solomon was a rectangular stone building with a porch added to the front, and three storeys of storerooms added to the sides and rear (1Ki_6:1-10). Two huge bronze pillars stood in front of the porch. They did not support the roof, but were purely ornamental (1Ki_7:15-22). Entrance from the porch into the temple was through decorated folding doors (1Ki_6:33-35). All stonework inside the building was covered with lavishly carved wood panelling, which in turn was overlaid with beaten gold (1Ki_6:1-10; 1Ki_6:15; 1Ki_6:21-22; 1Ki_6:29).
An internal partition divided the main temple into two rooms. The larger front room was called the nave or Holy Place, the smaller rear room the inner sanctuary or Most Holy Place. The front room had windows, but not the rear room. This rear room contained the gold-covered ark of the covenant (covenant box), which symbolized the presence of God, and two winged creatures of gold (cherubim), which were symbolic guardians of the ark (1Ki_6:31-32; 2Ch_3:14; see ARK; CHERUBIM). The front room contained two pieces of gold-covered furniture, the altar of incense and the table of ‘presence bread’. In addition there were ten golden lampstands, five on each of the two side walls (1Ki_7:48-49; see LAMP).
In the open courtyard outside the building (1Ki_6:36) stood a huge bronze altar of sacrifice (2Ch_4:1). Also in the courtyard was a bronze laver, or tank, which held water for cleansing rites (1Ki_7:23-26). There were also ten mobile lavers, each consisting of a bronze basin set in a trolley, the four sides of which were enclosed with decorative panels (1Ki_7:27-39).
The wealth of the temple’s decorations and furnishings made it a target for enemy plunderers. At times the Judean kings themselves plundered it, usually to obtain funds to pay foreign overlords or invaders (1Ki_14:25-26; 1Ki_15:18; 2Ki_16:8; 2Ki_18:15). Some of Judah’s more ungodly kings brought idols and other articles of foreign religion into the temple, and even introduced heathen practices (2Ki_16:10-18; 2Ki_21:4; 2Ch_25:14).

As a result of Judah’s unfaithfulness to God, the temple was frequently damaged or allowed to deteriorate. On a number of occasions godly kings repaired the temple and introduced reforms to restore it to its proper use (2Ki_12:4-16; 2Ch_29:3-11; 2Ch_34:8-13). When the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BC, they stripped everything of value from the temple, then smashed or burnt what remained and took the people into captivity (2Ki_25:8-17; cf. Psa_74:3-7).
Visions of Ezekiel
The captivity in Babylon would last no longer than seventy years, and the prophet Ezekiel wanted to prepare the people to return to their homeland. He therefore presented to them a plan for life in the rebuilt nation.
This plan, based on visions that Ezekiel saw, included a temple where God dwelt among his people in an ideal religious and political order. In this order the temple was not in the city, but in a large portion of land marked out for the priests (Eze_45:1-4). The main building (the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place) was only one part of a huge complex of buildings, courtyards and various facilities for priests and worshippers (Ezekiel 40; Ezekiel 41; Eze_42:1-14; Eze_43:13-17; Eze_46:19-24). Whatever symbolic value Ezekiel’s visions may have had, his ideal temple was never built.
Zerubbabel’s temple
When Persia conquered Babylon in 539 BC, the Persian king gave permission for the captive Jews to return to their land. Under the joint leadership of the governor Zerubbabel and the high priest Joshua, those who returned promptly began to rebuild the temple. They soon set up the altar, and in the second year they laid the foundation of the temple, but when local people opposed the builders, the work stopped (Ezr_3:1-3; Ezr_3:8-10; Ezr_4:1-5; Ezr_4:24). For sixteen years nobody worked on the temple. When the prophets Haggai and Zechariah roused the people to action, work restarted and within four years the temple was finished (Ezr_5:1-2; Ezr_6:15).
Little is known about this temple. It was not as large or as splendid as the former temple (Ezr_6:3-5; Hag_2:3; Zec_4:10), though like the former temple, it had storerooms for the people’s offerings (Neh_13:4-9; Mal_3:10).
The best known events connected with this temple occurred in the second century BC. The leader of the Syrian sector of the former Greek Empire, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, being violently opposed to the Jews, found an excuse to invade and defile the temple. He set up an idolatrous altar, then took animals that the Jews considered unclean and offered them as sacrifices to the Greek gods. This led to a Jewish uprising under the leadership of a group known as the Maccabees. After three years of fighting, the Jews regained religious freedom and rededicated the temple (165 BC).
A century later, when the Romans invaded Palestine, the Jews converted the temple into a fortress that was strong enough to withstand the enemy for three months. Finally, in 63 BC, the Romans destroyed it.
Herod’s temple

When Herod, who was not a genuine Jew, won Rome’s appointment as ‘king’ of Judea, he tried to win the Jews’ favour by building them a magnificent new temple. The main building took ten years to build and was finished about 9 BC, but builders were still working on the rest of the huge complex during the time of Jesus’ public ministry (Joh_2:20). They finished the project in AD 64.
The main building consisted of two rooms, the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place, divided by a curtain (Mat_27:51). This building and its associated altar of burnt offering were set in a walled courtyard, which normally only the priests could enter (Luk_1:8-10).
Outside the Court of the Priests was another walled courtyard, known as the Court of Israel. Men could enter this courtyard, but not women. Beyond this was yet another walled courtyard, this one known as the Court of the Women, for it marked the limit beyond which women could not go. Entrance to this court was through the Beautiful gate (Act_3:10), and inside the court were collection boxes for the temple offerings (Mar_12:41-44). No Gentiles were allowed into any of these courts, and any who attempted to do so risked death (Act_21:28-31).
This fully enclosed area was set within a large open court called the Court of the Gentiles, for it was the only area open to Gentiles. Around the perimeter of this court was a covered area where the teachers of the law taught (Luk_2:46; Luk_19:47; Joh_10:23-24), where temple merchants carried out their business (Joh_2:14-16) and where the poor and the sick begged for help (Mat_21:14; Act_3:11; Act_5:12; Act_5:16).
In the north-eastern corner of the Court of the Gentiles was the Tower of Antonia. This was probably the praetorium, the palace where the Roman governor stayed when he came to Jerusalem to control the crowds at festival times (Mat_27:27; Mar_15:16; Act_21:30-37). (Normally the governor lived at Caesarea; Act_23:33.) The entire temple complex was surrounded by a wall made of huge stones (Mar_13:1).
The new temple
Jesus, being zealous for the true worship of God, condemned the Jews for their misuse of the temple. As a result the Jews became increasingly hostile towards him (Joh_2:13-22; Mar_11:15-19; cf. Mal_3:1). He condemned their religion as they practised it, and forecast that one of God’s judgments on it would be the destruction of the temple (Mar_13:1-2).
Through Jesus, God was now building a new temple. This was not a building made of stones, but a community of people, the Christian church. This is a living temple, a community where God dwells, where his people worship him and where they maintain true holiness (Joh_4:21-24; 1Co_3:16-17; 2Co_6:16-18; Eph_2:21-22; 1Pe_2:4-5; cf. Rev_21:22; Rev_22:1-4).
It seems that many of the early Christians did not immediately understand that with the death and resurrection of Jesus, the temple had no further use in God’s purposes for his people. They continued to go to the temple daily, worshipping, praying and witnessing to the resurrection life of Jesus (Luk_24:52-53; Act_2:46-47; Act_3:1; Act_5:12; Act_5:42).
Stephen, however, pointed out that if people thought Christianity was still part of the old temple-based religion, they were mistaken. The temple was in fact a hindrance to a proper understanding of Christianity (Act_6:13; Act_7:44-50). The Jews reacted violently to Stephen’s preaching and killed him; but at least there was now a clear distinction between the old temple-based religion and Christianity. The Christians’ association with the temple was gone for ever (Act_7:54-60; Act_8:1-3).
Within forty years the Jews also had lost their association with the temple; for in AD 70 the armies of Rome destroyed it (Mar_13:2; Luk_19:41-44). Since then, the Jews have had no temple.
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.

tem?p'l (היכל, hēkhāl, ?palace?; sometimes, as in 1Ki_6:3, 1Ki_6:5, etc.; Eze_41:1, Eze_41:15 ff, used for ?the holy place? only; בּית, bayith, ?house,? thus always in the Revised Version (British and American); ἱερόν, hierón, ναός, naós):
A. STRUCTURE AND HISTORY
I. SOLOMON'S TEMPLE
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. David's Project
2. Plans and Preparations
3. Character of the Building
4. Site of the Temple
5. Phoenician Assistance
II. THE TEMPLE BUILDING
1. In General
2. Dimensions, Divisions and Adornments
3. The Side-Chambers
4. The Porch and Pillars
III. COURTS, GATES ANY ROYAL BUILDINGS
1. The Inner Court
(1) Walls
(2) Gates
2. The Great Court
3. The Royal Buildings
IV. FURNITURE OF THE TEMPLE
1. The Sanctuary
(1) The ?Debhir?
(2) The ?Hekhal?
2. The Court (Inner)
(1) The Altar
(2) The Molten (Bronze) Sea
(3) The Layers and Their Bases
V. HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE
1. Building and Dedication
2. Repeated Plunderings, etc.
3. Attempts at Reform
4. Final Overthrow
II. EZEKIEL'S PROPHETIC SKETCH
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. Relation to History of Temple
2. The Conception Unique and Ideal
3. Its Symmetrical Measurements
II. PLAN OF THE TEMPLE
1. The Outer Court
2. The Inner Court
3. The Temple Building and Adjuncts
III. THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. The Decree of Cyrus
2. Founding of the Temple
3. Opposition and Completion of the Work
II. THE TEMPLE STRUCTURE
1. The House
2. Its Divisions and Furniture
3. Its Courts, Altar, etc.
4. Later Fortunes
IV. THE TEMPLE OF HEROD
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. Initiation of the Work
2. Its Grandeur
3. Authorities
4. Measurements
II. THE TEMPLE AND ITS COURTS
1. Temple Area - Court of Gentiles
2. Inner Sanctuary Inclosure
(1) Wall, ?Hel,? ?Soregh,? Gates
(2) Court of the Women
(3) Inner Courts: Court of Israel; Court of the Priests
(4) The Altar, etc.
3. The Temple Building
(1) House and Porch
(2) ?Hekhal? and ?Debhir?
(3) The Side-Chambers
III. NEW TESTAMENT ASSOCIATIONS OF HEROD'S TEMPLE
1. Earlier Incidents
2. Jesus in the Temple
3. The Passion-Week
4. Apostolic Church
5. The Temple in Christian Thought
LITERATURE

A. Structure and History
I. Solomon's Temple
I. Introductory.
1. David's Project:
The tabernacle having lasted from the exodus till the commencement of the monarchy, it appeared to David to be no longer fitting that the ark of God should dwell within curtains (it was then in a tent David had made for it on Zion: 2Sa_6:17), while he himself dwelt in a cedar-lined house. The unsettled and unorganized state of the nation, which had hitherto necessitated a portable structure, had now given place to an established kingdom. The dwelling of Yahweh should therefore be henceforth a permanent building, situated at the center of the nation's life, and ?exceeding magnificent? (1Ch_22:5), as befitted the glory of Yahweh, and the prospects of the state.


2. Plans and Preparations:
David, however, while honored for his purpose, was not permitted, because he had been a man of war (2 Sam 7; 1Ch_22:8; compare 1Ki_5:3), to execute the work, and the building of the house was reserved for his son, Solomon. According to the Chronicler, David busied himself in making extensive and costly preparations of wood, stone, gold, silver, etc., for the future sanctuary and its vessels, even leaving behind him full and minute plans of the whole scheme of the building and its contents, divinely communicated (1Ch_22:2 ff; 1Ch_28:11 ff; 29). The general fact of lengthened preparation, and even of designs, for a structure which so deeply occupied his thoughts, is extremely probable (compare 1Ki_7:51).


3. Character of the Building:
The general outline of the structure was based on that of the tabernacle (on the modern critical reversal of this relation, see under B, below). The dimensions are in the main twice those of the tabernacle, though it will be seen below that there are important exceptions to this rule, on which the critics found so much. The old question (see TABERNACLE) as to the shape of the building - flat or gable-roofed - here again arises. Not a few modern writers (Fergusson, Schick, Caldecott, etc.), with some older, favor the tentlike shape, with sloping roof. It does not follow, however, even if this form is, with these writers, admitted for the tabernacle - a ?tent? - that it is applicable, or likely, for a stone ?house,? and the measurements of the Temple, and mention of a ?ceiling? (1Ki_6:15), point in the opposite direction. It must still be granted that, with the scanty data at command, all reconstructions of the Solomonte Temple leave much to be filled in from conjecture. Joseph Hammond has justly said: ?It is certain that, were a true restoration of the Temple ever to be placed in our hands, we should find that it differed widely from all attempted 'restorations' of the edifice, based on the scanty and imperfect notices of our historian and Ezekiel? (Commentary on 1 Ki 6, ?Pulpit Commentary?).


4. Site of the Temple:
The site of the Temple was on the eastern of the two hills on which Jerusalem was built - that known in Scripture as Mt. Moriah (2Ch_3:1) or Mt. Zion (the traditional view which locates Zion on the western hill, on the other side of the Tyropoeon, though defended by some, seems untenable; see ?Zion,? in HDB; ?Jerusalem,? in DB, etc.). The place is more precisely defined as that where Araunah (Ornan) had his threshing-floor, and David built his altar after the plague (1Ch_21:22; 2Ch_3:1). This spot, in turn, is now all but universally held to be marked by the sacred rock, eṣ-ṣakhra (within what is called the Haram area on the eastern summit; see JERUSALEM), above which the ?Dome of the Rock,? or so-called ?Mosque of Omar,? now stands. Here, according to traditional belief, was reared the altar of burnt offering, and to the West of it was built the Temple. This location is indeed challenged by Fergusson, W. R. Smith, and others, who transfer the Temple-site to the southwestern angle of the Haram area, but the great majority of scholars take the above view. To prepare a suitable surface for the Temple and connected buildings (the area may have been some 600 ft. East to West, and 300 to 400 ft. North to South), the summit of the hill had to be leveled, and its lower parts heightened by immense substructures (Josephus, Ant., VIII, iii, 9; XV, xi, 3; BJ, V, v, 1), the remains of which modern excavations have brought to light (compare Warren's Underground Jerusalem; G. A. Smith's Jerusalem, etc.).


5. Phoenician Assistance:
For aid in his undertaking, Solomon invited the cooperation of Hiram, king of Tyre, who willingly lent his assistance, as he had before helped David, granting Solomon permission to send his servants to cut down timber in Lebanon, aiding in transport, and in the quarrying and hewing of stones, and sending a skillful Tyrian artist, another Hiram, to superintend the designing and graving of objects made of the precious metals, etc. For this assistance Solomon made a suitable recompense (1 Ki 5; 2 Ch 2). Excavations seem to show that a large part of the limestone of which the temple was built came from quarries in the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem (Warren, Underground Jerusalem, 60). The stones were cut, hewn and polished at the places whence they were taken, so that ?there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, while it was in building? (1Ki_5:17, 1Ki_5:18; 1Ki_6:7). Opinions differ as to the style of architecture of the building. It was probably unique, but Phoenician art also must have left its impress upon it. See ARCHITECTURE.


II. The Temple Building.
1. In General:
In contrast with the tabernacle, which was a portable ?tent,? consisting of a framework of acacia wood, with rich coverings hung over it, and standing in a ?court? enclosed by curtains (see TABERNACLE), the Temple was a substantial ?house? built of stone (probably the hard white limestone of the district), with chambers in three stories, half the height of the building (1Ki_6:5, 1Ki_6:6), round the sides and back, and, in front, a stately porch (1Ki_6:3), before which stood two lofty bronze pillars - Jachin and Boaz (1Ki_7:21; 2Ch_3:4, 2Ch_3:15-17). Within, the house was lined with cedar, overlaid with gold, graven with figures of cherubim, palms, and open flowers (1Ki_6:15, 1Ki_6:18, 1Ki_6:21, 1Ki_6:22, 1Ki_6:29), and a partition of cedar or stone divided the interior into two apartments - one the holy place (the hēkhāl), the other the most holy place, or ?oracle? (debhı̄r) (1Ki_6:16-18). The floor was of stone, covered with fir (or cypress), likewise overlaid with gold (1Ki_6:15, 1Ki_6:30). The platform on which the whole building stood was probably raised above the level of the court in front, and the building may have been approached by steps. Details are not given. The more particular description follows.


2. Dimensions, Divisions and Adornments:
The Temple, like the tabernacle, stood facing East, environed by ?courts? (?inner? and ?greater?), which are dealt with below, Internally, the dimensions of the structure were, in length and width, double those of the tabernacle, namely, length 60 cubits, width 20 cubits. The height, however, was 30 cubits, thrice that of the tabernacle (1Ki_6:2; compare 1Ki_6:18, 1Ki_6:20). The precise length of the cubit is uncertain (see CUBIT); here, as in the article TABERNACLE, it is taken as approximately 18 inches. In internal measurement, therefore, the Temple was approximately 90 ft. long, 30 ft. broad, and 45 ft. high. This allows nothing for the thickness of the partition between the two chambers. For the external measurement, the thickness of the walls and the width of the surrounding chambers and their walls require to be added. It cannot positively be affirmed that the dimensions of the Temple, including the porch, coincided precisely with those of Ezekiel's temple (compare Keil on 1Ki_6:9, 1Ki_6:10); still, the proportions must have closely approximated, and may have been in agreement.
The walls of the building, as stated, were lined within with cedar; the holy place was ceiled with fir or cypress (2Ch_3:5; the ?oracle? perhaps with cedar); the flooring likewise was of fir (1Ki_6:15). All was overlaid with gold, and walls and doors (see below) were adorned with gravings of cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers (1 Ki 6:19-35; 2Ch_3:6 adds ?precious stones?). Of the two chambers into which the house was divided, the outermost (or hēkhāl) was 40 cubits (60 ft.) long, and 20 cubits (30 ft.) wide (1Ki_6:17); the innermost (or debhı̄r) was 20 cubits in length, breadth and height - a cube (1Ki_6:20). As the height of the Temple internally was 30 cubits, it is obvious that above the most holy place there was a vacant space 20 cubits long and 10 high. This apparently was utilized as a chamber or chambers for storage or other purposes. It has been held by some (Kurtz, Fergusson, etc.) that the ceiling along the entire Temple was at the height of 20 cubits, with chambers above (compare the allusion to ?upper chambers? in 1Ch_28:11; 2Ch_3:9); this, however, seems unwarranted (compare Bahr on 1Ki_6:14-19; the upper chambers? were ?overlaid with gold,? 2Ch_3:9, which points to something nobler in character). The inner chamber was a place of ?thick darkness? (1Ki_8:12).


3. The Side-Chambers:
The thickness of the Temple walls is not given, but the analogy of Ezekiel's temple (Ezek 41) and what is told of the side-chambers render it probable that the thickness was not less than 6 cubits (9 ft.). Around the Temple, on its two sides and at the back, were built chambers (celā‛ōth, literally, ?ribs?), the construction of which is summarily described. They were built in three stories, each story 5 cubits in height (allowance must also be made for flooring and roofing), the lowest being 5 cubits in breadth, the next 6 cubits, and the highest 7 cubits. This is explained by the fact that the chambers were not to be built into the wall of the Temple, but were to rest on ledges or rebatements in the wall, each rebate a cubit in breadth, so that the wall became thinner, and the chambers broader, by a cubit, each stage in the ascent. (1Ki_6:5-10). The door admitting into these chambers was apparently in the middle of the right side of the house, and winding stairs led up to the second and third stories (1Ki_6:8). It is not stated how many chambers there were; Josephus (Ant., VIII, iii, 2) gives the number as 30, which is the number in Ezekiel's temple (Eze_41:6). The outer wall of the chambers, which in Ezekiel is 5 cubits thick (Eze_41:9), may have been the same here, though some make it less. It is a question whether the rebatements were in the Temple wall only, or were divided between it and the outer wall; the former seems the more probable opinion, as nothing is said of rebatements in the outer wall. Above the chambers on either side were ?windows of fixed lattice-work? (Eze_41:4), i.e. openings which could not be closed (?windows broad within and narrow without?). The purposes for which the chambers were constructed are not mentioned. They may have been used partly for storage, partly for the accommodation of those engaged in the service of the Temple (compare 1Ch_9:27).


4. The Porch and Pillars:
A conspicuous feature of the Temple was the porch in front of the building, with its twin pillars, Jachin and Boaz. Of the porch itself a very brief description is given. It is stated to have been 20 cubits broad - the width of the house - and 10 cubits deep (1Ki_6:3). Its height is not given in 1 Kings, but it is said in 2Ch_3:4 to have been 120 cubits, or approximately 180 ft. Some accept this enormous height (Ewald, Stanley, etc.), but the majority more reasonably infer that there has been a corruption of the number. It may have been the same height as the Temple - 30 cubits. It was apparently open in front, and, from what is said of its being ?overlaid within with pure gold? (2Ch_3:4), it may be concluded that it shared in the splendor of the main building, and had architectural features of its own which are not recorded. Some find here, in the wings, treasury chambers, and above, ?upper chambers,? but such restorations are wholly conjectural. It is otherwise with the monumental brass (bronze) pillars - Jachin and Boaz - of which a tolerably full description is preserved (1Ki_7:15-22; 2Ch_3:15-17; 2Ch_4:11-13; compare Jer_52:20-23), still, however, leaving many points doubtful. The pillars which stood in front of the porch, detached from it, were hollow bronze castings, each 18 cubits (27 ft.) in height (35 cubits in 2Ch_3:15 is an error), and 12 cubits (18 ft.) in circumference, and were surmounted by capitals 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) high, richly ornamented on their lower, bowl-shaped (1Ki_7:20, 1Ki_7:41, 1Ki_7:42) parts, with two rows of pomegranates, enclosing festoons of chain-work, and, in their upper parts, rising to the height of 4 cubits (6 ft.) in graceful lily-work. See JACHIN AND BOAZ.
It was seen that the holy place (hēkhāl) was divided from the most holy (debhı̄r) by a partition, probably of cedar wood, though some think of a stone wall, one or even two cubits thick. In this partition were folding doors, made of olive wood, with their lintels 4 cubits wide (1Ki_6:31; some interpret differently, and understand the upper part of the doorway to be a pentagon). The doors, like the walls, had carvings of cherubim, palm trees, and flowers, and the whole was gold-plated (1Ki_6:32). Behind the partition hung the sanctuary veil (2Ch_3:14). At the entrance of the Temple, similarly, were folding doors, with their lintels 5 cubits in width, only this time the posts only were of olive, while the doors, divided into two leaves, were of fir (or cypress) wood (1Ki_6:33-35). The carving and gold-plating were as on the inner doors, and all the doors had hinges of gold (1Ki_7:50).


III. Courts, Gates and Royal Buildings.
The Temple was enclosed in ?courts? - an ?inner? (1Ki_6:36; 1Ki_7:12; 2Ch_4:9, ?court of the priests?; Jer_36:10, ?the upper court?; Eze_8:3, Eze_8:16; Eze_10:3), and an outer or ?greater court? (1Ki_7:9, 1Ki_7:12; 2Ch_4:9) - regarding the situation, dimensions and relations of which, alike to one another and to the royal buildings described in 1 Ki 7 the scanty notices in the history leave room for great diversity of opinion. See COURT OF THE SANCTUARY.

1. The Inner Court:
The ?inner court? (ḥācēr ha-penı̄mı̄th) is repeatedly referred to (see above). Its dimensions are not given, but they may be presumed to be twice those of the tabernacle court, namely, 200 cubits (300 ft.) in length and 100 cubits (150 ft.) in breadth. The name in Jer_36:10, ?the upper court,? indicates that it was on a higher level than the ?great court,? and as the Temple was probably on a platform higher still, the whole would present a striking terraced aspect.

(1) Walls:
The walls of the court were built of three rows of hewn stone, with a coping of cedar beams (1Ki_6:36). Their height is not stated; it is doubtful if it would admit of the colonnades which some have supposed; but ?chambers? are mentioned (Jer_35:4; Jer_36:10 - if, indeed, all belong to the ?inner? court), which imply a substantial structure. It was distinctively ?the priests' court? (2Ch_4:9); probably, in part, was reserved for them; to a certain degree, however, the laity had evidently free access into it (Jer_36:10; Jer_38:14; Eze_8:16, etc.). The mention of ?the new court? (2Ch_20:5, time of Jehoshaphat), and of ?the two courts of the house of Yahweh? (2Ki_21:5; 2Ch_33:5, time of Manasseh), suggests subsequent enlargement and division.

(2) Gates:
Though gates are not mentioned in the narratives of the construction, later allusions show that there were several, though not all were of the time of Solomon. The principal entrance would, of course, be that toward the East (see EAST GATE). In Jer_26:10 there is allusion to ?the entry of the new gate of Yahweh's house.? This doubtless was ?the upper gate? built by Jotham (2Ki_15:35) and may reasonably be identified with the ?gate that looketh toward the North? and the ?gate of the altar? (i.e. through which the sacrifices were brought) in Eze_8:3, Eze_8:1, and with ?the upper gate of Benjamin? in Jer_20:3. Mention is also made of a ?gate of the guard? which descended to the king's house (2Ki_11:19; see below). Jeremiah speaks of a ?third entry that is in the house of Yahweh? (Jer_38:14), and of ?three keepers of the threshold? (Jer_52:24), but it is not clear which court is intended.


2. The Great Court:
The outer or ?great court? of the Temple (ḥācēr ha-gedhōlāh) opens up more difficult problems. Some regard this court as extending to the East in front of the ?inner court?; others, as Keil, think of it as a great enclosure surrounding the ?inner court? and stretching perhaps 150 cubits East of the latter (compare his Biblical Archaeology, I, 170-71). These writers remove the court from all connection with the royal buildings of 1 Ki 7, and distinguish it from ?the great court of 1Ki_7:9, 1Ki_7:12.? A quite different construction is that advocated by Stade and Benzinger, and adopted by most recent authorities (compare articles on ?Temple? in HDB, IV, in EB, IV, in one-vol HDB, in DB (Dalman); G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 59 ff, etc.). The great court, on this view, not only surrounds the Temple, with its (inner) court, but, extending to the South, encloses the whole complex of the royal buildings of 1 Ki 7. This has the advantage of bringing together the references to the ?great court? in 1Ki_7:9, 1Ki_7:12 and the other references to the outer court. The court, thus conceived, must have been very large. The extensive part occupied by the royal buildings being on a lower level than the ?inner court,? entrance to it is thought to have been by ?the gate of the guard unto the king's house? mentioned in 2Ki_11:19. Its wall, like that of the inner court, was built in three courses of hewn stone, and one course of cedar (1Ki_7:12). Its gates overlaid with brass (2Ch_4:9, i.e., ?bronze?) show that the masonry must have been both high and substantial. On the ?other court? of 1Ki_7:8, see next paragraph.


3. The Royal Buildings:
The group of buildings which, on theory now stated, were enclosed by the southern part of the great court, are those described in 1Ki_7:1-12. They were of hewn stone and cedar wood (1Ki_7:9-11), and embraced: (1) The king's house, or royal palace (1Ki_7:8), in close contiguity with the Temple-court (2Ki_11:19). (2) Behind this to the West, the house of Pharaoh's daughter (2Ki_11:9) - the apartments of the women. Both of these were enclosed in a ?court? of their own, styled in 2Ki_11:8 ?the other court,? and in 2Ki_20:4 margin ?the middle court.? (3) South of this stood the throne-room, and porch or hall of judgment, paneled in cedar? from floor to floor,? i.e. from floor to ceiling (2Ki_11:7). The throne, we read later (1Ki_10:18-20), was of ivory, overlaid with gold, and on either side of the throne, as well as of the six steps that led up to it, were lions. The hall served as an audience chamber, and for the administration of justice. (4) Yet farther South stood the porch or hall of pillars, 50 cubits (75 ft.) long and 30 cubits (45 ft.) broad, with a sub-porch of its own (1Ki_10:6). It is best regarded as a place of promenade and vestibule to the hall of judgment. (5) Lastly, there was the imposing and elaborate building known as ?the house of the forest of Lebanon? (1Ki_10:2-5), which appears to have received this name from its multitude of cedar pillars. The scanty hints as to its internal arrangements have baffled the ingenuity of the commentators. The house was 100 cubits (150 ft.) in length, 50 cubits (75 ft.) in breadth, and 30 cubits (45 ft.) in height. Going round the sides and back there were apparently four rows of pillars. The Septuagint has three rows), on which, supported by cedar beams, rested three tiers or stories of side-chambers (literally, ?ribs,? as in 1Ki_6:5; compare the Revised Version margin). In 1Ki_6:3 it is disputed whether the number ?forty and five; fifteen in a row? (as the Hebrew may be read) refers to the pillars or to the chambers; if to the former, the Septuagint reading of ?three rows? is preferable. The windows of the tiers faced each other on the opposite sides (1Ki_6:4, 1Ki_6:5). But the whole construction is obscure and doubtful. The spacious house was used partly as an armory; here Solomon put his 300 shields of beaten gold (1Ki_10:17).


IV. Furniture of the Temple.
1. The Sanctuary:
We treat here, first, of the sanctuary in its two divisions, then of the (inner) court.

(1) The ?Debhir?.
In the most holy place, or debhı̄r, of the sanctuary stood, as before, the old Mosaic ark of the covenant, with its two golden cherubim above the mercy-seat (see ARK OF THE COVENANT; TABERNACLE). Now, however, the symbolic element was increased by the ark being placed between two other figures of cherubim, made of olive wood, overlaid with gold, 10 cubits (15 ft.) high, their wings, each 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) long, outstretched so that they reached from wall to wall of the oracle (20 cubits), the inner wings meeting in the center (1Ki_6:23-28; 2Ch_3:10-13). See CHERUBIM.

(2) The ?Hekhal?.
In the holy place, or hēkhāl, the changes were greater. (a) Before the oracle, mentioned as belonging to it (1Ki_6:22), stood the altar of incense, covered with cedar, and overlaid with gold (1Ki_6:20-22; 1Ki_7:48; 2Ch_4:19; see ALTAR OF INCENSE). It is an arbitrary procedure of criticism to attempt to identify this altar with the table of shewbread. (b) Instead of one golden candlestick, as in the tabernacle, there were now 10, 5 placed on one side and 5 on the other, in front of the oracle. All, with their utensils, were of pure gold (1Ki_7:49; 2Ch_4:7). (c) Likewise, for one table of shewbread, there were now 10, 5 on one side, 5 on the other, also with their utensils made of gold (1Ki_7:48, where, however, only one table is mentioned; 2Ch_4:8, ?100 basins of gold?). As these objects, only enlarged in number and dimensions, are fashioned after the model of those of the tabernacle, further particulars regarding them are not given here.


2. The Court (Inner):
(1) The Altar.
The most prominent object in the Temple-court was the altar of burnt offering, or brazen altar (see BRAZEN ALTAR). The site of the altar, as already seen, was the rock eṣ ṣakhrā, where Araunah had his threshing-floor. The notion of some moderns that the rock itself was the altar, and that the brazen (bronze) altar was introduced later, is devoid of plausibility. An altar is always something reared or built (compare 2Sa_24:18, 2Sa_24:25). The dimensions of the altar, which are not mentioned in 1 K, are given in 2Ch_4:1 as 20 cubits (30 ft.) long, 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad, and 10 cubits (15 ft.) high. As utensils connected with it - an incidental confirmation of its historicity - are pots, shovels, basins and fleshhooks (1Ki_7:40, 1Ki_7:45; 2Ch_4:11, 2Ch_4:16). It will be observed that the assumed halving proportions of the tabernacle are here quite departed from (compare Exo_27:1).

(2) The Molten (Bronze) Sea.
A new feature in the sanctuary court - taking the place of the ?laver? in the tabernacle - was the ?molten sea,? the name being given to it for its great size. It was an immense basin of bronze, 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) high, 10 cubits (15 ft.) in diameter at the brim, and 30 cubits (45 ft.) in circumference, resting on 12 bronze oxen, and placed between the altar and the Temple-porch, toward the South (1Ki_7:23-26, 1Ki_7:39; 2Ch_4:2-5, 2Ch_4:10). The bronze was a handbreadth in thickness. The brim was shaped like the flower of a lily, and encompassing the basin were ornamental knops. Its capacity is given as 2,000 baths (1Ki_7:26; by error in 2Ch_4:5, 2Ch_4:3,000 baths). The oxen on which it rested faced the four cardinal points - three looking each way. The ?sea,? like the laver, doubtless supplied the water for the washing of the priests' hands and feet (compare Exo_30:18; Exo_38:8). The view of certain scholars (Kosters, Gunkel, etc.) that the ?sea? is connected with Babylonian mythical ideas of the great deep is quite fanciful; no hint appears of such significance in any part of the narrative. The same applies to the lavers in the next paragraph.

(3) The Lavers and Their Bases.
The tabernacle laver had its place taken by the ?sea? just described, but the Temple was also provided with 10 lavers or basins, set on ?bases? of elaborate design and moving upon wheels - the whole made of bronze (1Ki_7:27-37). Their use seems to have been for the washing of sacrifices (2Ch_4:6), for which purpose they were placed, 5 on the north side, and 5 on the south side, of the Temple-court. The bases were 4 cubits (6 ft.) long, 4 cubits broad, and 3 cubits (4 1/2 ft.) high. These bases were of the nature of square paneled boxes, their sides being ornamented with figures of lions, oxen and cherubim, with wreathed work beneath. They had four feet, to which wheels were attached. The basin rested on a rounded pedestal, a cubit high, with an opening 1 1/2 cubits in diameter to receive the laver (1Ki_7:31). Mythological ideas, as just said, are here out of place.

V. History of the Temple.
1. Building and Dedication:
The Temple was founded in the 4th year of Solomon's reign (1Ki_6:1), and occupied 7 1/2 years in building (1Ki_6:38); the royal buildings occupied 13 years (1Ki_7:1) - 20 years in all (the two periods, however, may in part synchronize). On the completion of the Temple, the ark was brought up, in the presence of a vast assemblage, from Zion, and, with innumerable sacrifices and thanksgiving, was solemnly deposited in the Holy of Holies (1 Ki 8:1-21; 2Ch_5:1-14; 2Ch_6:1-11). The Temple itself was then dedicated by Solomon in the noble prayer recorded in 1 Ki 8:22-61; 2 Ch 6:12-42, followed by lavish sacrifices, and a 14 days' feast. At its inauguration the house was filled with the ?glory? of Yahweh (1Ki_8:10, 1Ki_8:11; 2Ch_5:13, 2Ch_5:14).


2. Repeated Plunderings, Etc.:
The religious declension of the later days of Solomon (1Ki_11:1-8) brought in its train disasters for the nation and the Temple. On Solomon's death the kingdom was disrupted, and the Temple ceased to be the one national sanctuary. It had its rivals in the calf-shrines set up by Jeroboam at Beth-el and Dan (1Ki_12:25-33). In the 5th year of Rehoboam an expedition was made against Judah by Shishak, king of Egypt, who, coming to Jerusalem, carried away the treasures of the Temple, together with those of the king's house, including the 300 shields of gold which Solomon had made (1Ki_14:25-28; 2Ch_12:2-9). Rehoboam's wife, Maacah, was an idolatress, and during the reign of Abijam, her son, introduced many abominations into the worship of the Temple (1Ki_15:2, 1Ki_15:12, 1Ki_15:13). Asa cleared these away, but himself further depleted the Temple and royal treasuries by sending all that was left of their silver and gold to Ben-hadad, king of Syria, to buy his help against Baasha, king of Israel (1Ki_15:18, 1Ki_15:19). Again the Temple was foully desecrated by Athaliah (2Ch_24:7), necessitating the repairs of Jehoash (2Ki_12:4 ff; 2Ki_24:4 ff); and a new plundering took place in the reign of Ahaziah, when Jehoash of Israel carried off all the gold and silver in the Temple and palace (2Ki_14:14). Uzziah was smitten with leprosy for presuming to enter the holy place to offer incense (2Ch_26:16-20). Jehoshaphat, earlier, is thought to have enlarged the court (2Ch_20:5), and Jotham built a new gate (2Ki_15:35; 2Ch_27:3). The ungodly Ahaz went farther than any of his predecessors in sacrilege, for, besides robbing the Temple and palace of their treasures to secure the aid of the king of Assyria (2Ki_16:8), he removed the brazen altar from its time-honored site, and set up a heathen altar in its place, removing likewise the bases and ornaments of the lavers, and the oxen from under the brazen (bronze) sea (2Ki_16:10-17).


3. Attempts at Reform:
An earnest attempt at reform of religion was made by Hezekiah (2Ki_18:1-6; 2Ch_29:31), but even he was driven to take all the gold and silver in the Temple and king's house to meet the tribute imposed on him by Sennacherib, stripping from the doors and pillars the gold with which he himself had overlaid them (2Ki_18:14-16; 2Ch_32:31). Things became worse than ever under Manasseh, who reared idolatrous altars in the Temple-courts, made an Asherah, introduced the worship of the host of heaven, had horses dedicated to the sun in the Temple-court, and connived at the worst pollutions of heathenism in the sanctuary (2Ki_21:3-7; 2Ki_23:7, 2Ki_23:11). Then came the more energetic reforms of the reign of Josiah, when, during the repairs of the Temple, the discovery was made of the Book of the Law, which led to a new covenant with Yahweh, a suppression of the high places, and the thorough cleansing-out of abuses from the Temple (2 Ki 22; 23:1-25; 2 Ch 34; 35). Still, the heart of the people was not changed, and, as seen in the history, and in the pages of the Prophets, after Josiah's death, the old evils were soon back in full force (compare e.g. Eze_8:7-18).


4. Final Overthrow:
The end, however, was now at hand. Nebuchadnezzar made Jehoiakim his tributary; then, on his rebelling, came, in the reign of Jehoiachin, took Jerusalem, carried off the treasures of the Temple and palace, with the gold of the Temple vessels (part had already been taken on his first approach, 2Ch_36:7), and led into captivity the king, his household and the chief part of the population (2 Ki 24:1-17). Eleven years later (586 BC), after a siege of 18 months, consequent on Zedekiah's rebellion (2Ki_25:1), the Babylonian army completed the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Only a few lesser utensils of value, and the brazen (bronze) pillars, bases and sea remained; these were now taken away, the larger objects being broken up (2Ki_25:13-16). The Temple itself, with its connected buildings, and the houses in Jerusalem generally, were set on fire (2Ki_25:9). The ark doubtless perished in the conflagration, and is no more heard of. The residue of the population - all but the poorest - were carried away captive (2Ki_25:11, 2Ki_25:12; see CAPTIVITY). Thus ended the first Temple, after about 400 years of chequered existence.

II. Ezekiel's Prophetic Sketch
I. Introductory.
1. Relation to History of Temple:
Wellhausen has said that Ezekiel 40 through 48 ?are the most important in his book, and have been, not incorrectly, called the key to the Old Testament? (Prolegomena, English translation, 167). He means that Ezekiel's legislation represents the first draft, or sketch, of a priestly code, and that subsequently, on its basis, men of the priestly school formulated the Priestly Code as we have it. Without accepting this view, dealt with elsewhere, it is to be admitted that Ezekiel's sketch of a restored temple in chapters 40-43 has important bearings on the history of the Temple, alike in the fact that it presupposes and sheds back light upon the structure and arrangements of the first Temple (Solomon's), and that in important respects it forecasts the plans of the second (Zerubbabel's) and of Herod's temples.


2. The Conception Unique and Ideal:
While, however, there is this historical relation, it is to be observed that Ezekiel's temple-sketch is unique, presenting features not found in any of the actually built temples. The temple is, in truth, an ideal construction never intended to be literally realized by returned exiles, or any other body of people. Visionary in origin, the ideas embodied, and not the actual construction, are the main things to the prophet's mind. It gives Ezekiel's conception of what a perfectly restored temple and the service of Yahweh would be under conditions which could scarcely be thought of as ever likely literally to arise. A literal construction, one may say, was impossible. The site of the temple is not the old Zion, but ?a very high mountain? (Eze_40:2), occupying indeed the place of Zion, but entirely altered in elevation, configuration and general character. The temple is part of a scheme of transformed land, partitioned in parallel tracts among the restored 12 tribes (Ezek 47:13 through 48:7, Eze_48:23-29), with a large area in the center, likewise stretching across the whole country, hallowed to Yahweh and His service (Eze_48:8-22). Supernatural features, as that of the flowing stream from the temple in Ezekiel 47, abound. It is unreasonable to suppose that the prophet looked for such changes - some of them quite obviously symbolical - as actually impending.


3. Its Symmetrical Measurements:
The visionary character of the temple has the effect of securing that its measurements are perfectly symmetrical. The cubit used is defined as ?a cubit and a handbreadth? (Eze_40:5), the contrast being with one or more smaller cubits (see CUBIT). In the diversity of opinion as to the precise length of the cubit, it may be assumed here that it was the same sacred cubit employed in the tabernacle and first Temple, and may be treated, as before, as approximately equivalent to 18 inches.


II. Plan of the Temple.
Despite obscurities and corruption in the text of Ezekiel, the main outlines of the ideal temple can be made out without much difficulty (for details the commentaries must be consulted; A. B. Davidson's ?Ezekiel? in the Cambridge Bible series may be recommended; compare also Keil; a very lucid description is given in Skinner's ?Book of Ezk,? in the Expositor's Bible, 406-13; for a different view, see Caldecott, The Second Temple in Jerusalem).

1. The Outer Court:
The temple was enclosed in two courts - an outer and an inner - quite different, however, in character and arrangement from those of the first Temple. The outer court, as shown by the separate measurements (compare Keil on Eze_40:27), was a large square of 500 cubits (750 ft.), bounded by a wall 6 cubits (9 ft.) thick and 6 cubits high (Eze_40:5). The wall was pierced in the middle of its north, east and south sides by massive gateways, extending into the court to a distance of 50 cubits (75 ft.), with a width of 25 cubits (37 1/2 ft.). On either side of the passage in these gateways were three guardrooms, each 6 cubits square (Eze_40:7 margin), and each gateway terminated in ?porch,? 8 cubits (12 ft.) long (Eze_40:9), and apparently (thus, the Septuagint, Eze_40:14; the Hebrew text seems corrupt), 20 cubits across. The ascent to the gateways was by seven steps (Eze_40:6; compare Eze_40:22, Eze_40:26), showing that the level of the court was to this extent higher than the ground outside. Round the court, on the three sides named - its edge in line with the ends of the gateways - was a ?pavement,? on which were built, against the wall, chambers, 30 in number (Eze_40:17, Eze_40:18). At the four corners were enclosures (40 cubits by 30) where the sacrifices were cooked (compare Eze_46:21-24) - a fact which suggests that the cells were mainly for purposes of feasting. (The ?arches? ('ēlammı̄m) of Eze_40:16, Eze_40:21, etc. (the Revised Version margin ?colonnade?), if distinguished from the ?porch? ('ulām) - A. B. Davidson and others identify them - are still parts of the gateway - Eze_40:21, etc.).


2. The Inner Court:
The inner court was a square of 100 cubits (150 ft.), situated exactly in the center of the larger court (Eze_40:47). It, too, was surrounded by a wall, and had gateways, with guardrooms, etc., similar to those of the outer court, saving that the gateways projected outward (50 cubits), not inward. The gates of outer and inner courts were opposite to each other on the North, East, and South, a hundred cubits apart (Eze_40:19, Eze_40:23, Eze_40:27; the whole space, therefore, from wall to wall was 50 and 100 and 50 = 200 cubits). The ascent to the gates in this case was by eight steps (Eze_40:37), indicating another rise in level for the inner court. There were two chambers at the sides of the north and south gates respectively, one for Levites, the other for priests (Eze_40:44-46; compare the margin); at the gates also (perhaps only at the north gate) were stone tables for slaughtering (Eze_40:39-43). In the center of this inner court was the great altar of burnt offering (Eze_43:14-17) - a structure 18 cubits (27 ft.) square at the base, and rising in four stages (1, 2, 4, and 4 cubits high respectively, Eze_43:14, Eze_43:15), till it formed a square of 12 cubits (18 ft.) at the top or hearth, with four horns at the corners (Eze_43:15, Eze_43:16). Steps led up to it on the East (Eze_43:17). See ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING.


3. The Temple Building and Adjuncts:
The inner court was extended westward by a second square of 100 cubits, within which, on a platform elevated another 6 cubits (9 ft.), stood the temple proper and its connected buildings (Eze_41:8). This platform or basement is shown by the measurements to be 60 cubits broad (North and and South) and 105 cubits long (East and West) - 5 cubits projecting into the eastern square. The ascent to the temple-porch was by 10 steps (Eze_40:49; Septuagint, the Revised Version margin). The temple itself was a building consisting, like Solomon's, of three parts - a porch at the entrance, 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad by 12 cubits (18 ft.) deep (so most, following the Septuagint, as required by the other measurements); the holy place or hēkhāl, 40 cubits (60 ft.) long by 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad; and the most holy place, 20 cubits by 20 (Eze_40:48, Eze_40:49; Eze_41:1-4); the measurements are internal. At the sides of the porch stood two pillars (Eze_40:49), corresponding to the Jachin and Boaz of the older Temple. The holy and the most holy places were separated by a partition 2 cubits in thickness (Eze_41:3; so most interpret). The most holy place was empty; of the furniture of the holy place mention is made only of an altar of wood (Eze_41:22; see ALTAR A, III, 7; B, III, 3). Walls and doors were ornamented with cherubim and palm trees (Eze_41:18, Eze_41:25). The wall of the temple building was 6 cubits (9 ft.) in thickness (Eze_41:5), and on the north, south, and west sides, as in Solomon's Temple, there were side-chambers in three stories, 30 in number (Eze_41:6; in each story?), with an outer wall 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) in thickness (Eze_41:9). These chambers were, on the basement, 4 cubits broad; in the 2nd and 3rd stories, owing, as in the older Temple, to rebatements in the wall, perhaps 5 and 6 cubits broad respectively (Eze_41:6, Eze_41:7; in Solomon's Temple the side-chambers were 5, 6, and 7 cubits, 1Ki_6:6). These dimensions give a total external breadth to the house of 50 cubits (with a length of 100 cubits), leaving 5 cubits on either side and in the front as a passage round the edge of the platform on which the building stood (described as ?that which was left?) (Eze_41:9, Eze_41:11). The western end, as far as the outer wall, was occupied, the whole breadth of the inner court, by a large building (Eze_41:12); all but a passage of 20 cubits (30 ft.) between it and the temple, belonging to what is termed ?the separate place? (gizrāh, Eze_41:12, Eze_41:13, etc.). The temple-platform being only 60 cubits broad, there remained a space of 20 cubits (30 ft.) on the north and south sides, running the entire length of the platform; this, continued round the back, formed the gizrāh, or ?separate place? just named. Beyond the gizrāh for 50 cubits (75 ft.) were other chambers, apparently in two rows, the inner 100 cubits, the outer 50 cubits, long, with a walk of 10 cubits between (Eze_42:1-14; the passage, however, is obscure; some, as Keil, place the ?walk? outside the chambers). These chambers were assigned to the priests for the eating of ?the most holy things? (Eze_42:13). See GALLERY.
Such, in general, was the sanctuary of the prophet's vision, the outer and inner courts of which, and, crowning all, the temple itself, rising in successive terraces, presented to his inner eye an imposing spectacle which, in labored description, he seeks to enable his readers likewise to visualize.

III. The Temple of Zerubbabel
I. Introductory.
1. The Decree of Cyrus:
Forty-eight years after Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of the first Temple, the Babylonian empire came to an end (538 BC), and Persia became dominant under Cyrus. In the year following, Cyrus made a decree sanctioning the return of the Jews, and ordering the rebuilding of the Temple at Jerusalem (2Ch_36:23; Ezr_1:1-4). He not only caused the sacred vessels of the old Temple to be restored, but levied a tax upon his western provinces to provide materials for the building, besides what was offered willingly (Ezr_1:6-11; Ezr_6:3 ff). The relatively small number of exiles who chose to return for this work (40,000) were led by Sheshbazzar, ?the prince of Judah? (Ezr_1:11), whom some identify with Zerubbabel, likewise named ?governor of Judah? (Hag_1:1). With these, if they were distinct was associated Joshua the high priest (in Ezra and Nehemiah called ?Jeshua?).


2. Founding of the Temple:
The first work of Joshua and Zerubbabel was the building of the altar on its old site in the 7th month of the return (Ezr_3:3 ff). Masons and carpenters were engaged for the building of the house, and the Phoenicians were requisitioned for cedar wood from Lebanon (Ezr_3:7). In the 2nd year the foundations of the temple were laid with dignified ceremonial, amid rejoicing, and the weeping of the older men, who remembered the former house (Ezr_3:8-13).


3. Opposition and Completion of the Work:
The work soon met with opposition from the mixed population of Samaria, whose offer to join it had been refused; hostile representations, which proved successful, were made to the Persian king; from which causes the building was suspended about 15 years, till the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspis (520 BC; Ezr 4). On the other hand, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stimulated the flagging zeal of the builders, and, new permission being obtained, the work was resumed, and proceeded so rapidly that in 516 BC the temple was completed, and was dedicated with joy (Ezr 5; 6).


II. The Temple Structure.
1. The House:
Few details are available regarding this temple of Zerubbabel. It stood on the ancient site, and may have been influenced in parts of its plan by the descriptions of the temple in Ezekiel. The inferiority to the first Temple, alluded to in Ezr_3:12 and Hag_2:3, plainly cannot refer to its size, for its dimensions as specified in the decree of Cyrus, namely, 60 cubits in height, and 60 cubits in breadth (Ezr_6:3; there is no warrant for confining the 60 cubits of height to the porch only; compare Josephus, Ant., XI, i), exceed considerably those of the Temple of Solomon (side-chambers are no doubt included in the breadth). The greater glory of the former Temple can only refer to adornment, and to the presence in it of objects wanting in the second. The Mishna declares that the second temple lacked five things present in the first - the ark, the sacred fire, the shekhı̄nāh, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummim (Yōmā', xxi. 2).


2. Its Divisions and Furniture:
The temple was divided, like its predecessor, into a holy and a most holy place, doubtless in similar proportions. In 1 Macc 1:22 mention is made of the ?veil? between the two places. The most holy place, as just said, was empty, save for a stone on which the high priest, on the great Day of Atonement, placed his censer (Yōmā' v. 2). The holy place had its old furniture, but on the simpler scale of the tabernacle - a golden altar of incense, a single table of shewbread, one 7-branched candlestick. These were taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:21, 22). At the cleansing of the sanctuary after its profanation by this prince, they were renewed by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:41 ff). Judas pulled down also the old desecrated altar, and built a new one (1 Macc 4:44 ff).


3. Its Courts, Altar, Etc.:
The second temple had two courts - an outer and an inner (1 Macc 4:38, 48; 9:54; Josephus, Ant., XIV, xvi, 2) - planned apparently on the model of those in Ezekiel. A.R.S. Kennedy infers from the measurements in the Haram that ?the area of the great court of the second temple, before it was enlarged by Herod on the South and East, followed that of Ezekiel's outer court - that is, it measured 500 cubits each way with the sacred rock precisely in the center? (Expository Times, XX, 182). The altar on this old ṣakhrā site - the first thing of all to be ?set on its base? (Ezr_3:3) - is shown by 1 Macc 4:47 and a passage quoted by Josephus from Hecataeus (Apion, I, xxii) to have been built of unhewn stones. Hecataeus gives its dimensions as a square of 20 cubits and 10 cubits in height. There seems to have been free access to this inner court till the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC), who, pelted by the crowd as he sacrificed, fenced off the part of the court in front of the altar, so that no layman could come farther (Josephus, Ant., XIII, xiii, 5). The courts were colonnaded (Ant., XI, iv, 7; XIV, xvi, 2), and, with the house, had numerous chambers (compare Neh_12:44; Neh_13:4 ff, etc.).
A brief contemporary description of this Temple and its worship is given in Aristeas, 83-104. This writer's interest, however, was absorbed chiefly by the devices for carrying away the sacrificial blood and by the technique of the officiating priests.


4. Later Fortunes:
The vicissitudes of this temple in its later history are vividly recorded in 1 Maccabees and in Josephus. In Ecclesiasticus 50 is given a glimpse of a certain Simon, son of Onias, who repaired the temple, and a striking picture is furnished of the magnificence of the worship in his time. The desecration and pillaging of the sanctuary by Antiochus, and its cleansing and restoration under Judas are alluded to above (see HASMONEANS; MACCABEANS). At length Judea became an integral part of the Roman empire. In 66 BC Pompey, having taken the temple-hill, entered the most holy place, but kept his hands off the temple-treasures (Ant., XIV, iv, 4). Some years later Crassus carried away everything of value he could find (Ant., XIV, vii, 1). The people revolted, but Rome remained victorious. This brings us to the time of Herod, who was nominated king of Judea by Rome in 39 BC, but did not attain actual power until two years later.

IV. The Temple of Herod
I. Introductory.
1. Initiation of the Work:
Herod became king de facto by the capture of Jerusalem in 37 BC. Some years later he built the fortress Antonia to the North of the temple (before 31 BC). Midway in his reign, assigning a religious motive for his purpose, he formed the project of rebuilding the temple itself on a grander scale (Josephus gives conflicting dates; in Ant., XV, xi, 1, he says ?in his 18th year?; in BJ, I, xxi, 1, he names his 15th year; the latter date, as Schurer suggests (GJV4, I 369), may refer to the extensive preparations). To allay the distrust of his subjects, he undertook that the materials for the new building should be collected before the old was taken down; he likewise trained 1,000 priests to be masons and carpenters for work upon the sanctuary; 10,000 skilled workmen altogether were employed upon the task. The building was commenced in 20-19 BC. The naos, or temple proper, was finished in a year and a half, but it took 8 years to complete the courts and cloisters. The total erection occupied a much longer time (compare Joh_2:20, ?Forty and six years,? etc.); indeed the work was not entirely completed till 64 AD-6 years before its destruction by the Romans.


2. Its Grandeur:
Built of white marble, covered with heavy plates of gold in front and rising high above its marble-cloistered courts - themselves a succession of terraces - the temple, compared by Josephus to a snow-covered mountain (BJ, V, v, 6), was a conspicuous and dazzling object from every side. The general structure is succinctly described by G. A. Smith: ?Herod's temple consisted of a house divided like its predecessor into the Holy of Holies, and the Holy Place; a porch; an immediate fore-court with an altar of burnt offering; a Court of Israel; in front of this a Court of Women; and round the whole of the preceding, a Court of the Gentiles? (Jerusalem, II, 502). On the ?four courts,? compare Josephus, Apion, II, viii.


3. Authorities:
The original authorities on Herod's temple are chiefly the descriptions in Josephus (Ant., XV, xi, 3, 5; BJ, V, v, etc.), and the tractate Middōth in the Mishna. The data in these authorities, however, do not always agree. The most helpful modern descriptions, with plans, will be found, with differences in details, in Keil, Biblical Archaeology, I, 187 ff; in Fergusson, Temples of the Jews; in the articles ?Temple? in HDB (T. Witton Davies) and Encyclopedia Biblica (G. H. Box); in the important series of papers by A. R. S. Kennedy in The Expository Times (vol XX), ?Some Problems of Herod's Temple? (compare his article ?Temple? in one-vol DB); in Sanday's Sacred Sites of the Gospels (Waterhouse); latterly in G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 499 ff.


4. Measurements:
Differences of opinion continue as to the sacred cubit. A. R. S. Kennedy thinks the cubit can be definitely fixed at 17, 6 inches. (Expostory Times, XX, 24 ff); G. A. Smith reckons it at 20, 67 inches. (Jerusalem, II, 504); T. Witton Davies estimates it at about 18 in. (HDB, IV, 713), etc. W. S. Caldecott takes the cubit of Josephus and the Middōth to be 1 1/5 ft. It will suffice in this sketch to treat the cubit, as before, as approximately equivalent to 18 inches.


II. The Temple and Its Courts.
1. Temple Area - Court of Gentiles:
Josephus states that the area of Herod's temple was double that of its predecessor (BJ, I, xxi, 1). The Mishna (Mid., ii. 2) gives the area as 500 cubits (roughly 750 ft.); Josephus (Ant., XV, xi, 3) gives it as a stadium (about 600 Greek ft.); but neither measure is quite exact. It is generally agreed that on its east, west and south sides Herod's area corresponded pretty nearly with the limits of the present Haram area (see JERUSALEM), but that it did not extend as far North as the latter (Kennedy states the difference at about 26 as compared with 35 acres, and makes the whole perimeter to be about 1, 420 yards, ut supra, 66). The shape was an irregular oblong, broader at the North than at the South. The whole was surrounded by a strong wall, with several gates, the number and position of some of which are still matters of dispute. Josephus mentions four gates on the West (Ant., XV, xi, 5), the principal of which, named in Mid., i. 3, ?the gate of Kiponos,? was connected by a bridge across the Tyropoeon with the city (where now is Wilson's Arch). The same authority speaks of two gates on the South. These are identified with the ?Huldah? (mole) gates of the Mishna - the present Double and Triple Gates - which, opening low down in the wall, slope up in tunnel fashion into the interior of the court. The Mishna puts a gate also on the north and one on the east side. The latter may be represented by the modern Golden Gate - a Byzantine structure, now built up. This great court - known later as the ?Court of the Gentiles,? because open to everyone - was adorned with splendid porticos or cloisters. The colonnade on the south side - known as the Royal Porch - was specially magnificent. It consisted of four rows of monolithic marble columns - 162 in all - with Corinthian capitals, forming three aisles, of which the middle was broader and double the height of the other two. The roofing was of carved cedar. The north, west, and east sides had only double colonnades. That on the east side was the ?Solomon's Porch? of the New Testament (Joh_10:23; Act_3:11; Act_5:19). There were also chambers for officials, and perhaps a place of meeting for the Sanhedrin (bēth dı̄n) (Josephus places this elsewhere). In the wide spaces of this court took place the buying and selling described in the Gospels (Mat_21:12 and parallel's; Joh_2:13 ff).


2. Inner Sanctuary Inclosure:
(1) Wall, ?Hel,? ?Soregh,? Gates.
In the upper or northerly part of this large area, on a much higher level, bounded likewise by a wall, was a second or inner enclosure - the ?sanctuary? in the stricter sense (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 2) - comprising the court of the women, the court of Israeland the priests' court, with the temple itself (Josephus, Ant., XV, xi, 5). The surrounding wall, according to Josephus (BJ, V, v, 2), was 40 cubits high on the outside, and 25 on the inside - a difference of 15 cubits; its thickness was 5 cubits. Since, however, the inner courts were considerably higher than the court of the women, the difference in height may have been some cubits less in the latter than in the former (compare the different measurements in Kennedy, ut supra, 182), a fact which may explain the difficulty felt as to the number of the steps in the ascent (see below). Round the wall without, at least on three sides (some except the West), at a height of 12 (Mid.) or 14 (Jos) steps, was an embankment or terrace, known as the ḥēl (fortification), 10 cubits broad (Mid. says 6 cubits high), and enclosing the whole was a low balustrade or stone parapet (Josephus says 3 cubits high) called the ṣōrēgh, to which were attached at intervals tablets with notices in Greek and Latin, prohibiting entry to foreigners on pain of death (see PARTITION, WALL OF). From within the ṣōrēgh ascent was made to the level of the ḥēl by the steps aforesaid, and five steps more led up to the gates (the reckoning is probably to the lower level of the women's court). Nine gates, with two-storied gatehouses ?like towers? (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 3), are mentioned, four on the North, four on the South, and one on the East - the last probably to be identified, though this is still disputed (Waterhouse, etc.), with the ?Gate of Nicanor? (Mid.), or ?Corinthian Gate? (Jos), which is undoubtedly ?the Beautiful Gate? of Act_3:2, Act_3:10 (see for identification, Kennedy, ut supra, 270). This principal gate received its names from being the gift of a wealthy Alexandrian Jew, Nicanor, and from its being made of Corinthian brass. It was of great size - 50 cubits high and 40 cubits wide - and was richly adorned, its brass glittering like gold (Mid., ii. 3). See BEAUTIFUL GATE. The other gates were covered with gold and silver (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 3).

(2) Court of the Women.
The eastern gate, approached from the outside by 12 steps (Mid., ii. 3; Maimonides), admitted into the court of the women, so called because it was accessible to women as well as to men. Above its single colonnades were galleries reserved for the use of women. Its dimensions are given in the Mishna as 135 cubits square (Mid., ii. 5), but this need not be precise. At its four corners were large roofless rooms for storage and other purposes. Near the pillars of the colonnades were 13 trumpet-shaped boxes for receiving the money-offerings of the people (compare the incident of the widow's mite, Mar_12:41 ff; Luk_21:1 ff); for which reason, and because this court seems to have been the place of deposit of the temple-treasures generally, it bore the name ?treasury? (gazophulákion, Joh_8:20). See TREASURY.

(3) Inner Courts: Court of Israel; Court of the Priests:
From the women's court, the ascent was made by 15 semicircular steps (Mid., ii. 5; on these steps the Levites chanted, and beneath them their instruments were kept) to the inner court, comprising, at different levels, the court of Israel and the court of the priests. Here, again, at the entrance, was a lofty, richly ornamented gate, which some, as said, prefer to regard as the Gate of Nicanor or Beautiful Gate. Probably, however, the view above taken, which places this gate at the outer entrance, is correct. The Mishna gives the total dimensions of the inner court as 187 cubits long (East to West) and 135 cubits wide (Mid., ii. 6; Act_3:1). Originally the court was one, but disturbances in the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC) led, as formerly told, to the greater part being railed off for the exclusive use of the priests (Josephus, Ant., XIII, xiii, 5). In the Mishna the name ?court of the priests? is used in a restricted sense to denote the space - 11 cubits - between the altar and ?the court of Israel? (see the detailed measurements in Mid., Act_3:1). The latter - ?the court of Israel? - 2 1/2 cubits lower than ?the court of the priests,? and separated from it by a pointed fence, was likewise a narrow strip of only 11 cubits (Mid., ii. 6; Act_3:1). Josephus, with more probability, carries the 11 cubits of the ?court of Israel? round the whole of the temple-court (BJ, V, vi). Waterhouse (Sacred Sites, 112) thinks 11 cubits too small for a court of male Israelites, and supposes a much larger enclosure, but without warrant in the authorities (compare Kennedy, ut supra, 183; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 508 ff).

(4) The Altar, Etc.
In the priests' court the principal object was the great altar of burnt offering, situated on the old site - the ṣakhrā - immediately in front of the porch of the temple (at 22 cubits distance - the space ?between the temple and the altar? of Mat_23:35). The altar, according to the Mishna (Mid., iii. 1), was 32 cubits square, and, like Ezekiel's, rose in stages, each diminishing by a cubit: one of 1 cubit in height, three of 5 cubits, which, with deduction of another cubit for the priests to walk on, left a square of 24 cubits at the top. It had four horns. Josephus, on the other hand, gives 50 cubits for the length and breadth, and 15 cubits for the height of the altar (BJ, V, v, 6) - his reckoning perhaps including a platform (a cubit high?) from which the height is taken (see ALTAR). The altar was built of unhewn stones, and had on the South a sloping ascent of like material, 32 cubits in length and 16 in width. Between temple and altar, toward the South, stood the ?laver? for the priests. In the court, on the north side, were rings, hooks, and tables, for the slaughtering, flaying and suspending of the sacrificial victims.


3. The Temple Building:
(1) House and Porch.
Yet another flight of 12 steps, occupying most of the space between the temple-porch and the altar, led up to the platform (6 cubits high) on which stood the temple itself. This magnificent structure, built, as said before, of blocks of white marble, richly ornamented with gold on front and sides, exceeded in dimensions and splendor all previous temples. The numbers in the Mishna and in Josephus are in parts discrepant, but the general proportions can readily be made out. The building with its platform rose to the height of 100 cubits (150 ft.; the 120 cubits in Josephus, Ant., XV, xi, 3, is a mistake), and was 60 cubits (90 ft.) wide. It was fronted by a porch of like height, but with wings extending 20 cubits (30 ft.) on each side of the temple, making the total breadth of the vestibule 100 cubits (150 ft.) also. The depth of the porch was 10 or 11 cubits; probably at the wings 20 cubits (Jos). The entrance, without doors, was 70 cubits high and 25 cubits wide (Mid. makes 40 cubits high and 20 wide). Above it Herod placed a golden eagle, which the Jews afterward pulled down (Ant., XVII, vi, 3). The porch was adorned with gold.

(2) ?Hekhal? and ?Debhir?.
Internally, the temple was divided, as before, into a holy place (hēkhāl) and a most holy (debhı̄r) - the former measuring, as in Solomon's Temple, 40 cubits (60 ft.) in length, and 20 cubits (30 ft.) in breadth; the height, however, was double that of the older Temple - 60 cubits (90 ft.; thus Keil, etc., following Josephus, BJ, V, v, 5). Mid., iv. 6, makes the height only 40 cubits; A. R. S. Kennedy and G. A. Smith make the debhı̄r a cube - 20 cubits in height only. In the space that remained above the holy places, upper rooms (40 cubits) were erected. The holy place was separated from the holiest by a partition one cubit in thickness, before which hung an embroidered curtain or ?veil? - that which was rent at the death of Jesus (Mat_27:51 and parallel's; Mid., iv. 7, makes two veils, with a space of a cubit between them). The Holy of Holies was empty; only a stone stood, as in the temple of Zerubbabel, on which the high priest placed his censer on the Day of Atonement (Mishna, Yōmā', v. 2). In the holy place were the altar of incense, the table of shewbread (North), and the seven-branched golden candlestick (South). Representations of the two latter are seen in the carvings on the Arch of Titus (see SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF; CANDLESTICK, GOLDEN). The spacious entrance to the holy place had folding doors, before which hung a richly variegated Babylonian curtain. Above the entrance was a golden vine with clusters as large as a man (Josephus, Ant., XV, xi, 3; BJ, V, v, 4).

(3) The Side-Chambers.
The walls of the temple appear to have been 5 cubits thick, and against these, on the North, West, and South, were built, as in Solomon's Temple, side-chambers in three stories, 60 cubits in height, and 10 cubits in width (the figures, however, are uncertain), which, with the outer walls, made the entire breadth of the house 60 or 70 cubits. Mid., iv. 3, gives the number of the chambers as 38 in all. The roof, which Keil speaks of as ?sloping? (Bib. Archaeology, I, 199), had gilded spikes to keep off the birds. A balustrade surrounded it 3 cubits high. Windows are not mentioned, but there would doubtless be openings for light into the holy place from above the sidechambers.


III. New Testament Associations of Herod's Temple.
1. Earlier Incidents:
Herod's temple figures so prominently in New Testament history that it is not necessary to do more than refer to some of the events of which it was the scene. It was here, before the incense altar, that the aged Zacharias had the vision which assured him that he should not die childless (Luk_1:11 ff). Here, in the women's court, or treasury, on the presentation by Mary, t
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

After the Israelites had exchanged their nomadic life for a life in permanent habitations, it was becoming that they should exchange also their movable sanctuary or tabernacle for a temple. There elapsed, however, after the conquest of Palestine, several centuries during which the sanctuary continued movable, although the nation became more and more stationary. It appears that the first who planned the erection of a stone-built sanctuary was David, who, when he was inhabiting his house of cedar, and God had given him rest from all his enemies, meditated the design of building a temple in which the ark of God might be placed, instead of being deposited 'within curtains,' or in a tent, as hitherto. This design was at first encouraged by the prophet Nathan; but he was afterwards instructed to tell David that such a work was less appropriate for him, who had been a warrior from his youth, and had shed much blood, than for his son, who should enjoy in prosperity and peace the rewards of his father's victories. Nevertheless, the design itself was highly approved as a token of proper feelings towards the Divine King (2Sa_7:1-12; 1Ch_17:1-14; 1Ch_28:1-21). We learn, moreover, from 1 Kings 5, and 1 Chronicles 22, that David had collected materials which were afterwards employed in the erection of the temple, which was commenced four years after his death, about B.C. 1012, four hundred and eighty years after the Exodus from Egypt, and was about seven years in building. We thus learn that the Israelitish sanctuary had remained movable more than four centuries subsequent to the conquest of Canaan.
The site of the temple was on Mount Moriah, which was at first insufficient for the temple and altar, and therefore walls and buttresses were built in order to gain more ground by filling up the interval with earth. The hill was also fortified by a threefold wall, the lowest tier of which was in some places more than 300 cubits high; and the depth of the foundation was not visible, because it had been necessary in some parts to dig deep into the ground in order to obtain sufficient support. The dimensions of the stones of which the walls were composed were enormous; Josephus mentions a length of 40 cubits.
The workmen and the materials employed in the erection of the temple were chiefly procured by Solomon from Hiram, king of Tyre, who was rewarded by a liberal importation of wheat. Josephus states that the foundation was sunk to an astonishing depth, and composed of stones of singular magnitude, and very durable. Being closely mortised into the rock with great ingenuity, they formed a basis adequate to the support of the intended structure.
The temple itself and its utensils are described in 1 Kings 6, 7, and 2 Chronicles 3-4.
Divines and architects have repeatedly endeavored to represent the architectural proportions of the temple, which was 60 cubits long, 20 wide, and 30 high. The internal dimension of the 'holy' was 40 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The holy was separated from the 'holy of holies' by a partition, a large opening in which was closed by a suspended curtain. The holy of holies was on the western extremity of the entire building, and its internal dimensions formed a cube of 20 cubits. On the eastern extremity of the building was the porch, at the entrance of which stood the two columns called Jachin and Boaz, which were 23 cubits high.
The temple was also surrounded by three stories of chambers, each of which stories was five cubits high, so that there remained above, ample space for introducing the windows, which served chiefly for ventilation, as the light within the temple was obtained from the sacred candlesticks. The windows which are mentioned in 1Ki_6:4, consisted probably of lattice-work.
It seems from the descriptions of the temple to be certain that the holy of holies was an adytum without windows. To this fact Solomon seems to refer when he spake, 'The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness' (1Ki_8:12).
From 1Ki_7:10, we learn that the private dwellings of Solomon were built of massive stone. We hence infer, that the framework of the temple also consisted of the same material. The temple was, however, wainscoted with cedar wood, which was covered with gold. The boards within the temple were ornamented by beautiful carvings representing cherubim, palms, and flowers. The ceiling of the temple was supported by beams of cedar wood. The wall which separated the holy from the holy of holies probably consisted not of stone, but of beams of cedar. The partitions were probably in part reticulated, so that the incense could spread from the holy to the most holy.
The floor of the temple was throughout of cedar, but boarded over with planks of fir (1Ki_6:15). The doors of the oracle were composed of olive-tree; but the doors of the outer temple had posts of olive-tree and leaves of fir (1Ki_6:31, sq.). Both doors, as well that which led into the temple as that which led from the holy to the holy of holies, had folding leaves, which, however, seem to have been usually kept open, the aperture being closed by a suspended curtain.
Within the holy of holies stood only the ark of the covenant; but within the holy were ten golden candlesticks, and the altar of incense (comp. the separate articles).
The temple was surrounded by an inner court, which in Chronicles is called the Court of the Priests, and in Jeremiah the Upper Court. This again was surrounded by a wall consisting of cedar beams placed on a stone foundation (1Ki_6:36). Besides this inner court there is mentioned a Great Court (2Ch_4:9). This court was also more especially called the court of the Lord's house (Jer_19:12; Jer_26:2). These courts were surrounded by spacious buildings, which, however, according to Josephus, seem to have been partly added at a period later than that of Solomon. From these descriptions we learn that the temple of Solomon was not distinguished by magnitude, but by good architectural proportions, beauty of workmanship, and costliness of materials. Many English churches have an external form not unlike that of the temple of Solomon.
There was a treasury in the temple, in which much precious metal was collected for the maintenance of public worship. The gold and silver of the temple was, however, frequently applied to political purposes, and the treasury was repeatedly plundered by foreign invaders. The sacred edifice was burned down by Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. 588, having stood since its commencement 417 or 418 years. Thus terminated what the later Jews called the first house.
Second Temple
In the year B.C. 536the Jews obtained permission from Cyrus to colonize their native land. Cyrus commanded also that the sacred utensils which had been pillaged from the first temple should be restored, and that for the restoration of the temple assistance should be granted (Ezra 1, 6; 2Ch_36:22, sq.). The first colony, which returned under Zerubbabel and Joshua, having collected the necessary means, and having also obtained the assistance of Phoenician workmen, commenced in the second year after their return, B.C. 534, the rebuilding of the temple. The Sidonians brought rafts of cedar trees from Lebanon to Joppa. The Jews refused the cooperation of the Samaritans, who, being thereby offended, induced the King Artasashta (probably Smerdis) to prohibit the building. And it was only in the second year of Darius Hystaspis, B.C. 520, that the building was resumed. It was completed in the sixth year of this king, B.C. 516.
This second temple was erected on the site of the former, and probably after the same plan. The old men who had seen the first temple were moved to tears on beholding the second, which appeared insignificant in comparison with the first (Ezr_3:12; Hag_2:3, sq.). It seems, however, that it was not so much in dimensions that the second temple was inferior to the first, as in splendor, and in being deprived of the Ark of the Covenant, which had been burned with the temple of Solomon.
Temple of Herod
Herod, wishing to ingratiate himself with the people, and being fond of architectural display, undertook not merely to repair the second temple, but to raise a perfectly new structure. As, however, the temple of Zerubbabel was not actually destroyed, but only removed after the preparations for the new temple were completed, there has arisen some debate whether the temple of Herod could properly be called the third temple.
The work was commenced in the eighteenth year of the reign of Herod; that is, about the year 734-735 from the building of Rome, or about twenty or twenty-one years before the Christian era. Priests and Levites finished the temple itself in one year and a half. The outbuildings and courts required eight years. However, some building operations were constantly in progress under the successors of Herod, and it is in reference to this we are informed that the temple was finished only under Albinus, the last procurator but one, not long before the commencement of the Jewish war in which the temple was again destroyed. It is in reference also to these protracted building operations that the Jews said to Jesus, 'Forty and six years was this temple in building' (Joh_2:20).
The whole of the structures belonging to the temple were a stadium square, and consequently four stadia (or half a Roman mile) in circumference. The temple was situated on the highest point, not quite in the center, but rather to the north-western corner of this square, and was surrounded by various courts, the innermost of which was higher than the next outward, which descended in terraces. The temple, consequently, was visible from the town, notwithstanding its various high enclosures. The outer court was called the mountain of the house, and had five principal gates. Annexed to the outer wall were halls which surrounded the temple. The Levites resided in these halls, and they seem likewise to have been used by religious teachers for the purpose of addressing their hearers. Thus we find that Jesus had there various opportunities for addressing the people and refuting cavillers.
Here also the first Christians could daily assemble with one accord (Act_2:46). Within this outer court money-changers and cattle-dealers transacted a profitable business, especially during the time of Passover. The profaneness to which this money-changing and cattle-dealing gave rise caused the indignation of our Lord, who suddenly expelled all these traffickers from their stronghold of business (Mat_21:12, sq.; Mar_11:15-17; Luk_19:45-46; Joh_2:13-17).
The holy of holies was entirely empty, but there was a stone in the place of the Ark of the Covenant, on which the high-priest placed the censer. Before the entrance of the holy of holies was suspended a curtain, which was rent by the earthquake that followed after the crucifixion.
The temple was situated upon the south-eastern corner of Mount Moriah, which is separated to the east by a precipitous ravine and the Kidron from the Mount of Olives, which is much higher than Moriah. On the south the temple was bounded by the ravine which separates Moriah from Zion, or the lower city from the upper city. Opposite to the temple, at the foot of Zion, were formerly the king's gardens, and higher up, in a south-westerly direction, the stronghold of Zion, or the city of David, on a higher level than the temple. The temple was in ancient warfare almost impregnable, from the ravines at the precipitous edge of which it stood; but it required more artificial fortifications on its western and northern sides, which were surrounded by the city of Jerusalem; for this reason there was erected at its north-western corner the tower of Antonia, which, although standing on a lower level than the temple itself, was so high as to overlook the sacred buildings, with which it was connected partly by a large staircase, partly by a subterraneous communication. This tower protected the temple from sudden incursions from the city of Jerusalem, and from dangerous commotions among the thousands who were frequently assembled within the precincts of the courts, which also were sometimes used for popular meetings. Under the sons of Herod, the temple remained apparently in good order, and Herod Agrippa, who was appointed by the Emperor Claudius its guardian, even planned the repair of the eastern part, which had probably been destroyed during one of the conflicts between the Jews and Romans of which the temple was repeatedly the scene (Antiq. xvii. 10). Many writers on the subject have adopted a style as if they possessed much information about the archives of the temple; there are a few indications from which we learn that important documents were deposited in the tabernacle and temple. Even in Deu_31:20, we find that the book of the law was deposited in the Ark of the Covenant. 2Ki_22:8, Hilkiah rediscovered the book of the law in the house of Jehovah. In 2Ma_2:13, we find a bibliotheca or library mentioned, apparently consisting chiefly of the canonical books, and probably deposited in the temple. In Josephus it is mentioned that a book of the law was found in the temple. It appears that the sacred writings were kept in the temple. Copies of political documents seem to have been deposited in the treasury of the temple.
During the final struggle of the Jews against the Romans, A.D. 70, the temple was the last scene of the tug of war. The Romans rushed from the tower Antonia into the sacred precincts, the halls of which were set on fire by the Jews themselves. It was against the will of Titus that a Roman soldier threw a firebrand into the northern outbuildings of the temple, which caused the conflagration of the whole structure, although Titus himself endeavored to extinguish the fire.
The sacred utensils, the golden table of the show-bread, the book of the law, and the golden candlestick, were displayed in the triumph at Rome. Representations of them are still to be seen sculptured in relief on the triumphal arch of Titus. The place where the temple had stood seemed to be a dangerous center for the rebellious population, until, in A.D. 130, the Emperor Hadrian founded a Roman colony, under the name ?lia Capitolina, on the ruins of Jerusalem, and dedicated a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on the ruins of the temple of Jehovah. Henceforth no Jew was permitted to approach the site of the ancient temple.
The Emperor Julian undertook, A.D. 363, to rebuild the temple; but after considerable preparations and much expense, he was compelled to desist by flames which burst forth from the foundations. A splendid mosque now stands on the site of the temple. This mosque was erected by the caliph Omar after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Saracens, A.D. 630.




The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Psa_27:4 (a) The presence of GOD is thus described and David wanted to live in that divine presence constantly, as though it were indeed the house of GOD.

Psa_29:9 (b) Probably David was referring both to the actual house of GOD at Jerusalem and also to the mystical Temple of GOD which is His people. Every child of GOD like every piece of the temple in some way represents the majesty, the glory, the beauty, and the usefulness into which we have been called by His grace. It is interesting to note the typology of the temple, for there is a splendid comparison between parts of the temple, and the individuals in the church of GOD.

Joh_2:19 (a) The Lord is referring to His own body in which GOD dwelt. (See also Mat_26:61 and Mar_15:29).

1Co_3:16 (a) The church is called GOD's temple. It is a collection and an assembly of GOD's people. Therefore, it is the habitation of GOD through the Spirit. In this way it resembling the temple of the Old Testament. (See Eph_2:21).

1Co_6:19 (a) In the previous reference the whole church is compared to the temple, but in this passage the individual believer is compared to the temple. The Holy Spirit dwells in the church as a collection of GOD's people, and also in the individual because he is a child of GOD.
Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types
press 1957.


a word used to designate a building dedicated to the worship of a deity. In this article we treat only of the series of edifices erected for that purpose at Jerusalem, and in doing so we present the reconstructions hitherto the latest and most approved, with strictures, however, upon their defects. SEE PALACE.
I. Names. — The usual and appropriate Heb. term for this structure is ןהֵיכָּל, heykâl, which properly denotes a royal residence, and hence the sacred name יַהֹוָה, Jehovah, is frequently added; occasionally it is also qualified by the epithet קדֶשׁ, kâdesh, sanctuary, to designate its sacredness. Sometimes the simpler phrase יְהוָה בֵּית, beyth yehovadh, house of Jehovah, is used; and in lieu of the latter other names of the Deity, especially אֵֹלהַי, elohim, God, are employed. The usual Greek word is ναός, which, however, strictly denotes the central building or fane itself; while the more general term ἱερόν included all the associated structures, i.e. the surrounding courts, etc. The above leading word הֵיבָּלis a participial noun from the root הָכִל, to hold or receive, and reminds us strongly of the Roman templum, from τέμενος, τέμνω, locus liberatus et effatus. When an augur had defined a space in which he intended to make his observations, he fixed his tent in it (tabernaculum capere), with planks and curtains. In the arx this was not necessary, because there was a permanent auguraculum. The Sept. usually renders היכל, “temple,” by οικος or ναός, but in the Apocrypha and the New Test. it is generally called τὸ ἱερόν. Rabbinical appellations are בֵּית הִמַּקְדָּשׁ, beyfh ham-Mikdash, the house of the sanctuary, הִבְּחַירָה בֵּית, the chosen house, בֵּית הָעֹלָמַים, the house of ages, because the ark was not transferred from it, as it was from Gilgal after 24, from Shiloh after 369, from Nob after 13, and from Gibeon after 50 years. It is also called מָעוֹן, a dwelling, i.e. of God.
In imitation of this nomenclature, the word temple elsewhere in Scripture, in a figurative sense, denotes sometimes the Church of Christ (Rev_3:12): “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God.” Paul says (2Th_2:4) that Antichrist “as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Sometimes it imports heaven (Psa_11:4):
“The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord's throne is in heaven.” The martyrs in heaven are said to be “before the throne of God, and to serve him day and night in his temple” (Rev_7:15). The soul of a righteous man is the temple of God, because it is inhabited by the Holy Spirit (1Co_3:16-17; 1Co_6:19; 2Co_6:16).
II. History of the Temple and its Several Successors. — The First Temple. After the Israelites had exchanged their nomadic life for a life in permanent habitations, it was becoming that they should exchange also their movable sanctuary or tabernacle for a temple. There elapsed, however, after the conquest of Palestine, several centuries during which the sanctuary continued movable, although the nation became more and more stationary. It appears that the first who planned the erection of a stone-built sanctuary was David, who, when he was inhabiting his house of cedar, and God had given him rest from all his enemies, meditated the design of building a temple in which the ark of God might be placed, instead of being deposited “within curtains,” or in a tent, as hitherto. This design was at first encouraged by the prophet Nathan; but he was afterwards instructed to tell David that such a work was less appropriate for him, who had been a warrior from his youth, and had shed much blood, than for his son, who should enjoy in prosperity and peace the rewards of his father's victories. Nevertheless, the design itself was highly approved as a token of proper feelings towards the Divine King (2Sa_7:1-12; 1Ch_17:1-14). SEE DAVID.
We learn, moreover, from 1 Kings 5 and 1 Chronicles 22 that David had collected materials which were afterwards employed in the erection of the Temple, which was commenced four years after his death, in the second month (comp. 1Ki_6:1; 2Ch_3:2). This corresponds to May, B.C. 1010. We thus learn that the Israelitish sanctuary had remained movable more than four centuries subsequent to the conquest of Canaan. “In the fourth year of Solomon's reign was the foundation of the house of the Lord laid, in the month Siv; and ill the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it.” SEE SOLOMON.
The workmen and the materials employed in the erection of the Temple were chiefly procured by Solomon from Hiram, king of Tyre, who was rewarded by a liberal importation of wheat. Josephus states (Ant. 8, 2) that duplicates of the letters which passed between Solomon and king Hiram were still extant in his time, both at Jerusalem and among the Tyrian records. He informs us that the persons employed in collecting and arranging the materials for the Temple were ordered to search out the largest stones for the foundation, and to prepare them for use on the mountains where they were procured, and then convey them to Jerusalem. In this part of the business Hiram's men were ordered to assist. Josephus adds that the foundation was sunk to an astonishing depth, and composed of stones of singular magnitude, and very durable. Being closely mortised into the rock with great ingenuity, they formed a basis adequate to the support of the intended structure. Josephus gives to the Temple the same length and breadth as are given in 1 Kings, but mentions sixty cubits as the height. He says that the walls were composed entirely of white stone; that the walls and ceilings were wainscoted with cedar, which was covered with the purest gold; that the stones were put together with such ingenuity that the smallest interstices were not perceptible, and that the timbers were joined with iron cramps. It is remarkable that after the Temple was finished, it was not consecrated by the high-priest, but by a layman, by the king in person, by means of extemporaneous prayers and sacrifices. SEE SHECHINAH.
The Temple remained the center of public worship for all the Israelites only till the death of Solomon, after which ten tribes forsook this sanctuary. But even in the kingdom of Judah it was from time to time desecrated by altars erected to idols. For instance, “Manasseh built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord. And he caused his son to pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards; he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord to provoke him to anger. And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house,” etc. Thus we find also that king Josiah commanded Hilkiah, the high-priest, and the priests of the second order to remove the idols of Baal and Asherah from the house of the Lord (2Ki_23:4; 2Ki_23:13): “And the altars that were on the top of the upper chamber of Ahaz which the kings of Judah had made, and the altars which Manasseh had made in the two courts of the house of the Lord, did the king beat down, and brake them down from thence, and cast the dust of them into the brook Kidron.” In fact, we are informed that, in spite of the better means of public devotion which the sanctuary undoubtedly afforded, the national morals declined so much that the chosen nation became worse than the idolaters whom the Lord destroyed before the children of Israel (2Ki_21:9) a clear proof that the possession of external means is not a guarantee for their right use. It appears also that during the times when it was fashionable at court to worship Baal the Temple stood desolate, and that its repairs were neglected (2Ki_12:6-7). We further learn that the cost of the repairs was defrayed chiefly by voluntary contribution, by offerings, and by redemption money (2Ki_12:4-5). The original cost of the Temple seems to have been defrayed by royal bounty, and in great measure by treasures collected by David for that purpose. There was a treasury in the Temple in which much precious metal was collected for the maintenance of public worship. The gold and silver of the Temple were, however, frequently applied to political purposes (1Ki_15:18 sq.; 2Ki_12:18; 2Ki_16:8; 2Ki_18:15). The treasury of the temple was repeatedly plundered by foreign invaders: for instance, by Shishak (1Ki_14:26); by Jehoaoh, king of Israel (2Ki_14:14); by Nebuchadnezzar (2Ki_24:13); and, lastly, again by Nebuchadnezzar, who, having removed the valuable contents, caused the Temple to be burned down (2Ki_25:9 sq.), summer, B.C. 588. The building had stood since its completion 415 years (Josephus has 470, and Rufinus 370, years). Thus terminated what the later Jews called בית הראשון, The first house. SEE JERUSALEM.
2. The Second Temple. — In the year B.C. 536 the Jews obtained permission from Cyrus to colonize their native land. Cyrus commanded also that the sacred utensils which had been pillaged in the first Temple should be restored, and that for the restoration of the Temple assistance should be granted (Ezra 1, 6; 2Ch_36:22 sq.). The first colony which returned under Zerubbabel and Joshua having collected the necessary means, and having also obtained the assistance of Phoenician workmen, commenced in the second year after their return the rebuilding of the Temple, spring, B.C. 535. The Sidonians brought rafts of cedar-trees from Lebanon to Joppa. The Jews refused the co-operation of the Samaritans, who, being thereby offended, induced the king Artachshashta (probably Smerdis) to prohibit the building. It was only in the second year of Darius Hystaspis (summer, B.C. 520) that the building was resumed. It was completed in the sixth year of this king, winter, B.C. 516 (comp. Ezr_5:1; Hag_1:15). According to Josephus (Ant. 11:4, 7), the Temple was completed in the ninth year. of the reign of Darius. The old men who had seen the first Temple were moved to tears on beholding the second, which appeared like nothing in comparison with the first (Ezra 3, 12; Haggai 2, 3 sq.). It seems, however, that it was not so much in dimensions that the second Temple was inferior to the first as in splendor, and in being deprived of the ark of the covenant, which had been burned with the Temple of Solomon. SEE CAPTIVITY.
After the establishment of the Seleucidse in the kingdom of Syria, Antiochus Epiphanes invaded Egypt several times. During his first expedition, B.C. 171, the renegade Menelaus (q.v.) procured the death of the regular high-priest Onias III (q.v.) (2Ma_4:27 sq.); during his second campaign, on retiring for winter-quarters to Palestine, Antiochus slew certain other persons, B.C. 170; and, finally, he pillaged and desecrated the Temple, and subdued and plundered Jerusalem, June, B.C. 168. He also ordered the discontinuance of the daily sacrifice. In December of the same year he caused an altar for sacrifice to Jupiter Olympius to be placed on the altar of Jehovah in the Temple (7, 2, 5). This was “the abomination that maketh desolate.” At the same time, he devoted the temple on Mount Gerizim, in allusion to the foreign origin of its worshippers, to Jupiter. Ξενιός. The Temple at Jerusalem became so desolate that it was overgrown with vegetation (1Ma_4:38; 2Ma_6:4). Three years after this profanation (Dec. 25, B.C. 165) Judas Maccabseus, having defeated the Syrian armies in Palestine, cleansed the Temple, and again commenced sacrificing to Jehovah upon the altar there. He repaired, the building, furnished new utensils, and erected fortifications against future attacks (1Ma_4:43-60; 1Ma_6:7; 1Ma_13:53; 2Ma_1:18; 2Ma_10:3). Forty-five days after cleansing the sanctuary, Antiochus died. Thus were fulfilled the predictions of Daniel: from “the casting down some of the host and stars,” i.e. slaying some of the pious and influential Jews by Antiochus, especially from the death of Onias, B.C. 171, to the cleansing of the sanctuary, B.C. 165, was six years (of 360 days each) and 140 days, or 2300 days (Dan_8:8-14); from the reduction of Jerusalem, B.C. 168, to the cleansing of the sanctuary, B.C. 165, was three years and a half, i.e. “a time, times, and a half,” or 1290 days (7, 25; 12:7, 11); and from the reduction of Jerusalem, B.C. 168, to the death of Antiochus, which occurred early in B.C. 164, forty-five days after the purification of the Temple, 1335 days. As to the 140 days, we have no certain date in history to reckon them; but if the years are correct, we may well suppose the days to be so (Dan_8:12; Josephus, Ant. 12:7, 6; War, pref. 7; 1, 1, 1; 1Ma_1:46-47; 1Ma_4:38-61; 2Ma_5:11-27; 2Ma_6:1-9). SEE ANTIOCHUS. Alexander Jannaeus, about B.C. 106, separated the court of the priests from the external court by a wooden railing (Josephus, Ant. 13:13, 5). During the contentions among the later Maccabees, Pompey attacked the temple from the north side, caused a great massacre in its courts, but abstained from plundering the treasury, although he even entered the holy of holies, B.C. 63 (ibid. 14,4). Herod the Great, with the assistance of Roman troops, stormed the Temple, B.C. 37; on which occasion some of the surrounding halls were destroyed or damaged. SEE PALESTINE.
3. The Third Temple. — Herod, wishing to ingratiate himself with the Church-and-State party, and being fond of architectural display, undertook not merely to repair the second Temple, but to raise a perfectly new structure. As, however, the Temple of Zerubbabel was not actually destroyed, but only removed after the preparations for the new Temple were completed, there has arisen some debate whether the Temple of Herod could properly be called the third Temple. The reason why the Temple of Zerubbabel was not at once taken down in order to make room for the more splendid structure of Herod is explained by Josephus as follows (Ant. 15:11, 2): “The Jews were afraid that Herod would pull down the whole edifice and not be able to carry his intentions as to its rebuilding into effect; and this danger appeared to them to be very great, and the vastness of the undertaking to be such as could hardly be accomplished. But while they were in this disposition the king encouraged them, and told them he would not pull down their Temple till all things were gotten ready for building it up entirely. As Herod promised them this beforehand, so he did not break his word with them, but got ready a thousand wagons that were to bring stones for this building, and chose out ten thousand of the most skilful workmen, and bought a thousand sacerdotal garments for as many of the priests, and had some of them taught the arts of stone-cutters, and others of carpenters, and then began to build; but this not till everything was well prepared for the work.” The work was actually commenced in the nineteenth year of the reign of Herod-that is, the beginning of B.C. 21. Priests and Levites finished the Temple itself in one year and a half. The out-buildings and courts required eight years. However, some building operations were constantly in progress under the successors of Herod, and it is in reference to this we are informed that the Temple was finished only under Albinus, the last procurator but one, not long before the commencement of the Jewish war in which the Temple was again destroyed. It is in-reference also to these protracted building operations that the Jews said to Jesus, “Forty and six years was this Temple in building” (Joh_2:20). SEE HEROD.
Under the sons of Herod the Temple remained apparently in good order, and Herod Agrippa, who was appointed by the emperor Claudius its guardian, even planned the repair of the eastern part, which had probably been destroyed during one of the conflicts between the Jews and Romans of which the Temple was repeatedly the scene (Josephus, Ant. 17:10). During the final struggle of the Jews against the Romans, A.D. 70, the Temple was the last scene of the tug of war. The Romans rushed from the Tower of Antonia into the sacred precincts, the halls of which were set on fire by the Jews themselves. It was against the will of Titus that a Roman soldier threw a firebrand into the northern out-buildings of the Temple, which caused the conflagration of the whole structure, although Titus himself endeavored to extinguish the fire (War, 6:4). Josephus remarks,” One cannot but wonder at the accuracy of this period thereto relating; for the same month and day were now observed, as I said before, wherein the holy house was burned formerly by the Babylonians. Now the number of years that passed from its first foundation, which was laid by king Solomon, till this its destruction, which happened in the second year of the reign of Vespasian, are collected to be one thousand one hundred and thirty, besides seven months and fifteen days; and from the second building of it, which was done by Haggai in the second year of Cyrus the king, till its destruction under Vespasian there were six hundred and thirty-nine years and forty-five days.” The sacred utensils, the golden table of the shew- bread, the book of the law, and the golden candlestick were displayed in the triumph at Rome. Representations of them are still to be seen sculptured in relief on the triumphal arch of Titus (see Fleck, Wissenschaftliche Reise, 1, 1, plate 1-4; and Reland, De Spoliis Templi Hierosolymitani in Arcu Titiano, ed. E. A. Schulze [Traj. ad Rh. 17751). The place where the Temple had stood seemed to be a dangerous center for the rebellious population, until, in A.D. 136, the emperor Hadrian founded a Roman colony under the name AElia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem, and dedicated a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on the ruins of the Temple of Jehovah. Henceforth no Jew was permitted to approach the site of the ancient Temple, although the worshippers of Jehovah were, in derision, compelled to pay a tax for the maintenance of the Temple of Jupiter (see Dion Cassius [Xiphil.], 69, 12; Jerome, Ad Jes. 2, 9; 6:11 sq.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecc_4:6; Demonstratio Evangelica, 8:18). Under the reign of Constantine the Great some Jews were severely punished for having attempted to restore the Temple (see Fabricii Lux Evangelii, p. 124).
The emperor Julian undertook, in 363, to rebuild the Temple; but, after considerable preparation and much expense, he was compelled to desist by flames which burst forth from the foundations (see Ammianus Marcellinus, 23:1; Socrates, ‘Hist. Eccles. 3, 20; Sozomen, 5, 22; Theodoret, 3, 15; Schröckh, Kirchengeschichte, 6:385 sq.). Repeated attempts have been made to account for these igneous explosions by natural causes; for instance, by the ignition of gases which had long been pent up in subterraneous vaults (see Michaelis, Zerstr. kl. Schrift. 3, 453 sq.). A similar event is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 16:7, 1), where we are informed that Herod, while plundering the tombs of David and Solomon, was suddenly frightened by flames which burst out and killed two of his soldiers. Bishop Warburton contends for the miraculousness of the event in his discourse Concerning the Earthquake and Fiery Eruption which Defeated Julian's Attempt to Rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem. See also Lotter, Historia Instaurationis Templi lierosolymitani sub Juliano (Lips. 1728, 4to); Michaelis (F. Holzfuss), Diss. de Templi Hi. erosolymitani Juliani Mandato per Judaeosfrustra Tentata Restitutione (Hal. 1751, 4to); Lardner, Collection of Ancient Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, 4:57 sq.; Ernesti, Theol. Bibl. 9:604 sq. R. Tourlet's French translation of the works of Julian (Paris, 1821), 2, 435 sq., contains an examination of the evidence concerning this remarkable event. See also Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten, 4:211, 254 sq.; and id., Allgemeine Geschichte desjüdischen Volkes, 2, 158. SEE JULIAN.
A splendid mosque now stands on the site of the Temple. This mosque was erected by the caliph Omar after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Saracens in 636. Some think that Omar changed a Christian church which stood on the ground of the Temple into the mosque which is now called El Aksa, the outer, or northern, because it is the third of the most celebrated mosques, two of which, namely, those of Mecca and Medina, are in a more southern latitude. SEE MOSQUE.
III. Situation and Accessories of the Temple. —
1. The site of the Temple is clearly stated in 2Ch_3:1 : “Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord at Jerusalem in Mount Moriah, where the Lord appeared unto David, his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshing-floor of Ornan (or Araunah) the Jebusite.” In south-eastern countries the site of the threshing-floors is selected according to the same principles which might guide us in the selection of the site of windmills. ‘We find them usually on the tops of hills which are on all sides exposed to the winds, the current ‘of which is required in order to separate the grain from the chaff. It seems that the summit of Moriah, although large: enough for the agricultural purposes of Araunah, had no level sufficient for the plans of Solomon. According to Josephus (War 5, 5), the foundations of the Temple were laid on a steep eminence, the summit of which was at first insufficient for the Temple and altar. As it was surrounded by precipices, it became necessary to build up walls and buttresses in order to gain more ground by filling up the interval with earth. The hill was also fortified by a threefold wall, the lowest tier of which was in some places more than three hundred cubits high; and the depth of the foundation was not visible, because it had been necessary in some parts to dig deep into the ground in order to obtain sufficient support. The dimensions of the stones of which the walls were composed were enormous; Josephus mentions a length of forty cubits. It is, however, likely that some parts of the fortifications of Moriah were added at a later period. As we shall eventually see, the position and dimensions of the present area of the Haran reasonably correspond to the requirements of the several ancient accounts of the Temple. There can be little doubt, looking at the natural conformation of the rocky hill itself, that the central building always occupied the summit where the Mosque of Omar now stands. Tile theory of Fergusson (in Smith's Dict. of the Bible, and elsewhere) that it was situated in the extreme south-west corner of the present platform has not met with acceptance among archaeologists. SEE MORIAH.
The Temple was in ancient warfare almost impregnable, from the ravines at the precipitous edge of which it stood; but it required more artificial fortifications on its western and northern sides, which were surrounded by the city of Jerusalem; for this reason there was erected at its north-western corner the Tower of Antonia, which, although standing on a lower level than the Temple itself, was so high as to overlook the sacred buildings, with which it was connected partly by a large staircase, partly by a subterraneous communication. This tower protected the Temple from sudden incursions from the city of Jerusalem, and from dangerous commotions among the thousands who were frequently assembled within the precincts of the courts; which also were sometimes used for popular meetings. SEE ANTONIA.
2. Many savants have adopted a style as if they possessed much information about the archives of the Temple; there are a few indications from which we learn that important documents were deposited in the Tabernacle and Temple. Even in Deu_31:26, we find that the book of the law was deposited in the ark of the covenant; and according to 2Ki_22:8, Hilkiah rediscovered the book of the law in the house of Jehovah. In 2 Maccabees 2, 13 we find a βιβλιοθήκη mentioned, apparently consisting chiefly of the canonical books, and probably deposited in the Temple. In Josephus (War, 5, 5) it is mentioned that a book of the law was found in the Temple. It appears that the sacred writings were kept in the Temple (Ant. 5, 1, 17). Copies of political documents seem to have been deposited in the treasury of the Temple (1Ma_14:49). This treasury, ὁ ἱερὸς θησαυρός, was managed by an inspector, γαζυφύλαξ, גזבר, and it contained the great sums which were annually paid in by the Israelites, each of whom paid a half-shekel, and many of whom sent donations in money and precious vessels, ἀναθήματα. Such costly presents were especially transmitted by rich proselytes, and even sometimes by pagan princes (2 Maccabees 3, 3; Josephus, Ant. 14:16, 4; 18:3, 5; 19:6, 1; War, 2, 17, 3; 5, 13, 6; Cont. Apion. 2, 5; Philo, Opp. 2, 59 sq., 569). It is said especially that Ptolemy Philadelphus was very liberal to the Temple, in order to prove his gratitude for having been permitted to procure the Sept. translation (Aristeas, De Translat. LXX, p. 109 sq.). The gifts exhibited in the Temple are mentioned in Luk_21:5; we find even that the rents of the whole town of Ptolemais were given to the Temple (1Ma_10:39). There were also preserved historical curiosities (2Ki_11:10), especially the arms of celebrated heroes (Josephus, Ant. 19:6, 1): this was also the case in the Tabernacle.
The Temple was of so much political importance that it had its own guards (φύλακες τοῦ ἱεροῦ), which were commanded by a στρατηγός. Twenty men were required for opening and shutting the eastern gate (Josephus, War, 6:5, 3; Cont. Apion. 2, 9; Ant. 6:5,3; 17:2, 2). The στρατηγός had his own secretary (Ant. 20, 6, 2; 9, 3), and had to maintain the police in the courts (comp. Act_4:1; Act_5:24). He appears to have been of sufficient dignity to be mentioned together with the chief priests. It seems that his Hebrew title was הִר הִבִּיַת אַישׁ, the man of the mountain of the house (Middoth, 1, 2). The priests themselves kept watch on three different posts, and the Levites on twenty-one posts. It was the duty of the police of the Temple to prevent women from entering the inner court, and to take care that no person who was Levitically unclean should enter within the sacred precincts. Gentiles were permitted to pass the first enclosure, which was therefore called the Court of the Gentiles; but persons who were on any account Levitically unclean were not permitted to advance even thus far. Some sorts of uncleanness, for instance that arising from the touch of a corpse, excluded only from the court of the men. If an unclean person had entered by mistake, he was required to offer sacrifices of purification. The high-priest himself was forbidden to enter the holy of holies under penalty of death on any other day than the Day of Atonement (Philo, Opp. 2, 591). Nobody was admitted within the precincts of the Temple who carried a stick or a basket, and who wanted to pass merely to shorten his way, or who had dusty shoes (Middoth, 2, 2).
IV. General Types of the Temple. — There is perhaps no building of the ancient world which has excited so much attention since the time of its destruction as the Temple which Solomon built at Jerusalem, and its successor as rebuilt by Herod. Its spoils were considered worthy of forming the principal illustration of one of the most beautiful of Roman triumphal arches, and Justinian's highest architectural ambition was that he might surpass it. Throughout the Middle Ages it influenced to a considerable degree the forms of Christian churches, and its peculiarities were the watchwords and rallying-points of all associations of builders. Since the revival of learning in the 16th century its arrangements have employed the pens of numberless learned antiquarians, and architects of every country have wasted their science in trying to reproduce its forms.
But it is not only to Christians that the Temple of Solomon is so interesting; the whole Mohammedan world look to it as the foundation of all architectural knowledge, and the Jews still recall its glories and sigh over their loss with a constant tenacity, unmatched by that of any other people to any other building of the ancient world.
With all this interest and attention, it might fairly be assumed that there was nothing more to be said on such a subject-that every source of information had been ransacked, and every form of restoration long ago exhausted, and some settlement of the disputed points arrived at which had been generally accepted. This is, however, far from being the case, and few things would be more curious than a collection of the various restorations that have been proposed, as showing what different meanings may be applied to the same set of simple architectural terms.
When the French expedition to Egypt, in the first years of this century, had made the world familiar with the wonderful architectural remains of that country, every one jumped to the conclusion that Solomon's Temple must have been designed after an Egyptian model, forgetting entirely how hateful that land of bondage was to the Israelites, and how completely all the ordinances of their religion were opposed to the idolatries they had escaped from forgetting, too, the centuries which had elapsed since the Exode before the Temple was erected, and how little communication of any sort there had been between the two countries in the interval. Nevertheless, as we shall presently see, the Egyptian monuments remarkably confirm, in many respects, the ancient accounts of the Temple at Jerusalem.
The Assyrian discoveries of Botta and Lavard have within the last twenty years given an entirely new direction to the researches of the restorers, and this time with a very considerable prospect of success, for the analogies are now true, and whatever can be brought to bear on the subject is in the right direction. The original seats of the progenitors of the Jewish races were in Mesopotamia. Their language was practically the same as that spoken on the banks of the, Tigris. Their historical traditions were consentaneous, and, so far as we can judge, almost all the outward symbolism of their religion was the same, or nearly so. Unfortunately, however, no Assyrian temple has yet been exhumed of a nature to throw much light on this subject, and we are still forced to have recourse to the later buildings at Persepolis, or to general deductions from the style of the nearly contemporary secular buildings at Nineveh and elsewhere, for such illustrations as are available. These, although in a general way illustrative, yet by no means, in our opinion, suffice for all that is required for Solomon's Temple. For some architectural features of that erected by Herod we must doubtless look to Rome. Of the intermediate Temple erected by Zerubbabel we know very little, but, from the circumstance of its having been erected under Persian influences contemporaneously with the buildings at Persepolis, it is perhaps the one of which it would be most easy to restore the details with anything like certainty. Yet we must remember that both these later temples were essentially Jewish, i.e. Phoenician, in their style; and we may there, fore presume that the original type, which we know was copied in plan, was likewise imitated in details to a very great degree. There are, however, two sources of illustration with which the Temple was historically connected in a very direct manner, and to these we therefore devote a brief attention before considering the several edifices in detail.
1. The Tabernacle erected by Moses in the desert was unquestionably the pattern, in all its essential features, of its Solomonic successor. In the gradually increasing sanctity of the several divisions, as well as in their strikingly proportionate dimensions, we find the Temple little more than the Tabernacle on an enlarged scale, and of more substantial materials. This is so obvious that we need not dwell upon it. SEE TABERNACLE.
2. The Egyptian Temples, in their conventional style, evince, notwithstanding their idolatrous uses, a wonderful relation to both the Tabernacle and the Temple. As will be seen from the accompanying plan of the Temple of Denderah, which is one of the simplest and most symmetrical as well as the best preserved of its class, there is a striking agreement in the points of the compass, in the extra width of the porch, in the anterior holy place, in the interior shrine, in the side-rooms, in the columnar halls; and in the grander Egyptian temples, such as the earlier portions of those at Luxor and Karnak, we have the two obelisks at the portal like the pillars Jachin and Boaz. These coincidences cannot have been accidental. Nor is this general adoption of a plan already familiar to the Hebrews inconsistent with the divine prescription of the details of architecture (Exo_25:9; 1Ch_28:12). SEE EGYPT.
V. Detailed Description of Solomon's Temple. —
1. Ancient Accounts. — The Temple itself and its utensils are described in 1Ki_6:7 and 2Ch_3:4. According to these passages, the Temple was 60 cubits long, 20 wide, and 30 high. Josephus, however (Ant. 8:3, 2), says, “The Temple was 60 cubits high and 60 cubits in length, and the breadth was 20 cubits; above this was another stage of equal dimensions, so that the height of the whole structure was 120 cubits.” It is difficult to reconcile this statement with that given in 1 Kings, unless we suppose that the words ισος τοῖς μέτροις, equal in measures, do not signify an equality in all dimensions, but only as much as equal in the number of cubits; so that the porch formed a kind of steeple, which projected as much above the roof of the Temple as the roof itself was elevated above its foundations. As the Chronicles agree with Josephus in asserting that the summit of the porch was 120 cubits high, there remains still another apparent contradiction to be solved, namely, how Josephus could assert that the Temple itself was 60 cubits high, while we read in 1 Kings that its height was only 30 cubits. We suppose that in the book of Kings the internal elevation of the sanctuary. is stated, and that Josephus describes its external elevation, which, including the basement and an upper story (which may have existed, consisting of rooms for the accommodation of priests, containing also vestries and treasuries), might be double the internal height of the sanctuary. The internal dimension of the “holy” which was called in preference הֵיכָל, was 40 cubits long, 20 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. The holy was separated from the “holy of holies” (דְּבַיר) by a partition, a large opening in which was closed by a suspended curtain. The holy of holies was on the western extremity of the entire building, and its internal dimensions formed a cube of 20 cubits. On the eastern extremity of the building stood the porch, אוּלָם, πρόναος. At the entrance of this pronaos stood the two columns called Jachin and Boaz, which were 35 cubits high.
The Temple was also surrounded by a triple יָצַיע, story of chambers, each of which stories was five cubits high, so that there remained above ample space for introducing the windows, somewhat in the manner of a clear- story to the sanctuary. Now the statement of Josephus, who says that each of these stories of chambers (עְלִעוֹת) was 20 cubits high, cannot be reconciled with the Biblical statements, and may prove that he was no very close reader of his authorities. Perhaps he had a vague kind of information that the chambers reached half-way up the height of the building, and, taking the maximum height of 120 cubits instead of the internal height of the holy, he made each story four times too high. The windows which are mentioned in 1Ki_6:4 consisted probably of latticework. The lowest stair of the chambers was five cubits, the middle six, and the third seven cubits wide. This difference of the width arose from the circumstance that the external walls of the Temple were so thick that they were made to recede one cubit after an elevation of five feet, so that the scarcement in the wall of the Temple gave a firm support to the beams which supported the second story, without being inserted into the wall of the sanctuary; this insertion being perhaps avoided not merely for architectural reasons, but also because it appeared to be irreverent. The third story was supported likewise by a similar scarcement, which afforded a still wider space for the chamber of the third story. These observations will render intelligible the following Biblical statements: “And against the wall of the house he built stories round about, both of the Temple and of the oracle; and he made chambers round about. The nethermost story was five cubits broad, and the middle was six cubits broad, and the third was seven cubits broad; for without in the wall of the house he made narrowed nests (מַגְרָעוֹת, narrowings or rebatements) round about, so that the beams should not be fastened in the walls of the house. The house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought thither; so that there was neither hammer,: nor axe, nor any tool of iron heard in the house while it was building. The door of the middle story was in the right side of the house; and they went up with winding stairs into the middle story, and out of the middle into the third. So he built the house, and finished it; and covered the house with beams and boards of cedar. And then he built chambers against all the house, five cubits high; and they rested on the house with timber of cedar” (1Ki_6:7). From this description it may be inferred that the entrance to these stories was from without; but some architects have supposed that it was from within; which arrangement seems to be against the general aim of impressing the Israelitish worshippers with sacred awe by the seclusion of their sanctuary. In reference to the windows, it should be observed that they served chiefly for ventilation; since the light within the Temple was obtained from the sacred candlesticks. It seems, from the descriptions of the Temple, to be certain that the דְּבַיר, oracle, or holy of holies, was an adytum without windows. To this fact Solomon appears to refer when he spake, “The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness” (1Ki_8:12).
The דַּבַיר, oracle, had perhaps no other opening than the entrance, which was, as we may infer from the prophetic visions of Ezekiel (which probably correspond with' the historic Temple of Solomon), six cubits wide. From 1Ki_7:10, we learn that the private dwellings of Solomon were built of massive stone. We hence infer that the framework of the Temple also consisted of the same material. The Temple was, however, wainscoted with cedar wood, which was covered with gold. The boards within the Temple were ornamented by beautiful carvings representing cherubim, palms, and flowers. The ceiling of the Temple was supported by beams of cedar wood (comp. Pliny, Hist. Nat. 16:69). The wall which separated the holy from the holy of holies probably consisted not of stone, but of beams of cedar. It seems, further, that the partition partly consisted of an opus reticulatum, so that the incense could spread from the holy to the most holy. This we infer from 1Ki_6:21 : “So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold; and he made a partition by the chains of gold before the oracle, and he overlaid it with gold.”
The floor of the Temple was throughout of cedar, but boarded over with planks of fir (1Ki_6:15). The doors of the oracle were composed of olive-tree; but the doors of the outer temple had posts of olive-tree arid leaves of fir (1Ki_6:31 sq.). Both doors, as well that which led into the Temple as that which led from the holy to the holy of holies, had folding- leaves, which, however, seem to have been usually kept open, the aperture being closed by a suspended curtain-a contrivance still seen at the church- doors in Italy, where the church doors usually stand open; but the doorways can be passed only by moving aside a heavy curtain. From 2Ch_3:5, it appears that the greater house was also ceiled with fir. It is stated in 2Ch_3:5-9 “that the weight of the nails employed in the Temple was fifty shekels of gold;” and also that Solomon “overlaid the upper chambers with gold.”
The lintel and side posts of the oracle seem to have circumscribed a space which contained one fifth of the whole area of the partition; and the posts of the door of the Temple one fourth of the area of the wall in which they were placed. Thus we understand the passage 1Ki_6:31-35, which also states that the door was covered with carved work overlaid with gold.
Within the holy of holies stood only the Ark of the Covenant; but within the holy were ten golden candlesticks and the altar of incense. SEE ALTAR; SEE CANDLESTICK.
The Temple was surrounded by an inner court, which in Chronicles is called the court of the priests, and in Jeremiah the higher court. This, again, was surrounded by a wall consisting of cedar beams placed on a stone foundation (1Ki_6:36): “And he built the, inner court with three rows of hewed stone, and a row of cedar beams.” This enclosure, according to Josephus (Ant. 8:3, 9), was three cubits high. Besides this inner court, there is mentioned a great court (2Ch_4:9) “Furthermore, he made the court of the priests, and the great court, and doors for the court, and overlaid the doors of them with brass.” It seems that this was also called the outward court (comp. Eze_40:17). This court was also more especially called the court of the Lord's house (Jer_19:14; Jer_26:2). These courts were surrounded by spacious buildings, which, however, according to Josephus (War, 5, 5, 1), seem to have been partly added at a period later than that of Solomon. For instance (2Ki_15:35), Jotham is said to have built the higher gate of the house of the Lord. In Jer_26:10; Jer_36:10 there is mentioned a new gate (comp. also Eze_40:5-47; Eze_42:1-14). But this prophetic vision is not strictly historical, although it may serve to illustrate history (comp. also Josephus, Ant. 8:3, 9). The third entry into the house of the Lord mentioned in Jer_38:14 does not seem to indicate that there were three courts, but appears to mean that the entry into the outer court was called the first, that into the inner court the second, and the door of the sanctuary the third. It is likely that these courts were quadrilateral. In the visions of Ezekiel they form a square of four hundred cubits. The inner court contained towards the east the altar of burnt-offering, the brazen sea, and ten brazen lavers; and it seems that the sanctuary did not stand in the center of the inner court, but more towards the west. From these descriptions we learn that the Temple of Solomon was not distinguished by magnitude, but by good architectural proportions, beauty of workmanship, and costliness of materials. Many of our churches have an external form not unlike that of the Temple of Solomon. In fact, this Temple seems to have been the pattern of ‘our church buildings, to which the chief addition has been the Gothic arch. Among others, the Roman Catholic Church at Dresden is supposed to bear much resemblance to the Temple of Solomon.
2. Modern Reconstructions. — It thus appears that as regards the building itself we have little more than a few fragmentary notices, which are quite insufficient to enable us to make out a correct architectural representation of it, or even to arrive at a very definite idea of many things belonging to its complicated structure and arrangements. All attempts that have been made in this direction have utterly failed, and, for the most part, have proceeded on entirely wrong principles. Such, was remarkably the case with the first great work upon the subject by professedly Christian writers namely, the portion of the commentary on Ezekiel by the Spanish Jesuits Pradus and Villapandus (1596-1604) which treats of the Temple. It was accompanied by elaborate calculations and magnificent drawings; but the whole proceeded on a series of mistakes-first, that the Temple of Ezekiel was a delineation of that which had been erected by Solomon; secondly, that this was again exactly reproduced in Herod's; and, thirdly, that the style of architecture from the first was of the Greeco-Roman character-all quite groundless suppositions. Their idea of Solomon's Temple was that both in dimensions and arrangement it was very like the Escurial in Spain. But it is by no means clear whether the Escurial was in process of building while their book was in the press in order to look like the Temple, or whether its authors took their idea of the Temple from the palace. At all events, their design is so much the more beautiful and commodious of the two that we cannot but regret that Herrera was not employed on the book and the Jesuits set to build the palace. Various other writers, chiefly on the Continent, followed in the same line — Haffenreffer, Capellus (Τρισάγιον, printed in the Crit. Sacri), Lightfoot, Sturm (in Ugolino), Lamy, Semmler, Mela notice of whose treatises, some of them large and ponderous, may be seen in Bahr, Salomonische Tempel (§ 3).
They are now of comparatively little use' Lightfoot's, as Bahr admits, is the best of the whole, being more clear, learned, and solidly grounded in its representations But it has chiefly to do, as its title indicates (The Temple, especially as it stood in the Days of Our Savior), with the Temple of Herod, and but very briefly refers to the Temple of Solomon. An essentially different class of writings on the Temple sprang up after the middle of last century, introduced by J. D. Michaelis, which, in the spirit of the times, made little account of anything but the outward material structure, this being regarded as a sort of copy-though usually in a very inferior style of art of some of the temples of heathen antiquity. It is only during the present century that any serious efforts have been made to construct an idea of Solomon's Temple on right principles; that is, on the ground simply of the representations made concerning it in Scripture, and with a due regard to the purposes for which it was erected, and the differences as well as the resemblances between it and heathen temples of the same Hera. A succession of works or treatises with this view has appeared, almost exclusively in Germany, several of them by architects and antiquarians, with special reference to the history of the building art. They differ very much in merit; and in one of the latest, as perhaps also the ablest, of the whole, the treatise of Bahr already referred to (published in 1848), a review is given of the aim and characteristics of preceding investigations. As a general result, it has been conclusively established on the negative side, and is now generally acquiesced in, that the means entirely fail us for presenting a full and detailed representation, in an architectural respect, of the Temple and its related buildings. Its being cast in the rectilinear and chest form plainly distinguished it from erections in the Greek and Roman style; and, if the employment of Phoenician artists might naturally suggest some approach in certain parts to Phoenician models, it is, on the other hand, admitted by the most careful investigators in this particular department of antiquarian study that little or nothing is known of the Phoenician style of building (Bahr, p. 46). We here present the delineations of several later antiquaries, which show how variously the historical descriptions are interpreted and applied.
Entirely different from the foregoing is Prof., Paine's idea of the Temple, arising from his interpretation of the “enlarging” and winding about still upward” of Eze_41:7 to mean an over jutting of the upper chambers by galleries (Temple of Solomon, p, 38). — A serious objection to such an arrangement is the insecurity of a building thus widening at the top.
VI. Zerubbabel's Temple. — We have very few particulars regarding the Temple which the Jews-erected after their return from the Captivity, and no description that would enable us to realize its appearance. But there are some dimensions given in the Bible and elsewhere which are extremely interesting as affording points of comparison between it and the temples which preceded it or were erected after it.
The first and most authentic are those given in the book of Ezr_6:3 when quoting the decree of Cyrus, wherein it is said, “Let the house be builded, the place where they offered sacrifices, and: let the foundations thereof be strongly laid; the height thereof threescore cubits, and the breadth thereof threescore cubits; with three rows of, great stones, and a row of new timber.” Josephus quotes this passage almost literally (Ant. 11:4, 6), but in doing so enables us to translate “row” (Chald. נַדְבָּךְ, layer) as story (δόμος, so also the Sept.) as, indeed, the sense would lead us to infer-for it could only apply to the three stories of chambers that surrounded Solomon's, and afterwards Herod's, Temple; and with this again we come to the wooden structure which surmounted the Temple and formed a fourth story. It may be remarked, in passing, that this dimension of sixty cubits in height accords perfectly with the words which Josephus puts into the mouth of Herod (ibid. 15:11,1) when he makes him say that the Temple built after the Captivity wanted sixty cubits of the height of that of Solomon. For, as he had adopted, as we have seen above, the height of one hundred and twenty cubits, as written in the Chronicles, for that Temple, this one remained only sixty. The other dimension of sixty cubits in breadth is twenty cubits in excess of that of Solomon's Temple; but there is no reason to doubt its correctness, for we find, both from Josephus and the Talmud, that it was the dimension adopted for the Temple when rebuilt, or rather repaired, by Herod. At the same time, we have no authority for assuming that any increase was made in the dimensions of either the holy place or the holy of holies, since we find that these were retained in Ezekiel's description of an ideal Temple, and were afterwards those of Herod's. As this Temple of Zerubbabel was still standing in Herod's time, and was, more strictly speaking, repaired rather than rebuilt by him, we cannot conceive that any of its dimensions were then diminished. We are left, therefore, with the alternative of assuming that the porch and the chambers all round were twenty cubits in width, including the thickness of the walls, instead of ten cubits, as in the earlier building. This may, perhaps, to some extent, be accounted for by the introduction of a passage between the Temple and the rooms of the priest's lodgings, instead of each being a thoroughfare, as must certainly have been the case in Solomon's Temple. This alteration in the width of the Pteromata made the Temple one hundred cubits in length by sixty in breadth, with a eight it is said, of sixty cubits, including the upper room, or Talar, though we cannot help suspecting that this last dimension is somewhat in excess of the truth.
The only other description of this Temple is found in Hecataeus the Abderite, who wrote shortly after the death of Alexander the Great. As quoted by Josephus (Cont. Revelation 1, 22), he says that “in Jerusalem, towards the middle of the city, is a stone-walled enclosure about five hundred feet in length (ὡς πεντάπλεθρος) and one hundred cubits in width, with double gates, in which he describes the Temple as being situated. It may be that at this age it was found necessary to add a court for the women or the Gentiles, a sort of Narthex or Galilee for those who could not enter the Temple. If this, or these together, were one hundred cubits square, it would make up the “nearly five plethora” of our author. Hecatseus also mentions that the altar was twenty cubits square and ten high. Although he mentions the Temple itself, he unfortunately does not supply us with any dimensions.
The Temple of Zerubbabel had several courts (αὐλαί) and cloisters or cells (πρόθυρα). Josephus distinguishes an internal and external ἱερόν, and mentions cloisters in the courts. This Temple was connected with the town by means of a bridge (Ant. 14:4).
VII. Ezekiel's Temple. — The vision of a temple which the prophet Ezekiel saw while residing on the banks of the Chebar in Babylonia, in the twenty-fifth year of the Captivity, does not add much to our knowledge of the subject. It is not a description of a temple that ever was built or ever could be erected at Jerusalem, and can consequently only be considered as the beau ideal of what a Shemitic temple ought to be. As such it would certainly be interesting if it could be correctly restored; but, unfortunately, the difficulties of making out a complicated plan from a mere verbal description are very great indeed, and are enhanced in this instance by our imperfect knowledge of the exact meaning of the Hebrew architectural terms, and it may also be from the prophet describing not what he actually knew, but only what he saw in a vision.
Be this as it may, we find that the Temple itself was of the exact dimensions of that built by Solomon, viz. an adytum (Eze_40:1-4) twenty cubits square, a naos twenty by forty, and surrounded by cells of ten cubits' width, including the thickness of the walls; the whole, with the porch, making up forty cubits by eighty. The height, unfortunately, is not given. Beyond this were various courts and residences for the priests, and places for sacrifice and other ceremonies of the Temple, till he comes to the outer court, which measured five hundred reeds on each of its sides; each reed (Eze_40:5) was six Babylonian cubits long, viz. of cubits each of one ordinary cubit and a handbreadth, or, at the lowest estimate, twenty-one inches. The reed was therefore at least ten feet six inches, and the side consequently five thousand two hundred and fifty Greek feet, or within a few feet of an English mile, considerably more than the whole area of the city of Jerusalem, Temple included.
It has been attempted to get over this difficulty by saying that the prophet meant cubits, not reeds; but this is quite untenable. Nothing can be more clear than the specification of the length of the reed, and nothing more careful than the mode in which reeds are distinguished from cubits throughout; as, for instance, in the next two verses (Eze_40:6-7), where a chamber and a gateway are mentioned each of one reed. If “cubit” were substituted, it would be nonsense. Nevertheless, Prof. Paine has given a reconstruction of this as well as the actual Temple, for the description and dimensions in the vision are consistent with themselves and capable of being plotted down.
Notwithstanding its ideal character, the whole is extremely curious, as showing what were the aspirations of the Jews in this direction, and how different they were from those of other nations; and it is interesting here, inasmuch as there-can be little doubt but that the arrangements of Herod's Temple were in some measure influenced by the description here given. The outer court, for instance, with: its porticos measuring five hundred cubits each way, is an exact counterpart, on a smaller scale, of the outer court of Ezekiel's Temple, and is not found in either Solomon's or Zerubbabel's; arid so: too, evidently, are several of the internal arrangements. SEE EZEKIEL.
VIII. Herod's Temple. — The most full, explicit, and trustworthy information on this subject is contained ill that tract of the Jewish Talmud entitled Middoth (i.e. “measures”), which is almost as minute in its descriptions and dimensions (no doubt by parties who had seen, and ,as priests been familiar with, the edifice) as a modern architect's specifications. Besides this, the two descriptions of the temple, incidentally given by Josephus (ut sup.) are three consecutive accounts of the ancient structure. Our principal attempt will therefore be to follow these where they agree, and to reconcile their seeming discrepancies going at the same time all important allusions in the Bible and uninspired historians of antiquity, and constantly comparing the whole with the indications on the modern site. Occasional use, for verification, may be made of the measures in the spiritual temple of Ezekiel 40-42, but: with great caution, as but few of' them seem to have been borrowed from the actual type which, moreover, was Solomon's Temple, and not Herod's
(I.) The OUTER CIRCUIT OF THE TEMPLE. We assume that the present enclosure of the Haram corresponds to the areas of the Temple and of the Tower Antonia taken together; and the most convenient mode of considering the general contour of the outer wall will be after presenting the following arrangements:
1. Remains of cyclopean masonry are still found at intervals on all the sides of the present enclosure of the peculiar beveled character which marks their antiquity. The English engineers engaged in the late Ordinance survey traced all these along the southern end, and found them resting on the native rock, some of them still retaining the marks of the original Tyrian workmen (see Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 108). Now Josephus informs us (Ant. 15, 11, 3; War, 5, 5, 1) that the area of Moriah was enlarged by building up enormous walls from the valleys and filling them in with earth. The lower courses of these seem to have been buried under the rubbish that fell upon them from the demolition of the upper part of the walls, and have thus escaped. It is difficult to suppose that such masonry could have been the work of later times, or that the area would have been altered after such prodigious bounds had been set to it. Particular coincidences of ruins on the eastern, southern, and western sides will be noted in giving the circuit of the wall in detail. The “Jews Wailing-place” along the western wall is agreed upon all hands to be a veritable mark of antiquity, going back at least as far as the time of Herod.
2. The enormous vaulted substructions found under the southern end of the Haram are evidently the same which would be left between these embankments and the native rock; and it was apparently among these that the tyrant Simon subsisted till after the destruction of the city (Josephus, War, 7:2, 4). But especially does Maimonides speak expressly of the arches supporting the ground on-this part in order to prevent graves and other pollution beneath (Lightfoot, Prospects of the Temple, ch. 1).
3. That the platform (not the mere building) of the Tower Antonia occupied the whole northern end of this enclosure we think is nearly certain from the following facts:
a. The scarped rock and wall on this side can be no other than the precipice, rendered more inaccessible by art, above which Josephus states that this tower, as ‘well as those at the other corners of its courts, was reared (War, 5, 5, 8). No such ridge can be found to the north of this.
b. The presence of the fosse (found in the modern “Pool of Bethesda”) on this part seems ‘to limit its site. This ditch is not only referred to in the several notices of Antonia by Josephus above cited, but in Ant. 14:4,1, 2 he speaks of it as being “broad and deep,” “of immense depth;” so that it could hardly, have failed to remain as a landmark in all ages.
c. The projecting bastions at the north-west and northeast angles appear to be the relics of the towers at these corners, and the projection at the Golden Gate may have been connected with the tower at the south-east corner.
d. The present barracks of the Turkish troops are on the traditionary site of the Tower of Antonia at the northwest corner of the Haram.
4. The actual size of the present enclosure agrees remarkably with the dimensions of the Temples and Antonia's areas. According to the Talmud (Middoth, 2, 1), the outer court of the Temple was 500 cubits square, which, taking the most approved estimate of the Jewish or Egyptian cubit at 1.824 feet, SEE CUBIT, would give 912 feet as the length of each side. Now the total length of the southern wall of the Haram is 922 feet, which will allow 5 feet for the thickness (at the surface) of each wall, a coincidence that cannot be accidental. Again, Josephus gives the distance around the whole enclosure of the Temple and Antonia together as being six stadia (War, 5, 5, 2); and if we subtract from this his estimate of four stadia for the circuit of the Temple (Ant. 15:11, 3), we have one stadium, or about 606 feet, for the additional length of the court of Antonia northward on each side. Now this added to the square whose base has just been found will give about 1521 feet for the sides of the entire enclosure on the east and west; and it is a remarkable fact that the length of the Haram in this direction, according to the Ordnance Survey, averages 1540 feet, leaving again 5 feet for the thickness of each of the three walls. We are not sure, however, but that a somewhat greater thickness should be allowed the outer wall, which (on the west side, at least) Josephus says was “broad” (War, 6:3, 1), and on all sides “very strong” (Ant. 14:4, 1).
On this point, however, there are some considerations that at first seem to be powerful objections:
(a) Josephus, in the passage last referred to, makes the Temple area only a stadium square. But this is evidently nothing more than a round number from mere recollection, measured only by the eye; whereas the Talmud is so minute in its interior specification that there can be little doubt which to follow. The 500 reeds in the measurement of the spiritual temple by Ezekiel (Eze_42:16-20) seem to have been taken from these 500 cubits.
(b) The modern area is not rectangular, nor are its opposite sides parallel or of equal length; the south-west corner is the only one that has been positively settled as being aright angle, and the north side is certainly longer than that on the south. We do not conceive, therefore, that the term “square” in the Mishna and Josephus need be so strictly taken, but only to mean that the area was a quadrilateral, apparently rectangular to the eye, and of equal dimensions on the east, south, and west sides, which are exposed to view. This mode of reconcilement, we think, is better than to suppose the line on either of these sides to have been shifted in the face of every possible evidence of identity. By running the dividing line between the Temple and the court of Antonia immediately south of the Golden Gate (so as to make this latter, which is evidently ancient, the entrance to Antonia, and not to the Temple, which had but one eastern gate), we obtain another right angle, and make the four sides of the Temple area nearly equal.
Having thus settled the general line of the outer wall of the Temple, it remains to trace the objects of interest lying along it, both on the inner and outer sides, in which endeavor we will begin. On the south-west corner. Here was the famous bridge of which Josephus so often speaks (Ant. 14:4, 2, twice; War, 1, 7, 2; 2, 16, 3; 6:6, 2; 8, 1). Accordingly, in the foundation-stones on the western side of the present wall, 39 feet
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores