1
Solomon şi-a mai zidit şi casa lui, şi a ţinut treisprezece ani până când a isprăvit-o de tot.
2
A zidit mai întâi casa din pădurea Libanului, lungă de o sută de coţi, lată de cincizeci de coţi, şi înaltă de treizeci de coţi. Se sprijinea pe patru rânduri de stâlpi de cedru, şi pe stâlpi erau grinzi de cedru.
3
A acoperit cu cedru odăile cari erau sprijinite de stâlpi şi cari erau în număr de patruzeci şi cinci, câte cincisprezece de fiecare cat.
4
Erau trei caturi, şi fiecare din ele avea ferestrele faţă în faţă.
5
Toată uşile şi toţi uşiorii erau din bârne în patru muchi, şi la fiecare din cele trei caturi, uşile erau faţă în faţă.
6
A făcut un pridvor de stâlpi, lung de cincizeci de coţi şi lat de treizeci de coţi, şi un alt pridvor înainte cu stâlpi şi trepte în faţă.
7
A făcut pridvorul scaunului de domnie, unde judeca, pridvorul judecăţii; şi l-a acoperit cu cedru, dela pardoseală până în tavan.
8
Casa lui de locuit a fost zidită în acelaş fel, într-o altă curte, în dosul pridvorului. Şi a făcut o casă la fel cu pridvorul acesta pentru fata lui Faraon, pe care o luase de nevastă.
9
Pentru toate aceste clădiri a întrebuinţat pietre minunate, cioplite după măsură, ferestruite cu ferăstrăul, înlăuntru şi în afară; şi aceasta din temelii până la straşină, şi afară până la curtea cea mare.
10
Temeliile erau de pietre foarte de preţ, şi mari, pietre de zece coţi şi pietre de opt coţi.
11
Deasupra erau iarăş pietre foarte de preţ, tăiate după măsură, şi lemn de cedru.
12
Curtea cea mare avea de jur împrejurul ei trei şiruri de pietre cioplite şi un şir de bârne de cedru, ca şi curtea dinlăuntru a casei Domnului, şi ca şi pridvorul casei.
13
Împăratul Solomon a trimes şi a adus din Tir pe Hiram,
14
fiul unei văduve din seminţia lui Neftali, şi al unui tată din Tir, care lucra în aramă. Hiram era plin de înţelepciune, de pricepere şi de ştiinţă în săvârşirea oricărei lucrări de aramă. El a venit la împăratul Solomon, şi i-a făcut toate lucrările.
15
A turnat cei doi stâlpi de aramă. Cel dintâi avea optsprezece coţi în înălţime, şi un fir de doisprezece coţi măsura grosimea celui de al doilea.
16
A turnat două coperişuri de aramă, ca să le pună pe vârfurile stâlpilor; cel dintâi era înalt de cinci coţi, şi al doilea era înalt de cinci coţi.
17
A mai făcut nişte împletituri în chip de reţea, nişte ciucuri făcuţi cu lănţişoare, pentru coperişurile de pe vârful stâlpilor, şapte pentru coperişul dintâi, şi şapte pentru coperişul al doilea.
18
A făcut câte două şiruri de rodii împrejurul uneia din reţele, ca să acopere coperişul de pe vârful unuia din stâlpi; tot aşa a făcut şi pentru al doilea.
19
Coperişurile depe vârful stâlpilor, în pridvor, erau lucrate aşa de parcă erau nişte crini şi aveau patru coţi.
20
Coperişurile depe cei doi stâlpi erau înconjurate de două sute de rodii, sus, lângă umflătura care era peste reţea; de asemenea erau două sute de rodii înşirate în jurul celui de al doilea coperiş.
21
A aşezat stâlpii în pridvorul Templului; a aşezat stâlpul din dreapta, şi l-a numit Iachin; apoi a aşezat stâlpul din stânga, şi l-a numit Boaz.
22
În vârful stâlpilor era o lucrătură în chip de crini. Astfel s-a isprăvit lucrarea stâlpilor.
23
A făcut marea turnată din aramă. Avea zece coţi dela o margine până la cealaltă, era rotundă de tot, înaltă de cinci coţi, şi de jur împrejur se putea măsura cu un fir de treizeci de coţi.
24
Subt buza ei erau săpaţi nişte colocinţi, câte zece la fiecare cot, de jur împrejurul mării; colocinţii, aşezaţi pe două rânduri, erau turnaţi împreună cu ea dintr-o singură bucată.
25
Era aşezată pe doisprezece boi, din cari trei întorşi spre miază noapte, trei întorşi spre apus; trei întorşi spre miază zi, şi trei întorşi spre răsărit; marea era deasupra lor, şi toată partea dinapoi a trupurilor lor era înlăuntru.
26
Grosimea ei era de un lat de mână; şi marginea ei era ca marginea unui potir, făcută ca floarea crinului. Avea o încăpere de două mii de vedre.
27
A mai făcut zece temelii de aramă. Fiecare temelie era lungă de patru coţi, lată de patru coţi, şi înaltă de trei coţi.
28
Iată cum erau temeliile acestea. Erau făcute din tăblii, legate la colţuri cu încheieturi.
29
Pe tăbliile dintre încheieturi erau nişte lei, boi şi heruvimi; şi pe încheieturi, deasupra şi dedesuptul leilor şi boilor, erau nişte împletituri cari atârnau în chip de ciucuri.
30
Fiecare temelie avea patru roate de aramă cu osii de aramă; şi la cele patru colţuri erau nişte poliţe turnate, subt lighean, şi lângă ciucuri.
31
Gura temeliei dinlăuntrul coperişului până sus era de un cot; gura aceasta era rotundă, ca pentru lucrările de felul acesta, şi era lată de un cot şi jumătate; avea şi săpături. Tăbliile erau în patru muchi, nu rotunde.
32
Cele patru roţi erau subt tăblii, şi osiile roţilor erau prinse de temelie; fiecare era înaltă de un cot şi jumătate.
33
Roatele erau făcute ca ale unui car. Osiile, obezile, spiţele şi butucii lor erau toate turnate.
34
La cele patru colţuri ale fiecărei temelii erau nişte poliţe dintr-o bucată cu temelia.
35
Partea de sus a temeliei se sfârşea cu un cerc înalt de o jumătate de cot, şi îşi avea proptelele cu tăbliile ei făcute dintr-o bucată cu ea.
36
Pe plăcile proptelelor, şi pe tăblii, a săpat heruvimi, lei şi finici, după locurile goale, şi ciucuri de jur împrejur.
37
Aşa a făcut cele zece temelii; turnătura, măsura şi chipul erau la fel pentru toate.
38
A mai făcut zece lighene de aramă. Fiecare lighean avea o încăpere de patruzeci de baţi, fiecare lighean avea patru coţi, fiecare lighean era pe câte una din cele zece temelii.
39
A pus cinci temelii pe partea dreaptă a casei, şi cinci temelii pe partea stângă a casei; iar marea de aramă a pus-o în partea dreaptă a casei la miazăzi răsărit.
40
Hiram a făcut cenuşarele, lopeţile şi lighenele.
41
doi stâlpi cu cele două coperişuri şi cu cununile lor de pe vârful stâlpilor; cele două reţele ca să acopere cele două cununi ale coperişurilor de pe vârful stâlpilor;
42
cele patru sute de rodii pentru cele două reţele, câte două rânduri de rodii de fiecare reţea, ca să acopere cele două cununi ale coperişurilor de pe vârful stâlpilor;
43
cele zece temelii, şi cele zece lighene de pe temelii;
44
marea, şi cei doisprezece boi de subt mare;
45
cenuşarele, lopeţile şi lighenele. Toate aceste unelte, pe cari le-a dat împăratul Solomon lui Hiram să le facă pentru Casa Domnului, erau de aramă lustruită.
46
Împăratul a pus să le toarne în câmpia Iordanului, într-un pământ humos, între Sucot şi Ţartan.
47
Solomon a lăsat toate aceste unelte necântărite, căci erau foarte multe, şi greutatea aramei nu se putea socoti.
48
Solomon a mai făcut toate celelalte unelte pentru Casa Domnului: altarul de aur; masa de aur, unde se puneau pânile pentru punerea înaintea Domnului;
49
sfeşnicele de aur curat, cinci la dreapta şi cinci la stânga, înaintea Locului prea sfânt, cu florile, candelele şi mucările de aur;
50
lighenele, cuţitele, potirele, ceştile şi căţuile de aur curat; şi ţîţînile de aur curat pentru uşa dinlăuntrul casei la intrarea în Locul prea sfânt, şi pentru uşa casei dela intrarea Templului.
51
Astfel s-a isprăvit toată lucrarea, pe care a făcut-o împăratul Solomon pentru Casa Domnului. Apoi a adus argintul, aurul şi uneltele, pe cari le hărăzise tatăl său David, şi le-a pus în vistieriile Casei Domnului.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":28716,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Palace","title_en":"Palace","content_ro":"<h3>PALACE<\/h3>\n<p>Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the palace of Tirzah (1 Kgs 16:18) and Ahab’s palace in Jezreel (21:1). Even the references to Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem are quite imprecise. In 1 Kings 7:1-12 the construction of public and private buildings close to the temple went on for 13 years. Only the choicest of materials were used. But from the details supplied, it is quite impossible to reproduce plans of the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Porch of Pillars, the Porch of the Throne, the palace for Solomon’s Egyptian wife, or the royal palace. What the situation of these buildings was in relation to one another is matter only for conjecture. Round about the whole complex was a great court of hewn stones and cedar beams.<\/p>\n<p>Forced labor was universal in the ancient Near East. Samuel’s warning that a king would introduce the system into Israel (1 Sm 8:12-17) was fulfilled, and it came to full development under Solomon when he undertook his massive building program, including his palace. Solomon raised his workforce from all over Israel. The system incited Jeroboam to revolt (1 Kgs 12:4, 16). King Asa used it (15:22), and it continued on into Jeremiah’s time (Jer 22:13). Nehemiah’s builders were volunteers (see Neh 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>Prominent among Solomon’s royal buildings was the temple. Apparently, it stood in the middle of a courtyard called the inner court (1 Kgs 6:36), by contrast with the great court (7:12), which included both the temple and the palace. The palace itself had an inner court too (v 8), the northern wall of which was common to the inner court of the temple. Hence it was but a step from the king’s domain to the Lord’s domain.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s enthronement took place in the palace, in the Porch of the Throne (1 Kgs 1:46; 2 Kgs 11:19). When he took his seat on the throne, it marked his assumption of power (1 Kgs 16:11; 2 Kgs 13:13). Solomon’s throne in his palace became the symbol of royal power, although his throne was still called the throne of David (1 Kgs 2:24, 45; Is 9:7). Solomon’s palace throne is described as one of the wonders of the world (1 Kgs 10:18-20). It was around this throne that the high officials came to do him homage (1:47).<\/p>\n<p>The king’s daughters lived in the palace until their marriage under the care of women (2 Sm 13:7). They wore a distinctive dress (vv 18-19). The king’s sons were reared in the palace by nurses (2 Kgs 11:2) and tutored under leading men of the city (10:1, 6-7), until they were able to perform certain duties at the court (2 Sm 8:18; 1 Chr 18:17). Then they led an independent life and were provided for by the king (2 Chr 21:3). Amnon evidently lived outside the palace (2 Sm 13:5), and Absalom had his own house (13:20; 14:24), lands, and livestock (13:23; 14:30). Palace or court officials surrounded the royal family (1 Kgs 10:4-5). Whatever their office, they were called the king’s “servants.” There were those “who saw the king’s face,” meaning they were admitted to the king’s presence (2 Sm 14:24, 28, 32), or stood before the king (1 Sm 16:21-22; Jer 52:12). It was a signal mark of favor to be admitted to the royal table (2 Sm 9:7, 13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PALACE<\/h3>\n<p>Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the palace of Tirzah (1 Kgs 16:18) and Ahab’s palace in Jezreel (21:1). Even the references to Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem are quite imprecise. In 1 Kings 7:1-12 the construction of public and private buildings close to the temple went on for 13 years. Only the choicest of materials were used. But from the details supplied, it is quite impossible to reproduce plans of the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Porch of Pillars, the Porch of the Throne, the palace for Solomon’s Egyptian wife, or the royal palace. What the situation of these buildings was in relation to one another is matter only for conjecture. Round about the whole complex was a great court of hewn stones and cedar beams.<\/p>\n<p>Forced labor was universal in the ancient Near East. Samuel’s warning that a king would introduce the system into Israel (1 Sm 8:12-17) was fulfilled, and it came to full development under Solomon when he undertook his massive building program, including his palace. Solomon raised his workforce from all over Israel. The system incited Jeroboam to revolt (1 Kgs 12:4, 16). King Asa used it (15:22), and it continued on into Jeremiah’s time (Jer 22:13). Nehemiah’s builders were volunteers (see Neh 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>Prominent among Solomon’s royal buildings was the temple. Apparently, it stood in the middle of a courtyard called the inner court (1 Kgs 6:36), by contrast with the great court (7:12), which included both the temple and the palace. The palace itself had an inner court too (v 8), the northern wall of which was common to the inner court of the temple. Hence it was but a step from the king’s domain to the Lord’s domain.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s enthronement took place in the palace, in the Porch of the Throne (1 Kgs 1:46; 2 Kgs 11:19). When he took his seat on the throne, it marked his assumption of power (1 Kgs 16:11; 2 Kgs 13:13). Solomon’s throne in his palace became the symbol of royal power, although his throne was still called the throne of David (1 Kgs 2:24, 45; Is 9:7). Solomon’s palace throne is described as one of the wonders of the world (1 Kgs 10:18-20). It was around this throne that the high officials came to do him homage (1:47).<\/p>\n<p>The king’s daughters lived in the palace until their marriage under the care of women (2 Sm 13:7). They wore a distinctive dress (vv 18-19). The king’s sons were reared in the palace by nurses (2 Kgs 11:2) and tutored under leading men of the city (10:1, 6-7), until they were able to perform certain duties at the court (2 Sm 8:18; 1 Chr 18:17). Then they led an independent life and were provided for by the king (2 Chr 21:3). Amnon evidently lived outside the palace (2 Sm 13:5), and Absalom had his own house (13:20; 14:24), lands, and livestock (13:23; 14:30). Palace or court officials surrounded the royal family (1 Kgs 10:4-5). Whatever their office, they were called the king’s “servants.” There were those “who saw the king’s face,” meaning they were admitted to the king’s presence (2 Sm 14:24, 28, 32), or stood before the king (1 Sm 16:21-22; Jer 52:12). It was a signal mark of favor to be admitted to the royal table (2 Sm 9:7, 13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PALACE Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9). The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the pala...","summary_en":"PALACE Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9). The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the pala...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30903,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Porch","title_en":"Porch","content_ro":"<h3>PORCH<\/h3>\n<p>Court associated with the temple or palace. In the <span>kjv<\/span>, it is the translation of several Hebrew words. In 1 Kings 7 and Ezekiel 40, the <span>kjv<\/span> has many mentions of porch as a part of the temple. The porch separated the Holy Place from the rest of the world. By means of several steps, one would enter into the porch, which was elevated above the surrounding area. Both the steps and the elevation emphasized the separation of the temple. On both sides of the entrance to the porch stood the supporting pillars, the Jachin and the Boaz. In the NT the <span>kjv<\/span> has “porch” for <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">proaulion<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">stoa<\/span> (“portico”). The <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">stoa<\/span> was a roofed portico supported by pillars. Solomon’s portico was the famous collonaded porch around the temple area facing the temple (cf. Jn 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Architecture; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PORCH<\/h3>\n<p>Court associated with the temple or palace. In the <span>kjv<\/span>, it is the translation of several Hebrew words. In 1 Kings 7 and Ezekiel 40, the <span>kjv<\/span> has many mentions of porch as a part of the temple. The porch separated the Holy Place from the rest of the world. By means of several steps, one would enter into the porch, which was elevated above the surrounding area. Both the steps and the elevation emphasized the separation of the temple. On both sides of the entrance to the porch stood the supporting pillars, the Jachin and the Boaz. In the NT the <span>kjv<\/span> has “porch” for <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">proaulion<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">stoa<\/span> (“portico”). The <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">stoa<\/span> was a roofed portico supported by pillars. Solomon’s portico was the famous collonaded porch around the temple area facing the temple (cf. Jn 10:23; Acts 3:11; 5:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Architecture; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PORCH Court associated with the temple or palace. In the kjv, it is the translation of several Hebrew words. In 1 Kings 7 and Ezekiel 40, the kjv has many mentions of porch as a part of the temple. The porch separated the Holy Place from the rest of the world. By means of several steps, one would enter into the porch, which was elevated above the surrounding area. Both the steps and the elevation emphasized the separation of the temple. On both sides of the entrance to the porch stood the sup...","summary_en":"PORCH Court associated with the temple or palace. In the kjv, it is the translation of several Hebrew words. In 1 Kings 7 and Ezekiel 40, the kjv has many mentions of porch as a part of the temple. The porch separated the Holy Place from the rest of the world. By means of several steps, one would enter into the porch, which was elevated above the surrounding area. Both the steps and the elevation emphasized the separation of the temple. On both sides of the entrance to the porch stood the sup...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36940,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46927,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:1-12<\/strong> Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s <em>palace<\/em> complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (<em>thirteen years<\/em>) as the Temple (<em>seven years<\/em>, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not the author’s focus; his interest is in the Temple, God’s dwelling place.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:1-12<\/strong> Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s <em>palace<\/em> complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (<em>thirteen years<\/em>) as the Temple (<em>seven years<\/em>, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not the author’s focus; his interest is in the Temple, God’s dwelling place.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-12 Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s palace complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (thirteen years) as the Temple (seven years, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not...","summary_en":"7:1-12 Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s palace complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (thirteen years) as the Temple (seven years, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74553,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:1-12<\/strong> Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s <em>palace<\/em> complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (<em>thirteen years<\/em>) as the Temple (<em>seven years<\/em>, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not the author’s focus; his interest is in the Temple, God’s dwelling place.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:1-12<\/strong> Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s <em>palace<\/em> complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (<em>thirteen years<\/em>) as the Temple (<em>seven years<\/em>, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not the author’s focus; his interest is in the Temple, God’s dwelling place.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-12 Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s palace complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (thirteen years) as the Temple (seven years, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not...","summary_en":"7:1-12 Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s palace complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (thirteen years) as the Temple (seven years, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102179,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:1-12<\/strong> Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s <em>palace<\/em> complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (<em>thirteen years<\/em>) as the Temple (<em>seven years<\/em>, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not the author’s focus; his interest is in the Temple, God’s dwelling place.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:1-12<\/strong> Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s <em>palace<\/em> complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (<em>thirteen years<\/em>) as the Temple (<em>seven years<\/em>, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not the author’s focus; his interest is in the Temple, God’s dwelling place.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-12 Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s palace complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (thirteen years) as the Temple (seven years, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not...","summary_en":"7:1-12 Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s palace complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (thirteen years) as the Temple (seven years, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129805,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:1","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:1-12<\/strong> Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s <em>palace<\/em> complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (<em>thirteen years<\/em>) as the Temple (<em>seven years<\/em>, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not the author’s focus; his interest is in the Temple, God’s dwelling place.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:1-12<\/strong> Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s <em>palace<\/em> complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (<em>thirteen years<\/em>) as the Temple (<em>seven years<\/em>, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not the author’s focus; his interest is in the Temple, God’s dwelling place.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:1-12 Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s palace complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (thirteen years) as the Temple (seven years, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not...","summary_en":"7:1-12 Before describing the Temple’s furnishings, the writer mentions the construction of Solomon’s palace complex. The multiple buildings within this complex took nearly twice as long to build (thirteen years) as the Temple (seven years, 6:38). The entire building project took twenty years (9:10). Although construction details are brief, archaeological discovery of two of Solomon’s buildings provides an idea of how this palace might have looked. Despite its grandeur, Solomon’s palace is not...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":4001,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Beam","title_en":"Beam","content_ro":"<h3>BEAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Weaver’s beam—round wooden roller on which the cloth or carpet was wound during the weaving process in Bible times. The spears of the giant Goliath (1 Sm 17:7; 2 Sm 21:19; 1 Chr 20:5) and an Egyptian killed by Benaiah, one of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:23), were compared to a weaver’s beam.<\/li>\n<li>2. Tree trunk or log that has been squared and used for building purposes. King Solomon used beams and planks of cedar to build the temple (1 Kgs 6:9; 2 Chr 3:7) and his “House of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2, 12). Another mention of cedar beams probably refers to their aroma (Sg 1:17).<\/li>\n<li>3. Crossbeam of a Hebrew balance from which the scales were hung by cords.<\/li>\n<li>4. Beam (<span>kjv<\/span>) or log (<span>rsv<\/span>) referred to by Jesus (Mt 7:3-5; Lk 6:41-42). Jesus contrasted the beam in an accuser’s eye with the mote (<span>kjv<\/span>) or speck (<span>rsv<\/span>) in his brother’s eye.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>BEAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. Weaver’s beam—round wooden roller on which the cloth or carpet was wound during the weaving process in Bible times. The spears of the giant Goliath (1 Sm 17:7; 2 Sm 21:19; 1 Chr 20:5) and an Egyptian killed by Benaiah, one of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:23), were compared to a weaver’s beam.<\/li>\n<li>2. Tree trunk or log that has been squared and used for building purposes. King Solomon used beams and planks of cedar to build the temple (1 Kgs 6:9; 2 Chr 3:7) and his “House of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2, 12). Another mention of cedar beams probably refers to their aroma (Sg 1:17).<\/li>\n<li>3. Crossbeam of a Hebrew balance from which the scales were hung by cords.<\/li>\n<li>4. Beam (<span>kjv<\/span>) or log (<span>rsv<\/span>) referred to by Jesus (Mt 7:3-5; Lk 6:41-42). Jesus contrasted the beam in an accuser’s eye with the mote (<span>kjv<\/span>) or speck (<span>rsv<\/span>) in his brother’s eye.<\/li>","summary_ro":"BEAM 1. Weaver’s beam—round wooden roller on which the cloth or carpet was wound during the weaving process in Bible times. The spears of the giant Goliath (1 Sm 17:7; 2 Sm 21:19; 1 Chr 20:5) and an Egyptian killed by Benaiah, one of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:23), were compared to a weaver’s beam. 2. Tree trunk or log that has been squared and used for building purposes. King Solomon used beams and planks of cedar to build the temple (1 Kgs 6:9; 2 Chr 3:7) and his “House of the Forest of L...","summary_en":"BEAM 1. Weaver’s beam—round wooden roller on which the cloth or carpet was wound during the weaving process in Bible times. The spears of the giant Goliath (1 Sm 17:7; 2 Sm 21:19; 1 Chr 20:5) and an Egyptian killed by Benaiah, one of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:23), were compared to a weaver’s beam. 2. Tree trunk or log that has been squared and used for building purposes. King Solomon used beams and planks of cedar to build the temple (1 Kgs 6:9; 2 Chr 3:7) and his “House of the Forest of L...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18161,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jaar","title_en":"Jaar","content_ro":"<h3>JAAR<\/h3>\n<p>Most common word in Hebrew for “forest.” It refers to forests generally (Is 10:18) and to specific forests, such as the “forest of Ephraim” (2 Sm 18:6) and the “forest of Hereth” (1 Sm 22:5), both associated with King David. It also occurs as the name of one of Solomon’s buildings, “the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2), apparently because of its extensive use of cedar. Only one occurrence of “Jaar” seems to be a proper name. Psalm 132:6 alludes to the transfer of the ark from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem. Here it is called the field of Jaar (or “the wood,” <span>kjv<\/span>), perhaps a poetic abbreviation.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JAAR<\/h3>\n<p>Most common word in Hebrew for “forest.” It refers to forests generally (Is 10:18) and to specific forests, such as the “forest of Ephraim” (2 Sm 18:6) and the “forest of Hereth” (1 Sm 22:5), both associated with King David. It also occurs as the name of one of Solomon’s buildings, “the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2), apparently because of its extensive use of cedar. Only one occurrence of “Jaar” seems to be a proper name. Psalm 132:6 alludes to the transfer of the ark from Kiriath-jearim to Jerusalem. Here it is called the field of Jaar (or “the wood,” <span>kjv<\/span>), perhaps a poetic abbreviation.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JAAR Most common word in Hebrew for “forest.” It refers to forests generally (Is 10:18) and to specific forests, such as the “forest of Ephraim” (2 Sm 18:6) and the “forest of Hereth” (1 Sm 22:5), both associated with King David. It also occurs as the name of one of Solomon’s buildings, “the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2), apparently because of its extensive use of cedar. Only one occurrence of “Jaar” seems to be a proper name. Psalm 132:6 alludes to the transfer of the ark from...","summary_en":"JAAR Most common word in Hebrew for “forest.” It refers to forests generally (Is 10:18) and to specific forests, such as the “forest of Ephraim” (2 Sm 18:6) and the “forest of Hereth” (1 Sm 22:5), both associated with King David. It also occurs as the name of one of Solomon’s buildings, “the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon” (1 Kgs 7:2), apparently because of its extensive use of cedar. Only one occurrence of “Jaar” seems to be a proper name. Psalm 132:6 alludes to the transfer of the ark from...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22905,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lebanon","title_en":"Lebanon","content_ro":"<h3>LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">l-b-n<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the snow that lay on the mountains for six months of the year (Jer 18:14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>At the southern end the Lebanon ranges are a direct continuation of the hills of northern Galilee, with Mt Hermon (Sirion, Senir) very prominent in the Anti-Lebanon range, rising to 9,230 feet (2,813.3 meters). The two ranges are divided by a broad valley, the valley of Lebanon (Jos 11:17) or “the entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:8), the modern Beqa’a.<\/p>\n<p>In the south the Lebanon range is separated from the Galilee hills by a deep east-west gorge through which the Litani River flows, entering the Mediterranean just north of Tyre. In its upper courses it follows the Beqa’a Valley in a northeasterly direction almost to Baalbek. The Lebanon ridge, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) long, stretches north to the east-west valley of the Nahr el-Kebir and is marked by a series of peaks. In the south are Gebel Rihan, Tomat, and Gebel Niha (ranging from 5,350 feet to nearly 6,230 feet, or 1,636.7 to 1,898.9 meters, high) east of Sidon. In the center lie Gebel Baruk, Gebel Kuneiyiseh, and Gebel Sunnin (7,220 feet, 6,890 feet, and 8,530 feet high, or 2,200.7 meters, 2,100.1 meters, and 2,599.9 meters high, respectively) east of Beirut. Further north, to the east of Tripoli, lies Qurnet es-Sauda, which reaches 9,840 feet (2,999.2 meters), and Qurnet Aruba, about 7,320 feet (2,231.1 meters) high.<\/p>\n<p>These high mountains trap the rain coming from the Mediterranean, providing both the mountain areas and the coastal strip below with good rainfall; beyond the mountains, the rainfall drops. It is along the coastal strip between the mountains and the sea that the Phoenicians flourished and towns like Tyre, Zarephath, Sidon, Berytus (Beirut), Byblos (Gebal), and Tripoli were established. The coastal area has a number of headlands that are extensions of the mountain range. The coastal road had to be cut around or through these spurs. A good example is the headland of Nahr el-Kelb, a little to the north of Beirut.<\/p>\n<p>On the east side of the Lebanon range is the Beqa’a Valley. The Orontes River rises in the north of this valley and flows north to enter the Mediterranean north of ancient Ugarit. This whole valley region was known in classical literature as Coele-syria (Hollow Syria). It was the “breadbasket” of the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>To the east of the Beqa’a Valley is the Anti-Lebanon range, in which the Barada River rises and flows east toward the fertile oasis of Damascus. Mt Hermon, in the southern part of the range, was known as Sirion by the Phoenicians and Senir by the Amorites (Dt 3:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Resources\">Resources<\/p>\n<p>Lebanon was famous in antiquity for its rich forests of fir and cedar. The coastal areas, the Beqa’a Valley, and the lower slopes of the mountains were suitable for olive trees, fruit trees, and vineyards, as well as some grain crops. One important product came from the sea: a mollusk of the gastropoda class from which a red or purple dye was obtained. The name “Phoenician” derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">phoinos<\/span><em>,<\/em> red-purple. Wool dyed purple was available in Ugarit about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Phoenicians had a monopoly on this industry for centuries. The people of Israel, who used a great deal of purple dye in their tabernacle furnishings (Ex 26) and the garments of their priests (Ex 28:4-6; 39:1, 28-29), probably obtained the dye from the Phoenicians.<\/p>\n<p>King Solomon had significant trading relations with Phoenicia. To build the temple in Jerusalem, cedar and fir were obtained from Hiram I of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:6, 9, 14; 7:2; 10:17, 21; 2 Chr 2:8, 16). Solomon paid for this timber in wheat and olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). The trees were floated down by sea to a point in Solomon’s domain and transported from there to Jerusalem. Cedar and fir trees from Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon provided ships for Tyre (Ez 27:5), sacred barges and furniture for Egypt, and timber for building the second temple in Jerusalem (Ezr 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>From the ports of Lebanon, the Phoenicians traded with many lands. They mastered the art of shipbuilding, and their ships were used in peace and in war. A vivid picture of the trading activities of traders from Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, and Arvad is given in Ezekiel 27, where the extent and nature of their trade is given in considerable detail.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The area became of interest to the Egyptians during the fourth dynasty (c. 2600 <span>BC<\/span>) when Pharaoh Snofru acquired 40 shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Byblos fell under Egyptian influence during the 12th dynasty (c. 1980–1800 <span>BC<\/span>) and Egyptians gave golden ornaments in exchange for cedar. During the 18th dynasty (c. 1552–1306 <span>BC<\/span>), Egypt conquered Syria, and the records speak regularly of cedar being taken as tribute. Later an envoy of Ramses XI named Wenamon paid dearly for the cedar (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When Egyptian power waned, the Assyrians controlled the area and took vast quantities of cedar as tribute from the days of Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>) onward. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian nation likewise controlled Lebanon and took away large quantities of cedar to build temples and palaces. The spoiling of Lebanon’s forests was spoken of by Isaiah (Is 14:8) and Habakkuk (Hb 2:17). In later centuries Lebanon passed successively under the domination of Persians, Greeks, and Romans.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the towns of Tyre and Sidon are generally coupled together (Mt 15:21; Mk 3:8; 7:24, 31; Lk 6:17; 10:13-14; Acts 12:20), though sometimes they are referred to alone (Acts 21:3, 7). A Greek woman who was a Syro-Phoenician is referred to in Mark 7:26. Jesus preached in these areas during his ministry. In biblical poetry the tall cedars of Lebanon were a symbol of majesty and strength (Jgs 9:15; 2 Kgs 14:9; Pss 92:12; 104:16; Is 35:2; 60:13). They were also a symbol of earthly pride that would be broken before the wrath of God one day (Ps 29:5; Is 2:13; 10:34; Jer 22:6; Ez 31:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">l-b-n<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the snow that lay on the mountains for six months of the year (Jer 18:14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>At the southern end the Lebanon ranges are a direct continuation of the hills of northern Galilee, with Mt Hermon (Sirion, Senir) very prominent in the Anti-Lebanon range, rising to 9,230 feet (2,813.3 meters). The two ranges are divided by a broad valley, the valley of Lebanon (Jos 11:17) or “the entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:8), the modern Beqa’a.<\/p>\n<p>In the south the Lebanon range is separated from the Galilee hills by a deep east-west gorge through which the Litani River flows, entering the Mediterranean just north of Tyre. In its upper courses it follows the Beqa’a Valley in a northeasterly direction almost to Baalbek. The Lebanon ridge, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) long, stretches north to the east-west valley of the Nahr el-Kebir and is marked by a series of peaks. In the south are Gebel Rihan, Tomat, and Gebel Niha (ranging from 5,350 feet to nearly 6,230 feet, or 1,636.7 to 1,898.9 meters, high) east of Sidon. In the center lie Gebel Baruk, Gebel Kuneiyiseh, and Gebel Sunnin (7,220 feet, 6,890 feet, and 8,530 feet high, or 2,200.7 meters, 2,100.1 meters, and 2,599.9 meters high, respectively) east of Beirut. Further north, to the east of Tripoli, lies Qurnet es-Sauda, which reaches 9,840 feet (2,999.2 meters), and Qurnet Aruba, about 7,320 feet (2,231.1 meters) high.<\/p>\n<p>These high mountains trap the rain coming from the Mediterranean, providing both the mountain areas and the coastal strip below with good rainfall; beyond the mountains, the rainfall drops. It is along the coastal strip between the mountains and the sea that the Phoenicians flourished and towns like Tyre, Zarephath, Sidon, Berytus (Beirut), Byblos (Gebal), and Tripoli were established. The coastal area has a number of headlands that are extensions of the mountain range. The coastal road had to be cut around or through these spurs. A good example is the headland of Nahr el-Kelb, a little to the north of Beirut.<\/p>\n<p>On the east side of the Lebanon range is the Beqa’a Valley. The Orontes River rises in the north of this valley and flows north to enter the Mediterranean north of ancient Ugarit. This whole valley region was known in classical literature as Coele-syria (Hollow Syria). It was the “breadbasket” of the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>To the east of the Beqa’a Valley is the Anti-Lebanon range, in which the Barada River rises and flows east toward the fertile oasis of Damascus. Mt Hermon, in the southern part of the range, was known as Sirion by the Phoenicians and Senir by the Amorites (Dt 3:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Resources\">Resources<\/p>\n<p>Lebanon was famous in antiquity for its rich forests of fir and cedar. The coastal areas, the Beqa’a Valley, and the lower slopes of the mountains were suitable for olive trees, fruit trees, and vineyards, as well as some grain crops. One important product came from the sea: a mollusk of the gastropoda class from which a red or purple dye was obtained. The name “Phoenician” derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">phoinos<\/span><em>,<\/em> red-purple. Wool dyed purple was available in Ugarit about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Phoenicians had a monopoly on this industry for centuries. The people of Israel, who used a great deal of purple dye in their tabernacle furnishings (Ex 26) and the garments of their priests (Ex 28:4-6; 39:1, 28-29), probably obtained the dye from the Phoenicians.<\/p>\n<p>King Solomon had significant trading relations with Phoenicia. To build the temple in Jerusalem, cedar and fir were obtained from Hiram I of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:6, 9, 14; 7:2; 10:17, 21; 2 Chr 2:8, 16). Solomon paid for this timber in wheat and olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). The trees were floated down by sea to a point in Solomon’s domain and transported from there to Jerusalem. Cedar and fir trees from Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon provided ships for Tyre (Ez 27:5), sacred barges and furniture for Egypt, and timber for building the second temple in Jerusalem (Ezr 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>From the ports of Lebanon, the Phoenicians traded with many lands. They mastered the art of shipbuilding, and their ships were used in peace and in war. A vivid picture of the trading activities of traders from Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, and Arvad is given in Ezekiel 27, where the extent and nature of their trade is given in considerable detail.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The area became of interest to the Egyptians during the fourth dynasty (c. 2600 <span>BC<\/span>) when Pharaoh Snofru acquired 40 shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Byblos fell under Egyptian influence during the 12th dynasty (c. 1980–1800 <span>BC<\/span>) and Egyptians gave golden ornaments in exchange for cedar. During the 18th dynasty (c. 1552–1306 <span>BC<\/span>), Egypt conquered Syria, and the records speak regularly of cedar being taken as tribute. Later an envoy of Ramses XI named Wenamon paid dearly for the cedar (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When Egyptian power waned, the Assyrians controlled the area and took vast quantities of cedar as tribute from the days of Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>) onward. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian nation likewise controlled Lebanon and took away large quantities of cedar to build temples and palaces. The spoiling of Lebanon’s forests was spoken of by Isaiah (Is 14:8) and Habakkuk (Hb 2:17). In later centuries Lebanon passed successively under the domination of Persians, Greeks, and Romans.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the towns of Tyre and Sidon are generally coupled together (Mt 15:21; Mk 3:8; 7:24, 31; Lk 6:17; 10:13-14; Acts 12:20), though sometimes they are referred to alone (Acts 21:3, 7). A Greek woman who was a Syro-Phoenician is referred to in Mark 7:26. Jesus preached in these areas during his ministry. In biblical poetry the tall cedars of Lebanon were a symbol of majesty and strength (Jgs 9:15; 2 Kgs 14:9; Pss 92:12; 104:16; Is 35:2; 60:13). They were also a symbol of earthly pride that would be broken before the wrath of God one day (Ps 29:5; Is 2:13; 10:34; Jer 22:6; Ez 31:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"LEBANON Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root l-b-n, meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the...","summary_en":"LEBANON Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root l-b-n, meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":28749,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Palace of the Forest of Lebanon","title_en":"Palace of the Forest of Lebanon","content_ro":"<h3>PALACE OF THE FOREST OF LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Name for Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem, adjacent to the temple, given this designation because of the amount of Lebanese cedar used in its construction. The structure was about 150 feet (45.7 meters) long, 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 7:2-5). Three hundred gold shields were made to decorate it, and all the vessels of the house were made of gold. A large ivory throne overlaid with gold was constructed and placed within the palace (2 Chr 9:16-20). Besides providing housing and a formal palace for Solomon, it was also used to store arms (Is 22:8).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PALACE OF THE FOREST OF LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Name for Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem, adjacent to the temple, given this designation because of the amount of Lebanese cedar used in its construction. The structure was about 150 feet (45.7 meters) long, 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 7:2-5). Three hundred gold shields were made to decorate it, and all the vessels of the house were made of gold. A large ivory throne overlaid with gold was constructed and placed within the palace (2 Chr 9:16-20). Besides providing housing and a formal palace for Solomon, it was also used to store arms (Is 22:8).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PALACE OF THE FOREST OF LEBANON Name for Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem, adjacent to the temple, given this designation because of the amount of Lebanese cedar used in its construction. The structure was about 150 feet (45.7 meters) long, 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 7:2-5). Three hundred gold shields were made to decorate it, and all the vessels of the house were made of gold. A large ivory throne overlaid with gold was constructed and placed within the pa...","summary_en":"PALACE OF THE FOREST OF LEBANON Name for Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem, adjacent to the temple, given this designation because of the amount of Lebanese cedar used in its construction. The structure was about 150 feet (45.7 meters) long, 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 7:2-5). Three hundred gold shields were made to decorate it, and all the vessels of the house were made of gold. A large ivory throne overlaid with gold was constructed and placed within the pa...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35737,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Solomon (Person)","title_en":"Solomon (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>SOLOMON (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Third king over Israel, the second son of David and Bathsheba, who reigned 40 years (970–930 <span>BC<\/span>). His alternative name was Jedidiah, “beloved of the Lord.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AppointedtotheThrone\">Appointed to the Throne<\/p>\n<p>Once Amnon and Absalom were no longer in competition for the throne, the two most likely remaining candidates were Solomon and Adonijah, although the kingship had been assured to the former (1 Chr 22:9-10). Near the end of David’s life, Adonijah contested the choice of Solomon and took steps to become king. With the help of Joab, general of the army, and Abiathar the priest, he was proclaimed the monarch. Solomon was not invited and neither were Nathan the prophet or Benaiah. Nathan brought word of this plot to Bathsheba, who in turn quizzed David as to his intentions. David then ordered Solomon to be proclaimed king over Israel; he was anointed by Zadok amidst the blowing of the trumpets and the shout of the people: “Long live King Solomon” (1 Kgs 1:34). Adonijah realized his claim had collapsed and asked for mercy, promising to be faithful to the new king.<\/p>\n<p>Solomon moved swiftly to establish his hold on the government (1 Kgs 1–2). When Adonijah asked to marry Abishag, David’s companion in his old age (1:1-4), Solomon refused and ordered his death because of possible claims to the throne (2:22-25). In addition, because Abiathar had joined with Adonijah, he was removed from his service as priest and sent back to Anathoth. Joab fled to the altar and there took hold of its horns and refused to let go. The king ordered his death at the hand of Benaiah, who then became commander-in-chief of the armies. Another contender, Shimei, of the house of Saul, was also executed.<\/p>\n<p>One of Solomon’s earliest recorded acts as king was to go to the high place at Gibeon and sacrifice 1,000 burnt offerings. On the following night, the Lord appeared to the king in a dream, asking as to his fondest wish. Solomon asked for wisdom to judge Israel, and God was pleased with the request (1 Kgs 3). Israel’s king was given his wish, along with the gifts of long life, riches, and fame.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsAccomplishments\">Solomon’s Accomplishments<\/p>\n<h5>His Government<\/h5>\n<p>David’s efforts had brought about a union of the 12 tribes, but Solomon established an organized state with many officials to help him (1 Kgs 4). The entire country was divided into 12 major districts; each district was to ensure the provisions of the king’s court for one month each year. The system was equitable and designed to distribute the tax burden over the entire country.<\/p>\n<h5>His Buildings<\/h5>\n<p>One of Solomon’s earliest building attempts was to construct the temple. David had wanted to build the temple, but this task was left to Solomon, the man of peace. Hiram, king of Tyre, provided cedar trees from Mt Lebanon for the temple (1 Kgs 5:1-12), and in return he was given an appropriate amount of food. In order to provide the necessary labor for these building projects, the Canaanites became slaves (9:20-21). Israelites likewise were compelled to work in groups of 10,000, every third month (5:13-18; 2 Chr 2:17-18). The workers for the temple alone comprised 80,000 stonecutters, 70,000 common laborers, and 3,600 foremen.<\/p>\n<p>It took seven years to finish the temple, which by modern standards was a rather small building: 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high. Nevertheless, the gold covering for both walls and furniture made it quite expensive.<\/p>\n<p>In the 11th year of Solomon’s reign, the dedication of the temple was celebrated in a great convocation (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:1-5). The presence of the Lord filled the temple, and Solomon then offered his great dedicatory prayer (8:23-53), marking it as one of the great peaks of his devotion to the Lord. Afterward, he offered up 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep as well as other offerings. The people were full of joy because David had so great a successor.<\/p>\n<p>Solomon built other buildings: the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Hall of Pillars, a hall for his throne, and a house for the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kgs 7:2-8). Thirteen years were involved in the building of his own house, large enough to take care of his wives and concubines as well as the servants. A great fortress was also built, Millo, which was used to protect the temple (9:24), as well as other store and fortified cities.<\/p>\n<h5>His Trade with Other Nations<\/h5>\n<p>The king had an agreement with Hiram, king of Tyre, to pay yearly for cedar trees, stonecutters, and other buildings; for 125,000 bushels (4.4 million liters) of wheat; and for 115,000 gallons (435,275 liters) of olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). In addition, Hiram received 20 cities in Galilee to cover all indebtedness. Contrary to the instruction not to trade in horses (Dt 17:16), Solomon bought horses and chariots from the Egyptians, and some of these in turn were sold to the Hittites and Arameans at a profit (1 Kgs 10:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, Solomon engaged in sea trade. Ships built at shipyards at Ezion-geber sailed to ports on the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. The mariners collected gold, ivory, and peacocks. From Ophir, the traders brought back 420 talents of gold, a considerable fortune.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HisWisdom\">His Wisdom<\/p>\n<p>Solomon wrote 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs (1 Kgs 4:32). Most of the book of Proverbs is attributed to him (Prv 25:1), as well as Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Psalms 72 and 127. His obituary notice mentions his literary accomplishments in the book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41).<\/p>\n<p>The queen of Sheba came to see and hear if the reports of Solomon’s fame and wisdom were correct. After viewing all he had in Jerusalem and hearing his wisdom, her final response was to bless the Lord God of Israel, who raised up such a wise person to sit upon such a magnificent throne (1 Kgs 10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HisFall\">His Fall<\/p>\n<p>Solomon made many misjudgments during his reign, and one of them was his excessive taxation of the people. His worst blunder was adding more and more wives to his harem, accommodating their religious preferences with pagan shrines (1 Kgs 11:1-8). The Lord plagued Solomon, permitting Israel to be attacked on all sides. Although the kingdom was not damaged during Solomon’s day, his son experienced its division. There is no record that Solomon repented, but it is quite possible that the book of Ecclesiastes does reveal his realization of his wrong decisions.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Ecclesiastes, Book of; Israel, History of; King, Kingship; Proverbs, Book of; Song of Solomon; Wisdom; Wisdom Literature.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SOLOMON (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Third king over Israel, the second son of David and Bathsheba, who reigned 40 years (970–930 <span>BC<\/span>). His alternative name was Jedidiah, “beloved of the Lord.”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"AppointedtotheThrone\">Appointed to the Throne<\/p>\n<p>Once Amnon and Absalom were no longer in competition for the throne, the two most likely remaining candidates were Solomon and Adonijah, although the kingship had been assured to the former (1 Chr 22:9-10). Near the end of David’s life, Adonijah contested the choice of Solomon and took steps to become king. With the help of Joab, general of the army, and Abiathar the priest, he was proclaimed the monarch. Solomon was not invited and neither were Nathan the prophet or Benaiah. Nathan brought word of this plot to Bathsheba, who in turn quizzed David as to his intentions. David then ordered Solomon to be proclaimed king over Israel; he was anointed by Zadok amidst the blowing of the trumpets and the shout of the people: “Long live King Solomon” (1 Kgs 1:34). Adonijah realized his claim had collapsed and asked for mercy, promising to be faithful to the new king.<\/p>\n<p>Solomon moved swiftly to establish his hold on the government (1 Kgs 1–2). When Adonijah asked to marry Abishag, David’s companion in his old age (1:1-4), Solomon refused and ordered his death because of possible claims to the throne (2:22-25). In addition, because Abiathar had joined with Adonijah, he was removed from his service as priest and sent back to Anathoth. Joab fled to the altar and there took hold of its horns and refused to let go. The king ordered his death at the hand of Benaiah, who then became commander-in-chief of the armies. Another contender, Shimei, of the house of Saul, was also executed.<\/p>\n<p>One of Solomon’s earliest recorded acts as king was to go to the high place at Gibeon and sacrifice 1,000 burnt offerings. On the following night, the Lord appeared to the king in a dream, asking as to his fondest wish. Solomon asked for wisdom to judge Israel, and God was pleased with the request (1 Kgs 3). Israel’s king was given his wish, along with the gifts of long life, riches, and fame.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsAccomplishments\">Solomon’s Accomplishments<\/p>\n<h5>His Government<\/h5>\n<p>David’s efforts had brought about a union of the 12 tribes, but Solomon established an organized state with many officials to help him (1 Kgs 4). The entire country was divided into 12 major districts; each district was to ensure the provisions of the king’s court for one month each year. The system was equitable and designed to distribute the tax burden over the entire country.<\/p>\n<h5>His Buildings<\/h5>\n<p>One of Solomon’s earliest building attempts was to construct the temple. David had wanted to build the temple, but this task was left to Solomon, the man of peace. Hiram, king of Tyre, provided cedar trees from Mt Lebanon for the temple (1 Kgs 5:1-12), and in return he was given an appropriate amount of food. In order to provide the necessary labor for these building projects, the Canaanites became slaves (9:20-21). Israelites likewise were compelled to work in groups of 10,000, every third month (5:13-18; 2 Chr 2:17-18). The workers for the temple alone comprised 80,000 stonecutters, 70,000 common laborers, and 3,600 foremen.<\/p>\n<p>It took seven years to finish the temple, which by modern standards was a rather small building: 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high. Nevertheless, the gold covering for both walls and furniture made it quite expensive.<\/p>\n<p>In the 11th year of Solomon’s reign, the dedication of the temple was celebrated in a great convocation (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:1-5). The presence of the Lord filled the temple, and Solomon then offered his great dedicatory prayer (8:23-53), marking it as one of the great peaks of his devotion to the Lord. Afterward, he offered up 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep as well as other offerings. The people were full of joy because David had so great a successor.<\/p>\n<p>Solomon built other buildings: the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Hall of Pillars, a hall for his throne, and a house for the daughter of Pharaoh (1 Kgs 7:2-8). Thirteen years were involved in the building of his own house, large enough to take care of his wives and concubines as well as the servants. A great fortress was also built, Millo, which was used to protect the temple (9:24), as well as other store and fortified cities.<\/p>\n<h5>His Trade with Other Nations<\/h5>\n<p>The king had an agreement with Hiram, king of Tyre, to pay yearly for cedar trees, stonecutters, and other buildings; for 125,000 bushels (4.4 million liters) of wheat; and for 115,000 gallons (435,275 liters) of olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). In addition, Hiram received 20 cities in Galilee to cover all indebtedness. Contrary to the instruction not to trade in horses (Dt 17:16), Solomon bought horses and chariots from the Egyptians, and some of these in turn were sold to the Hittites and Arameans at a profit (1 Kgs 10:28-29).<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, Solomon engaged in sea trade. Ships built at shipyards at Ezion-geber sailed to ports on the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. The mariners collected gold, ivory, and peacocks. From Ophir, the traders brought back 420 talents of gold, a considerable fortune.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HisWisdom\">His Wisdom<\/p>\n<p>Solomon wrote 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs (1 Kgs 4:32). Most of the book of Proverbs is attributed to him (Prv 25:1), as well as Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Psalms 72 and 127. His obituary notice mentions his literary accomplishments in the book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41).<\/p>\n<p>The queen of Sheba came to see and hear if the reports of Solomon’s fame and wisdom were correct. After viewing all he had in Jerusalem and hearing his wisdom, her final response was to bless the Lord God of Israel, who raised up such a wise person to sit upon such a magnificent throne (1 Kgs 10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HisFall\">His Fall<\/p>\n<p>Solomon made many misjudgments during his reign, and one of them was his excessive taxation of the people. His worst blunder was adding more and more wives to his harem, accommodating their religious preferences with pagan shrines (1 Kgs 11:1-8). The Lord plagued Solomon, permitting Israel to be attacked on all sides. Although the kingdom was not damaged during Solomon’s day, his son experienced its division. There is no record that Solomon repented, but it is quite possible that the book of Ecclesiastes does reveal his realization of his wrong decisions.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Ecclesiastes, Book of; Israel, History of; King, Kingship; Proverbs, Book of; Song of Solomon; Wisdom; Wisdom Literature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SOLOMON (Person) Third king over Israel, the second son of David and Bathsheba, who reigned 40 years (970–930 BC). His alternative name was Jedidiah, “beloved of the Lord.” Appointed to the Throne Once Amnon and Absalom were no longer in competition for the throne, the two most likely remaining candidates were Solomon and Adonijah, although the kingship had been assured to the former (1 Chr 22:9-10). Near the end of David’s life, Adonijah contested the choice of Solomon and took steps to beco...","summary_en":"SOLOMON (Person) Third king over Israel, the second son of David and Bathsheba, who reigned 40 years (970–930 BC). His alternative name was Jedidiah, “beloved of the Lord.” Appointed to the Throne Once Amnon and Absalom were no longer in competition for the throne, the two most likely remaining candidates were Solomon and Adonijah, although the kingship had been assured to the former (1 Chr 22:9-10). Near the end of David’s life, Adonijah contested the choice of Solomon and took steps to beco...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46928,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:2-5<\/strong> <em>The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon<\/em> was named for the abundant use of <em>cedar<\/em> in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:2-5<\/strong> <em>The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon<\/em> was named for the abundant use of <em>cedar<\/em> in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:2-5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was named for the abundant use of cedar in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).","summary_en":"7:2-5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was named for the abundant use of cedar in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74554,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:2-5<\/strong> <em>The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon<\/em> was named for the abundant use of <em>cedar<\/em> in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:2-5<\/strong> <em>The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon<\/em> was named for the abundant use of <em>cedar<\/em> in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:2-5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was named for the abundant use of cedar in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).","summary_en":"7:2-5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was named for the abundant use of cedar in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102180,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:2-5<\/strong> <em>The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon<\/em> was named for the abundant use of <em>cedar<\/em> in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:2-5<\/strong> <em>The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon<\/em> was named for the abundant use of <em>cedar<\/em> in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:2-5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was named for the abundant use of cedar in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).","summary_en":"7:2-5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was named for the abundant use of cedar in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129806,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:2","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:2-5<\/strong> <em>The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon<\/em> was named for the abundant use of <em>cedar<\/em> in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:2-5<\/strong> <em>The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon<\/em> was named for the abundant use of <em>cedar<\/em> in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:2-5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was named for the abundant use of cedar in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).","summary_en":"7:2-5 The Palace of the Forest of Lebanon was named for the abundant use of cedar in its construction. It would house 300 gold shields (10:16-17) and possibly served as both treasury and armory (see 12:25-28; Isa 22:8). The Egyptian pharaoh Shishak later carried away the shields as booty (1 Kgs 14:27).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":46929,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:6","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> The <em>Hall of Pillars<\/em> was apparently a colonnaded entry to the <em>Hall of Justice<\/em>, where Solomon <em>sat to hear legal matters<\/em> (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate <em>living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter<\/em> (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> The <em>Hall of Pillars<\/em> was apparently a colonnaded entry to the <em>Hall of Justice<\/em>, where Solomon <em>sat to hear legal matters<\/em> (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate <em>living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter<\/em> (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:6-8 The Hall of Pillars was apparently a colonnaded entry to the Hall of Justice, where Solomon sat to hear legal matters (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).","summary_en":"7:6-8 The Hall of Pillars was apparently a colonnaded entry to the Hall of Justice, where Solomon sat to hear legal matters (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74555,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:6","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> The <em>Hall of Pillars<\/em> was apparently a colonnaded entry to the <em>Hall of Justice<\/em>, where Solomon <em>sat to hear legal matters<\/em> (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate <em>living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter<\/em> (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> The <em>Hall of Pillars<\/em> was apparently a colonnaded entry to the <em>Hall of Justice<\/em>, where Solomon <em>sat to hear legal matters<\/em> (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate <em>living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter<\/em> (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:6-8 The Hall of Pillars was apparently a colonnaded entry to the Hall of Justice, where Solomon sat to hear legal matters (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).","summary_en":"7:6-8 The Hall of Pillars was apparently a colonnaded entry to the Hall of Justice, where Solomon sat to hear legal matters (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102181,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:6","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> The <em>Hall of Pillars<\/em> was apparently a colonnaded entry to the <em>Hall of Justice<\/em>, where Solomon <em>sat to hear legal matters<\/em> (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate <em>living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter<\/em> (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> The <em>Hall of Pillars<\/em> was apparently a colonnaded entry to the <em>Hall of Justice<\/em>, where Solomon <em>sat to hear legal matters<\/em> (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate <em>living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter<\/em> (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:6-8 The Hall of Pillars was apparently a colonnaded entry to the Hall of Justice, where Solomon sat to hear legal matters (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).","summary_en":"7:6-8 The Hall of Pillars was apparently a colonnaded entry to the Hall of Justice, where Solomon sat to hear legal matters (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129807,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:6","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:6","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> The <em>Hall of Pillars<\/em> was apparently a colonnaded entry to the <em>Hall of Justice<\/em>, where Solomon <em>sat to hear legal matters<\/em> (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate <em>living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter<\/em> (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:6-8<\/strong> The <em>Hall of Pillars<\/em> was apparently a colonnaded entry to the <em>Hall of Justice<\/em>, where Solomon <em>sat to hear legal matters<\/em> (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate <em>living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter<\/em> (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:6-8 The Hall of Pillars was apparently a colonnaded entry to the Hall of Justice, where Solomon sat to hear legal matters (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).","summary_en":"7:6-8 The Hall of Pillars was apparently a colonnaded entry to the Hall of Justice, where Solomon sat to hear legal matters (see also 10:18-20). Similar throne rooms have been found in Syria and Mesopotamia. • Solomon erected separate living quarters for Pharaoh’s daughter (see 3:1; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":28724,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Palace","title_en":"Palace","content_ro":"<h3>PALACE<\/h3>\n<p>Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the palace of Tirzah (1 Kgs 16:18) and Ahab’s palace in Jezreel (21:1). Even the references to Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem are quite imprecise. In 1 Kings 7:1-12 the construction of public and private buildings close to the temple went on for 13 years. Only the choicest of materials were used. But from the details supplied, it is quite impossible to reproduce plans of the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Porch of Pillars, the Porch of the Throne, the palace for Solomon’s Egyptian wife, or the royal palace. What the situation of these buildings was in relation to one another is matter only for conjecture. Round about the whole complex was a great court of hewn stones and cedar beams.<\/p>\n<p>Forced labor was universal in the ancient Near East. Samuel’s warning that a king would introduce the system into Israel (1 Sm 8:12-17) was fulfilled, and it came to full development under Solomon when he undertook his massive building program, including his palace. Solomon raised his workforce from all over Israel. The system incited Jeroboam to revolt (1 Kgs 12:4, 16). King Asa used it (15:22), and it continued on into Jeremiah’s time (Jer 22:13). Nehemiah’s builders were volunteers (see Neh 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>Prominent among Solomon’s royal buildings was the temple. Apparently, it stood in the middle of a courtyard called the inner court (1 Kgs 6:36), by contrast with the great court (7:12), which included both the temple and the palace. The palace itself had an inner court too (v 8), the northern wall of which was common to the inner court of the temple. Hence it was but a step from the king’s domain to the Lord’s domain.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s enthronement took place in the palace, in the Porch of the Throne (1 Kgs 1:46; 2 Kgs 11:19). When he took his seat on the throne, it marked his assumption of power (1 Kgs 16:11; 2 Kgs 13:13). Solomon’s throne in his palace became the symbol of royal power, although his throne was still called the throne of David (1 Kgs 2:24, 45; Is 9:7). Solomon’s palace throne is described as one of the wonders of the world (1 Kgs 10:18-20). It was around this throne that the high officials came to do him homage (1:47).<\/p>\n<p>The king’s daughters lived in the palace until their marriage under the care of women (2 Sm 13:7). They wore a distinctive dress (vv 18-19). The king’s sons were reared in the palace by nurses (2 Kgs 11:2) and tutored under leading men of the city (10:1, 6-7), until they were able to perform certain duties at the court (2 Sm 8:18; 1 Chr 18:17). Then they led an independent life and were provided for by the king (2 Chr 21:3). Amnon evidently lived outside the palace (2 Sm 13:5), and Absalom had his own house (13:20; 14:24), lands, and livestock (13:23; 14:30). Palace or court officials surrounded the royal family (1 Kgs 10:4-5). Whatever their office, they were called the king’s “servants.” There were those “who saw the king’s face,” meaning they were admitted to the king’s presence (2 Sm 14:24, 28, 32), or stood before the king (1 Sm 16:21-22; Jer 52:12). It was a signal mark of favor to be admitted to the royal table (2 Sm 9:7, 13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PALACE<\/h3>\n<p>Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the palace of Tirzah (1 Kgs 16:18) and Ahab’s palace in Jezreel (21:1). Even the references to Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem are quite imprecise. In 1 Kings 7:1-12 the construction of public and private buildings close to the temple went on for 13 years. Only the choicest of materials were used. But from the details supplied, it is quite impossible to reproduce plans of the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Porch of Pillars, the Porch of the Throne, the palace for Solomon’s Egyptian wife, or the royal palace. What the situation of these buildings was in relation to one another is matter only for conjecture. Round about the whole complex was a great court of hewn stones and cedar beams.<\/p>\n<p>Forced labor was universal in the ancient Near East. Samuel’s warning that a king would introduce the system into Israel (1 Sm 8:12-17) was fulfilled, and it came to full development under Solomon when he undertook his massive building program, including his palace. Solomon raised his workforce from all over Israel. The system incited Jeroboam to revolt (1 Kgs 12:4, 16). King Asa used it (15:22), and it continued on into Jeremiah’s time (Jer 22:13). Nehemiah’s builders were volunteers (see Neh 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>Prominent among Solomon’s royal buildings was the temple. Apparently, it stood in the middle of a courtyard called the inner court (1 Kgs 6:36), by contrast with the great court (7:12), which included both the temple and the palace. The palace itself had an inner court too (v 8), the northern wall of which was common to the inner court of the temple. Hence it was but a step from the king’s domain to the Lord’s domain.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s enthronement took place in the palace, in the Porch of the Throne (1 Kgs 1:46; 2 Kgs 11:19). When he took his seat on the throne, it marked his assumption of power (1 Kgs 16:11; 2 Kgs 13:13). Solomon’s throne in his palace became the symbol of royal power, although his throne was still called the throne of David (1 Kgs 2:24, 45; Is 9:7). Solomon’s palace throne is described as one of the wonders of the world (1 Kgs 10:18-20). It was around this throne that the high officials came to do him homage (1:47).<\/p>\n<p>The king’s daughters lived in the palace until their marriage under the care of women (2 Sm 13:7). They wore a distinctive dress (vv 18-19). The king’s sons were reared in the palace by nurses (2 Kgs 11:2) and tutored under leading men of the city (10:1, 6-7), until they were able to perform certain duties at the court (2 Sm 8:18; 1 Chr 18:17). Then they led an independent life and were provided for by the king (2 Chr 21:3). Amnon evidently lived outside the palace (2 Sm 13:5), and Absalom had his own house (13:20; 14:24), lands, and livestock (13:23; 14:30). Palace or court officials surrounded the royal family (1 Kgs 10:4-5). Whatever their office, they were called the king’s “servants.” There were those “who saw the king’s face,” meaning they were admitted to the king’s presence (2 Sm 14:24, 28, 32), or stood before the king (1 Sm 16:21-22; Jer 52:12). It was a signal mark of favor to be admitted to the royal table (2 Sm 9:7, 13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PALACE Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9). The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the pala...","summary_en":"PALACE Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9). The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the pala...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30129,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Pharaoh’s Daughter","title_en":"Pharaoh’s Daughter","content_ro":"<h3>PHARAOH’S DAUGHTER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Egyptian princess who rescued the infant Moses and adopted him as her own son (Ex 2:5-10; Acts 7:21; Heb 11:24). If one accepts an early date for the exodus, this foster mother of Moses could have been Hatshepsut. Some scholars who accept a later date for the exodus believe the pharaoh of the oppression was Ramses II; if so, this princess may have been the daughter of Seti I or the daughter of a pharaoh of the later 18th dynasty. It is likely that she was born to a concubine from a royal harem near the region of Goshen.<\/li>\n<li>2. An Egyptian princess, one of the two wives of Mered (a descendant of Caleb) who gave birth to three children (1 Chr 4:17). Her name, Bithiah (meaning “daughter of the <span>Lord<\/span>”), implies that she was converted to the worship of Israel’s God. It is not known which pharaoh was her father.<\/li>\n<li>3. Princess whom Solomon married in order to seal an alliance with Egypt. Her father was probably Siamun (978–959 <span>BC<\/span>). He gave to Solomon the town of Gezer as a marriage dowry (1 Kgs 3:1; 9:16; 11:1). Solomon built her a palace in Jerusalem because he would not have her live in David’s house (1 Kgs 7:8; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>PHARAOH’S DAUGHTER<\/h3>\n<li>1. Egyptian princess who rescued the infant Moses and adopted him as her own son (Ex 2:5-10; Acts 7:21; Heb 11:24). If one accepts an early date for the exodus, this foster mother of Moses could have been Hatshepsut. Some scholars who accept a later date for the exodus believe the pharaoh of the oppression was Ramses II; if so, this princess may have been the daughter of Seti I or the daughter of a pharaoh of the later 18th dynasty. It is likely that she was born to a concubine from a royal harem near the region of Goshen.<\/li>\n<li>2. An Egyptian princess, one of the two wives of Mered (a descendant of Caleb) who gave birth to three children (1 Chr 4:17). Her name, Bithiah (meaning “daughter of the <span>Lord<\/span>”), implies that she was converted to the worship of Israel’s God. It is not known which pharaoh was her father.<\/li>\n<li>3. Princess whom Solomon married in order to seal an alliance with Egypt. Her father was probably Siamun (978–959 <span>BC<\/span>). He gave to Solomon the town of Gezer as a marriage dowry (1 Kgs 3:1; 9:16; 11:1). Solomon built her a palace in Jerusalem because he would not have her live in David’s house (1 Kgs 7:8; 9:24; 2 Chr 8:11).<\/li>","summary_ro":"PHARAOH’S DAUGHTER 1. Egyptian princess who rescued the infant Moses and adopted him as her own son (Ex 2:5-10; Acts 7:21; Heb 11:24). If one accepts an early date for the exodus, this foster mother of Moses could have been Hatshepsut. Some scholars who accept a later date for the exodus believe the pharaoh of the oppression was Ramses II; if so, this princess may have been the daughter of Seti I or the daughter of a pharaoh of the later 18th dynasty. It is likely that she was born to a concu...","summary_en":"PHARAOH’S DAUGHTER 1. Egyptian princess who rescued the infant Moses and adopted him as her own son (Ex 2:5-10; Acts 7:21; Heb 11:24). If one accepts an early date for the exodus, this foster mother of Moses could have been Hatshepsut. Some scholars who accept a later date for the exodus believe the pharaoh of the oppression was Ramses II; if so, this princess may have been the daughter of Seti I or the daughter of a pharaoh of the later 18th dynasty. It is likely that she was born to a concu...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":46930,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:9","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:9-11<\/strong> As with the Temple, the <em>stones<\/em> for Solomon’s palace complex were <em>high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact<\/em> specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. <em>Cedar beams<\/em> between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:9-11<\/strong> As with the Temple, the <em>stones<\/em> for Solomon’s palace complex were <em>high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact<\/em> specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. <em>Cedar beams<\/em> between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:9-11 As with the Temple, the stones for Solomon’s palace complex were high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. Cedar beams between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.","summary_en":"7:9-11 As with the Temple, the stones for Solomon’s palace complex were high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. Cedar beams between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74556,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:9","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:9-11<\/strong> As with the Temple, the <em>stones<\/em> for Solomon’s palace complex were <em>high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact<\/em> specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. <em>Cedar beams<\/em> between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:9-11<\/strong> As with the Temple, the <em>stones<\/em> for Solomon’s palace complex were <em>high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact<\/em> specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. <em>Cedar beams<\/em> between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:9-11 As with the Temple, the stones for Solomon’s palace complex were high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. Cedar beams between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.","summary_en":"7:9-11 As with the Temple, the stones for Solomon’s palace complex were high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. Cedar beams between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102182,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:9","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:9-11<\/strong> As with the Temple, the <em>stones<\/em> for Solomon’s palace complex were <em>high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact<\/em> specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. <em>Cedar beams<\/em> between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:9-11<\/strong> As with the Temple, the <em>stones<\/em> for Solomon’s palace complex were <em>high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact<\/em> specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. <em>Cedar beams<\/em> between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:9-11 As with the Temple, the stones for Solomon’s palace complex were high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. Cedar beams between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.","summary_en":"7:9-11 As with the Temple, the stones for Solomon’s palace complex were high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. Cedar beams between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129808,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:9","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:9","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:9-11<\/strong> As with the Temple, the <em>stones<\/em> for Solomon’s palace complex were <em>high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact<\/em> specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. <em>Cedar beams<\/em> between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:9-11<\/strong> As with the Temple, the <em>stones<\/em> for Solomon’s palace complex were <em>high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact<\/em> specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. <em>Cedar beams<\/em> between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:9-11 As with the Temple, the stones for Solomon’s palace complex were high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. Cedar beams between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.","summary_en":"7:9-11 As with the Temple, the stones for Solomon’s palace complex were high-quality stone, cut . . . and trimmed to exact specifications. Similar stonework has been found at Megiddo. Cedar beams between the courses of the wall provided better protection against earthquakes.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":28723,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Palace","title_en":"Palace","content_ro":"<h3>PALACE<\/h3>\n<p>Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the palace of Tirzah (1 Kgs 16:18) and Ahab’s palace in Jezreel (21:1). Even the references to Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem are quite imprecise. In 1 Kings 7:1-12 the construction of public and private buildings close to the temple went on for 13 years. Only the choicest of materials were used. But from the details supplied, it is quite impossible to reproduce plans of the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Porch of Pillars, the Porch of the Throne, the palace for Solomon’s Egyptian wife, or the royal palace. What the situation of these buildings was in relation to one another is matter only for conjecture. Round about the whole complex was a great court of hewn stones and cedar beams.<\/p>\n<p>Forced labor was universal in the ancient Near East. Samuel’s warning that a king would introduce the system into Israel (1 Sm 8:12-17) was fulfilled, and it came to full development under Solomon when he undertook his massive building program, including his palace. Solomon raised his workforce from all over Israel. The system incited Jeroboam to revolt (1 Kgs 12:4, 16). King Asa used it (15:22), and it continued on into Jeremiah’s time (Jer 22:13). Nehemiah’s builders were volunteers (see Neh 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>Prominent among Solomon’s royal buildings was the temple. Apparently, it stood in the middle of a courtyard called the inner court (1 Kgs 6:36), by contrast with the great court (7:12), which included both the temple and the palace. The palace itself had an inner court too (v 8), the northern wall of which was common to the inner court of the temple. Hence it was but a step from the king’s domain to the Lord’s domain.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s enthronement took place in the palace, in the Porch of the Throne (1 Kgs 1:46; 2 Kgs 11:19). When he took his seat on the throne, it marked his assumption of power (1 Kgs 16:11; 2 Kgs 13:13). Solomon’s throne in his palace became the symbol of royal power, although his throne was still called the throne of David (1 Kgs 2:24, 45; Is 9:7). Solomon’s palace throne is described as one of the wonders of the world (1 Kgs 10:18-20). It was around this throne that the high officials came to do him homage (1:47).<\/p>\n<p>The king’s daughters lived in the palace until their marriage under the care of women (2 Sm 13:7). They wore a distinctive dress (vv 18-19). The king’s sons were reared in the palace by nurses (2 Kgs 11:2) and tutored under leading men of the city (10:1, 6-7), until they were able to perform certain duties at the court (2 Sm 8:18; 1 Chr 18:17). Then they led an independent life and were provided for by the king (2 Chr 21:3). Amnon evidently lived outside the palace (2 Sm 13:5), and Absalom had his own house (13:20; 14:24), lands, and livestock (13:23; 14:30). Palace or court officials surrounded the royal family (1 Kgs 10:4-5). Whatever their office, they were called the king’s “servants.” There were those “who saw the king’s face,” meaning they were admitted to the king’s presence (2 Sm 14:24, 28, 32), or stood before the king (1 Sm 16:21-22; Jer 52:12). It was a signal mark of favor to be admitted to the royal table (2 Sm 9:7, 13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PALACE<\/h3>\n<p>Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9).<\/p>\n<p>The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the palace of Tirzah (1 Kgs 16:18) and Ahab’s palace in Jezreel (21:1). Even the references to Solomon’s palace in Jerusalem are quite imprecise. In 1 Kings 7:1-12 the construction of public and private buildings close to the temple went on for 13 years. Only the choicest of materials were used. But from the details supplied, it is quite impossible to reproduce plans of the House of the Forest of Lebanon, the Porch of Pillars, the Porch of the Throne, the palace for Solomon’s Egyptian wife, or the royal palace. What the situation of these buildings was in relation to one another is matter only for conjecture. Round about the whole complex was a great court of hewn stones and cedar beams.<\/p>\n<p>Forced labor was universal in the ancient Near East. Samuel’s warning that a king would introduce the system into Israel (1 Sm 8:12-17) was fulfilled, and it came to full development under Solomon when he undertook his massive building program, including his palace. Solomon raised his workforce from all over Israel. The system incited Jeroboam to revolt (1 Kgs 12:4, 16). King Asa used it (15:22), and it continued on into Jeremiah’s time (Jer 22:13). Nehemiah’s builders were volunteers (see Neh 3:5).<\/p>\n<p>Prominent among Solomon’s royal buildings was the temple. Apparently, it stood in the middle of a courtyard called the inner court (1 Kgs 6:36), by contrast with the great court (7:12), which included both the temple and the palace. The palace itself had an inner court too (v 8), the northern wall of which was common to the inner court of the temple. Hence it was but a step from the king’s domain to the Lord’s domain.<\/p>\n<p>The king’s enthronement took place in the palace, in the Porch of the Throne (1 Kgs 1:46; 2 Kgs 11:19). When he took his seat on the throne, it marked his assumption of power (1 Kgs 16:11; 2 Kgs 13:13). Solomon’s throne in his palace became the symbol of royal power, although his throne was still called the throne of David (1 Kgs 2:24, 45; Is 9:7). Solomon’s palace throne is described as one of the wonders of the world (1 Kgs 10:18-20). It was around this throne that the high officials came to do him homage (1:47).<\/p>\n<p>The king’s daughters lived in the palace until their marriage under the care of women (2 Sm 13:7). They wore a distinctive dress (vv 18-19). The king’s sons were reared in the palace by nurses (2 Kgs 11:2) and tutored under leading men of the city (10:1, 6-7), until they were able to perform certain duties at the court (2 Sm 8:18; 1 Chr 18:17). Then they led an independent life and were provided for by the king (2 Chr 21:3). Amnon evidently lived outside the palace (2 Sm 13:5), and Absalom had his own house (13:20; 14:24), lands, and livestock (13:23; 14:30). Palace or court officials surrounded the royal family (1 Kgs 10:4-5). Whatever their office, they were called the king’s “servants.” There were those “who saw the king’s face,” meaning they were admitted to the king’s presence (2 Sm 14:24, 28, 32), or stood before the king (1 Sm 16:21-22; Jer 52:12). It was a signal mark of favor to be admitted to the royal table (2 Sm 9:7, 13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"PALACE Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9). The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the pala...","summary_en":"PALACE Residence for royalty. Excavations suggest that any city that enjoyed royal patronage would boast of a building that could be described as a palace. Royal cities had a second surrounding wall that shut off the royal palace and its outbuildings, forming the acropolis of the city. Jerusalem had the equivalent in the City of David, which formerly was the Citadel of Zion (2 Sm 5:7-9). The OT’s references to palaces in Palestine are vague—for example, David’s palace (2 Sm 11:2, 9), the pala...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36953,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46931,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:12<\/strong> <em>The great courtyard<\/em> that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:12<\/strong> <em>The great courtyard<\/em> that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12 The great courtyard that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).","summary_en":"7:12 The great courtyard that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74557,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:12<\/strong> <em>The great courtyard<\/em> that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:12<\/strong> <em>The great courtyard<\/em> that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12 The great courtyard that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).","summary_en":"7:12 The great courtyard that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102183,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:12<\/strong> <em>The great courtyard<\/em> that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:12<\/strong> <em>The great courtyard<\/em> that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12 The great courtyard that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).","summary_en":"7:12 The great courtyard that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129809,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:12","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:12<\/strong> <em>The great courtyard<\/em> that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:12<\/strong> <em>The great courtyard<\/em> that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:12 The great courtyard that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).","summary_en":"7:12 The great courtyard that encircled the Temple and palace complex provided a gathering place for the people (see Jer 7:1-2; 36:10).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"13":[{"id":16441,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hiram","title_en":"Hiram","content_ro":"<h3>HIRAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Tyre during the time of David and Solomon. After David had conquered Jerusalem and moved his capital there, Hiram sent cedarwood, masons, and carpenters to build David’s palace (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Chr 14:1). Hiram remained David’s friend throughout his life (1 Kgs 5:1), and after David’s death, he sought to continue that friendship with Solomon. When Solomon was ready to build the temple, Hiram provided wood from the forests of Lebanon, gold, and skilled craftsmen to help build and furnish the temple; Solomon, in return, gave Hiram wheat and oil for his household. Moreover, Solomon gave Hiram 20 cities in Galilee, although Scripture indicates that Hiram was not pleased with them (1 Kgs 5:1-11; 9:10-14).<\/li>\n<p>Although the Israelites were not a maritime people, Solomon did maintain a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 9:26-28). Hiram gave his assistance to Solomon by supplying sailors and perhaps ships to make Solomon’s fleet operable. The Phoenicians were noted sailors, who sailed the Mediterranean Sea as far west as Tarshish in Spain.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram was probably the son of Abibal. Hiram reigned in Tyre for 34 years and died at the age of 53. Phoenician historians record that Solomon married the daughter of Hiram.<\/p>\n\n<li>2. Craftsman from Tyre who worked on Solomon’s temple. He was said to be the son of a man of Tyre and a woman from the tribe of Naphtali (1 Kgs 7:13-14), although 2 Chronicles 2:14 says that his mother was from “the daughters of Dan.” (Possibly her ancestors were from Dan’s tribe; cf. Ex 38:23.) He was responsible for the creation of various furnishings in the temple: 2 bronze pillars, the capitals that adorned the pillars, the molten sea and the 12 oxen on which it stood, the 10 lavers with their bases, as well as shovels, pots, and basins.<\/li>\n<p>His name is also spelled Huram in 2 Chronicles 4:11. He is called Huram-abi (abi meaning “master”) in 2 Chronicles 2:13 and 4:16.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HIRAM<\/h3>\n<li>1. King of Tyre during the time of David and Solomon. After David had conquered Jerusalem and moved his capital there, Hiram sent cedarwood, masons, and carpenters to build David’s palace (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Chr 14:1). Hiram remained David’s friend throughout his life (1 Kgs 5:1), and after David’s death, he sought to continue that friendship with Solomon. When Solomon was ready to build the temple, Hiram provided wood from the forests of Lebanon, gold, and skilled craftsmen to help build and furnish the temple; Solomon, in return, gave Hiram wheat and oil for his household. Moreover, Solomon gave Hiram 20 cities in Galilee, although Scripture indicates that Hiram was not pleased with them (1 Kgs 5:1-11; 9:10-14).<\/li>\n<p>Although the Israelites were not a maritime people, Solomon did maintain a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber (1 Kgs 9:26-28). Hiram gave his assistance to Solomon by supplying sailors and perhaps ships to make Solomon’s fleet operable. The Phoenicians were noted sailors, who sailed the Mediterranean Sea as far west as Tarshish in Spain.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram was probably the son of Abibal. Hiram reigned in Tyre for 34 years and died at the age of 53. Phoenician historians record that Solomon married the daughter of Hiram.<\/p>\n\n<li>2. Craftsman from Tyre who worked on Solomon’s temple. He was said to be the son of a man of Tyre and a woman from the tribe of Naphtali (1 Kgs 7:13-14), although 2 Chronicles 2:14 says that his mother was from “the daughters of Dan.” (Possibly her ancestors were from Dan’s tribe; cf. Ex 38:23.) He was responsible for the creation of various furnishings in the temple: 2 bronze pillars, the capitals that adorned the pillars, the molten sea and the 12 oxen on which it stood, the 10 lavers with their bases, as well as shovels, pots, and basins.<\/li>\n<p>His name is also spelled Huram in 2 Chronicles 4:11. He is called Huram-abi (abi meaning “master”) in 2 Chronicles 2:13 and 4:16.<\/p>","summary_ro":"HIRAM 1. King of Tyre during the time of David and Solomon. After David had conquered Jerusalem and moved his capital there, Hiram sent cedarwood, masons, and carpenters to build David’s palace (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Chr 14:1). Hiram remained David’s friend throughout his life (1 Kgs 5:1), and after David’s death, he sought to continue that friendship with Solomon. When Solomon was ready to build the temple, Hiram provided wood from the forests of Lebanon, gold, and skilled craftsmen to help build and...","summary_en":"HIRAM 1. King of Tyre during the time of David and Solomon. After David had conquered Jerusalem and moved his capital there, Hiram sent cedarwood, masons, and carpenters to build David’s palace (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Chr 14:1). Hiram remained David’s friend throughout his life (1 Kgs 5:1), and after David’s death, he sought to continue that friendship with Solomon. When Solomon was ready to build the temple, Hiram provided wood from the forests of Lebanon, gold, and skilled craftsmen to help build and...","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25789,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Minerals* and Metals","title_en":"Minerals* and Metals","content_ro":"<h3>MINERALS* AND METALS<\/h3>\n<p>A “mineral” is a naturally occurring substance, normally an ore that must be mined and treated before the metal can be extracted. A “metal” is a chemical element such as iron or copper, which is free from contamination by other materials. Metals in a pure form generally do not occur in nature, though there are exceptions.<\/p>\n<p>In Palestine, mining and smelting are ancient arts, practiced long before the Israelites arrived. The quarrying of suitable stones, such as flint, for toolmaking goes back to the Stone Age; the quarrying of stone for building is also an ancient craft. In particular, metals, native gold, copper, and meteoric iron were known and used in the Middle East before 4000 <span>BC<\/span>. From 4000 to 3000 <span>BC<\/span>, native silver became known as well as copper and lead ores. The art of smelting was discovered probably almost by accident, resulting in the production of alloys like bronze. Then the reduction of oxidized iron was discovered. From 3000 to 2000 <span>BC<\/span>, important advances were made. Copper sulfides and tin oxides were reduced to metal, and metallic tin and copper became important items of trade.<\/p>\n<p>In the years 2000 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>, bellows came into use for furnaces, and iron was reduced from its ores and forged. The art of making brass from copper and zinc was discovered about 1500 <span>BC<\/span> but did not become significant till somewhat later. Bronze, known for many centuries, was made sometimes with a high tin content to form speculum for mirrors. By this time the Israelites were settled in the land and the kingdom was established. From 1000 <span>BC<\/span> to the start of the Christian era, the production of metals, especially iron, greatly expanded. A form of steel was made and used for weapons and tools.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of David and Solomon, the Israelites had learned many skills in the preparation and working of metals. Under David, Edom, with its rich copper and iron deposits, was conquered (2 Sm 8:13-14) and there was a lot of activity in the casting of metals in the Jordan Valley (1 Kgs 7:13-14, 45-46). In this activity Solomon had the assistance of Hiram, a Phoenician artisan. Israelite tradition associated the origins of metallurgy with Tubal-cain (Gn 4:22), who is said to have forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Deuteronomy 8:9 refers to the presence of iron and copper in the land to which Israel was going.<\/p>\n<p>While the Israelites eventually undertook their own metalworking processes, it is evident from 1 Samuel 13:19-22 that on at least one occasion, in the days of Philistine domination, they were obliged to have their agricultural tools made by their enemies. Similarly, the manufacture of cult vessels for Solomon’s temple was supervised by Phoenician artisans (1 Kgs 7:13-50).<\/p>\n<p>Minerals, metals, and precious stones were also important items of trade. Israel was never a land rich in these commodities and was obliged to import a wide variety of them. The visit of the queen of Sheba was partly diplomatic and partly for trade (1 Kgs 10:2, 10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Metals and precious stones featured also among the booty carried off by invaders, notably—but not only—by the Egyptians and Assyrians. These items were in constant demand as they were needed for agriculture and making weapons of war, and for the manufacture of jewelry and items of personal adornment.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Minerals\">Minerals<\/p>\n<p>A mineral is an inorganic substance with a definite chemical composition and structure, sometimes occurring alone or sometimes combined with others. “Ore” refers to any mineral or mineral aggregate containing chemical compounds of metals in sufficient quantity and grade to make the extraction of the metal commercially profitable. The essential element, the metal, occurs in nature as a chemical compound, such as a sulfide, an oxide, a carbonate, or some other compound, though the sulfides and oxides are the most common. Minerals exhibit a variety of properties, such as color, luster, crystal form, cleavage, fracture, hardness, and density, which help in their identification and exercise control on the commercial and industrial uses of the particular mineral.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Metals\">Metals<\/p>\n<p>A metal in its pure form is a chemically pure element with its own fixed physical properties, such as density, tensile strength, crystalline structure, melting point, ductility, conductivity, and the like. Metals form alloys with other metals, but this process destroys their purity. In both the ancient world and the modern world the alloy is extremely important.<\/p>\n<p>In order to obtain a pure metal, the ore in which the metal is contained must be smelted—a process known as metallurgy. In ancient Israel pure metals were widely used—among them were gold, silver, iron, and lead. Yet alloys such as bronze and brass were even more widely used.<\/p>\n<h5>Metallurgy and Metal Extraction<\/h5>\n<p>The method of producing hard wrought iron was discovered by the Hittites of Asia Minor about 1300 <span>BC<\/span>, and was taken up by the Philistines (1 Sm 13:19-20). At first, the iron obtained from simple furnaces was drawn off and hammered to drive out slag (Dt 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4). Later, the addition of carbon produced an early form of steel.<\/p>\n<p>The lead sulfide ore is heated with lime in a flow of air. A slag with rock particles forms. The air is then cut off and the temperature is raised. Finally, the lead flows free.<\/p>\n<p>The OT refers to the mining of silver (Jb 28:1), the refining of the metal (Zec 13:9; Mal 3:3), the melting of scrap metals or jeweler’s remnants (Ez 22:20-22), and of multiple refinings in a crucible (Prv 17:3; 27:21) to produce refined silver (1 Chr 29:4; Ps 12:6; Prv 10:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Specific Metals<\/h5>\n<p>Although several OT passages suggest that the science of metallurgy was known in biblical times, comparatively little archaeological evidence is available. The processing plants were small and were used for the treatment of copper and iron. The archaeological record is far from complete, but the general impression is that metallic ores were comparatively rare in Palestine; imports must have been considerable. However, numerous molds for casting agricultural and military tools have come to light in excavations. Evidently, some refined metal was available locally, but perhaps most of it was imported. The metal was then heated and poured into the appropriate earthenware or pottery mold.<\/p>\n<p>There are many references to metals in the Bible, but especially to gold, silver, iron, and lead. While copper was widely used, it was normally in the form of its alloys, bronze and brass. There are comparatively few references to tin as such, though it was used in manufacturing bronze. Similarly zinc, though used in the manufacture of brass, is not mentioned in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Gold is referred to hundreds of times in the OT and NT, more frequently than any other metal. It is often mentioned together with silver, and in the majority of cases silver is mentioned first, reflecting a time when gold was less valued.<\/p>\n<p>Gold was used in the manufacture of ornaments for personal use (Gn 24:53; 41:42; Ex 3:22; 11:2; 12:35). Gold was important in worship both in Israel and among the non-Israelites. References to pagan gods occur in several passages (Ex 20:23; 32:2-4; Ps 115:4; Is 2:20; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19; 46:6; Hos 8:4). It seems that the gold was melted down and later engraved so that the replicas could be called both molten images (Ex 32:24) and graven images. The tabernacle and the temple used a great deal of gold. The wooden ark was covered inside and outside with gold (25:11). Other timber pieces were overlaid with gold (25:11; 1 Kgs 6:20-22, 30).<\/p>\n<p>The vessels and utensils used in the tabernacle and temple were made of “pure gold”: the cherubim (Ex 25:18; 37:7), the mercy seat (25:17; 37:6), the candlestick (Ex 25:31; Zec 4:2), various vessels (Ex 25:38; 2 Kgs 24:13), chains to carry the ephod (Ex 28:14), and the bells on the high priest’s robe. The high priest’s crown, ephod, and breastplate were also of gold (39:2-30). The offerings collected for the manufacture of such articles in the wilderness include golden dishes weighing 120 shekels (Nm 7:86). The more lavishly adorned temple apparently used more gold than the tabernacle (1 Kgs 6:20-28; 1 Chr 29:2-7; 2 Chr 3:4–4:22). The number of specific references to gold in the tabernacle and temple is far too great to mention all of them here. The large amount of gold used in the temple was attractive to invaders, who would strip the temple of its gold and carry it off as booty (1 Kgs 14:26; 2 Kgs 16:8; 18:14; 24:13; 25:15; 2 Chr 12:9).<\/p>\n<p>Gold had commercial value. It was imported in Solomon’s day, and up to 666 talents were brought to Israel annually (1 Kgs 10:14). Hiram of Tyre gave Solomon 120 talents of gold (9:14), possibly as a loan. Certainly Solomon used a lot of gold in the temple (10:16-17). Gold was useful, too, for buying off an enemy (2 Kgs 16:8) or simply as tribute (18:14). Evidence of this comes also from the Assyrian annals, where the tribute taken from various lands often included gold.<\/p>\n<p>The possession of gold was not in itself an evil thing, but preoccupation with its accumulation was condemned (Jb 28:15-17; Prv 3:14; 8:10, 19; 16:16). The possession of wisdom and the knowledge of God was of greater value than the possession of much gold (Pss 19:10; 119:72, 127; Prv 20:15). Job rejected trust in gold (Jb 31:24). Gold would not save a man in the day of judgment (Zep 1:18).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT gold was regarded as perishable (Jas 5:3; 1 Pt 1:18) and as an unnecessary burden to carry (Mt 10:9; Acts 3:6). The wearing of a gold ring was certainly no measure of a man’s worth (Jas 2:2); indeed, both Paul and Peter forbade it (1 Tm 2:9; 1 Pt 3:3).<\/p>\n<p>The use of gold in itself was no measure of piety. The elders of Revelation 4:4 wore golden crowns, but the great harlot was “bedecked with gold” (Rv 17:4), as was the harlot city Babylon (18:16). By contrast, there are some positive statements in the NT about the value of gold (3:18). The wise men brought gold to the infant Jesus as a symbol of his kingly character (Mt 2:11), and the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, was a city of gold, clear as glass (Rv 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, silver is mentioned in several connections. Being a precious metal, once considered more precious than gold, it was regularly used in commerce for the payments of debts. Small pieces of silver were weighed into a balance against a standard weight. Abraham bought the cave at Machpelah as a burial place for Sarah for 400 shekels of silver and weighed out the “money” according to the weight’s current value with the merchant (Gn 23:15-16). Joseph’s brothers received 20 pieces of silver in payment for Joseph (37:28), and Benjamin was given a money gift by Joseph in pieces of silver (45:22).<\/p>\n<p>There are other examples of payment in silver for commodities or services (Gn 20:16; Ex 21:32; Lv 27:16; Jos 24:32; Jgs 17:10; 2 Sm 24:24; Neh 7:72; Jb 28:15; Is 7:23; 46:6; Am 2:6; 8:6). Silver was a measure of a man’s wealth (Gn 13:2; 24:35; Ex 25:3; Nm 22:18; Dt 7:25; Zep 1:18; Hg 2:8; Zec 6:11). An unusual comment in 1 Kings 10:21 notes that in Solomon’s day “it was not considered as anything,” apparently because it was so plentiful. It was regularly taken as booty (Jos 6:19; 7:21; 1 Kgs 15:18). Sometimes the drinking cup of an important man was made of silver (Gn 44:2). Sometimes, too, a royal crown was made of gold and silver (Zec 6:11). It was important in the manufacture of personal ornaments (Gn 24:53; Ex 3:22; 12:35), and one example is given of ornaments of gold studded with silver (Sg 1:11).<\/p>\n<p>The process of refining silver was used as a metaphor for the trying of people’s hearts (Ps 66:10; Is 48:10), and the tarnishing and deterioration of silver was a picture of the disintegration of one’s character (Is 1:22; Jer 6:30). God’s Word is pictured as “pure” silver refined and purified in a furnace. Despite silver’s great value, wisdom excels it (Job 28:15; Prv 3:14; 8:19; 10:20; 16:16; 22:1; 25:11).<\/p>\n<p>Native copper is mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:9, though the reference may be to one of its ores. More commonly, biblical references are to brass, the alloy of copper and zinc. However, the chemical analysis of copper-based tools and implements during the middle and late Bronze Ages (c. 2000–1200 <span>BC<\/span>) shows that the material was bronze. References to brass in the <span>kjv<\/span> are therefore to bronze.<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, copper in the form of alloys (bronze and brass) was widely used. Bronze coinage was well known and this may be the sense of Matthew 10:9. The widow’s mite was a tiny bronze coin, the lepton. Bronze utensils and vessels were well known (Rv 9:20; 18:12). The reference to “sounding brass” (<span>kjv<\/span>) in 1 Corinthians 13:1 may actually be to brass, which was a bright, shining alloy, and was used in musical instruments. In the vision of John in Revelation (Rv 1:15; 2:18), the Son of Man had feet of fine brass (<span>nlt<\/span> “bronze”).<\/p>\n<p>The Iron Age began in Palestine about 1200 <span>BC<\/span>, that is, in the days of the judges, though native iron had been known in Egypt in the predynastic period. Archaeological evidence suggests that the smelting of iron ore was discovered by the Hittites about 1400 <span>BC<\/span>. The Philistines seem to have introduced iron to Palestine about 1300 <span>BC<\/span>. In the days of Moses an encounter with the Midianites produced much tribute, among which iron is mentioned (Nm 31:22). When Israel captured Jericho, the spoils included iron (Jos 6:24). Manasseh’s half-tribe also took booty including iron (22:8). In the days of the judges the Canaanites were equipped with chariots of iron (Jos 17:16-18; Jgs 1:19; 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>These early references point to the arrival of iron at the start of the Iron Age. The Philistines enjoyed a local monopoly in its use (1 Sm 13:19-21), and their mighty warrior Goliath was armed with an iron spear (17:7). It was not long, however, before Israel learned the use of iron (2 Sm 12:31; 23:7). Evidently, by Solomon’s time, iron was widely used, because builders of the temple were forbidden to use iron tools (1 Kgs 6:7). The false prophet Zedekiah in Ahab’s day used the horns of iron to thrust toward Syria as he spoke of their defeat (22:11).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Isaiah in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> referred to iron (Is 10:34), and Jeremiah later spoke of the metal in several places (Jer 1:18; 6:28; 11:4; 15:12; 17:1; 28:13-14). Ezekiel made use of an iron plate in one of his symbolic actions (Ez 4:3), referred to iron in his description of smelting (22:18, 20), and listed it as a commodity for trade (27:12, 19). The prophet Amos spoke of threshing instruments of iron (Am 1:3). Micah used iron as a symbol for military might (Mi 4:13). The book of Daniel makes several references to it (Dn 2:33-35, 40-45; 4:15, 23; 7:7, 19).<\/p>\n<p>By Roman times, iron weapons were the regular implements of war. Gates of iron were used to close prisons (Acts 12:10), and in a symbolic usage powerful rulers were said to rule with a rod of iron (Rv 2:27; 9:9; 12:5; 19:15). The term “iron” was used also in some metaphorical expressions. The smelting of iron was a symbol of testing and suffering (Dt 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4; Ez 22:18), a pillar of iron was symbolic of strength (Jer 1:18), and an iron rod of harsh rule (Ps 2:9; Rv 2:27; 12:5; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Coppersmith; Goldsmith; Ironsmith; Mason, Masonry; Silversmith; Stones, Precious.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MINERALS* AND METALS<\/h3>\n<p>A “mineral” is a naturally occurring substance, normally an ore that must be mined and treated before the metal can be extracted. A “metal” is a chemical element such as iron or copper, which is free from contamination by other materials. Metals in a pure form generally do not occur in nature, though there are exceptions.<\/p>\n<p>In Palestine, mining and smelting are ancient arts, practiced long before the Israelites arrived. The quarrying of suitable stones, such as flint, for toolmaking goes back to the Stone Age; the quarrying of stone for building is also an ancient craft. In particular, metals, native gold, copper, and meteoric iron were known and used in the Middle East before 4000 <span>BC<\/span>. From 4000 to 3000 <span>BC<\/span>, native silver became known as well as copper and lead ores. The art of smelting was discovered probably almost by accident, resulting in the production of alloys like bronze. Then the reduction of oxidized iron was discovered. From 3000 to 2000 <span>BC<\/span>, important advances were made. Copper sulfides and tin oxides were reduced to metal, and metallic tin and copper became important items of trade.<\/p>\n<p>In the years 2000 to 1000 <span>BC<\/span>, bellows came into use for furnaces, and iron was reduced from its ores and forged. The art of making brass from copper and zinc was discovered about 1500 <span>BC<\/span> but did not become significant till somewhat later. Bronze, known for many centuries, was made sometimes with a high tin content to form speculum for mirrors. By this time the Israelites were settled in the land and the kingdom was established. From 1000 <span>BC<\/span> to the start of the Christian era, the production of metals, especially iron, greatly expanded. A form of steel was made and used for weapons and tools.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of David and Solomon, the Israelites had learned many skills in the preparation and working of metals. Under David, Edom, with its rich copper and iron deposits, was conquered (2 Sm 8:13-14) and there was a lot of activity in the casting of metals in the Jordan Valley (1 Kgs 7:13-14, 45-46). In this activity Solomon had the assistance of Hiram, a Phoenician artisan. Israelite tradition associated the origins of metallurgy with Tubal-cain (Gn 4:22), who is said to have forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Deuteronomy 8:9 refers to the presence of iron and copper in the land to which Israel was going.<\/p>\n<p>While the Israelites eventually undertook their own metalworking processes, it is evident from 1 Samuel 13:19-22 that on at least one occasion, in the days of Philistine domination, they were obliged to have their agricultural tools made by their enemies. Similarly, the manufacture of cult vessels for Solomon’s temple was supervised by Phoenician artisans (1 Kgs 7:13-50).<\/p>\n<p>Minerals, metals, and precious stones were also important items of trade. Israel was never a land rich in these commodities and was obliged to import a wide variety of them. The visit of the queen of Sheba was partly diplomatic and partly for trade (1 Kgs 10:2, 10-11).<\/p>\n<p>Metals and precious stones featured also among the booty carried off by invaders, notably—but not only—by the Egyptians and Assyrians. These items were in constant demand as they were needed for agriculture and making weapons of war, and for the manufacture of jewelry and items of personal adornment.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Minerals\">Minerals<\/p>\n<p>A mineral is an inorganic substance with a definite chemical composition and structure, sometimes occurring alone or sometimes combined with others. “Ore” refers to any mineral or mineral aggregate containing chemical compounds of metals in sufficient quantity and grade to make the extraction of the metal commercially profitable. The essential element, the metal, occurs in nature as a chemical compound, such as a sulfide, an oxide, a carbonate, or some other compound, though the sulfides and oxides are the most common. Minerals exhibit a variety of properties, such as color, luster, crystal form, cleavage, fracture, hardness, and density, which help in their identification and exercise control on the commercial and industrial uses of the particular mineral.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Metals\">Metals<\/p>\n<p>A metal in its pure form is a chemically pure element with its own fixed physical properties, such as density, tensile strength, crystalline structure, melting point, ductility, conductivity, and the like. Metals form alloys with other metals, but this process destroys their purity. In both the ancient world and the modern world the alloy is extremely important.<\/p>\n<p>In order to obtain a pure metal, the ore in which the metal is contained must be smelted—a process known as metallurgy. In ancient Israel pure metals were widely used—among them were gold, silver, iron, and lead. Yet alloys such as bronze and brass were even more widely used.<\/p>\n<h5>Metallurgy and Metal Extraction<\/h5>\n<p>The method of producing hard wrought iron was discovered by the Hittites of Asia Minor about 1300 <span>BC<\/span>, and was taken up by the Philistines (1 Sm 13:19-20). At first, the iron obtained from simple furnaces was drawn off and hammered to drive out slag (Dt 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4). Later, the addition of carbon produced an early form of steel.<\/p>\n<p>The lead sulfide ore is heated with lime in a flow of air. A slag with rock particles forms. The air is then cut off and the temperature is raised. Finally, the lead flows free.<\/p>\n<p>The OT refers to the mining of silver (Jb 28:1), the refining of the metal (Zec 13:9; Mal 3:3), the melting of scrap metals or jeweler’s remnants (Ez 22:20-22), and of multiple refinings in a crucible (Prv 17:3; 27:21) to produce refined silver (1 Chr 29:4; Ps 12:6; Prv 10:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Specific Metals<\/h5>\n<p>Although several OT passages suggest that the science of metallurgy was known in biblical times, comparatively little archaeological evidence is available. The processing plants were small and were used for the treatment of copper and iron. The archaeological record is far from complete, but the general impression is that metallic ores were comparatively rare in Palestine; imports must have been considerable. However, numerous molds for casting agricultural and military tools have come to light in excavations. Evidently, some refined metal was available locally, but perhaps most of it was imported. The metal was then heated and poured into the appropriate earthenware or pottery mold.<\/p>\n<p>There are many references to metals in the Bible, but especially to gold, silver, iron, and lead. While copper was widely used, it was normally in the form of its alloys, bronze and brass. There are comparatively few references to tin as such, though it was used in manufacturing bronze. Similarly zinc, though used in the manufacture of brass, is not mentioned in the Bible.<\/p>\n<p>Gold is referred to hundreds of times in the OT and NT, more frequently than any other metal. It is often mentioned together with silver, and in the majority of cases silver is mentioned first, reflecting a time when gold was less valued.<\/p>\n<p>Gold was used in the manufacture of ornaments for personal use (Gn 24:53; 41:42; Ex 3:22; 11:2; 12:35). Gold was important in worship both in Israel and among the non-Israelites. References to pagan gods occur in several passages (Ex 20:23; 32:2-4; Ps 115:4; Is 2:20; 30:22; 31:7; 40:19; 46:6; Hos 8:4). It seems that the gold was melted down and later engraved so that the replicas could be called both molten images (Ex 32:24) and graven images. The tabernacle and the temple used a great deal of gold. The wooden ark was covered inside and outside with gold (25:11). Other timber pieces were overlaid with gold (25:11; 1 Kgs 6:20-22, 30).<\/p>\n<p>The vessels and utensils used in the tabernacle and temple were made of “pure gold”: the cherubim (Ex 25:18; 37:7), the mercy seat (25:17; 37:6), the candlestick (Ex 25:31; Zec 4:2), various vessels (Ex 25:38; 2 Kgs 24:13), chains to carry the ephod (Ex 28:14), and the bells on the high priest’s robe. The high priest’s crown, ephod, and breastplate were also of gold (39:2-30). The offerings collected for the manufacture of such articles in the wilderness include golden dishes weighing 120 shekels (Nm 7:86). The more lavishly adorned temple apparently used more gold than the tabernacle (1 Kgs 6:20-28; 1 Chr 29:2-7; 2 Chr 3:4–4:22). The number of specific references to gold in the tabernacle and temple is far too great to mention all of them here. The large amount of gold used in the temple was attractive to invaders, who would strip the temple of its gold and carry it off as booty (1 Kgs 14:26; 2 Kgs 16:8; 18:14; 24:13; 25:15; 2 Chr 12:9).<\/p>\n<p>Gold had commercial value. It was imported in Solomon’s day, and up to 666 talents were brought to Israel annually (1 Kgs 10:14). Hiram of Tyre gave Solomon 120 talents of gold (9:14), possibly as a loan. Certainly Solomon used a lot of gold in the temple (10:16-17). Gold was useful, too, for buying off an enemy (2 Kgs 16:8) or simply as tribute (18:14). Evidence of this comes also from the Assyrian annals, where the tribute taken from various lands often included gold.<\/p>\n<p>The possession of gold was not in itself an evil thing, but preoccupation with its accumulation was condemned (Jb 28:15-17; Prv 3:14; 8:10, 19; 16:16). The possession of wisdom and the knowledge of God was of greater value than the possession of much gold (Pss 19:10; 119:72, 127; Prv 20:15). Job rejected trust in gold (Jb 31:24). Gold would not save a man in the day of judgment (Zep 1:18).<\/p>\n<p>In the NT gold was regarded as perishable (Jas 5:3; 1 Pt 1:18) and as an unnecessary burden to carry (Mt 10:9; Acts 3:6). The wearing of a gold ring was certainly no measure of a man’s worth (Jas 2:2); indeed, both Paul and Peter forbade it (1 Tm 2:9; 1 Pt 3:3).<\/p>\n<p>The use of gold in itself was no measure of piety. The elders of Revelation 4:4 wore golden crowns, but the great harlot was “bedecked with gold” (Rv 17:4), as was the harlot city Babylon (18:16). By contrast, there are some positive statements in the NT about the value of gold (3:18). The wise men brought gold to the infant Jesus as a symbol of his kingly character (Mt 2:11), and the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, was a city of gold, clear as glass (Rv 21:18).<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, silver is mentioned in several connections. Being a precious metal, once considered more precious than gold, it was regularly used in commerce for the payments of debts. Small pieces of silver were weighed into a balance against a standard weight. Abraham bought the cave at Machpelah as a burial place for Sarah for 400 shekels of silver and weighed out the “money” according to the weight’s current value with the merchant (Gn 23:15-16). Joseph’s brothers received 20 pieces of silver in payment for Joseph (37:28), and Benjamin was given a money gift by Joseph in pieces of silver (45:22).<\/p>\n<p>There are other examples of payment in silver for commodities or services (Gn 20:16; Ex 21:32; Lv 27:16; Jos 24:32; Jgs 17:10; 2 Sm 24:24; Neh 7:72; Jb 28:15; Is 7:23; 46:6; Am 2:6; 8:6). Silver was a measure of a man’s wealth (Gn 13:2; 24:35; Ex 25:3; Nm 22:18; Dt 7:25; Zep 1:18; Hg 2:8; Zec 6:11). An unusual comment in 1 Kings 10:21 notes that in Solomon’s day “it was not considered as anything,” apparently because it was so plentiful. It was regularly taken as booty (Jos 6:19; 7:21; 1 Kgs 15:18). Sometimes the drinking cup of an important man was made of silver (Gn 44:2). Sometimes, too, a royal crown was made of gold and silver (Zec 6:11). It was important in the manufacture of personal ornaments (Gn 24:53; Ex 3:22; 12:35), and one example is given of ornaments of gold studded with silver (Sg 1:11).<\/p>\n<p>The process of refining silver was used as a metaphor for the trying of people’s hearts (Ps 66:10; Is 48:10), and the tarnishing and deterioration of silver was a picture of the disintegration of one’s character (Is 1:22; Jer 6:30). God’s Word is pictured as “pure” silver refined and purified in a furnace. Despite silver’s great value, wisdom excels it (Job 28:15; Prv 3:14; 8:19; 10:20; 16:16; 22:1; 25:11).<\/p>\n<p>Native copper is mentioned in Deuteronomy 8:9, though the reference may be to one of its ores. More commonly, biblical references are to brass, the alloy of copper and zinc. However, the chemical analysis of copper-based tools and implements during the middle and late Bronze Ages (c. 2000–1200 <span>BC<\/span>) shows that the material was bronze. References to brass in the <span>kjv<\/span> are therefore to bronze.<\/p>\n<p>By NT times, copper in the form of alloys (bronze and brass) was widely used. Bronze coinage was well known and this may be the sense of Matthew 10:9. The widow’s mite was a tiny bronze coin, the lepton. Bronze utensils and vessels were well known (Rv 9:20; 18:12). The reference to “sounding brass” (<span>kjv<\/span>) in 1 Corinthians 13:1 may actually be to brass, which was a bright, shining alloy, and was used in musical instruments. In the vision of John in Revelation (Rv 1:15; 2:18), the Son of Man had feet of fine brass (<span>nlt<\/span> “bronze”).<\/p>\n<p>The Iron Age began in Palestine about 1200 <span>BC<\/span>, that is, in the days of the judges, though native iron had been known in Egypt in the predynastic period. Archaeological evidence suggests that the smelting of iron ore was discovered by the Hittites about 1400 <span>BC<\/span>. The Philistines seem to have introduced iron to Palestine about 1300 <span>BC<\/span>. In the days of Moses an encounter with the Midianites produced much tribute, among which iron is mentioned (Nm 31:22). When Israel captured Jericho, the spoils included iron (Jos 6:24). Manasseh’s half-tribe also took booty including iron (22:8). In the days of the judges the Canaanites were equipped with chariots of iron (Jos 17:16-18; Jgs 1:19; 4:3).<\/p>\n<p>These early references point to the arrival of iron at the start of the Iron Age. The Philistines enjoyed a local monopoly in its use (1 Sm 13:19-21), and their mighty warrior Goliath was armed with an iron spear (17:7). It was not long, however, before Israel learned the use of iron (2 Sm 12:31; 23:7). Evidently, by Solomon’s time, iron was widely used, because builders of the temple were forbidden to use iron tools (1 Kgs 6:7). The false prophet Zedekiah in Ahab’s day used the horns of iron to thrust toward Syria as he spoke of their defeat (22:11).<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Isaiah in the eighth century <span>BC<\/span> referred to iron (Is 10:34), and Jeremiah later spoke of the metal in several places (Jer 1:18; 6:28; 11:4; 15:12; 17:1; 28:13-14). Ezekiel made use of an iron plate in one of his symbolic actions (Ez 4:3), referred to iron in his description of smelting (22:18, 20), and listed it as a commodity for trade (27:12, 19). The prophet Amos spoke of threshing instruments of iron (Am 1:3). Micah used iron as a symbol for military might (Mi 4:13). The book of Daniel makes several references to it (Dn 2:33-35, 40-45; 4:15, 23; 7:7, 19).<\/p>\n<p>By Roman times, iron weapons were the regular implements of war. Gates of iron were used to close prisons (Acts 12:10), and in a symbolic usage powerful rulers were said to rule with a rod of iron (Rv 2:27; 9:9; 12:5; 19:15). The term “iron” was used also in some metaphorical expressions. The smelting of iron was a symbol of testing and suffering (Dt 4:20; 1 Kgs 8:51; Jer 11:4; Ez 22:18), a pillar of iron was symbolic of strength (Jer 1:18), and an iron rod of harsh rule (Ps 2:9; Rv 2:27; 12:5; 19:15).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Coppersmith; Goldsmith; Ironsmith; Mason, Masonry; Silversmith; Stones, Precious.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MINERALS* AND METALS A “mineral” is a naturally occurring substance, normally an ore that must be mined and treated before the metal can be extracted. A “metal” is a chemical element such as iron or copper, which is free from contamination by other materials. Metals in a pure form generally do not occur in nature, though there are exceptions. In Palestine, mining and smelting are ancient arts, practiced long before the Israelites arrived. The quarrying of suitable stones, such as flint, for t...","summary_en":"MINERALS* AND METALS A “mineral” is a naturally occurring substance, normally an ore that must be mined and treated before the metal can be extracted. A “metal” is a chemical element such as iron or copper, which is free from contamination by other materials. Metals in a pure form generally do not occur in nature, though there are exceptions. In Palestine, mining and smelting are ancient arts, practiced long before the Israelites arrived. The quarrying of suitable stones, such as flint, for t...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36941,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46932,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:13-14<\/strong> <em>Huram:<\/em> Like his father, he was a master <em>craftsman in bronze<\/em> and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful <em>metal work<\/em> is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • <em>skillful and talented<\/em> (literally <em>filled with wisdom and<\/em> <em>understanding and knowledge<\/em>): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:13-14<\/strong> <em>Huram:<\/em> Like his father, he was a master <em>craftsman in bronze<\/em> and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful <em>metal work<\/em> is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • <em>skillful and talented<\/em> (literally <em>filled with wisdom and<\/em> <em>understanding and knowledge<\/em>): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:13-14 Huram: Like his father, he was a master craftsman in bronze and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful metal work is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • skillful and talented (literally filled with wisdom and understanding and knowledge): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).","summary_en":"7:13-14 Huram: Like his father, he was a master craftsman in bronze and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful metal work is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • skillful and talented (literally filled with wisdom and understanding and knowledge): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74558,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:13-14<\/strong> <em>Huram:<\/em> Like his father, he was a master <em>craftsman in bronze<\/em> and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful <em>metal work<\/em> is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • <em>skillful and talented<\/em> (literally <em>filled with wisdom and<\/em> <em>understanding and knowledge<\/em>): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:13-14<\/strong> <em>Huram:<\/em> Like his father, he was a master <em>craftsman in bronze<\/em> and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful <em>metal work<\/em> is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • <em>skillful and talented<\/em> (literally <em>filled with wisdom and<\/em> <em>understanding and knowledge<\/em>): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:13-14 Huram: Like his father, he was a master craftsman in bronze and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful metal work is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • skillful and talented (literally filled with wisdom and understanding and knowledge): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).","summary_en":"7:13-14 Huram: Like his father, he was a master craftsman in bronze and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful metal work is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • skillful and talented (literally filled with wisdom and understanding and knowledge): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102184,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:13-14<\/strong> <em>Huram:<\/em> Like his father, he was a master <em>craftsman in bronze<\/em> and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful <em>metal work<\/em> is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • <em>skillful and talented<\/em> (literally <em>filled with wisdom and<\/em> <em>understanding and knowledge<\/em>): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:13-14<\/strong> <em>Huram:<\/em> Like his father, he was a master <em>craftsman in bronze<\/em> and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful <em>metal work<\/em> is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • <em>skillful and talented<\/em> (literally <em>filled with wisdom and<\/em> <em>understanding and knowledge<\/em>): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:13-14 Huram: Like his father, he was a master craftsman in bronze and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful metal work is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • skillful and talented (literally filled with wisdom and understanding and knowledge): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).","summary_en":"7:13-14 Huram: Like his father, he was a master craftsman in bronze and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful metal work is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • skillful and talented (literally filled with wisdom and understanding and knowledge): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129810,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:13","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:13","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:13-14<\/strong> <em>Huram:<\/em> Like his father, he was a master <em>craftsman in bronze<\/em> and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful <em>metal work<\/em> is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • <em>skillful and talented<\/em> (literally <em>filled with wisdom and<\/em> <em>understanding and knowledge<\/em>): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:13-14<\/strong> <em>Huram:<\/em> Like his father, he was a master <em>craftsman in bronze<\/em> and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful <em>metal work<\/em> is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • <em>skillful and talented<\/em> (literally <em>filled with wisdom and<\/em> <em>understanding and knowledge<\/em>): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:13-14 Huram: Like his father, he was a master craftsman in bronze and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful metal work is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • skillful and talented (literally filled with wisdom and understanding and knowledge): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).","summary_en":"7:13-14 Huram: Like his father, he was a master craftsman in bronze and other materials (2 Chr 2:12-14). His skillful metal work is detailed in the following verses (1 Kgs 7:15-50). • skillful and talented (literally filled with wisdom and understanding and knowledge): The Israelites placed great emphasis on practical skills and considered them a form of wisdom (Prov 22:29).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"15":[{"id":18213,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"and Boaz*, Jachin","title_en":"and Boaz*, Jachin","content_ro":"<h3>JACHIN AND BOAZ*<\/h3>\n<p>Names of two pillars Solomon set up before the temple vestibule. He named the south pillar Jachin and the north pillar Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). These hollow pillars were cast of bronze and measured about 27 feet (8.2 meters) in height and about 18 feet (5.5 meters) in circumference (nearly 6 feet, or 1.8 meters, in diameter). They were crowned with a capital (ornate cap or top) about 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high that consisted of cast lily work, chains, and 200 pomegranates each (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-16; 4:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JACHIN AND BOAZ*<\/h3>\n<p>Names of two pillars Solomon set up before the temple vestibule. He named the south pillar Jachin and the north pillar Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). These hollow pillars were cast of bronze and measured about 27 feet (8.2 meters) in height and about 18 feet (5.5 meters) in circumference (nearly 6 feet, or 1.8 meters, in diameter). They were crowned with a capital (ornate cap or top) about 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high that consisted of cast lily work, chains, and 200 pomegranates each (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-16; 4:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"JACHIN AND BOAZ* Names of two pillars Solomon set up before the temple vestibule. He named the south pillar Jachin and the north pillar Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). These hollow pillars were cast of bronze and measured about 27 feet (8.2 meters) in height and about 18 feet (5.5 meters) in circumference (nearly 6 feet, or 1.8 meters, in diameter). They were crowned with a capital (ornate cap or top) about 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high that consisted of cast lily work, chains, and 200 pomegranate...","summary_en":"JACHIN AND BOAZ* Names of two pillars Solomon set up before the temple vestibule. He named the south pillar Jachin and the north pillar Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). These hollow pillars were cast of bronze and measured about 27 feet (8.2 meters) in height and about 18 feet (5.5 meters) in circumference (nearly 6 feet, or 1.8 meters, in diameter). They were crowned with a capital (ornate cap or top) about 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high that consisted of cast lily work, chains, and 200 pomegranate...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36971,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46933,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:15","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:15-22<\/strong> The <em>two bronze pillars<\/em> were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:15-22<\/strong> The <em>two bronze pillars<\/em> were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:15-22 The two bronze pillars were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).","summary_en":"7:15-22 The two bronze pillars were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74559,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:15","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:15-22<\/strong> The <em>two bronze pillars<\/em> were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:15-22<\/strong> The <em>two bronze pillars<\/em> were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:15-22 The two bronze pillars were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).","summary_en":"7:15-22 The two bronze pillars were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102185,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:15","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:15-22<\/strong> The <em>two bronze pillars<\/em> were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:15-22<\/strong> The <em>two bronze pillars<\/em> were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:15-22 The two bronze pillars were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).","summary_en":"7:15-22 The two bronze pillars were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129811,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:15","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:15-22<\/strong> The <em>two bronze pillars<\/em> were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:15-22<\/strong> The <em>two bronze pillars<\/em> were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:15-22 The two bronze pillars were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).","summary_en":"7:15-22 The two bronze pillars were probably free-standing since the narrator describes them here rather than in the earlier discussion of the Temple structure (6:3-6).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"16":[{"id":6068,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Capital","title_en":"Capital","content_ro":"<h3>CAPITAL<\/h3>\n<p>In architecture, the uppermost part of a pillar, often ornately fashioned. Capitals (<span>kjv<\/span> “chapiter”) topped the five pillars of the tabernacle during the wilderness wanderings of the people of Israel (Ex 36:38), as well as the pillars called Boaz and Jachin in King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:16-22, 40-42).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Architecture.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CAPITAL<\/h3>\n<p>In architecture, the uppermost part of a pillar, often ornately fashioned. Capitals (<span>kjv<\/span> “chapiter”) topped the five pillars of the tabernacle during the wilderness wanderings of the people of Israel (Ex 36:38), as well as the pillars called Boaz and Jachin in King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:16-22, 40-42).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Architecture.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CAPITAL In architecture, the uppermost part of a pillar, often ornately fashioned. Capitals (kjv “chapiter”) topped the five pillars of the tabernacle during the wilderness wanderings of the people of Israel (Ex 36:38), as well as the pillars called Boaz and Jachin in King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:16-22, 40-42). See also Architecture.","summary_en":"CAPITAL In architecture, the uppermost part of a pillar, often ornately fashioned. Capitals (kjv “chapiter”) topped the five pillars of the tabernacle during the wilderness wanderings of the people of Israel (Ex 36:38), as well as the pillars called Boaz and Jachin in King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:16-22, 40-42). See also Architecture.","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"19":[{"id":23336,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lily-Work*","title_en":"Lily-Work*","content_ro":"<h3>LILY-WORK*<\/h3>\n<p>Design of a lily or lotus used on ancient pillars, inspired by the large water lily found along the Nile. It appeared at the vestibule of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:19-22), around the brim of the basin (v 26), and in numerous artistic creations of the Assyrians, Persians, and other Near Eastern peoples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea; Laver.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LILY-WORK*<\/h3>\n<p>Design of a lily or lotus used on ancient pillars, inspired by the large water lily found along the Nile. It appeared at the vestibule of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:19-22), around the brim of the basin (v 26), and in numerous artistic creations of the Assyrians, Persians, and other Near Eastern peoples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea; Laver.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LILY-WORK* Design of a lily or lotus used on ancient pillars, inspired by the large water lily found along the Nile. It appeared at the vestibule of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:19-22), around the brim of the basin (v 26), and in numerous artistic creations of the Assyrians, Persians, and other Near Eastern peoples. See also Bronze Sea; Laver.","summary_en":"LILY-WORK* Design of a lily or lotus used on ancient pillars, inspired by the large water lily found along the Nile. It appeared at the vestibule of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:19-22), around the brim of the basin (v 26), and in numerous artistic creations of the Assyrians, Persians, and other Near Eastern peoples. See also Bronze Sea; Laver.","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30651,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Plants","title_en":"Plants","content_ro":"<h3>PLANTS<\/h3>\n<p>Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew in abundance in the Holy Land are now extinct. Some have been driven out by foreign invaders; others have been exterminated or nearly exterminated by overcultivation of the land, the destruction of forests, and the resulting changes in climatic and other environmental conditions. At one time the Holy Land was a land of palm trees, with the date palm as abundant and characteristic there as it was in Egypt, but today the date palm is much less common. Similarly, in antiquity, the towering cedars clothed the slopes of Lebanon and other mountain ranges. Now the few remaining specimens must be carefully fenced in to protect them against trampling and the ravages of goats.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Acacia<\/p>\n<p>• Acanthus<\/p>\n<p>• Algum<\/p>\n<p>• Almond<\/p>\n<p>• Almug<\/p>\n<p>• Aloe<\/p>\n<p>• Apple<\/p>\n<p>• Apricot<\/p>\n<p>• Ash<\/p>\n<p>• Aspen<\/p>\n<p>• Balm<\/p>\n<p>• Barley<\/p>\n<p>• Bdellium<\/p>\n<p>• Bean<\/p>\n<p>• Bitter Herbs<\/p>\n<p>• Boxthorn, European<\/p>\n<p>• Box Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Bramble<\/p>\n<p>• Broom<\/p>\n<p>• Buckthorn<\/p>\n<p>• Bush<\/p>\n<p>• Buttercup<\/p>\n<p>• Calamus<\/p>\n<p>• Cane<\/p>\n<p>• Caper Plant<\/p>\n<p>• Carob Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Cassia<\/p>\n<p>• Castor Oil Plant<\/p>\n<p>• Cedar<\/p>\n<p>• Chicory<\/p>\n<p>• Cinnamon<\/p>\n<p>• Citron Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Coriander<\/p>\n<p>• Cotton<\/p>\n<p>• Cucumber<\/p>\n<p>• Cummin<\/p>\n<p>• Cypress<\/p>\n<p>• Dandelion<\/p>\n<p>• Darnel Grass<\/p>\n<p>• Dill<\/p>\n<p>• Ebony<\/p>\n<p>• Endive<\/p>\n<p>• Fig, Fig Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Fir Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Flax<\/p>\n<p>• Frankincense<\/p>\n<p>• Galbanum<\/p>\n<p>• Garlic<\/p>\n<p>• Gourd, Wild<\/p>\n<p>• Hedge<\/p>\n<p>• Henna<\/p>\n<p>• Hyacinth<\/p>\n<p>• Hyssop<\/p>\n<p>• Juniper<\/p>\n<p>• Laurel or Sweet Bay<\/p>\n<p>• Leek<\/p>\n<p>• Lentil<\/p>\n<p>• Lettuce<\/p>\n<p>• Lily<\/p>\n<p>• Lotus Bush<\/p>\n<p>• Mallow<\/p>\n<p>• Mandrake<\/p>\n<p>• Melon<\/p>\n<p>• Millet<\/p>\n<p>• Mint<\/p>\n<p>• Mulberry<\/p>\n<p>• Mustard<\/p>\n<p>• Myrrh<\/p>\n<p>• Myrtle<\/p>\n<p>• Narcissus<\/p>\n<p>• Nard<\/p>\n<p>• Nettle<\/p>\n<p>• Nutmeg Flower<\/p>\n<p>• Oak<\/p>\n<p>• Oil Tree, Oleaster<\/p>\n<p>• Oleander<\/p>\n<p>• Olive, Olive Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Onion<\/p>\n<p>• Palm<\/p>\n<p>• Papyrus<\/p>\n<p>• Pine Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Pistachio<\/p>\n<p>• Plane Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Pomegranate<\/p>\n<p>• Poplar<\/p>\n<p>• Quince<\/p>\n<p>• Reed<\/p>\n<p>• Rue<\/p>\n<p>• Rush<\/p>\n<p>• Saffron<\/p>\n<p>• Sage<\/p>\n<p>• Spelt<\/p>\n<p>• Storax Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Sycamore<\/p>\n<p>• Tamarisk<\/p>\n<p>• Terebinth<\/p>\n<p>• Thistle, Thorn<\/p>\n<p>• Tulip<\/p>\n<p>• Tumbleweed<\/p>\n<p>• Vegetable<\/p>\n<p>• Vine<\/p>\n<p>• Walnut<\/p>\n<p>• Water Lily<\/p>\n<p>• Wheat<\/p>\n<p>• Wormwood<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Acacia\">Acacia <em>(Acacia tortilis<\/em> and <em>A. seyal)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any tree or shrub of the mimosa family of plants growing in warm regions. The plant referred to in the <span>kjv<\/span> as “shittah” (singular) or “shittim” (plural) is undoubtedly the acacia tree, the only timber tree of any considerable size in the Arabian desert. <em>Acacia tortilis<\/em> is by far the largest and most common tree in the desert in which the Israelites wandered for 40 years. It is especially conspicuous on Mt Sinai and was probably the species used for the tabernacle furnishings. <em>A. seyal<\/em> is less common, at least today. It can grow as high as 25 feet (7.6 meters), and bears yellow flowers on twisted branches. The wood is close grained, heavy and hard, orange-brown in color, and much valued in cabinetwork. The ancient Egyptians clamped shut mummy coffins with acacia wood.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Acanthus\">Acanthus <em>(Acanthus syriacus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The acanthus, perhaps referred to in Job 30:7 and Zephaniah 2:9, is a perennial thistlelike herb or small shrub about three feet (.9 meter) tall, and is a common weed in all Eastern countries. It has been used since time immemorial as a model for the leaf or scroll decorations in art.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Algum\">Algum <em>(Juniperus excelsa Bieb)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The timber from Lebanon referred to in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is probably the juniper. Some translators hold, however, that algum and almug are Hebrew variants for the same tree (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg, 2 Chr 2:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Almug (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Almond\">Almond <em>(Amygdalus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The almond is a peachlike tree with saw-toothed pointed leaves and gray bark. It grows to a height of from 10 to 25 feet (3 to 7.6 meters). It blooms very early in the year; its Hebrew name has its roots in “watch for.” To the Jews it was a welcome harbinger of spring (Jer 1:11).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Almug\">Almug <em>(Pterocarpus santalinus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The precious wood imported by King Solomon and used in making the pillars for the temple and for making harps and psalteries (1 Kgs 10:11-12). This timber was brought by sea from Ophir to Ezion-geber, near Elath. Modern authorities suggest that Ophir was either in Arabia, India, or East Africa near Mozambique. The reference to “algum“ in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is possibly to this tree. <em>See<\/em> Algum (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Aloe\">Aloe <em>(Aloe succotrina, Aquilaria agallocha)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Chiefly African, lilylike plant of the genus <em>Aloes,<\/em> certain species of which yield a drug and a fiber. Aloe is an aromatic substance mentioned in the Bible, together with myrrh, balm, and other fragrant plants (Ps 45:8; Prv 7:17; Sg 4:14; Jn 19:39). Most scholars think these passages refer to two different plants. The OT plant is likely to have been <em>Aquilaria agallocha,<\/em> the eaglewood, a large tree growing up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) tall with a trunk 12 feet (3.7 meters) in circumference. It is native to northern India, Malaya, and Indochina. The decaying wood is highly fragrant, and as such is highly valued as perfume and incense and for fumigation.<\/p>\n<p>The aloe of John 19:39 is thought to be the true aloe <em>(Aloe succotrina),<\/em> the juice of which was used by the Egyptians in embalming. Its smell, however, is not very agreeable, and it has a bitter taste. It is sometimes used by veterinarians as a horse medicine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Apple\">Apple <em>(Malus sylvestris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The identity of the fruit identified by the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">tappuach<\/span> (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5) continues to be debated. In most English translations it has been rendered “apple” because of its close linguistic tie to the Arabic word <em>tuffah.<\/em> Many scholars identify this tree as the apricot, questioning whether apples fit the biblical description “apples of gold” and whether the apple tree was cultivated in ancient Palestine. Recent excavations at Kadesh-barnea, however, have uncovered carbonized apples, probably a crab apple <em>(Malus sylvestris),<\/em> dating to the ninth century <span>BC<\/span>. This would certainly allow for this ornamental apple’s cultivation in Solomon’s gardens.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apricot (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Apricot\">Apricot <em>(Prunus armeniaca)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The identification of the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">tappuach<\/span> with the apricot continues to be debated. The apricot tree produces yellow-orange peachlike edible fruit and is native to western Asia and Africa. It is abundant in the Holy Land and probably has been so since early biblical times. The tree is a round-headed reddish-barked tree growing 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Most translations render this Hebrew word “apple,” though many scholars identify it with the apricot because of its descriptions in the biblical text (see Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Jl 1:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apple (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ash\">Ash <em>(Alhagi maurorum, Fraxinus ornus, Tamarix mannifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are several ash trees found in the Near East. One of these, the prickly alhagi <em>(Alhagi maurorum),<\/em> is a member of the pea family. It is a low, many-stemmed, much-branched shrub growing about three feet (.9 meter) tall with somewhat hairy twigs and pealike flowers. During the heat of the day, leaves exude a sweet, gummy substance that hardens in the air and is collected by shaking the bushes over a spread-out cloth.<\/p>\n<p>The manna tamarisk <em>(Tamarix mannifera)<\/em> is a multibranched shrub or a small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall with rigid branches that have tiny pink flowers. It is found on deserts from the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>The flowering or manna ash <em>(Fraxinus ornus)<\/em> is a tree that grows from 15 to 50 feet (4.6 to 15.2 meters) tall. The fruits are very similar to those produced by our species of ash. The ash of Isaiah 44:14 (<span>kjv<\/span>) is believed to be the Aleppo pine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Aspen\">Aspen <em>(Populus euphratica<\/em> or <em>P. tremula)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of the genus <em>Populus<\/em> with leaves attached by flattened leafstalks so that they tremble or “quake” in the wind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Balm\">Balm <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca, Pistacia lentiscus, Commiphora opobalsamum<\/em><em>)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>An oily aromatic resin exuded by chiefly tropical trees and shrubs and used medicinally; trees and shrubs producing this substance. References in Genesis 37:25, Jeremiah 8:22, 46:11, and 51:8 are thought to be either the Jericho balsam <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> or the lentisk or mastic tree <em>(Pistacia lentiscus).<\/em> The Jericho balsam is very common in Egypt, North Africa, the plains of Jericho, and the hot plains bordering on the Dead Sea. It is a small desert-loving plant, 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, with slender, thorny branches and small clusters of green flowers.<\/p>\n<p>The lentisk or mastic tree is native to the Holy Land, and the reference in Genesis 43:11 is probably to this plant, since the implication is that this is a native product of the Holy Land unknown in Egypt at the time. This tree is a shrubby or bushy tree 3 to 10 feet (.9 to 3 meters) tall with evergreen leaves. The “balm” is a fragrant gummy exudation of the sap secured by making incisions in the stems and branches, usually in August. The best grades are in the form of yellow-white translucent tears or drops; they are employed in medicine as an astringent. The poorer grades are used extensively as a varnish. Children in the East use it as chewing gum.<\/p>\n<p>References to spices in 1 Kings 10:10, 2 Kings 20:13, Song of Songs 3:6, Isaiah 39:2, and Ezekiel 27:17 are thought to be the balm of Gilead <em>(Commiphora opobalsamum),<\/em> which in spite of its name is not a native of Gilead or even of the Holy Land but is indigenous to Arabia, especially the mountainous regions of Yemen. The trees were still in existence on the plain of Jericho at the time of the Roman conquest. The Roman conquerors carried branches to Rome as trophies of their victory over the Jews.<\/p>\n<p>This tree is a small, stiff-branched evergreen tree seldom more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) high with straggling branches. The “balm” is obtained by making incisions in the stem and branches of the tree. The sap soon hardens into small irregular nodules that are collected. Gum is also procured from green and ripe fruit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Myrrh (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Barley\">Barley <em>(Hordeum distichon)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A cereal grass bearing bearded flower spikes and edible seeds. The common barley <em>(Hordeum distichon),<\/em> the winter barley <em>(H. hex<\/em><em>astichon),<\/em> and the spring barley <em>(H. vulgare)<\/em> have been cultivated in temperate regions of the world since time immemorial and today still constitute one of the principal grain foods. Barley and wheat were the two staple cereal crops of Egypt and the Holy Land. Being less expensive, barley was mostly used for feeding cattle, although it was also used by itself or mixed with wheat and other seed as food for man (Ez 4:9-12). Barley is mentioned in the Bible over 30 times, either as a plant growing in the fields or in reference to products made from it, such as barley meal, barley bread, barley cakes, and barley loaves. As the common food of the poor, barley was also regarded as a symbol of poverty and cheapness or worthlessness (Hos 3:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bdellium\">Bdellium <em>(Commiphora africana)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic gum resin similar to myrrh, produced by various trees of the genus <em>Commiphora<\/em> of Africa and western Asia. The reference in Genesis 2:12 and Numbers 11:7 to bdellium is thought by most scholars today to refer to a gum resin, obtained from a shrub, <em>Commiphora africana<\/em>, that grows in south Arabia and northeastern Africa. The resin is yellowish, transparent, and fragrant, and looks like a pearl.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bean\">Bean <em>(Faba vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in 2 Samuel 17:27-28 and Ezekiel 4:9 are generally regarded as referring to the broad bean. This species, an annual plant, is thought originally to have grown in northern Persia, but it was extensively cultivated in western Asia in very early times as a food plant. Beans have been found in the mummy coffins of Egyptian tombs, and they were also cultivated by the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BitterHerbs\">Bitter Herbs <em>(Cichorium endivia, Taraxacum officinale, Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “bitter herbs” of Exodus 12:8 and Numbers 9:11 seem to have been plants like endive <em>(Cichorium endivia),<\/em> the common chicory <em>(Cichorium intybus),<\/em> lettuce <em>(Lactuca sativa),<\/em> or the common dandelion <em>(Taraxacum officinale).<\/em> These are all weedy plants common in modern Egypt and western Asia and are still eaten by people living there. The leaves of the ordinary garden lettuce are intensely bitter when bleached. This is also true of the common dandelion. Others suggest that the bitter herbs were derived from thorns and thistles.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BoxthornEuropean\">Boxthorn, European <em>(Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various thorny shrubs, some species of which bear purplish flowers and brightly colored berries. The reference in Judges 9:14-15 is thought to be to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn. It is a thorny shrub 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 meters) tall with clustered leaves and small violet flowers eventually producing small globular red berries. It is native to and common throughout the Holy Land, especially in the region from Lebanon to the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BoxTree\">Box Tree <em>(Buxus longifolia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The long-leaved box tree is a hardy evergreen tree found in the mountainous regions of the northern part of the Holy Land, the Galilean hills, and Lebanon. It grows to a height of about 20 feet (6.1 meters) with a slender trunk seldom more than six to eight inches (15.2 to 20.3 centimeters) in diameter. Its wood is very hard and takes a fine polish. It was cultivated by the Romans for its hard wood, which they inlaid with ivory for cabinets and jewel caskets. Scriptural references include Isaiah 41:19 and 60:13.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bramble\">Bramble <em>(Rubus sanctus, R. ulmifolius)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian bramble <em>(Rubus sanctus)<\/em> and the closely related elm-leaf bramble <em>(R. ulmifolius)<\/em> are prickly evergreen shrubs that spread by means of suckers. The stems and young shoots are covered with a characteristic bloom or whitish powder and short hairs. The prickles are strong, erect, and hairy. The flowers are white, pink, rose, or purple in color, and the fruit is round and black.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Thistle, Thorn (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Broom\">Broom <em>(Retama raetam)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A shrub native to Eurasia. The word translated “juniper” in the <span>kjv<\/span> has nothing to do with the true junipers but refers rather to a species of broom, known as the white broom <em>(Retama raetam).<\/em> Its branches are longer and flexible, forming an erect, dense bush 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. The leaves are small and sparse, yet it forms an agreeable shade in a desert region. The white pealike flowers are sweet and very fragrant and are borne in clusters along the twigs. It is a beautiful shrub that grows in the desert regions of Palestine, Syria, and Persia. In many desert areas it is the only bush that affords any shade (1 Kgs 19:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>The “juniper roots” of Job 30:4 are not the roots of either the juniper or white broom. The roots of the latter are very nauseating and could not be eaten in the manner described by Job. Job’s “juniper roots” were probably an edible parasitic plant <em>(Cynomorium coccineum).<\/em> This plant grows in salt marshes and maritime sands. It is frequently eaten in times of food scarcity and at one time was highly prized for its supposed medicinal value in the treatment of dysentery.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Buckthorn\">Buckthorn <em>(Rhamnus palaestina)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian buckthorn is a shrub or small tree attaining a height of three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March or April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bush\">Bush <em>(Acacia nilotica, Loranthus acaciae)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Low, branching, woody plant, usually smaller than a tree. There are differences of opinion in regard to the bush out of which the Lord appeared to Moses (Ex 3:2-4). From the biblical account, it seems most likely that the event was a miraculous one. However, some seek a natural explanation and believe that the burning bush may have been the crimson-flowered mistletoe or acacia strap flower <em>(Loranthus acaciae),<\/em> which grows in great profusion as a partial parasite on the various acacia shrubs, such as the thorny acacia <em>(Acacia nilotica),<\/em> in the Holy Land and Sinai. When in full bloom, the mistletoe imparts to the shrub or tree the appearance of being on fire because its brilliant flame-colored blossoms stand out against the green foliage and yellow flowers of the host plants.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Buttercup\">Buttercup <em>(Ranunculus asiaticus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Persian buttercup is one of the flowers or grasses of the field (Mt 6:28-30). It is a showy plant blooming in all brilliant colors except blue, with double flowers sometimes measuring two inches (5.1 centimeters) across.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Calamus\">Calamus <em>(Acorus calamus, Andropogon aroma<\/em><em>ticus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A plant, or its aromatic root; any of a variety of tropical Asiatic palms. One of the plants that grew in Solomon’s garden (Sg 4:14). The sweet flag <em>(Acorus<\/em> <em>calamus)<\/em> and the beardgrass <em>(Andropogon aromaticus)<\/em> have been suggested as the plants from which calamus came. The sweet flag is highly aromatic and grows in Europe and Asia, but it is not known in the Holy Land. Indigenous to India, beardgrass is highly odoriferous when bruised and is thought to have furnished the calamus of the Bible. It yields an oil known as ginger-grass oil.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cane\">Cane <em>(Saccharum officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It is thought that there were two species of sugarcane indigenous to and growing wild in the Holy Land. One of these, <em>Saccharum sara,<\/em> is known to be only from Lebanon. The other native species is <em>S. biflorum,<\/em> which grows on the banks of ditches and streams from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land south to Stony Arabia and the Sinai. This may be the wild cane familiar to the Jews. Most authorities, however, think that the “sweet cane” of Isaiah 43:24 was the true sugarcane <em>(S. officinarum).<\/em> This plant is thought to have originated in the tropics of the eastern hemisphere. It has been cultivated by people since time immemorial and is not now known in the wild state anywhere. It is a tall, stout perennial grass, maizelike in aspect with many jointed stems and a large plumelike terminal cluster of flowers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CaperPlant\">Caper Plant <em>(Capparis sincula)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Spiny, trailing shrub of Mediterranean region; the flower bud of this shrub. The word “desire” in Ecclesiastes 12:5 may actually refer to the caper berry. The common caper or caper berry grows profusely in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and in the mountain valleys of Sinai. The plant may sometimes grow upright but more generally spreads itself weakly over the ground like a vine, covering rocks, ruins, and old walls like ivy. The young flower buds, pickled in vinegar, were used by the ancients as a condiment for meat. The berries were also used in cooking.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CarobTree\">Carob Tree <em>(Ceratonia siliqua)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Evergreen of the Mediterranean region having edible pods. Scholars generally agree that the pods of the carob or locust tree were the “husks” of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). The carob is an attractive evergreen leguminous tree that is very common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and Egypt. The pods are most abundant in April and May and contain numerous pealike seeds embedded in an agreeably flavored mucilaginous sweetish pulp. The pods are also used abundantly now as they were in antiquity for feeding cattle, horses, and pigs. In time of scarcity, they are used as human food and perhaps even regularly by the very poor. The carob is frequently mentioned in the Talmud as a source of good food for domestic animals. The seeds of the carob were formerly employed as a standard of weight and are the source of the term “carat.” Some commentators suggest that the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4) were not insects but the fruit of the carob tree.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cassia\">Cassia <em>(Cinnamomum cassia, Saussurea lappa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree of tropical Asia with bark similar but inferior to cinnamon. The “cassia” of Exodus 30:24 and Ezekiel 27:19 is the cassia bark tree, <em>Cinnamomum cassia.<\/em> In Psalm 45:8 the reference seems to be to the Indian orris, <em>Saussurea lappa.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CastorOilPlant\">Castor Oil Plant <em>(Ricinus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Large plant, native to tropical Africa and Asia, cultivated for ornamental reasons and for extraction of oil from its seeds. The gourd of Jonah 4:6-7 was probably the ordinary castor bean. The castor bean is a tender shrub, growing 3 to 12 or more feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall with huge leaves that resemble the outstretched human hand. The castor bean plant is found in waste places, especially near water, in both Lebanon and the Holy Land and often is cultivated. In hot climates it becomes treelike and affords a dense shade by the abundance of its huge, umbrella-like leaves. It is known in the Orient for the rapidity of its growth. The oil extracted from the seeds of the castor bean was used by the Jews in ceremonial rites and is mentioned among the five kinds of oil that rabbinical tradition sanctioned for such use. The seeds themselves are poisonous when eaten.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cedar\">Cedar <em>(Cedrus libani)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several coniferous evergreen trees of the genus native to the Old World. With few exceptions, the references to “cedar” are to the well-known cedar of Lebanon. This is a noble tree, the tallest and most massive with which the Israelites were acquainted. It grows quite rapidly, attaining a height of up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) with a trunk diameter of as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters). In Solomon’s day these trees were obviously abundant on the mountains of Lebanon, but now, because of excessive lumbering, they are very rare. The cedar of Lebanon was held in high esteem not only for its vigor, beauty, and age but also for the fragrance and remarkable lasting qualities of the wood. It symbolizes grandeur, might, majesty, dignity, lofty stature, and wide expansion. References in Ezekiel 17:3, 22-24, and 31:3-18 beautifully illustrate how these lofty kings of the forest symbolize and typify worldly strength, power, and glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Chicory\">Chicory <em>(Cichorium intybus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cinnamon\">Cinnamon <em>(Cinnamomum zeylanicum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Two varieties of trees of this genus, native to tropical Asia, with aromatic bark that, when ground, is used as a spice. The cinnamon of Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17, Song of Songs 4:14, and Revelation 18:13 is undoubtedly <em>Cinnamomum zeylanicum.<\/em> The tree is a rather low-growing one, never getting more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, with a smooth, ash-colored bark and widespread branches and white flowers. Its shiny, beautifully veined evergreen leaves grow about nine inches (22.9 centimeters) long and two inches (5.1 centimeters) wide.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews always regarded cinnamon as a deliciously fragrant substance and valued it highly as a spice and a perfume. It was one of the principal ingredients used in the manufacture of the precious ointments, or “holy oil,” that Moses was commanded to use in the tabernacle for anointing the sacred vessels and officiating priests. It was undoubtedly very costly and precious.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CitronTree\">Citron Tree <em>(Tetraclinis articulata)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree native to Asia bearing lemonlike fruit with a thick, fragrant rind. It seldom exceeds a height of 30 feet (9.1 meters) and has hard, dark-colored, durable, fragrant wood that takes a fine polish. The wood was one of the most highly prized woods of the ancients, who employed it extensively for cabinetwork. It was commonly referred to as being worth its weight in gold. The wood, owing to its resinous properties, is slow to decay and remains practically uninjured by insects.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Coriander\">Coriander <em>(Coriandrum sativum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7 are clearly to the common coriander plant. The coriander was found quite commonly growing along with grain in cultivated fields throughout the Holy Land. It grows wild in Egypt and was used by the ancients both as condiment and as a medicine. The leaves are quite aromatic and are used in soups and for flavoring puddings, curries, and wines. The coriander is still used today as a spice by the Arabs. In Scripture it is mentioned only in connection with manna, which was said to resemble coriander seeds in size, shape, and color.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cotton\">Cotton <em>(Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants or shrubs of this genus grown in warm climates for the soft white fiber attached to their seeds and the oil from these seeds. The “green” of the <span>kjv<\/span> in Esther 1:6 is undoubtedly a reference to the Levant cotton <em>(Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em> that was cultivated since time immemorial in the Far East. Alexander the Great brought it back from India. It is probable that the Jews became acquainted with cotton during the period of their Persian captivity under King Ahasuerus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cucumber\">Cucumber <em>(Cucumis chate, C. sativus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The cucumber is an annual climbing or trailing vine, the origin of which is unknown. It has been cultivated in all the warm countries of the Old World since prehistoric times. Cucumbers are usually eaten raw; a cucumber and a barley cake or some other kind of bread often constitute a meal. The reference to “a lodge in a garden of cucumbers” (Is 1:8) refers to the crudely built small house or lodge often set up in Palestinian cucumber fields and vineyards.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cummin\">Cummin <em>(Cuminum cyminum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Isaiah 28:25-27 and Matthew 23:23 are clearly to the cummin—a common, annual plant of the carrot family said to be native to Egypt and the region of the eastern Mediterranean. It has long been cultivated for its powerfully aromatic and pungent seeds, which are similar to caraway seeds but larger. They do not have as agreeable a taste as caraway seeds but nevertheless were used extensively as a flavor or spice and sometimes were even mixed with flour in making bread. Cummin was also used medicinally and as a condiment with fish and meats.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cypress\">Cypress <em>(Cupressus sempervirens horizontalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The cypress is a massive, tall-growing evergreen with scalelike leaves and is widely distributed in the mountainous regions of the Holy Land. On Mt Lebanon and Mt Hermon it grows together with the cedar and oak. Its usual height is 50 to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters), but it may grow as tall as 80 feet (24.2 meters). It is said to have been used extensively in shipbuilding by the Phoenicians, Cretans, and Greeks. There is general agreement that the “gopher wood” of Genesis 6:14 is cypress because the wood is very durable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dandelion\">Dandelion <em>(Taraxacum officinale)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DarnelGrass\">Darnel Grass <em>(Lolium temulentum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It is generally agreed that the “tares” of the <span>kjv<\/span> (Mt 13:24-30) are the annual or bearded darnel grass. It is a strong grass closely resembling wheat or rye in appearance. The seeds are much smaller than those of wheat or rye, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish it from wheat or rye in its early stages. If it is not eradicated early but is left until the time of harvest, it is cut down with the wheat and the two are subsequently very difficult to separate. The seeds are poisonous, either due to some chemicals naturally present or because of a fungus that grows within the seeds.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dill\">Dill <em>(Anethum graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Dill is a weedy annual plant resembling parsley and fennel, 12 to 20 inches (30.5 to 50.8 centimeters) tall with yellow flowers. The reference in Matthew 23:23 (<span>kjv<\/span>) to anise is probably a reference to dill. This plant is widely cultivated for seeds that are aromatic and carminative.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ebony\">Ebony <em>(Diospyros ebenaster, D. ebenum, D. mela<\/em><em>noxylon)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Chiefly tropical tree of southern Asia with hard, dark-colored heartwood. Ebony comes from the date plum or date tree <em>(Diospyros ebenaster<\/em> and <em>D. melanoxylon)<\/em> of India and is quite different from the date palm. It was sent by Phoenician ships across the Arabian Sea and up the Red Sea to the market in Tyre, from which it was carried overland by camel caravans. The outer wood of these trees is white and soft, but when old, the interior wood becomes hard, black, heavy, and durable and still constitutes most of the costly ebony of commerce. Ebony takes on a fine polish and is highly valued for cabinetwork, for turnery, for the manufacture of fancy ornamental articles and instruments, and as a veneer for other woods.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel mentions ivory and ebony together (Ez 27:15). Ebony was and still is frequently inlaid with ivory, with which it contrasts so strikingly in color.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Endive\">Endive <em>(Cichorium endivia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FigFigTree\">Fig, Fig Tree <em>(Ficus carica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees or shrubs of this genus, native to the Mediterranean region; its edible fruit. The common fig, mentioned some 60 times in the Bible, is one of the most important Bible plants. Its leaves are spoken of first in Genesis 3:7. The fig is generally regarded as native to southwestern Asia and Syria, but already in early times it was also cultivated extensively in Egypt and the Holy Land, where it was one of the principal foods. First Samuel 25:18 states that a part of the gift sent by Abigail to David consisted of 200 cakes of figs.<\/p>\n<p>The fig tree has a very peculiar type of fruit called a syconium, which is actually a very much enlarged and fleshy receptacle. It is pollinated by a wasp, without which it cannot get its fruit; this was discovered when it was first transplanted to California.<\/p>\n<p>The fig puts out its earliest fruit buds before its leaves, the former in February and the latter in April or May. When the leaves are out, the fruit ought to be ripe (Mt 21:19).<\/p>\n<p>Whenever the prophets of old berated the people for their wickedness, they often threatened that the vine and the fig crops would be destroyed. And when they held out the promise of great rewards, they said that the vine and fig crop would be restored (Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12; Jl 1:7, 12; Mi 4:4; Zec 3:10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FirTree\">Fir Tree <em>(Abies cilicica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>This a generic term for various evergreen trees having flat needles and erect cones. In all probability, most of the references in Scripture to the fir are references to the pine, cypress, or juniper. The only true fir in the Holy Land grows in the higher parts of Lebanon and the mountains northward. It attains a height of 30 to 75 feet (9.1 to 22.9 meters) and is widely cultivated.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Flax\">Flax <em>(Linum usitatissimum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several plants of this genus, one particularly being widely cultivated for the linseed oil from its seeds and the fine textile fibers from its stems. Flax is the oldest known of the textile fibers. Cotton is identified only once in the Bible (Est 1:6). There is no mention of any other fiber plant being cultivated in Egypt or the Holy Land in biblical days, and for that reason it is thought that linen was the material out of which clothes other than woolen ones were made. Linen was also used for domestic purposes such as towels (Jn 13:4-5), napkins (11:44), girdles and undergarments (Is 3:23; Mk 14:51), nets (Is 19:8-9), and measuring lines (Ez 40:3). The priests serving in the temple were to wear nothing but linen clothes; a mixed cloth of wool and flax together was strictly forbidden to the Jews (Lv 19:19; Dt 22:11).<\/p>\n<p>At least three kinds of linen were used in biblical times, and apparently there were particular uses for each kind. Ordinary linen of coarsest texture is mentioned in Leviticus 6:10, Ezekiel 9:2, Daniel 10:5, and Revelation 15:6. The second type of linen of superior quality is mentioned in Exodus 26:1 and 39:27. A third type of linen of finest texture and high cost is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:27, Esther 8:15, and Revelation 19:8.<\/p>\n<p>The common flax plant grows from one to four feet (.3 to 1.2 meters) tall with a simple, slender, wirelike stem and numerous small, pale, lancelike green leaves. The failure of the flax crop is listed as one of God’s punishments (Hos 2:9). The manufacture of linen from flax fibers was a domestic industry of Jewish women (Prv 31:13, 19), ranging from ordinary clothing to the robes and aprons worn by the priest and temple attendants. Linen was also used for wicks in lamps (Is 42:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Frankincense\">Frankincense <em>(Boswellia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic genus resin used chiefly as incense. Frankincense is obtained from three species of a single genus of plants that grow in southern Arabia, Ethiopia, Somaliland, India, and the East Indies. The trees are large in size, related to the turpentine or terebinth tree and to those that produce balsam and myrrh. The gum has a bitter taste and gives off a strong odor in the form of a volatile oil when warmed or burned. It is obtained by successive incisions in the bark of the trunk and in the branches of living trees. It is thought that the Hebrews imported all their frankincense from Arabia, especially from the region about Sheba.<\/p>\n<p>Frankincense is mentioned 21 times in the Bible (e.g., Ex 30:34; 1 Chr 9:29; Neh 13:9; Sg 3:6; 4:6, 14; Mt 2:11; Rv 18:13) and was probably employed almost exclusively in the sacrificial services of the tabernacle and temple until the time of Solomon. It has always been the most important incense resin in the world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Galbanum\">Galbanum <em>(Ferula galbaniflua)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Galbanum is a malodorous yellowish or brownish gum resin containing the chemical substance umbelliferone, obtained from several species of plants related to the fennel, native to Syria and Persia. The gum is a natural exudation of the stem or is obtained by making a transverse incision in the young stem a few inches above the ground. The milky juice soon hardens and forms one of the kinds of commercial galbanum. Its odor is strongly balsamic, pungent, and disagreeable when burned. Galbanum was one of the ingredients used to form the “holy incense” (Ex 30:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Garlic\">Garlic <em>(Allium sativum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GourdWild\">Gourd, Wild <em>(Citrullus colocynthis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the words translated “wild gourds” (2 Kgs 4:39) or “gall” (Dt 29:18; 32:32; Ps 69:21; Jer 8:14; 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:5, 19; Am 6:12; Mt 27:34; Acts 8:23). Most scholars today believe the plant referred to was the colocynth, a cucumber-like vine that trails on the ground or climbs over shrubs and fences. The fruit contains a soft spongy pulp, which is intensely bitter, strongly cathartic, and sometimes poisonous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hedge\">Hedge <em>(Rhamnus palaestina, Balanites aegyptiaca, Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Row of closely planted shrubs or low-growing trees forming a fence or boundary. A number of plants were used to provide hedges in Bible times. One of these was the Palestine buckthorn, <em>Rhamnus palaestina.<\/em> This plant is a shrub or a small tree growing from three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) tall with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March and April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai. The Jericho balsam <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> and the European boxthorn <em>(Lycium europaeum)<\/em> are also prickly shrubs widely used as hedges in the Holy Land and may be the plants referred to in Proverbs 15:19 and Hosea 2:6.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Henna\">Henna <em>(Lawsonia inermis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree or shrub of Asia and northern Africa with fragrant reddish or white flowers and leaves from which a reddish dye is made. The plant referred to in Song of Songs 1:14 and 4:13 and translated as “camphire” (<span>kjv<\/span>) is thought by scholars today to refer to the henna plant. It is a native of northern India and grows wild in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. It grows from 4 to 12 feet (1.2 to 3.7 meters) tall, and its scent is similar to that of roses.<\/p>\n<p>Henna leaves are dried, crushed into a powder, mixed with water, and made into a paste that has been used since time immemorial as a cosmetic. A number of mummies have been found decorated with henna. Henna was used to provide a bright yellow, orange, or red color to the fingernails, toenails, the tips of the fingers, the palms of the hand, and the soles of the feet of young girls. Men also used it for coloring their beards and the manes and tails of horses. The dye had to be renewed once every two or three weeks. This use of henna as a cosmetic was common in Egypt at the time the children of Israel were there as slaves; they were undoubtedly familiar with it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyacinth\">Hyacinth <em>(Hyacinthus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The lily referred to in Song of Songs 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; and 6:2-4 may well be the garden hyacinth. It is native to, and very common in, the fields and rocky places in the Holy Land, Lebanon, and northward. Its flowers in the wild form are always deep blue and very fragrant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lily (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyssop\">Hyssop <em>(Origanum maru)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Woody plant native to Asia with spikes of small blue flowers and aromatic leaves used as a condiment and in perfumery. There is little agreement among botanists as to the exact identity of the biblical “hyssop.” Some have suggested <em>Hyssopus offici<\/em><em>nalis,<\/em> the well-known garden herb now called hyssop. However, this plant is not native either to the Holy Land or Egypt, being found only in southern Europe. Moreover, it does not fit the requirements of the biblical plant.<\/p>\n<p>The “hyssop” of the OT is likely the Syrian or Egyptian marjoram <em>(Origanum maru).<\/em> It is referred to in Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4-6, 52; Numbers 19:6, 18; 1 Kings 4:33; Psalm 51:7; and Hebrews 9:19. The marjorams are mints growing (under favorable conditions) about two or three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall, but more often are dwarfed when growing in rock crevices and walls (cf. 1 Kgs 4:33). An aromatic substance is obtained from the crushed and dried leaves. If gathered together in a bunch with leaves and flowers, the hairy stems of the marjoram would hold liquid very well and would make an excellent sprinkler.<\/p>\n\n<p>The hyssop of the crucifixion passage in the NT (Jn 19:29) is probably the sorghum, a tall cereal plant grown primarily for food but also used for brushes and mops.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Juniper\">Juniper <em>(Juniperus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Variety of evergreen tree or shrub. The plant referred to in Jeremiah 17:6 and 48:6 and translated in the <span>kjv<\/span> “heath” is probably the savin or Phoenician juniper. The Phoenician juniper, <em>Juniperus phoenicia,<\/em> is found in the hills and rocky places of Arabia. The savin juniper, <em>J. sabina,<\/em> is common throughout the deserts, plains, and rocky places of Syria and Palestine. These references are to the brown-berried cedar, or sharp cedar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LaurelorSweetBay\">Laurel or Sweet Bay <em>(Laurus nobilis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Shrub or tree native to the Mediterranean region. While the reference in Psalm 37:35 may be to the cedar of Lebanon, most scholars refer the “green bay tree” (<span>kjv<\/span>) of the psalmist to the sweet bay, a native of the Holy Land, inhabiting thickets and woods from the coast to the middle montane zone. It is an evergreen tree attaining a height from 40 to 60 feet (12.2 to 18.3 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Even though the tree is abundant on Mt Carmel and around Hebron, it is generally not common in the Holy Land. Its leaves are still used as a condiment, and its fruit, leaves, and bark have long been used in medicine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leek\">Leek <em>(Allium porrum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lentil\">Lentil <em>(Lens esculenta)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The lentil plant to which Genesis 25:29-34, 2 Samuel 17:27-29, 23:11, and Ezekiel 4:9 refer is a small, erect, annual, vetchlike plant with slender stems and tendril-bearing leaves. It produces small, white, violet-striped flowers with flat, pealike pods in which the lentils are borne.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lettuce\">Lettuce <em>(Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lily\">Lily <em>(Lilium)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants of the genus <em>Lilium<\/em> having large, variously colored, trumpet-shaped flowers; and related plants. The lily is one of the most famous of all the plants in the Bible, but it is also one about which there has been considerable difference of opinion. It seems probable that several kinds of plants, perhaps five or six, are called lilies in the <span>kjv<\/span>. Most authorities regard the Palestine anemone or wind flower, <em>Anemone coronaria,<\/em> as the “lily of the field” (Mt 6:28, <span>kjv<\/span>) that surpassed Solomon in all his glory. These flowers are found in every part of the Holy Land in profusion; the most common forms are scarlet or yellow, but the Palestine anemone may also be blue, purple, rose, or white in color. The flower attains a diameter of two and three-quarter inches (7 centimeters).<\/p>\n<p>An alternative suggestion is the Palestinian chamomile, <em>Anthemis palaestina,<\/em> a common, white, daisylike plant. The chamomile is gathered like dry grass and thrown into the furnace when it dries up.<\/p>\n<p>Another proposed plant is <em>Lilium chalcedonicum,<\/em> the scarlet or Martagon lily. The statement in Song of Songs 5:13—“his lips like lilies”—would better fit this plant than the Palestine anemone. The reference is apparently to a rare plant of exceptional beauty. The scarlet lily is rare in the Holy Land; indeed, some botanists doubt that it lives there.<\/p>\n<p>The references in 1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 are probably to the water lily, <em>Nymphaea alba,<\/em> which served as the pattern. The water lily is quite common in Europe and also in the Holy Land and northern Africa.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LotusBush\">Lotus Bush <em>(Zizyphus lotus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “shady trees” of Job 40:21-22 (<span>kjv<\/span>; cf. <span>nlt<\/span> “lotus plants”) may refer to the lotus bush of the Middle East, <em>Zizyphus lotus,<\/em> a shrub or low tree that grows to a height of about five feet (1.5 meters) with smooth, zigzag, whitish branches.<\/p>\n<p>Other commentators believe that the shady trees of Job are large-leafed trees such as the plane tree, <em>Platanus orientalis,<\/em> or the oleander, <em>Nerium oleander.<\/em> This suggestion is based on the assumption that the animal described in Job 40 is the hippopotamus, and it seems unlikely that the hippopotamus would live under a lotus bush or even be found in places where this shrub grows. These individuals regard the plane tree or the oleander as more likely.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mallow\">Mallow <em>(Atriplex)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word used in Job 30:4 implies saltiness, and for this reason botanists believe that it refers to one of the species of the saltwort or orach. Twenty-one species of saltwort occur in the Holy Land, almost all of which are common and could well meet the requirements of the text. <em>Atriplex halimus<\/em> is the species usually suggested, a strong-growing bushy shrub related to the spinach.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mandrake\">Mandrake <em>(Mandragora officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The mandrake or love apple is a stemless herbaceous perennial related to the nightshade, potato, and tomato. It has a large, beetlike, often forked taproot from the top of which arise many dark leaves about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and four inches (10.2 centimeters) wide. The plant is slightly poisonous, and the thick taproots have some resemblance in shape to the lower parts of the human body. For this reason certain aphrodisiac properties were ascribed to it (cf. Gn 30:14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The love apple was a common plant in deserted fields throughout the Holy Land. It is native to the entire Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and Asia Minor. The mandrake is mentioned in Song of Songs 7:13, though some scholars believe the writer may actually have been referring to the citron or to the common edible field mushroom, <em>Agaricus campestris.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Melon\">Melon <em>(Cucumis melo, Citrullus vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several varieties of these two related vines having a hard rind and juicy flesh. The melons of Numbers 11:5 may be either the muskmelon <em>(Cucumis melo)<\/em> or the watermelon <em>(Citrullus vulgaris).<\/em> It may be that both fruits are referred to.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Millet\">Millet <em>(Panicum miliaceum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A grass grown in Eurasia for its edible seed. Millet seeds are the smallest of all the grass seeds cultivated as food but are produced profusely. Millet is an annual grass seldom more that two feet (.6 meter) tall. The small seeds of the millet are used on cakes and eaten uncooked by the poor of the land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mint\">Mint <em>(Mentha)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants of this family with aromatic foliage that is processed for flavoring. Quite a few mints are common in the Holy Land, but the horse mint <em>(Mentha longifolia)<\/em> is probably the one referred to in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. Mints were employed by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans for flavoring, as a carminative in medicine, and as a condiment in cooking.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mulberry\">Mulberry <em>(Morus nigra)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any tree of this family, some bearing dark-purple fruit and one bearing white fruit, having leaves used as food for silkworms. The sycamine tree of Luke 17:6 (<span>kjv<\/span>) is evidently the black mulberry, <em>Morus nigra.<\/em> It is a low-growing, thick-crowned, stiff-branched tree standing from 24 to 35 feet (7.3 to 10.7 meters) tall, though rarely more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Originally native to northern Persia, it is now cultivated throughout the Middle East for its fruit. The Chinese or Indian species, <em>M. alba,<\/em> was until recently widely cultivated in Syria and the Holy Land but is not indigenous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mustard\">Mustard <em>(Brassica nigra, B. arvensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various plants of this genus are native to Eurasia, some of which are cultivated for their edible seeds. While there is disagreement about the identity of the “mustard” of Matthew 13:31-32, 17:20, Mark 4:31, Luke 13:19, and 17:6, it is generally thought to be the ordinary black mustard, <em>Brassica nigra.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The mustard Jesus referred to may be the charlock or wild mustard, <em>B. arvensis,<\/em> which normally grows from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall. Some have suggested that it was actually <em>Salvadora persica,<\/em> found in thickets around the Dead Sea. The plant has a pleasant aromatic taste resembling that of mustard, and if taken in considerable quantity, it will produce an irritation of the nose and eyes similar to that of mustard. However, this plant does not grow as far north as Galilee, and the fruits are rather large and stony, thus hardly fitting the description of the parable.<\/p>\n<p>While the seeds of the mustard are not the smallest known, they were probably the smallest familiar to the common people who comprised Jesus’ audience in Galilee.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Myrrh\">Myrrh <em>(Commiphora myrrha, C. kataf)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Shrub or tree exuding an aromatic gum resin used in perfume and incense. Most of the references in Scripture to myrrh are to <em>Commiphora myrrha,<\/em> although <em>C. kataf<\/em> may also be involved since it grows in the same region and is similar. The two trees are native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and the Somali coast of east Africa. They yield a gummy exudation that constitutes most of the myrrh of commerce. Both species are low, scrubby, thick- and stiff-branched thorny shrubs or small trees that grow in rocky places, especially on limestone hills. In the East it is highly regarded as an aromatic substance, perfume, and medicine. The ancient Egyptians burned it in their temples and embalmed their dead with it; the Jews also used it for embalming (Jn 19:39). The Hebrews held it in high regard as a perfume (Ps 45:8).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Myrtle\">Myrtle <em>(Myrtus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The myrtle tree is common in the Holy Land, especially around Bethlehem, Lebanon, Hebron, and the slopes of Mt Carmel and Mt Tabor. It is native to western Asia and in good environments grows into a small evergreen tree 20 to 30 feet (6.2 to 9.1 meters) tall. More often, however, it is a straggling bush 1½ to 4 feet (.5 to 1.2 meters) tall.<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible, myrtle is referred to chiefly as a symbol of God’s generosity. Branches of myrtle trees were included among those that Nehemiah ordered to be gathered for the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh 8:15). The myrtle was symbolic not only of peace but also of justice.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Narcissus\">Narcissus <em>(Narcissus tazetta)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Widely cultivated plant of this family with narrow leaves and usually white or yellow flowers with a cup-crown or trumpet-shaped crown. The polyanthus narcissus <em>(Narcissus tazetta)<\/em> appears to be the plant referred to in Isaiah 35:1. This narcissus grows abundantly on the plains of Sharon and elsewhere in Palestine. Being sweet-smelling, it is a great favorite.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Nard\">Nard <em>(Nardostachys jatamansi)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The nard is a perennial herb with strong, pleasantly scented roots. It is native to high altitudes in the Himalayas, and its range extends from there into western Asia. The roots and spikelike wooly young stems are dried before the leaves unfold and are used for making perfume. It is still used in India as a perfume for the hair, and there is every reason to believe that the spikenard of Scripture (Sg 1:12; 4:13-14; Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3) came originally from India.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Nettle\">Nettle <em>(Urtica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Plant of this genus having toothed leaves covered with hairs that exude a stinging flush. Four species of nettle are found in the Holy Land: the common or great nettle, <em>Urtica dioica;<\/em> the Roman nettle, <em>U. pilulifera;<\/em> the small nettle, <em>U. urens;<\/em> and <em>U. caudata,<\/em> which is similar to the small nettle. Some nettles attain a height of five to six feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters). They are common pests of waste places and fields. They are often seen occupying ground that was once cultivated but has since been neglected (Is 34:13; Hos 9:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NutmegFlower\">Nutmeg Flower <em>(Nigella sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “fitches” of Isaiah 28:25-27 (<span>kjv<\/span>) are probably the nutmeg flower, an annual plant of the buttercup family. The plant grows wild in southern Europe, Syria, Egypt, north Africa, and other Mediterranean lands, where it is extensively cultivated for its strongly pungent, pepperlike aromatic seeds. These are sprinkled over some kinds of bread and cakes in the East and are used for flavoring curries and other dishes in the Holy Land and Egypt. Cummin and nutmeg flowers are still gathered in the Holy Land in the same way described by Isaiah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Oak\">Oak <em>(Quercus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>At least five species of oaks are found in Palestine. One of these is the kermes oak <em>(Quercus coccifera),<\/em> the host of the insect <em>Coccus ilicis,<\/em> which produces the scarlet dye used in coloring linen and wool (Gn 38:28-30; Ex 25:4; 26:1; 28:33; 35:23; 39:24; Lv 14:4-6, 51-52; Nm 19:6; 2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14; Is 1:18; Heb 9:19; Rv 18:12). The kermes oak grows from 6 to 35 feet (1.8 to 10.7 meters) tall and is found in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. When it grows alone, the kermes oak often becomes a large tree. It was regularly planted by tombs in the East. The oak was always respected and even venerated in biblical times for its large size and strength, and great men were usually buried in its shade. Abraham’s oak in Hebron is an example.<\/p>\n<p>A second oak is the valonia oak <em>(Q. aegilops),<\/em> perhaps the oak of Isaiah 2:13 and 44:14. It is common in the middle montane zones and probably was abundant in the area around Bashan. The oak of Genesis 35:4, 8 is thought to have been the holm oak <em>(Q. ilex),<\/em> an evergreen oak that grows to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). Still another oak is <em>Q. lusitanica,<\/em> the cypress oak, a small deciduous tree seldom more than 20 feet (6.1 meters) tall. The very large acorns of this tree were sometimes eaten.<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “plain” (<span>kjv<\/span>) in Genesis 12:6, 13:18, 14:13, and 18:1 should probably be translated “oak.”<\/p>\n<p>The many references to “groves” in the OT, usually in connection with the worship of Baal or other heathen gods (Ex 34:13; Dt 16:21; Jgs 3:7; 1 Kgs 14:23; 18:19; 2 Kgs 17:16—all <span>kjv<\/span>), were probably groves of sacred oak trees.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OilTreeOleaster\">Oil Tree, Oleaster <em>(Elaeagnus angustifolia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Small Eurasian tree with oblong silvery leaves, greenish flowers, and olivelike fruit. There is question as to which tree is referred to when 1 Kings 6:23, 31-33 and 1 Chronicles 27:28 refer to “olive trees.” The same word occurs in Isaiah 41:19 and Micah 6:7. The plant referred to is probably the narrow-leaved oleaster <em>(Elaeagnus angustifolia),<\/em> a small stiff-branched tree or graceful shrub growing from 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6.1 meters) tall, common in all parts of the Holy Land except in the Jordan Valley. At one time it was particularly common on Mt Tabor and at Hebron and Samaria. The wood is hard and fine-grained and therefore well suited for carving of images and figures. The oil that it yields is a rather inferior type used in medication but not for food; this may be the oil of Micah 6:7.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Oleander\">Oleander <em>(Nerium oleander)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any poisonous evergreen shrub of this genus growing in warm climates. One of the suggestions for the plants identified as “roses” in various translations (Ecclus 24:14, <span>kjv<\/span>) is the oleander. This plant, originally native to the East Indies, has been cultivated throughout the warm regions of the world for centuries. It flourishes in the Holy Land today and forms dense thickets in some parts of the Jordan Valley. It is usually a shrub from 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. Every part of the plant is dangerously poisonous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OliveOliveTree\">Olive, Olive Tree <em>(Olea europaea)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Old world semitropical evergreen tree bearing edible fruit. The olive, <em>Olea europaea,<\/em> was unquestionably one of the most valuable trees known to the Jews. There are innumerable references to it in Scripture, as well as to olive oil, which was used for anointing. The tree is quite common in the Holy Land, and in many places it is the only tree of any substantial size. The branches of the wild olive are rather stiff and spinescent, and the typical cultivated tree is a multi-branched evergreen, 20 or more feet (6.1 meters) tall, with a gnarled trunk and smooth, ash-colored bark. The leaves are leathery and the flowers are small, yellow or white. The fruits are large, black or violet, ripening in September, and it is the outer fleshy parts of the fruit that yield the valuable olive oil of commerce. Thirty-one percent of the ripe fruit is oil. The ripe fruit is eaten raw, as is the green, unripe fruit. The wood of the trunk and limbs is hard, rich yellow or amber in color, and fine-grained, often handsomely variegated. It is still used today for the finest cabinetwork and turnery. The tree grows very slowly, but it attains a great age. It is difficult to kill the olive tree by cutting it down, because new sprouts are sent up from the root and all around the margins of the old stump, often forming a grove of two to five trunks, all from a single root that originally supported only one tree.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"Onion\">Onion <em>(Allium)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The onions referred to in Numbers 11:5 are undoubtedly <em>Allium cepa,<\/em> the Egyptian onion, which is made up of a compact coated bulb formed of layers consisting of broad fleshy bases of closely overlapping leaves. The leaves are slender and hollow. The entire plant has a characteristic pungent taste and odor.<\/p>\n\n<p>Closely related to the onion is the garlic, <em>A. sativum.<\/em> The common garlic is a hardy, bulbous perennial plant that is cultivated in Europe, western Asia, and Egypt. The leaves are narrow, flat, and ribbonlike. It is extremely popular with people of the Mediterranean region.<\/p>\n<p>Still another one of the onions is the leek, <em>A. porrum.<\/em> The bulb of the leek differs from that of the onion and garlic in that it is slender, cylindrical, and more than six inches (15.2 centimeters) in length. The flavor resembles that of the onion but is more pungent. The leaves are eaten as a relish or are cooked in soups. The bulbs are cut into small pieces and employed as seasoning for meat.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Palm\">Palm <em>(Phoenix dactylifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The palm tree of the Bible is undoubtedly the date palm. At one time it was as characteristic of the Holy Land as it is still today of Egypt. It is characterized by a branchless, tapering stem of up to 80 feet (24.2 meters) or more in height and a large terminal cluster of feathery leaves, each six to nine feet (1.8 to 2.7 meters) or more long. Because of its height and unusual structure, it was natural that it should be used as a form of ornamentation in Eastern architecture. The stem and leaves were favorite subjects of architectural embellishment. The immense, branchlike leaves that are referred to as branches in the Bible were symbols of triumph and were used on occasions of great rejoicing (Jn 12:13; Rv 7:9). The large leaves are still used to cover the roofs and sides of houses and to give solidity to reed fences. Mats, baskets, and even dishes are made of them. Small leaves are used as dusters, and the wood of the trunk is used for timber. Rope is made from the weblike integument in the crown. The fruit, borne in an immense drooping cluster, which may weigh from 30 to 50 pounds (13.6 to 22.7 kilograms), is the chief food of many natives of Arabia and north Africa. A single tree may yield up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms) of dates a year. They may be dried for future use.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Papyrus\">Papyrus <em>(Cyperus papyrus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Egyptian bulrush or papyrus (Ex 2:3-5; Jb 8:11; Is 18:2; 19:6-7; 35:7; 58:5) has smooth three-sided stems ordinarily attaining a height of 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3 meters), but sometimes even 16 feet (4.9 meters), and a thickness of two to three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base with a large tuft of florets at the end. The papyrus formerly grew in great abundance along the banks of the Nile, forming what was almost a dense jungle. Today it is practically extinct in lower Egypt, although it is still found along the White Nile and in the Sudan. The papyrus still grows in parts of the Holy Land, especially around the north end of the plain of Galilee and the Huleh swamps.<\/p>\n\n<p>In addition to being used for making small vessels to float in water (Ex 2:3), for mats, and for various other domestic purposes, it is best known as the source of ancient paper. In manufacturing paper from papyrus, the stems of the plant were first peeled and the pitch then cut longitudinally into thin slices that were laid side by side. These were then sprinkled with water and pressed to unite the whole into one piece. The sheet was then dried and cut into pieces of the required size. In the better grades of papyrus paper, several layers of stem slices were laid crosswise on each other.<\/p>\n<p>The pale, fawn-colored, tassel-like inflorescences at the summit of the stems were used to adorn Egyptian temples and to crown the statues of gods. They were also worn as crowns by famous men and national heroes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PineTree\">Pine Tree <em>(Pinus brutia, P. halepensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various evergreen trees of this family with needle-shaped leaves in clusters and seed-bearing cones. While there is considerable confusion concerning the conifers of the Bible, it seems apparent that pines are referred to in such passages as Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15; Isaiah 41:19; and 60:13. One of the Holy Land’s pines is the Brutian pine <em>(Pinus brutia),<\/em> a mountain-inhabiting species of the northern regions of Palestine. It attains a height of 10 to 35 feet (3 to 10.7 meters) with a rather diffuse growth and branches in whorls.<\/p>\n<p>Another of the pines is the Aleppo pine, <em>Pinus halepensis.<\/em> Most of the instances of the occurrence of “fir” or “fir tree” in the <span>kjv<\/span> probably refer to the Aleppo pine (2 Sm 6:5; 1 Kgs 5:8, 10; 6:34; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chr 2:8; Ps 104:17; Sg 1:17; Is 14:8; 37:24; 55:13; 60:13; Ez 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:8; Na 2:3; Zec 11:2). It grows from 9 to 60 feet (2.7 to 18.3 meters) tall with diffuse ascending branches and yellowish or brownish branchlets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pistachio\">Pistachio <em>(Pistacia terebinthus, P. vera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestine terebinth or turpentine tree is a large deciduous tree with straggling boughs. In the winter, without its leaves, it looks much like the oak. It grows from 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 meters) tall. Every part of the tree contains a fragrant, resinous juice. It is common on the lower slopes of the hills throughout Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Arabia, generally growing as a solitary tree and found mostly in localities too warm or too dry for the oak that it generally replaces. Since it is native to Gilead, it is quite probable that its resinous juice formed part of the spicery that the Israelites carried to Egypt from Gilead (Gn 37:25).<\/p>\n<p>The nuts of Genesis 43:11 are apparently pistachio nuts from the pistachio tree, <em>Pistacia vera,<\/em> closely related to the terebinth. It attains a height of 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9.1 meters) with a spreading top. It is found wild in many rocky parts of Lebanon and the Holy Land. The nut has a light-colored shell and the kernel has a sweet delicate flavor much relished wherever it grows.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PlaneTree\">Plane Tree <em>(Platanus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of this family with bell-shaped fruit clusters and usually an outer bark that flakes off in patches or strips. The references in Genesis 30:37 and Ezekiel 31:8 are apparently not to the chestnut tree, which is not indigenous to Palestine, but to the oriental plane tree, <em>Platanus orientalis.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The plane tree is a massive tree 60 feet (18.3 meters) or more tall with a trunk often of vast circumference, sometimes as much as 40 feet (12.2 meters). The outer bark peels off in sheets or scales, thus exposing a smooth whitish or yellowish inner bark. The tree is common throughout Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land, growing even in subalpine regions. However, it is primarily a tree of the plains and lowlands, growing on the edges of streams and lakes and in marshy places.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pomegranate\">Pomegranate <em>(Punica granatum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The pomegranate is usually a small, bushlike tree but may occasionally become a large, branching shrub or small tree reaching a height of 20 to 30 feet (6.1 to 9.1 meters). The branches are often thorny. The showy bell-like flowers are usually scarlet, though sometimes yellow or white. The globular fruit is as large as an orange or medium-size apple. It has a hard rind of a bright red or yellowish color when ripe and is surmounted by the dry sepals that resemble a crown. The fruit itself is a crimson juicy pulp in which many red seeds are imbedded. The flowers of the pomegranate undoubtedly served as a pattern for the golden bells referred to in Exodus 28:33-34 and 39:24-26, and the open flowers of 1 Kings 6:32. The erect calyx lobes on the fruit served as a model for crowns of kings.<\/p>\n<p>The pomegranate is native to Asia, but it has been cultivated since prehistoric times and is now quite common in the Holy Land, in Egypt, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. It is listed as one of the pleasant fruits of Egypt (Nm 20:5) and one of the promised blessings of the Holy Land (Dt 8:8).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Poplar\">Poplar <em>(Populus euphratica, P. alba)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Fast-growing deciduous tree of the same genus as the aspen and cottonwood. The <span>kjv<\/span> references in 2 Samuel 5:23-24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14-15 to mulberry trees are more probably to the Euphrates poplar or aspen, <em>Populus euphratica.<\/em> This tree grows to a height of 30 to 45 feet (9.1 to 13.7 meters) with spreading branches. The Euphrates aspen is found only on rivers and stream banks throughout the area from Syria through the Holy Land to Stony Arabia. It is especially common in the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\n<p>The white poplar <em>(Populus alba)<\/em> is common in wet places in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and Sinai. It attains a height of 30 to 60 feet (9.1 to 18.3 meters) with spreading branches. Some suggest that the altars of various pagan religions were usually erected on the top of a hill and in the shade of a poplar grove.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Quince\">Quince <em>(Cydonia oblonga)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree native to western Asia, having white flowers and applelike fruit that is edible when cooked. Some believe that the “apples” of the OT were quinces, <em>Cydonia oblonga.<\/em> The quince tree is quite common in the Holy Land, though chiefly as a cultivated tree. It may occur wild in the northern parts of Syria. It is native to northern Persia and Asia Minor. The fruit is yellowish and highly fragrant, and it is the fragrance that caused it to be held in high regard by the ancients.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Reed\">Reed <em>(Juncus, Scirpus, Typha angustata, Arundo donax)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Numerous species of the rush and bulrush grow in the Holy Land. There are at least 21 varieties of rushes. The common soft rush or bog rush <em>(Juncus effusus)<\/em> is found in wet places, even in the Sinai and other deserts. The sea or hard rush <em>(J. maritimus)<\/em> is found in damp places throughout the Holy Land and even in Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>At least 15 kinds of bulrushes <em>(Scirpus)<\/em> are known in the Holy Land. The cluster-headed club rush <em>(Scirpus holoschoenus)<\/em> is common in damp places throughout the Holy Land to the Sinai. The lake club rush or tall bulrush <em>(S. lacustris)<\/em> is found in swamps and ditches throughout northern Africa to the Dead Sea. The sea club rush or salt marsh club rush <em>(S. maritimus)<\/em> is found in ditches and swamps in many places of the Holy Land. Any of these species may be the one referred to in Job 8:11; Isaiah 9:14; 19:6, 15.<\/p>\n<p>The reference in Genesis 41:2 to the feeding of cattle in the meadow seems to be to the tall reed <em>(Arundo donax),<\/em> which grows 18 feet (5.5 meters) or more in height. This plant is also known as the Persian reed and is common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and the Sinai peninsula. It is a gigantic grass that may have a stem diameter of two or three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base and is terminated by a plume of white flowers similar to those of the sugarcane or pampas grass. The plant was used for many purposes by the ancients: for walking sticks, fishing rods, measuring rods, and musical pipes. It is, therefore, quite possible that the “reed” of Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 was a carpenter’s reed or measuring rod.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Papyrus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Rue\">Rue <em>(Ruta chalepensis, R. graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic Eurasian plant with evergreen leaves that yield an acrid, volatile oil once used in medicine. There is little question as to the correctness of the translation of “rue” in Luke 11:42, but there is some doubt as to the exact species. Most writers think that it was the common rue <em>(Rue graveolens),<\/em> a perennial shrubby plant with erect stems two to three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall and deeply cut leaves. A very strong odor emanates from the foliage. This species is native to the Mediterranean region and grows wild in the Holy Land, especially on Mt Tabor.<\/p>\n<p>Rue was highly thought of by the ancients as a medicinal, supposed to prevent dizziness, dumbness, epilepsy, eye inflammations, insanity, and the “evil eye.” Rue was also used for seasoning dishes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Rush\">Rush <em>(Butomus umbellatus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Generic term for any of various grasslike marsh plants having pliant, hollow, or pithy stems. There is considerable uncertainty about the identification of the plant referred to in Genesis 41:2 translated in the <span>kjv<\/span> as “meadow,” and in Job 8:11 as “flag.” Since it is mentioned along with the papyrus in the Job passage, it seems that it refers to a specific kind of plant rather than to an aggregate of plants in a meadow. From the description in Genesis as being a plant on which Pharaoh’s cattle might feed along the banks of the Nile and yet not the papyrus, it may refer to the flowering rush or water gladiola <em>(Butomus umbellatus),<\/em> which flourishes both in Egypt and in the Holy Land, along with the papyrus.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Reed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Saffron\">Saffron <em>(Crocus sativus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Saffron, referred to in Song of Songs 4:14, is the product of several species of <em>Crocus,<\/em> especially of the blue-flowered saffron crocus <em>(C. sativus),<\/em> which is native to Greece and Asia Minor. The commercial product consists of the stigma and upper portions of the style, the top parts of the flower ovary, which are collected shortly after the flower opens. It requires at least 4,000 stigmas to make an ounce of saffron. After being gathered, the stigmas are dried in the sun, pounded, and made into small cakes. Saffron is used principally as a yellow dye and also as a fruit coloring for curries and stews.<\/p>\n<p>Another, entirely different kind of dye-producing plant <em>(Carthamus tinctorius)<\/em> called carthamine, bastard saffron, or safflower is a member of the thistle family. Its red florets yield a dye used extensively for coloring silk, in cooking, and for adulterating genuine saffron. It is an annual spiny plant three to four and a half feet (1.4 meters) tall, native to Syria and Egypt. In Egypt the grave clothes of mummies were dyed with this material, and it is quite possible that this plant may also have been the saffron of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sage\">Sage <em>(Salvia judaica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Judean sage grows to three feet (.9 meter) tall in the mountains and hills of Palestine. Its stems are four-angled, stiff, and rough. The plant grows from Syria south through Nazareth, Hebron, Tiberius, Samaria, and Judea.<\/p>\n<p>This plant is the origin of the design of the seven-branched lampstand of Exodus 37:17-18, which is known as the menorah, the traditional Jewish symbol. The inflorescence of the plant, when pressed flat, has almost exactly the same shape and form as the seven-branched candlestick, with its central spike and three pairs of side branches each bending upward and inward in a symmetrical fashion. On each branch of the plant’s inflorescence are whorls or buds that perhaps give the idea for the “knops” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “knobs” on the biblical golden candlesticks.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Spelt\">Spelt <em>(Triticum aestivum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Hardy member of the wheat family. The rye of Exodus 9:32 and Isaiah 28:25, as well as the fitches of Ezekiel 4:9 (all <span>kjv<\/span>) are thought to be spelt. It is a hard-grained species of wheat with loose ears and grains triangular in cross-section, and was the most common form of wheat in early times. It has a stouter stem than wheat and strong spikes of grain. Bread made of its flour is much inferior to that made from wheat, but spelt will thrive in almost any kind of soil and will yield a crop on land that is unfit for wheat. The ancients preferred it to barley for bread.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StoraxTree\">Storax Tree <em>(Styrax officinalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various trees of this genus yielding an aromatic resin. Today it is thought that the stacte of Exodus 30:34 was derived from the storax tree. It is an irregularly stiff-branched shrub or small tree 9 to 20 feet (2.7 to 6.1 meters) tall. This tree is abundant on low hills and rocky places from Lebanon through the Holy Land. Its gum is obtained by making incisions in the stems and branches. It is highly perfumed and is still prized today as a perfume.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sycamore\">Sycamore-fig <em>(Ficus sycomorus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree of northeastern Africa and adjacent Asia, related to the fig. The word translated “sycamore” in 1 Kings 10:27; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry. It should not be confused with the common sycamore of the North American continent, which is actually a plane tree. The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (1 Chr 27:28). It is thought that Amos was not a gatherer of sycamore fruit but rather a dresser of sycamore trees.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tamarisk\">Tamarisk <em>(Tamarix)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Genesis 21:33 and 1 Samuel 22:6 and 31:13 seem to be to the tamarisk. These trees or shrubs are small and fast-growing with a durable wood. They are abundant in deserts, dunes, and salt marshes. <em>Tamarix aphylla<\/em> is leafless and has small white flowers. These trees or shrubs often provide a soothing touch of green foliage and a promise of cooling shade to the traveler. Tamarisks are able to survive because they either have small, scalelike leaves, which lose little moisture by transpiration, or no leaves at all. The larger of the tamarisks are valued for their wood in a region where wood is scarce. The wood was used for building and also as a source of an excellent type of charcoal.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Terebinth\">Terebinth <em>(Pistacia terebinthus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Pistachio (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThistleThorn\">Thistle, Thorn <em>(Lycium europaeum, Solanum incanum, Centaurea, Silybum marianum, Ruscus aculeatus, Agrostemma githago, Paliurus spina-christi, Zizyphus spina-christi)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are 22 different Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to refer to spiny or prickly shrubs or weeds, and these are translated as “bramble,” “brier,” “cockle,” “thorn,” and “thistle.” At present, there are about 125 species of thorns and thistles that grow in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The bramble in the allegory of Judges 9:14-15 is believed to refer to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn, <em>Lycium europaeum.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The general consensus is that the “briers” of Isaiah 10:17, 55:13, Micah 7:4, and Hebrews 6:8 are the Palestine nightshade <em>(Solanum incanum),<\/em> or “Jericho potato.”<\/p>\n<p>The thistles of Genesis 3:17-18, 2 Kings 14:9, 2 Chronicles 25:18, Hosea 10:8, and Matthew 7:16, as well as the thorns of Matthew 13:7 and Hebrews 6:8, are thought to be one of the species of the thistle, <em>Centaurea.<\/em> Among the more common thistles in the Holy Land are the true star-thistle <em>(Centaurea calcitrapa),<\/em> the dwarf centaury <em>(C. verutum),<\/em> the Iberian centaury <em>(C. iberica),<\/em> and the lady’s thistle <em>(Silybum marianum).<\/em> Some thistles attain a height of five to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters). Thistles are characteristic of an area that is uncultivated and neglected. Many have beautiful flowers, but all are covered with sharp spines.<\/p>\n<p>The references in Ezekiel 2:6 to “briers” and Ezekiel 28:24 to a “pricking brier” may be to the prickly butchers-broom or knee-holly, <em>Ruscus aculeatus.<\/em> The plant is common in rocky woods in the northern regions of the Holy Land, especially around Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p>The cockle of Job 31:40 (<span>nlt<\/span> “weeds”) perhaps refers to the corn cockle, <em>Agrostemma githago.<\/em> This plant is common in grainfields throughout the Holy Land. It is a strong-growing and troublesome weed in grainfields, growing from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall.<\/p>\n<p>Many commentators think that the “thorns” out of which the crown of thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2) was made were from the Christ-thorn <em>(Paliurus spina-christi).<\/em> This belief has led to its specific name; the Christ-thorn is a spiny plant that ordinarily grows as a straggling shrub three to nine feet (.9 to 2.7 meters) tall. The flexible branches are armed at the base of each leaf with a pair of unequal, stiff, sharp spines. The unusual pliable texture of the young branches renders it particularly easy to plait into a crownlike wreath.<\/p>\n<p>The thorns of Judges 8:7, Isaiah 7:19, 9:18, 55:13, and Matthew 7:16 may refer to the Syrian Christ-thorn <em>(Zizyphus spina-christi),<\/em> a shrub or small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, sometimes growing into a 40-foot (12.2-meter) tree with smooth white branches bearing a pair of stout, unequal, recurved spines at the back of each leaf.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bramble; Buckthorn (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tulip\">Tulip <em>(Tulipa montana, T. sharonensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several bulbous plants of this family native to Asia. The rose of Sharon in Song of Songs 2:1 may be the mountain tulip, <em>Tulipa montana,<\/em> or the closely related Sharon tulip, <em>T. sharonensis.<\/em> The former is an attractive plant that grows from a bulb and has leaves that are often wavy-margined. The species is common in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Anti-Lebanon. It is primarily a mountainous species. The Sharon tulip <em>(T. sharonensis)<\/em> is found in sandy places on the Sharon coastal plains.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tumbleweed\">Tumbleweed <em>(Gundelia tournefortii, Anastatica hierochuntica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Psalm 83:13 to “whirling dust” and in Isaiah 17:13 to “wheel” or “rolling thing” (<span>niv<\/span> “tumbleweed”) seem to be to the Palestinian tumbleweed <em>(Gundelia tournefortii),<\/em> a member of the thistle family. It is a prickly herb with milky juice. It rolls over the land and gathers in tremendous heaps in hollows.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Vegetable\">Vegetable<\/p>\n<p>Scriptural references to vegetables are probably, in most cases, to the dried leguminous seeds of beans and lentils.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Vine\">Vine <em>(Vitis vinifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any plant with a flexible stem that climbs, twines, or creeps along a surface or support. The common grapevine <em>(Vitis vinifera)<\/em> is mentioned throughout the Bible. The fruitful vine (Ez 17:5-10) and the vine brought out of Egypt (Ps 80:8) were symbolic of the Jewish people. Jesus compares himself to the true vine, of which his disciples were the branches (Jn 15:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The grapevine of the Old World sometimes assumes the characteristics of a tree, with stems up to a foot and a half (45.7 centimeters) in diameter, the branches then being trained on a trellis and bearing bunches of grapes 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) in weight, with the individual grapes the size of small plums. Bunches have been produced weighing as much as 26 pounds (11.8 kilograms). The vines of the Holy Land were always renowned both for the luxuriance of their growth and for the immense clusters of grapes they produced. Thus it does not seem improbable that the spies sent to the Promised Land should have employed a pole to transport some of the clusters home (Nm 13:23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The wild grape <em>(Vitis orientalis)<\/em> is referred to in Isaiah 5:2-4, Jeremiah 2:21, and Ezekiel 15:2-6. It is known as the native wild fox grape and has small, black, acidic berries about the size of currants with little juice.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Walnut\">Walnut <em>(Juglans regia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of this genus having round, sticky fruit enclosing an edible nut. The reference in Song of Songs 6:11 to “nuts” is thought to refer to the Persian or common walnut, <em>Juglans regia.<\/em> The tree is believed to have been indigenous to northern Persia, but it is actually found wild in many parts of northern India, eastward as far as China, and westward through Persia. At the time of Solomon, it was widely cultivated for its fruit throughout the East. Perhaps Solomon’s garden of nuts was a part of his extensive gardens at Etham, six miles (9.7 kilometers) from Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WaterLily\">Water Lily <em>(Nymphaea)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of numerous aquatic plants of this genus with floating leaves and showy flowers. The carved lily ornamentation of 1 Kings 7:19-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 was probably patterned after the flowers of the water lily. Few flowers can equal the Egyptian lotus or water lily <em>(Nymphaea lotus)<\/em> in beauty. It looks very much like a large white rose and at one time floated in profusion on the waters of the Nile.<\/p>\n<p>The common European white water lily <em>(N. alba)<\/em> was also familiar to the children of Israel. It grows not only in Europe but also in the Holy Land and North Africa. It is, however, not as common in Egypt as is the white lotus.<\/p>\n<p>Another water lily with which the Israelites were probably familiar is the blue lotus, <em>N. caerulea.<\/em> Its leaves are 12 to 16 inches (30.5 to 40.6 centimeters) across and it has light-blue flowers that are three to six inches (7.6 to 15.2 centimeters) in diameter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wheat\">Wheat <em>(Triticum aestivum, T. compositum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various cereal grasses of this family widely cultivated for its edible grain. Five kinds of wheat are native to—and still wild in—the Holy Land, and at least eight others are cultivated there today; probably most, if not all, were known in Bible times. The wild varieties were probably more abundant then than they are today. Among these are the einkorn <em>(T. monococcum),<\/em> the thaoudar <em>(T. thaoudar),<\/em> and the wild emmer <em>(T. dicoccoides).<\/em> The composite wheat <em>(T. compositum),<\/em> with its branched spikes, often bearing as many as seven heads per stalk, is definitely referred to in Genesis 41:5-57. It is depicted on numerous Egyptian monuments and on inscriptions and is still commonly seen in the Nile Delta, where it is known as “mummy wheat.” It is also cultivated in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The most frequently mentioned wheat of the Bible is undoubtedly the commonly cultivated summer and winter wheat, <em>Triticum aestivum.<\/em> It is an abundant annual grass cultivated in Egypt and other Eastern lands since earliest times. The exact place of its origin is unknown. Grains of wheat have been found in the most ancient Egyptian tombs and in the remains of prehistoric lake dwellings in Switzerland. It was certainly the chief grain of Mesopotamia in Jacob’s time (Gn 30:14).<\/p>\n<p>Corn in biblical days often included a mixture of peas, beans, lentils, cummin, barley, millet, and spelt, but wheat was always its main constituent. Egypt was a great grain-producing country, and Abram (Gn 12:10) and Joseph’s brothers (ch 42) naturally turned to Egypt for wheat when famine visited Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>The mills, millstones, granaries, and threshing floors mentioned in the Bible all refer to equipment employed in processing grain to produce flour. The fine flour of which the showbread loaves were made (Lv 24:5) was unquestionably wheat flour. Wheat intended for home consumption was often stored in the central part of the house; this explains the story told in 2 Samuel 4:6. It was also sometimes stored in dry wells (2 Sm 17:19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wormwood\">Wormwood <em>(Artemisia judaica, A. herba-alba)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Wormwood is a general name given to a group of woody plants with a strong aromatic odor. Wormwood plants have a strong, bitter taste, and their young shoots and branch tips furnish the “wormwood” of commerce. Its bitter taste accounts for its being spoken of with gall—as being symbolic of bitter calamity and sorrow (Prv 5:4; Jer 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:15, 19). <em>Artemisia herba-alba<\/em> is the common species of wormwood in the Holy Land today. It is strongly aromatic, smelling like camphor, and bitter. <em>A. judaica<\/em> occurs only in the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>Absinthe is made from species of this group. It first leads to greater activity and pleasant sensations and fills the mind with grandiose ideas (Lam 3:15). The habitual use of it, however, brings on a stupor and gradual diminution of intellectual faculties, ending in delirium and even death. Perhaps the hemlock of Amos 6:12 was wormwood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PLANTS<\/h3>\n<p>Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew in abundance in the Holy Land are now extinct. Some have been driven out by foreign invaders; others have been exterminated or nearly exterminated by overcultivation of the land, the destruction of forests, and the resulting changes in climatic and other environmental conditions. At one time the Holy Land was a land of palm trees, with the date palm as abundant and characteristic there as it was in Egypt, but today the date palm is much less common. Similarly, in antiquity, the towering cedars clothed the slopes of Lebanon and other mountain ranges. Now the few remaining specimens must be carefully fenced in to protect them against trampling and the ravages of goats.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Acacia<\/p>\n<p>• Acanthus<\/p>\n<p>• Algum<\/p>\n<p>• Almond<\/p>\n<p>• Almug<\/p>\n<p>• Aloe<\/p>\n<p>• Apple<\/p>\n<p>• Apricot<\/p>\n<p>• Ash<\/p>\n<p>• Aspen<\/p>\n<p>• Balm<\/p>\n<p>• Barley<\/p>\n<p>• Bdellium<\/p>\n<p>• Bean<\/p>\n<p>• Bitter Herbs<\/p>\n<p>• Boxthorn, European<\/p>\n<p>• Box Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Bramble<\/p>\n<p>• Broom<\/p>\n<p>• Buckthorn<\/p>\n<p>• Bush<\/p>\n<p>• Buttercup<\/p>\n<p>• Calamus<\/p>\n<p>• Cane<\/p>\n<p>• Caper Plant<\/p>\n<p>• Carob Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Cassia<\/p>\n<p>• Castor Oil Plant<\/p>\n<p>• Cedar<\/p>\n<p>• Chicory<\/p>\n<p>• Cinnamon<\/p>\n<p>• Citron Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Coriander<\/p>\n<p>• Cotton<\/p>\n<p>• Cucumber<\/p>\n<p>• Cummin<\/p>\n<p>• Cypress<\/p>\n<p>• Dandelion<\/p>\n<p>• Darnel Grass<\/p>\n<p>• Dill<\/p>\n<p>• Ebony<\/p>\n<p>• Endive<\/p>\n<p>• Fig, Fig Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Fir Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Flax<\/p>\n<p>• Frankincense<\/p>\n<p>• Galbanum<\/p>\n<p>• Garlic<\/p>\n<p>• Gourd, Wild<\/p>\n<p>• Hedge<\/p>\n<p>• Henna<\/p>\n<p>• Hyacinth<\/p>\n<p>• Hyssop<\/p>\n<p>• Juniper<\/p>\n<p>• Laurel or Sweet Bay<\/p>\n<p>• Leek<\/p>\n<p>• Lentil<\/p>\n<p>• Lettuce<\/p>\n<p>• Lily<\/p>\n<p>• Lotus Bush<\/p>\n<p>• Mallow<\/p>\n<p>• Mandrake<\/p>\n<p>• Melon<\/p>\n<p>• Millet<\/p>\n<p>• Mint<\/p>\n<p>• Mulberry<\/p>\n<p>• Mustard<\/p>\n<p>• Myrrh<\/p>\n<p>• Myrtle<\/p>\n<p>• Narcissus<\/p>\n<p>• Nard<\/p>\n<p>• Nettle<\/p>\n<p>• Nutmeg Flower<\/p>\n<p>• Oak<\/p>\n<p>• Oil Tree, Oleaster<\/p>\n<p>• Oleander<\/p>\n<p>• Olive, Olive Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Onion<\/p>\n<p>• Palm<\/p>\n<p>• Papyrus<\/p>\n<p>• Pine Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Pistachio<\/p>\n<p>• Plane Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Pomegranate<\/p>\n<p>• Poplar<\/p>\n<p>• Quince<\/p>\n<p>• Reed<\/p>\n<p>• Rue<\/p>\n<p>• Rush<\/p>\n<p>• Saffron<\/p>\n<p>• Sage<\/p>\n<p>• Spelt<\/p>\n<p>• Storax Tree<\/p>\n<p>• Sycamore<\/p>\n<p>• Tamarisk<\/p>\n<p>• Terebinth<\/p>\n<p>• Thistle, Thorn<\/p>\n<p>• Tulip<\/p>\n<p>• Tumbleweed<\/p>\n<p>• Vegetable<\/p>\n<p>• Vine<\/p>\n<p>• Walnut<\/p>\n<p>• Water Lily<\/p>\n<p>• Wheat<\/p>\n<p>• Wormwood<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Acacia\">Acacia <em>(Acacia tortilis<\/em> and <em>A. seyal)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any tree or shrub of the mimosa family of plants growing in warm regions. The plant referred to in the <span>kjv<\/span> as “shittah” (singular) or “shittim” (plural) is undoubtedly the acacia tree, the only timber tree of any considerable size in the Arabian desert. <em>Acacia tortilis<\/em> is by far the largest and most common tree in the desert in which the Israelites wandered for 40 years. It is especially conspicuous on Mt Sinai and was probably the species used for the tabernacle furnishings. <em>A. seyal<\/em> is less common, at least today. It can grow as high as 25 feet (7.6 meters), and bears yellow flowers on twisted branches. The wood is close grained, heavy and hard, orange-brown in color, and much valued in cabinetwork. The ancient Egyptians clamped shut mummy coffins with acacia wood.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Acanthus\">Acanthus <em>(Acanthus syriacus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The acanthus, perhaps referred to in Job 30:7 and Zephaniah 2:9, is a perennial thistlelike herb or small shrub about three feet (.9 meter) tall, and is a common weed in all Eastern countries. It has been used since time immemorial as a model for the leaf or scroll decorations in art.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Algum\">Algum <em>(Juniperus excelsa Bieb)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The timber from Lebanon referred to in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is probably the juniper. Some translators hold, however, that algum and almug are Hebrew variants for the same tree (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg, 2 Chr 2:8).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Almug (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Almond\">Almond <em>(Amygdalus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The almond is a peachlike tree with saw-toothed pointed leaves and gray bark. It grows to a height of from 10 to 25 feet (3 to 7.6 meters). It blooms very early in the year; its Hebrew name has its roots in “watch for.” To the Jews it was a welcome harbinger of spring (Jer 1:11).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Almug\">Almug <em>(Pterocarpus santalinus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The precious wood imported by King Solomon and used in making the pillars for the temple and for making harps and psalteries (1 Kgs 10:11-12). This timber was brought by sea from Ophir to Ezion-geber, near Elath. Modern authorities suggest that Ophir was either in Arabia, India, or East Africa near Mozambique. The reference to “algum“ in 2 Chronicles 2:8 is possibly to this tree. <em>See<\/em> Algum (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Aloe\">Aloe <em>(Aloe succotrina, Aquilaria agallocha)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Chiefly African, lilylike plant of the genus <em>Aloes,<\/em> certain species of which yield a drug and a fiber. Aloe is an aromatic substance mentioned in the Bible, together with myrrh, balm, and other fragrant plants (Ps 45:8; Prv 7:17; Sg 4:14; Jn 19:39). Most scholars think these passages refer to two different plants. The OT plant is likely to have been <em>Aquilaria agallocha,<\/em> the eaglewood, a large tree growing up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) tall with a trunk 12 feet (3.7 meters) in circumference. It is native to northern India, Malaya, and Indochina. The decaying wood is highly fragrant, and as such is highly valued as perfume and incense and for fumigation.<\/p>\n<p>The aloe of John 19:39 is thought to be the true aloe <em>(Aloe succotrina),<\/em> the juice of which was used by the Egyptians in embalming. Its smell, however, is not very agreeable, and it has a bitter taste. It is sometimes used by veterinarians as a horse medicine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Apple\">Apple <em>(Malus sylvestris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The identity of the fruit identified by the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">tappuach<\/span> (Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5) continues to be debated. In most English translations it has been rendered “apple” because of its close linguistic tie to the Arabic word <em>tuffah.<\/em> Many scholars identify this tree as the apricot, questioning whether apples fit the biblical description “apples of gold” and whether the apple tree was cultivated in ancient Palestine. Recent excavations at Kadesh-barnea, however, have uncovered carbonized apples, probably a crab apple <em>(Malus sylvestris),<\/em> dating to the ninth century <span>BC<\/span>. This would certainly allow for this ornamental apple’s cultivation in Solomon’s gardens.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apricot (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Apricot\">Apricot <em>(Prunus armeniaca)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The identification of the Hebrew word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">tappuach<\/span> with the apricot continues to be debated. The apricot tree produces yellow-orange peachlike edible fruit and is native to western Asia and Africa. It is abundant in the Holy Land and probably has been so since early biblical times. The tree is a round-headed reddish-barked tree growing 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Most translations render this Hebrew word “apple,” though many scholars identify it with the apricot because of its descriptions in the biblical text (see Prv 25:11; Sg 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Jl 1:12).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Apple (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ash\">Ash <em>(Alhagi maurorum, Fraxinus ornus, Tamarix mannifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are several ash trees found in the Near East. One of these, the prickly alhagi <em>(Alhagi maurorum),<\/em> is a member of the pea family. It is a low, many-stemmed, much-branched shrub growing about three feet (.9 meter) tall with somewhat hairy twigs and pealike flowers. During the heat of the day, leaves exude a sweet, gummy substance that hardens in the air and is collected by shaking the bushes over a spread-out cloth.<\/p>\n<p>The manna tamarisk <em>(Tamarix mannifera)<\/em> is a multibranched shrub or a small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall with rigid branches that have tiny pink flowers. It is found on deserts from the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>The flowering or manna ash <em>(Fraxinus ornus)<\/em> is a tree that grows from 15 to 50 feet (4.6 to 15.2 meters) tall. The fruits are very similar to those produced by our species of ash. The ash of Isaiah 44:14 (<span>kjv<\/span>) is believed to be the Aleppo pine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Aspen\">Aspen <em>(Populus euphratica<\/em> or <em>P. tremula)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of the genus <em>Populus<\/em> with leaves attached by flattened leafstalks so that they tremble or “quake” in the wind.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Balm\">Balm <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca, Pistacia lentiscus, Commiphora opobalsamum<\/em><em>)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>An oily aromatic resin exuded by chiefly tropical trees and shrubs and used medicinally; trees and shrubs producing this substance. References in Genesis 37:25, Jeremiah 8:22, 46:11, and 51:8 are thought to be either the Jericho balsam <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> or the lentisk or mastic tree <em>(Pistacia lentiscus).<\/em> The Jericho balsam is very common in Egypt, North Africa, the plains of Jericho, and the hot plains bordering on the Dead Sea. It is a small desert-loving plant, 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, with slender, thorny branches and small clusters of green flowers.<\/p>\n<p>The lentisk or mastic tree is native to the Holy Land, and the reference in Genesis 43:11 is probably to this plant, since the implication is that this is a native product of the Holy Land unknown in Egypt at the time. This tree is a shrubby or bushy tree 3 to 10 feet (.9 to 3 meters) tall with evergreen leaves. The “balm” is a fragrant gummy exudation of the sap secured by making incisions in the stems and branches, usually in August. The best grades are in the form of yellow-white translucent tears or drops; they are employed in medicine as an astringent. The poorer grades are used extensively as a varnish. Children in the East use it as chewing gum.<\/p>\n<p>References to spices in 1 Kings 10:10, 2 Kings 20:13, Song of Songs 3:6, Isaiah 39:2, and Ezekiel 27:17 are thought to be the balm of Gilead <em>(Commiphora opobalsamum),<\/em> which in spite of its name is not a native of Gilead or even of the Holy Land but is indigenous to Arabia, especially the mountainous regions of Yemen. The trees were still in existence on the plain of Jericho at the time of the Roman conquest. The Roman conquerors carried branches to Rome as trophies of their victory over the Jews.<\/p>\n<p>This tree is a small, stiff-branched evergreen tree seldom more than 15 feet (4.6 meters) high with straggling branches. The “balm” is obtained by making incisions in the stem and branches of the tree. The sap soon hardens into small irregular nodules that are collected. Gum is also procured from green and ripe fruit.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Myrrh (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Barley\">Barley <em>(Hordeum distichon)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A cereal grass bearing bearded flower spikes and edible seeds. The common barley <em>(Hordeum distichon),<\/em> the winter barley <em>(H. hex<\/em><em>astichon),<\/em> and the spring barley <em>(H. vulgare)<\/em> have been cultivated in temperate regions of the world since time immemorial and today still constitute one of the principal grain foods. Barley and wheat were the two staple cereal crops of Egypt and the Holy Land. Being less expensive, barley was mostly used for feeding cattle, although it was also used by itself or mixed with wheat and other seed as food for man (Ez 4:9-12). Barley is mentioned in the Bible over 30 times, either as a plant growing in the fields or in reference to products made from it, such as barley meal, barley bread, barley cakes, and barley loaves. As the common food of the poor, barley was also regarded as a symbol of poverty and cheapness or worthlessness (Hos 3:2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bdellium\">Bdellium <em>(Commiphora africana)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic gum resin similar to myrrh, produced by various trees of the genus <em>Commiphora<\/em> of Africa and western Asia. The reference in Genesis 2:12 and Numbers 11:7 to bdellium is thought by most scholars today to refer to a gum resin, obtained from a shrub, <em>Commiphora africana<\/em>, that grows in south Arabia and northeastern Africa. The resin is yellowish, transparent, and fragrant, and looks like a pearl.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bean\">Bean <em>(Faba vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in 2 Samuel 17:27-28 and Ezekiel 4:9 are generally regarded as referring to the broad bean. This species, an annual plant, is thought originally to have grown in northern Persia, but it was extensively cultivated in western Asia in very early times as a food plant. Beans have been found in the mummy coffins of Egyptian tombs, and they were also cultivated by the Greeks and Romans.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BitterHerbs\">Bitter Herbs <em>(Cichorium endivia, Taraxacum officinale, Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “bitter herbs” of Exodus 12:8 and Numbers 9:11 seem to have been plants like endive <em>(Cichorium endivia),<\/em> the common chicory <em>(Cichorium intybus),<\/em> lettuce <em>(Lactuca sativa),<\/em> or the common dandelion <em>(Taraxacum officinale).<\/em> These are all weedy plants common in modern Egypt and western Asia and are still eaten by people living there. The leaves of the ordinary garden lettuce are intensely bitter when bleached. This is also true of the common dandelion. Others suggest that the bitter herbs were derived from thorns and thistles.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BoxthornEuropean\">Boxthorn, European <em>(Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various thorny shrubs, some species of which bear purplish flowers and brightly colored berries. The reference in Judges 9:14-15 is thought to be to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn. It is a thorny shrub 6 to 12 feet (1.8 to 3.7 meters) tall with clustered leaves and small violet flowers eventually producing small globular red berries. It is native to and common throughout the Holy Land, especially in the region from Lebanon to the Dead Sea.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"BoxTree\">Box Tree <em>(Buxus longifolia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The long-leaved box tree is a hardy evergreen tree found in the mountainous regions of the northern part of the Holy Land, the Galilean hills, and Lebanon. It grows to a height of about 20 feet (6.1 meters) with a slender trunk seldom more than six to eight inches (15.2 to 20.3 centimeters) in diameter. Its wood is very hard and takes a fine polish. It was cultivated by the Romans for its hard wood, which they inlaid with ivory for cabinets and jewel caskets. Scriptural references include Isaiah 41:19 and 60:13.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bramble\">Bramble <em>(Rubus sanctus, R. ulmifolius)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian bramble <em>(Rubus sanctus)<\/em> and the closely related elm-leaf bramble <em>(R. ulmifolius)<\/em> are prickly evergreen shrubs that spread by means of suckers. The stems and young shoots are covered with a characteristic bloom or whitish powder and short hairs. The prickles are strong, erect, and hairy. The flowers are white, pink, rose, or purple in color, and the fruit is round and black.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Thistle, Thorn (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Broom\">Broom <em>(Retama raetam)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A shrub native to Eurasia. The word translated “juniper” in the <span>kjv<\/span> has nothing to do with the true junipers but refers rather to a species of broom, known as the white broom <em>(Retama raetam).<\/em> Its branches are longer and flexible, forming an erect, dense bush 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. The leaves are small and sparse, yet it forms an agreeable shade in a desert region. The white pealike flowers are sweet and very fragrant and are borne in clusters along the twigs. It is a beautiful shrub that grows in the desert regions of Palestine, Syria, and Persia. In many desert areas it is the only bush that affords any shade (1 Kgs 19:4-5).<\/p>\n<p>The “juniper roots” of Job 30:4 are not the roots of either the juniper or white broom. The roots of the latter are very nauseating and could not be eaten in the manner described by Job. Job’s “juniper roots” were probably an edible parasitic plant <em>(Cynomorium coccineum).<\/em> This plant grows in salt marshes and maritime sands. It is frequently eaten in times of food scarcity and at one time was highly prized for its supposed medicinal value in the treatment of dysentery.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Buckthorn\">Buckthorn <em>(Rhamnus palaestina)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestinian buckthorn is a shrub or small tree attaining a height of three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March or April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Bush\">Bush <em>(Acacia nilotica, Loranthus acaciae)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Low, branching, woody plant, usually smaller than a tree. There are differences of opinion in regard to the bush out of which the Lord appeared to Moses (Ex 3:2-4). From the biblical account, it seems most likely that the event was a miraculous one. However, some seek a natural explanation and believe that the burning bush may have been the crimson-flowered mistletoe or acacia strap flower <em>(Loranthus acaciae),<\/em> which grows in great profusion as a partial parasite on the various acacia shrubs, such as the thorny acacia <em>(Acacia nilotica),<\/em> in the Holy Land and Sinai. When in full bloom, the mistletoe imparts to the shrub or tree the appearance of being on fire because its brilliant flame-colored blossoms stand out against the green foliage and yellow flowers of the host plants.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Buttercup\">Buttercup <em>(Ranunculus asiaticus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Persian buttercup is one of the flowers or grasses of the field (Mt 6:28-30). It is a showy plant blooming in all brilliant colors except blue, with double flowers sometimes measuring two inches (5.1 centimeters) across.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Calamus\">Calamus <em>(Acorus calamus, Andropogon aroma<\/em><em>ticus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A plant, or its aromatic root; any of a variety of tropical Asiatic palms. One of the plants that grew in Solomon’s garden (Sg 4:14). The sweet flag <em>(Acorus<\/em> <em>calamus)<\/em> and the beardgrass <em>(Andropogon aromaticus)<\/em> have been suggested as the plants from which calamus came. The sweet flag is highly aromatic and grows in Europe and Asia, but it is not known in the Holy Land. Indigenous to India, beardgrass is highly odoriferous when bruised and is thought to have furnished the calamus of the Bible. It yields an oil known as ginger-grass oil.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cane\">Cane <em>(Saccharum officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It is thought that there were two species of sugarcane indigenous to and growing wild in the Holy Land. One of these, <em>Saccharum sara,<\/em> is known to be only from Lebanon. The other native species is <em>S. biflorum,<\/em> which grows on the banks of ditches and streams from Syria and Lebanon through the Holy Land south to Stony Arabia and the Sinai. This may be the wild cane familiar to the Jews. Most authorities, however, think that the “sweet cane” of Isaiah 43:24 was the true sugarcane <em>(S. officinarum).<\/em> This plant is thought to have originated in the tropics of the eastern hemisphere. It has been cultivated by people since time immemorial and is not now known in the wild state anywhere. It is a tall, stout perennial grass, maizelike in aspect with many jointed stems and a large plumelike terminal cluster of flowers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CaperPlant\">Caper Plant <em>(Capparis sincula)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Spiny, trailing shrub of Mediterranean region; the flower bud of this shrub. The word “desire” in Ecclesiastes 12:5 may actually refer to the caper berry. The common caper or caper berry grows profusely in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and in the mountain valleys of Sinai. The plant may sometimes grow upright but more generally spreads itself weakly over the ground like a vine, covering rocks, ruins, and old walls like ivy. The young flower buds, pickled in vinegar, were used by the ancients as a condiment for meat. The berries were also used in cooking.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CarobTree\">Carob Tree <em>(Ceratonia siliqua)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Evergreen of the Mediterranean region having edible pods. Scholars generally agree that the pods of the carob or locust tree were the “husks” of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son (Lk 15:16). The carob is an attractive evergreen leguminous tree that is very common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and Egypt. The pods are most abundant in April and May and contain numerous pealike seeds embedded in an agreeably flavored mucilaginous sweetish pulp. The pods are also used abundantly now as they were in antiquity for feeding cattle, horses, and pigs. In time of scarcity, they are used as human food and perhaps even regularly by the very poor. The carob is frequently mentioned in the Talmud as a source of good food for domestic animals. The seeds of the carob were formerly employed as a standard of weight and are the source of the term “carat.” Some commentators suggest that the “locusts” eaten by John the Baptist (Mt 3:4) were not insects but the fruit of the carob tree.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cassia\">Cassia <em>(Cinnamomum cassia, Saussurea lappa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree of tropical Asia with bark similar but inferior to cinnamon. The “cassia” of Exodus 30:24 and Ezekiel 27:19 is the cassia bark tree, <em>Cinnamomum cassia.<\/em> In Psalm 45:8 the reference seems to be to the Indian orris, <em>Saussurea lappa.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CastorOilPlant\">Castor Oil Plant <em>(Ricinus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Large plant, native to tropical Africa and Asia, cultivated for ornamental reasons and for extraction of oil from its seeds. The gourd of Jonah 4:6-7 was probably the ordinary castor bean. The castor bean is a tender shrub, growing 3 to 12 or more feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall with huge leaves that resemble the outstretched human hand. The castor bean plant is found in waste places, especially near water, in both Lebanon and the Holy Land and often is cultivated. In hot climates it becomes treelike and affords a dense shade by the abundance of its huge, umbrella-like leaves. It is known in the Orient for the rapidity of its growth. The oil extracted from the seeds of the castor bean was used by the Jews in ceremonial rites and is mentioned among the five kinds of oil that rabbinical tradition sanctioned for such use. The seeds themselves are poisonous when eaten.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cedar\">Cedar <em>(Cedrus libani)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several coniferous evergreen trees of the genus native to the Old World. With few exceptions, the references to “cedar” are to the well-known cedar of Lebanon. This is a noble tree, the tallest and most massive with which the Israelites were acquainted. It grows quite rapidly, attaining a height of up to 120 feet (36.6 meters) with a trunk diameter of as much as 8 feet (2.4 meters). In Solomon’s day these trees were obviously abundant on the mountains of Lebanon, but now, because of excessive lumbering, they are very rare. The cedar of Lebanon was held in high esteem not only for its vigor, beauty, and age but also for the fragrance and remarkable lasting qualities of the wood. It symbolizes grandeur, might, majesty, dignity, lofty stature, and wide expansion. References in Ezekiel 17:3, 22-24, and 31:3-18 beautifully illustrate how these lofty kings of the forest symbolize and typify worldly strength, power, and glory.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Chicory\">Chicory <em>(Cichorium intybus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cinnamon\">Cinnamon <em>(Cinnamomum zeylanicum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Two varieties of trees of this genus, native to tropical Asia, with aromatic bark that, when ground, is used as a spice. The cinnamon of Exodus 30:23, Proverbs 7:17, Song of Songs 4:14, and Revelation 18:13 is undoubtedly <em>Cinnamomum zeylanicum.<\/em> The tree is a rather low-growing one, never getting more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) high, with a smooth, ash-colored bark and widespread branches and white flowers. Its shiny, beautifully veined evergreen leaves grow about nine inches (22.9 centimeters) long and two inches (5.1 centimeters) wide.<\/p>\n<p>The Jews always regarded cinnamon as a deliciously fragrant substance and valued it highly as a spice and a perfume. It was one of the principal ingredients used in the manufacture of the precious ointments, or “holy oil,” that Moses was commanded to use in the tabernacle for anointing the sacred vessels and officiating priests. It was undoubtedly very costly and precious.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CitronTree\">Citron Tree <em>(Tetraclinis articulata)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree native to Asia bearing lemonlike fruit with a thick, fragrant rind. It seldom exceeds a height of 30 feet (9.1 meters) and has hard, dark-colored, durable, fragrant wood that takes a fine polish. The wood was one of the most highly prized woods of the ancients, who employed it extensively for cabinetwork. It was commonly referred to as being worth its weight in gold. The wood, owing to its resinous properties, is slow to decay and remains practically uninjured by insects.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Coriander\">Coriander <em>(Coriandrum sativum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:7 are clearly to the common coriander plant. The coriander was found quite commonly growing along with grain in cultivated fields throughout the Holy Land. It grows wild in Egypt and was used by the ancients both as condiment and as a medicine. The leaves are quite aromatic and are used in soups and for flavoring puddings, curries, and wines. The coriander is still used today as a spice by the Arabs. In Scripture it is mentioned only in connection with manna, which was said to resemble coriander seeds in size, shape, and color.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cotton\">Cotton <em>(Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants or shrubs of this genus grown in warm climates for the soft white fiber attached to their seeds and the oil from these seeds. The “green” of the <span>kjv<\/span> in Esther 1:6 is undoubtedly a reference to the Levant cotton <em>(Gossypium herbaceum)<\/em> that was cultivated since time immemorial in the Far East. Alexander the Great brought it back from India. It is probable that the Jews became acquainted with cotton during the period of their Persian captivity under King Ahasuerus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cucumber\">Cucumber <em>(Cucumis chate, C. sativus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The cucumber is an annual climbing or trailing vine, the origin of which is unknown. It has been cultivated in all the warm countries of the Old World since prehistoric times. Cucumbers are usually eaten raw; a cucumber and a barley cake or some other kind of bread often constitute a meal. The reference to “a lodge in a garden of cucumbers” (Is 1:8) refers to the crudely built small house or lodge often set up in Palestinian cucumber fields and vineyards.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cummin\">Cummin <em>(Cuminum cyminum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Isaiah 28:25-27 and Matthew 23:23 are clearly to the cummin—a common, annual plant of the carrot family said to be native to Egypt and the region of the eastern Mediterranean. It has long been cultivated for its powerfully aromatic and pungent seeds, which are similar to caraway seeds but larger. They do not have as agreeable a taste as caraway seeds but nevertheless were used extensively as a flavor or spice and sometimes were even mixed with flour in making bread. Cummin was also used medicinally and as a condiment with fish and meats.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Cypress\">Cypress <em>(Cupressus sempervirens horizontalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The cypress is a massive, tall-growing evergreen with scalelike leaves and is widely distributed in the mountainous regions of the Holy Land. On Mt Lebanon and Mt Hermon it grows together with the cedar and oak. Its usual height is 50 to 60 feet (15.2 to 18.3 meters), but it may grow as tall as 80 feet (24.2 meters). It is said to have been used extensively in shipbuilding by the Phoenicians, Cretans, and Greeks. There is general agreement that the “gopher wood” of Genesis 6:14 is cypress because the wood is very durable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dandelion\">Dandelion <em>(Taraxacum officinale)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DarnelGrass\">Darnel Grass <em>(Lolium temulentum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>It is generally agreed that the “tares” of the <span>kjv<\/span> (Mt 13:24-30) are the annual or bearded darnel grass. It is a strong grass closely resembling wheat or rye in appearance. The seeds are much smaller than those of wheat or rye, but it is extremely difficult to distinguish it from wheat or rye in its early stages. If it is not eradicated early but is left until the time of harvest, it is cut down with the wheat and the two are subsequently very difficult to separate. The seeds are poisonous, either due to some chemicals naturally present or because of a fungus that grows within the seeds.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Dill\">Dill <em>(Anethum graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Dill is a weedy annual plant resembling parsley and fennel, 12 to 20 inches (30.5 to 50.8 centimeters) tall with yellow flowers. The reference in Matthew 23:23 (<span>kjv<\/span>) to anise is probably a reference to dill. This plant is widely cultivated for seeds that are aromatic and carminative.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Ebony\">Ebony <em>(Diospyros ebenaster, D. ebenum, D. mela<\/em><em>noxylon)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Chiefly tropical tree of southern Asia with hard, dark-colored heartwood. Ebony comes from the date plum or date tree <em>(Diospyros ebenaster<\/em> and <em>D. melanoxylon)<\/em> of India and is quite different from the date palm. It was sent by Phoenician ships across the Arabian Sea and up the Red Sea to the market in Tyre, from which it was carried overland by camel caravans. The outer wood of these trees is white and soft, but when old, the interior wood becomes hard, black, heavy, and durable and still constitutes most of the costly ebony of commerce. Ebony takes on a fine polish and is highly valued for cabinetwork, for turnery, for the manufacture of fancy ornamental articles and instruments, and as a veneer for other woods.<\/p>\n<p>Ezekiel mentions ivory and ebony together (Ez 27:15). Ebony was and still is frequently inlaid with ivory, with which it contrasts so strikingly in color.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Endive\">Endive <em>(Cichorium endivia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FigFigTree\">Fig, Fig Tree <em>(Ficus carica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees or shrubs of this genus, native to the Mediterranean region; its edible fruit. The common fig, mentioned some 60 times in the Bible, is one of the most important Bible plants. Its leaves are spoken of first in Genesis 3:7. The fig is generally regarded as native to southwestern Asia and Syria, but already in early times it was also cultivated extensively in Egypt and the Holy Land, where it was one of the principal foods. First Samuel 25:18 states that a part of the gift sent by Abigail to David consisted of 200 cakes of figs.<\/p>\n<p>The fig tree has a very peculiar type of fruit called a syconium, which is actually a very much enlarged and fleshy receptacle. It is pollinated by a wasp, without which it cannot get its fruit; this was discovered when it was first transplanted to California.<\/p>\n<p>The fig puts out its earliest fruit buds before its leaves, the former in February and the latter in April or May. When the leaves are out, the fruit ought to be ripe (Mt 21:19).<\/p>\n<p>Whenever the prophets of old berated the people for their wickedness, they often threatened that the vine and the fig crops would be destroyed. And when they held out the promise of great rewards, they said that the vine and fig crop would be restored (Jer 8:13; Hos 2:12; Jl 1:7, 12; Mi 4:4; Zec 3:10).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FirTree\">Fir Tree <em>(Abies cilicica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>This a generic term for various evergreen trees having flat needles and erect cones. In all probability, most of the references in Scripture to the fir are references to the pine, cypress, or juniper. The only true fir in the Holy Land grows in the higher parts of Lebanon and the mountains northward. It attains a height of 30 to 75 feet (9.1 to 22.9 meters) and is widely cultivated.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Flax\">Flax <em>(Linum usitatissimum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several plants of this genus, one particularly being widely cultivated for the linseed oil from its seeds and the fine textile fibers from its stems. Flax is the oldest known of the textile fibers. Cotton is identified only once in the Bible (Est 1:6). There is no mention of any other fiber plant being cultivated in Egypt or the Holy Land in biblical days, and for that reason it is thought that linen was the material out of which clothes other than woolen ones were made. Linen was also used for domestic purposes such as towels (Jn 13:4-5), napkins (11:44), girdles and undergarments (Is 3:23; Mk 14:51), nets (Is 19:8-9), and measuring lines (Ez 40:3). The priests serving in the temple were to wear nothing but linen clothes; a mixed cloth of wool and flax together was strictly forbidden to the Jews (Lv 19:19; Dt 22:11).<\/p>\n<p>At least three kinds of linen were used in biblical times, and apparently there were particular uses for each kind. Ordinary linen of coarsest texture is mentioned in Leviticus 6:10, Ezekiel 9:2, Daniel 10:5, and Revelation 15:6. The second type of linen of superior quality is mentioned in Exodus 26:1 and 39:27. A third type of linen of finest texture and high cost is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 15:27, Esther 8:15, and Revelation 19:8.<\/p>\n<p>The common flax plant grows from one to four feet (.3 to 1.2 meters) tall with a simple, slender, wirelike stem and numerous small, pale, lancelike green leaves. The failure of the flax crop is listed as one of God’s punishments (Hos 2:9). The manufacture of linen from flax fibers was a domestic industry of Jewish women (Prv 31:13, 19), ranging from ordinary clothing to the robes and aprons worn by the priest and temple attendants. Linen was also used for wicks in lamps (Is 42:3).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Frankincense\">Frankincense <em>(Boswellia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic genus resin used chiefly as incense. Frankincense is obtained from three species of a single genus of plants that grow in southern Arabia, Ethiopia, Somaliland, India, and the East Indies. The trees are large in size, related to the turpentine or terebinth tree and to those that produce balsam and myrrh. The gum has a bitter taste and gives off a strong odor in the form of a volatile oil when warmed or burned. It is obtained by successive incisions in the bark of the trunk and in the branches of living trees. It is thought that the Hebrews imported all their frankincense from Arabia, especially from the region about Sheba.<\/p>\n<p>Frankincense is mentioned 21 times in the Bible (e.g., Ex 30:34; 1 Chr 9:29; Neh 13:9; Sg 3:6; 4:6, 14; Mt 2:11; Rv 18:13) and was probably employed almost exclusively in the sacrificial services of the tabernacle and temple until the time of Solomon. It has always been the most important incense resin in the world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Galbanum\">Galbanum <em>(Ferula galbaniflua)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Galbanum is a malodorous yellowish or brownish gum resin containing the chemical substance umbelliferone, obtained from several species of plants related to the fennel, native to Syria and Persia. The gum is a natural exudation of the stem or is obtained by making a transverse incision in the young stem a few inches above the ground. The milky juice soon hardens and forms one of the kinds of commercial galbanum. Its odor is strongly balsamic, pungent, and disagreeable when burned. Galbanum was one of the ingredients used to form the “holy incense” (Ex 30:34).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Garlic\">Garlic <em>(Allium sativum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"GourdWild\">Gourd, Wild <em>(Citrullus colocynthis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There has been considerable difference of opinion regarding the meaning of the words translated “wild gourds” (2 Kgs 4:39) or “gall” (Dt 29:18; 32:32; Ps 69:21; Jer 8:14; 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:5, 19; Am 6:12; Mt 27:34; Acts 8:23). Most scholars today believe the plant referred to was the colocynth, a cucumber-like vine that trails on the ground or climbs over shrubs and fences. The fruit contains a soft spongy pulp, which is intensely bitter, strongly cathartic, and sometimes poisonous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hedge\">Hedge <em>(Rhamnus palaestina, Balanites aegyptiaca, Lycium europaeum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Row of closely planted shrubs or low-growing trees forming a fence or boundary. A number of plants were used to provide hedges in Bible times. One of these was the Palestine buckthorn, <em>Rhamnus palaestina.<\/em> This plant is a shrub or a small tree growing from three to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters) tall with velvety, thorny branches, evergreen leaves, and clusters of small flowers blooming in March and April. It grows in thickets and on hillsides from Syria through the Holy Land to Arabia and the Sinai. The Jericho balsam <em>(Balanites aegyptiaca)<\/em> and the European boxthorn <em>(Lycium europaeum)<\/em> are also prickly shrubs widely used as hedges in the Holy Land and may be the plants referred to in Proverbs 15:19 and Hosea 2:6.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Henna\">Henna <em>(Lawsonia inermis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree or shrub of Asia and northern Africa with fragrant reddish or white flowers and leaves from which a reddish dye is made. The plant referred to in Song of Songs 1:14 and 4:13 and translated as “camphire” (<span>kjv<\/span>) is thought by scholars today to refer to the henna plant. It is a native of northern India and grows wild in the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. It grows from 4 to 12 feet (1.2 to 3.7 meters) tall, and its scent is similar to that of roses.<\/p>\n<p>Henna leaves are dried, crushed into a powder, mixed with water, and made into a paste that has been used since time immemorial as a cosmetic. A number of mummies have been found decorated with henna. Henna was used to provide a bright yellow, orange, or red color to the fingernails, toenails, the tips of the fingers, the palms of the hand, and the soles of the feet of young girls. Men also used it for coloring their beards and the manes and tails of horses. The dye had to be renewed once every two or three weeks. This use of henna as a cosmetic was common in Egypt at the time the children of Israel were there as slaves; they were undoubtedly familiar with it.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyacinth\">Hyacinth <em>(Hyacinthus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The lily referred to in Song of Songs 2:1-2, 16; 4:5; and 6:2-4 may well be the garden hyacinth. It is native to, and very common in, the fields and rocky places in the Holy Land, Lebanon, and northward. Its flowers in the wild form are always deep blue and very fragrant.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Lily (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Hyssop\">Hyssop <em>(Origanum maru)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Woody plant native to Asia with spikes of small blue flowers and aromatic leaves used as a condiment and in perfumery. There is little agreement among botanists as to the exact identity of the biblical “hyssop.” Some have suggested <em>Hyssopus offici<\/em><em>nalis,<\/em> the well-known garden herb now called hyssop. However, this plant is not native either to the Holy Land or Egypt, being found only in southern Europe. Moreover, it does not fit the requirements of the biblical plant.<\/p>\n<p>The “hyssop” of the OT is likely the Syrian or Egyptian marjoram <em>(Origanum maru).<\/em> It is referred to in Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4-6, 52; Numbers 19:6, 18; 1 Kings 4:33; Psalm 51:7; and Hebrews 9:19. The marjorams are mints growing (under favorable conditions) about two or three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall, but more often are dwarfed when growing in rock crevices and walls (cf. 1 Kgs 4:33). An aromatic substance is obtained from the crushed and dried leaves. If gathered together in a bunch with leaves and flowers, the hairy stems of the marjoram would hold liquid very well and would make an excellent sprinkler.<\/p>\n\n<p>The hyssop of the crucifixion passage in the NT (Jn 19:29) is probably the sorghum, a tall cereal plant grown primarily for food but also used for brushes and mops.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Juniper\">Juniper <em>(Juniperus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Variety of evergreen tree or shrub. The plant referred to in Jeremiah 17:6 and 48:6 and translated in the <span>kjv<\/span> “heath” is probably the savin or Phoenician juniper. The Phoenician juniper, <em>Juniperus phoenicia,<\/em> is found in the hills and rocky places of Arabia. The savin juniper, <em>J. sabina,<\/em> is common throughout the deserts, plains, and rocky places of Syria and Palestine. These references are to the brown-berried cedar, or sharp cedar.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LaurelorSweetBay\">Laurel or Sweet Bay <em>(Laurus nobilis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Shrub or tree native to the Mediterranean region. While the reference in Psalm 37:35 may be to the cedar of Lebanon, most scholars refer the “green bay tree” (<span>kjv<\/span>) of the psalmist to the sweet bay, a native of the Holy Land, inhabiting thickets and woods from the coast to the middle montane zone. It is an evergreen tree attaining a height from 40 to 60 feet (12.2 to 18.3 meters).<\/p>\n<p>Even though the tree is abundant on Mt Carmel and around Hebron, it is generally not common in the Holy Land. Its leaves are still used as a condiment, and its fruit, leaves, and bark have long been used in medicine.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Leek\">Leek <em>(Allium porrum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Onion (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lentil\">Lentil <em>(Lens esculenta)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The lentil plant to which Genesis 25:29-34, 2 Samuel 17:27-29, 23:11, and Ezekiel 4:9 refer is a small, erect, annual, vetchlike plant with slender stems and tendril-bearing leaves. It produces small, white, violet-striped flowers with flat, pealike pods in which the lentils are borne.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lettuce\">Lettuce <em>(Lactuca sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bitter Herbs (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Lily\">Lily <em>(Lilium)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants of the genus <em>Lilium<\/em> having large, variously colored, trumpet-shaped flowers; and related plants. The lily is one of the most famous of all the plants in the Bible, but it is also one about which there has been considerable difference of opinion. It seems probable that several kinds of plants, perhaps five or six, are called lilies in the <span>kjv<\/span>. Most authorities regard the Palestine anemone or wind flower, <em>Anemone coronaria,<\/em> as the “lily of the field” (Mt 6:28, <span>kjv<\/span>) that surpassed Solomon in all his glory. These flowers are found in every part of the Holy Land in profusion; the most common forms are scarlet or yellow, but the Palestine anemone may also be blue, purple, rose, or white in color. The flower attains a diameter of two and three-quarter inches (7 centimeters).<\/p>\n<p>An alternative suggestion is the Palestinian chamomile, <em>Anthemis palaestina,<\/em> a common, white, daisylike plant. The chamomile is gathered like dry grass and thrown into the furnace when it dries up.<\/p>\n<p>Another proposed plant is <em>Lilium chalcedonicum,<\/em> the scarlet or Martagon lily. The statement in Song of Songs 5:13—“his lips like lilies”—would better fit this plant than the Palestine anemone. The reference is apparently to a rare plant of exceptional beauty. The scarlet lily is rare in the Holy Land; indeed, some botanists doubt that it lives there.<\/p>\n<p>The references in 1 Kings 7:19, 22, 26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 are probably to the water lily, <em>Nymphaea alba,<\/em> which served as the pattern. The water lily is quite common in Europe and also in the Holy Land and northern Africa.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LotusBush\">Lotus Bush <em>(Zizyphus lotus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “shady trees” of Job 40:21-22 (<span>kjv<\/span>; cf. <span>nlt<\/span> “lotus plants”) may refer to the lotus bush of the Middle East, <em>Zizyphus lotus,<\/em> a shrub or low tree that grows to a height of about five feet (1.5 meters) with smooth, zigzag, whitish branches.<\/p>\n<p>Other commentators believe that the shady trees of Job are large-leafed trees such as the plane tree, <em>Platanus orientalis,<\/em> or the oleander, <em>Nerium oleander.<\/em> This suggestion is based on the assumption that the animal described in Job 40 is the hippopotamus, and it seems unlikely that the hippopotamus would live under a lotus bush or even be found in places where this shrub grows. These individuals regard the plane tree or the oleander as more likely.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mallow\">Mallow <em>(Atriplex)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Hebrew word used in Job 30:4 implies saltiness, and for this reason botanists believe that it refers to one of the species of the saltwort or orach. Twenty-one species of saltwort occur in the Holy Land, almost all of which are common and could well meet the requirements of the text. <em>Atriplex halimus<\/em> is the species usually suggested, a strong-growing bushy shrub related to the spinach.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mandrake\">Mandrake <em>(Mandragora officinarum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The mandrake or love apple is a stemless herbaceous perennial related to the nightshade, potato, and tomato. It has a large, beetlike, often forked taproot from the top of which arise many dark leaves about a foot (30.5 centimeters) long and four inches (10.2 centimeters) wide. The plant is slightly poisonous, and the thick taproots have some resemblance in shape to the lower parts of the human body. For this reason certain aphrodisiac properties were ascribed to it (cf. Gn 30:14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The love apple was a common plant in deserted fields throughout the Holy Land. It is native to the entire Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and Asia Minor. The mandrake is mentioned in Song of Songs 7:13, though some scholars believe the writer may actually have been referring to the citron or to the common edible field mushroom, <em>Agaricus campestris.<\/em><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Melon\">Melon <em>(Cucumis melo, Citrullus vulgaris)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several varieties of these two related vines having a hard rind and juicy flesh. The melons of Numbers 11:5 may be either the muskmelon <em>(Cucumis melo)<\/em> or the watermelon <em>(Citrullus vulgaris).<\/em> It may be that both fruits are referred to.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Millet\">Millet <em>(Panicum miliaceum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>A grass grown in Eurasia for its edible seed. Millet seeds are the smallest of all the grass seeds cultivated as food but are produced profusely. Millet is an annual grass seldom more that two feet (.6 meter) tall. The small seeds of the millet are used on cakes and eaten uncooked by the poor of the land.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mint\">Mint <em>(Mentha)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of various plants of this family with aromatic foliage that is processed for flavoring. Quite a few mints are common in the Holy Land, but the horse mint <em>(Mentha longifolia)<\/em> is probably the one referred to in Matthew 23:23 and Luke 11:42. Mints were employed by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans for flavoring, as a carminative in medicine, and as a condiment in cooking.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mulberry\">Mulberry <em>(Morus nigra)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any tree of this family, some bearing dark-purple fruit and one bearing white fruit, having leaves used as food for silkworms. The sycamine tree of Luke 17:6 (<span>kjv<\/span>) is evidently the black mulberry, <em>Morus nigra.<\/em> It is a low-growing, thick-crowned, stiff-branched tree standing from 24 to 35 feet (7.3 to 10.7 meters) tall, though rarely more than 30 feet (9.1 meters) tall. Originally native to northern Persia, it is now cultivated throughout the Middle East for its fruit. The Chinese or Indian species, <em>M. alba,<\/em> was until recently widely cultivated in Syria and the Holy Land but is not indigenous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Mustard\">Mustard <em>(Brassica nigra, B. arvensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various plants of this genus are native to Eurasia, some of which are cultivated for their edible seeds. While there is disagreement about the identity of the “mustard” of Matthew 13:31-32, 17:20, Mark 4:31, Luke 13:19, and 17:6, it is generally thought to be the ordinary black mustard, <em>Brassica nigra.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The mustard Jesus referred to may be the charlock or wild mustard, <em>B. arvensis,<\/em> which normally grows from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall. Some have suggested that it was actually <em>Salvadora persica,<\/em> found in thickets around the Dead Sea. The plant has a pleasant aromatic taste resembling that of mustard, and if taken in considerable quantity, it will produce an irritation of the nose and eyes similar to that of mustard. However, this plant does not grow as far north as Galilee, and the fruits are rather large and stony, thus hardly fitting the description of the parable.<\/p>\n<p>While the seeds of the mustard are not the smallest known, they were probably the smallest familiar to the common people who comprised Jesus’ audience in Galilee.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Myrrh\">Myrrh <em>(Commiphora myrrha, C. kataf)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Shrub or tree exuding an aromatic gum resin used in perfume and incense. Most of the references in Scripture to myrrh are to <em>Commiphora myrrha,<\/em> although <em>C. kataf<\/em> may also be involved since it grows in the same region and is similar. The two trees are native to Arabia, Ethiopia, and the Somali coast of east Africa. They yield a gummy exudation that constitutes most of the myrrh of commerce. Both species are low, scrubby, thick- and stiff-branched thorny shrubs or small trees that grow in rocky places, especially on limestone hills. In the East it is highly regarded as an aromatic substance, perfume, and medicine. The ancient Egyptians burned it in their temples and embalmed their dead with it; the Jews also used it for embalming (Jn 19:39). The Hebrews held it in high regard as a perfume (Ps 45:8).<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Myrtle\">Myrtle <em>(Myrtus communis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The myrtle tree is common in the Holy Land, especially around Bethlehem, Lebanon, Hebron, and the slopes of Mt Carmel and Mt Tabor. It is native to western Asia and in good environments grows into a small evergreen tree 20 to 30 feet (6.2 to 9.1 meters) tall. More often, however, it is a straggling bush 1½ to 4 feet (.5 to 1.2 meters) tall.<\/p>\n<p>In the Bible, myrtle is referred to chiefly as a symbol of God’s generosity. Branches of myrtle trees were included among those that Nehemiah ordered to be gathered for the Feast of Tabernacles (Neh 8:15). The myrtle was symbolic not only of peace but also of justice.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Narcissus\">Narcissus <em>(Narcissus tazetta)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Widely cultivated plant of this family with narrow leaves and usually white or yellow flowers with a cup-crown or trumpet-shaped crown. The polyanthus narcissus <em>(Narcissus tazetta)<\/em> appears to be the plant referred to in Isaiah 35:1. This narcissus grows abundantly on the plains of Sharon and elsewhere in Palestine. Being sweet-smelling, it is a great favorite.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Nard\">Nard <em>(Nardostachys jatamansi)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The nard is a perennial herb with strong, pleasantly scented roots. It is native to high altitudes in the Himalayas, and its range extends from there into western Asia. The roots and spikelike wooly young stems are dried before the leaves unfold and are used for making perfume. It is still used in India as a perfume for the hair, and there is every reason to believe that the spikenard of Scripture (Sg 1:12; 4:13-14; Mk 14:3; Jn 12:3) came originally from India.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Nettle\">Nettle <em>(Urtica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Plant of this genus having toothed leaves covered with hairs that exude a stinging flush. Four species of nettle are found in the Holy Land: the common or great nettle, <em>Urtica dioica;<\/em> the Roman nettle, <em>U. pilulifera;<\/em> the small nettle, <em>U. urens;<\/em> and <em>U. caudata,<\/em> which is similar to the small nettle. Some nettles attain a height of five to six feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters). They are common pests of waste places and fields. They are often seen occupying ground that was once cultivated but has since been neglected (Is 34:13; Hos 9:6).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NutmegFlower\">Nutmeg Flower <em>(Nigella sativa)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The “fitches” of Isaiah 28:25-27 (<span>kjv<\/span>) are probably the nutmeg flower, an annual plant of the buttercup family. The plant grows wild in southern Europe, Syria, Egypt, north Africa, and other Mediterranean lands, where it is extensively cultivated for its strongly pungent, pepperlike aromatic seeds. These are sprinkled over some kinds of bread and cakes in the East and are used for flavoring curries and other dishes in the Holy Land and Egypt. Cummin and nutmeg flowers are still gathered in the Holy Land in the same way described by Isaiah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Oak\">Oak <em>(Quercus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>At least five species of oaks are found in Palestine. One of these is the kermes oak <em>(Quercus coccifera),<\/em> the host of the insect <em>Coccus ilicis,<\/em> which produces the scarlet dye used in coloring linen and wool (Gn 38:28-30; Ex 25:4; 26:1; 28:33; 35:23; 39:24; Lv 14:4-6, 51-52; Nm 19:6; 2 Chr 2:7, 14; 3:14; Is 1:18; Heb 9:19; Rv 18:12). The kermes oak grows from 6 to 35 feet (1.8 to 10.7 meters) tall and is found in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Holy Land. When it grows alone, the kermes oak often becomes a large tree. It was regularly planted by tombs in the East. The oak was always respected and even venerated in biblical times for its large size and strength, and great men were usually buried in its shade. Abraham’s oak in Hebron is an example.<\/p>\n<p>A second oak is the valonia oak <em>(Q. aegilops),<\/em> perhaps the oak of Isaiah 2:13 and 44:14. It is common in the middle montane zones and probably was abundant in the area around Bashan. The oak of Genesis 35:4, 8 is thought to have been the holm oak <em>(Q. ilex),<\/em> an evergreen oak that grows to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). Still another oak is <em>Q. lusitanica,<\/em> the cypress oak, a small deciduous tree seldom more than 20 feet (6.1 meters) tall. The very large acorns of this tree were sometimes eaten.<\/p>\n<p>The word translated “plain” (<span>kjv<\/span>) in Genesis 12:6, 13:18, 14:13, and 18:1 should probably be translated “oak.”<\/p>\n<p>The many references to “groves” in the OT, usually in connection with the worship of Baal or other heathen gods (Ex 34:13; Dt 16:21; Jgs 3:7; 1 Kgs 14:23; 18:19; 2 Kgs 17:16—all <span>kjv<\/span>), were probably groves of sacred oak trees.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OilTreeOleaster\">Oil Tree, Oleaster <em>(Elaeagnus angustifolia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Small Eurasian tree with oblong silvery leaves, greenish flowers, and olivelike fruit. There is question as to which tree is referred to when 1 Kings 6:23, 31-33 and 1 Chronicles 27:28 refer to “olive trees.” The same word occurs in Isaiah 41:19 and Micah 6:7. The plant referred to is probably the narrow-leaved oleaster <em>(Elaeagnus angustifolia),<\/em> a small stiff-branched tree or graceful shrub growing from 15 to 20 feet (4.6 to 6.1 meters) tall, common in all parts of the Holy Land except in the Jordan Valley. At one time it was particularly common on Mt Tabor and at Hebron and Samaria. The wood is hard and fine-grained and therefore well suited for carving of images and figures. The oil that it yields is a rather inferior type used in medication but not for food; this may be the oil of Micah 6:7.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Oleander\">Oleander <em>(Nerium oleander)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any poisonous evergreen shrub of this genus growing in warm climates. One of the suggestions for the plants identified as “roses” in various translations (Ecclus 24:14, <span>kjv<\/span>) is the oleander. This plant, originally native to the East Indies, has been cultivated throughout the warm regions of the world for centuries. It flourishes in the Holy Land today and forms dense thickets in some parts of the Jordan Valley. It is usually a shrub from 3 to 12 feet (.9 to 3.7 meters) tall. Every part of the plant is dangerously poisonous.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"OliveOliveTree\">Olive, Olive Tree <em>(Olea europaea)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Old world semitropical evergreen tree bearing edible fruit. The olive, <em>Olea europaea,<\/em> was unquestionably one of the most valuable trees known to the Jews. There are innumerable references to it in Scripture, as well as to olive oil, which was used for anointing. The tree is quite common in the Holy Land, and in many places it is the only tree of any substantial size. The branches of the wild olive are rather stiff and spinescent, and the typical cultivated tree is a multi-branched evergreen, 20 or more feet (6.1 meters) tall, with a gnarled trunk and smooth, ash-colored bark. The leaves are leathery and the flowers are small, yellow or white. The fruits are large, black or violet, ripening in September, and it is the outer fleshy parts of the fruit that yield the valuable olive oil of commerce. Thirty-one percent of the ripe fruit is oil. The ripe fruit is eaten raw, as is the green, unripe fruit. The wood of the trunk and limbs is hard, rich yellow or amber in color, and fine-grained, often handsomely variegated. It is still used today for the finest cabinetwork and turnery. The tree grows very slowly, but it attains a great age. It is difficult to kill the olive tree by cutting it down, because new sprouts are sent up from the root and all around the margins of the old stump, often forming a grove of two to five trunks, all from a single root that originally supported only one tree.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"Onion\">Onion <em>(Allium)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The onions referred to in Numbers 11:5 are undoubtedly <em>Allium cepa,<\/em> the Egyptian onion, which is made up of a compact coated bulb formed of layers consisting of broad fleshy bases of closely overlapping leaves. The leaves are slender and hollow. The entire plant has a characteristic pungent taste and odor.<\/p>\n\n<p>Closely related to the onion is the garlic, <em>A. sativum.<\/em> The common garlic is a hardy, bulbous perennial plant that is cultivated in Europe, western Asia, and Egypt. The leaves are narrow, flat, and ribbonlike. It is extremely popular with people of the Mediterranean region.<\/p>\n<p>Still another one of the onions is the leek, <em>A. porrum.<\/em> The bulb of the leek differs from that of the onion and garlic in that it is slender, cylindrical, and more than six inches (15.2 centimeters) in length. The flavor resembles that of the onion but is more pungent. The leaves are eaten as a relish or are cooked in soups. The bulbs are cut into small pieces and employed as seasoning for meat.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Palm\">Palm <em>(Phoenix dactylifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The palm tree of the Bible is undoubtedly the date palm. At one time it was as characteristic of the Holy Land as it is still today of Egypt. It is characterized by a branchless, tapering stem of up to 80 feet (24.2 meters) or more in height and a large terminal cluster of feathery leaves, each six to nine feet (1.8 to 2.7 meters) or more long. Because of its height and unusual structure, it was natural that it should be used as a form of ornamentation in Eastern architecture. The stem and leaves were favorite subjects of architectural embellishment. The immense, branchlike leaves that are referred to as branches in the Bible were symbols of triumph and were used on occasions of great rejoicing (Jn 12:13; Rv 7:9). The large leaves are still used to cover the roofs and sides of houses and to give solidity to reed fences. Mats, baskets, and even dishes are made of them. Small leaves are used as dusters, and the wood of the trunk is used for timber. Rope is made from the weblike integument in the crown. The fruit, borne in an immense drooping cluster, which may weigh from 30 to 50 pounds (13.6 to 22.7 kilograms), is the chief food of many natives of Arabia and north Africa. A single tree may yield up to 200 pounds (90.7 kilograms) of dates a year. They may be dried for future use.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Papyrus\">Papyrus <em>(Cyperus papyrus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Egyptian bulrush or papyrus (Ex 2:3-5; Jb 8:11; Is 18:2; 19:6-7; 35:7; 58:5) has smooth three-sided stems ordinarily attaining a height of 8 to 10 feet (2.4 to 3 meters), but sometimes even 16 feet (4.9 meters), and a thickness of two to three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base with a large tuft of florets at the end. The papyrus formerly grew in great abundance along the banks of the Nile, forming what was almost a dense jungle. Today it is practically extinct in lower Egypt, although it is still found along the White Nile and in the Sudan. The papyrus still grows in parts of the Holy Land, especially around the north end of the plain of Galilee and the Huleh swamps.<\/p>\n\n<p>In addition to being used for making small vessels to float in water (Ex 2:3), for mats, and for various other domestic purposes, it is best known as the source of ancient paper. In manufacturing paper from papyrus, the stems of the plant were first peeled and the pitch then cut longitudinally into thin slices that were laid side by side. These were then sprinkled with water and pressed to unite the whole into one piece. The sheet was then dried and cut into pieces of the required size. In the better grades of papyrus paper, several layers of stem slices were laid crosswise on each other.<\/p>\n<p>The pale, fawn-colored, tassel-like inflorescences at the summit of the stems were used to adorn Egyptian temples and to crown the statues of gods. They were also worn as crowns by famous men and national heroes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PineTree\">Pine Tree <em>(Pinus brutia, P. halepensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various evergreen trees of this family with needle-shaped leaves in clusters and seed-bearing cones. While there is considerable confusion concerning the conifers of the Bible, it seems apparent that pines are referred to in such passages as Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:15; Isaiah 41:19; and 60:13. One of the Holy Land’s pines is the Brutian pine <em>(Pinus brutia),<\/em> a mountain-inhabiting species of the northern regions of Palestine. It attains a height of 10 to 35 feet (3 to 10.7 meters) with a rather diffuse growth and branches in whorls.<\/p>\n<p>Another of the pines is the Aleppo pine, <em>Pinus halepensis.<\/em> Most of the instances of the occurrence of “fir” or “fir tree” in the <span>kjv<\/span> probably refer to the Aleppo pine (2 Sm 6:5; 1 Kgs 5:8, 10; 6:34; 2 Kgs 19:23; 2 Chr 2:8; Ps 104:17; Sg 1:17; Is 14:8; 37:24; 55:13; 60:13; Ez 27:5; 31:8; Hos 14:8; Na 2:3; Zec 11:2). It grows from 9 to 60 feet (2.7 to 18.3 meters) tall with diffuse ascending branches and yellowish or brownish branchlets.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pistachio\">Pistachio <em>(Pistacia terebinthus, P. vera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Palestine terebinth or turpentine tree is a large deciduous tree with straggling boughs. In the winter, without its leaves, it looks much like the oak. It grows from 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 meters) tall. Every part of the tree contains a fragrant, resinous juice. It is common on the lower slopes of the hills throughout Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Arabia, generally growing as a solitary tree and found mostly in localities too warm or too dry for the oak that it generally replaces. Since it is native to Gilead, it is quite probable that its resinous juice formed part of the spicery that the Israelites carried to Egypt from Gilead (Gn 37:25).<\/p>\n<p>The nuts of Genesis 43:11 are apparently pistachio nuts from the pistachio tree, <em>Pistacia vera,<\/em> closely related to the terebinth. It attains a height of 10 to 30 feet (3 to 9.1 meters) with a spreading top. It is found wild in many rocky parts of Lebanon and the Holy Land. The nut has a light-colored shell and the kernel has a sweet delicate flavor much relished wherever it grows.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PlaneTree\">Plane Tree <em>(Platanus orientalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of this family with bell-shaped fruit clusters and usually an outer bark that flakes off in patches or strips. The references in Genesis 30:37 and Ezekiel 31:8 are apparently not to the chestnut tree, which is not indigenous to Palestine, but to the oriental plane tree, <em>Platanus orientalis.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The plane tree is a massive tree 60 feet (18.3 meters) or more tall with a trunk often of vast circumference, sometimes as much as 40 feet (12.2 meters). The outer bark peels off in sheets or scales, thus exposing a smooth whitish or yellowish inner bark. The tree is common throughout Lebanon, Syria, and the Holy Land, growing even in subalpine regions. However, it is primarily a tree of the plains and lowlands, growing on the edges of streams and lakes and in marshy places.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Pomegranate\">Pomegranate <em>(Punica granatum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The pomegranate is usually a small, bushlike tree but may occasionally become a large, branching shrub or small tree reaching a height of 20 to 30 feet (6.1 to 9.1 meters). The branches are often thorny. The showy bell-like flowers are usually scarlet, though sometimes yellow or white. The globular fruit is as large as an orange or medium-size apple. It has a hard rind of a bright red or yellowish color when ripe and is surmounted by the dry sepals that resemble a crown. The fruit itself is a crimson juicy pulp in which many red seeds are imbedded. The flowers of the pomegranate undoubtedly served as a pattern for the golden bells referred to in Exodus 28:33-34 and 39:24-26, and the open flowers of 1 Kings 6:32. The erect calyx lobes on the fruit served as a model for crowns of kings.<\/p>\n<p>The pomegranate is native to Asia, but it has been cultivated since prehistoric times and is now quite common in the Holy Land, in Egypt, and along the shores of the Mediterranean. It is listed as one of the pleasant fruits of Egypt (Nm 20:5) and one of the promised blessings of the Holy Land (Dt 8:8).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Poplar\">Poplar <em>(Populus euphratica, P. alba)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Fast-growing deciduous tree of the same genus as the aspen and cottonwood. The <span>kjv<\/span> references in 2 Samuel 5:23-24 and 1 Chronicles 14:14-15 to mulberry trees are more probably to the Euphrates poplar or aspen, <em>Populus euphratica.<\/em> This tree grows to a height of 30 to 45 feet (9.1 to 13.7 meters) with spreading branches. The Euphrates aspen is found only on rivers and stream banks throughout the area from Syria through the Holy Land to Stony Arabia. It is especially common in the Jordan Valley.<\/p>\n<p>The white poplar <em>(Populus alba)<\/em> is common in wet places in Syria, Lebanon, the Holy Land, and Sinai. It attains a height of 30 to 60 feet (9.1 to 18.3 meters) with spreading branches. Some suggest that the altars of various pagan religions were usually erected on the top of a hill and in the shade of a poplar grove.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Quince\">Quince <em>(Cydonia oblonga)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree native to western Asia, having white flowers and applelike fruit that is edible when cooked. Some believe that the “apples” of the OT were quinces, <em>Cydonia oblonga.<\/em> The quince tree is quite common in the Holy Land, though chiefly as a cultivated tree. It may occur wild in the northern parts of Syria. It is native to northern Persia and Asia Minor. The fruit is yellowish and highly fragrant, and it is the fragrance that caused it to be held in high regard by the ancients.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Reed\">Reed <em>(Juncus, Scirpus, Typha angustata, Arundo donax)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Numerous species of the rush and bulrush grow in the Holy Land. There are at least 21 varieties of rushes. The common soft rush or bog rush <em>(Juncus effusus)<\/em> is found in wet places, even in the Sinai and other deserts. The sea or hard rush <em>(J. maritimus)<\/em> is found in damp places throughout the Holy Land and even in Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>At least 15 kinds of bulrushes <em>(Scirpus)<\/em> are known in the Holy Land. The cluster-headed club rush <em>(Scirpus holoschoenus)<\/em> is common in damp places throughout the Holy Land to the Sinai. The lake club rush or tall bulrush <em>(S. lacustris)<\/em> is found in swamps and ditches throughout northern Africa to the Dead Sea. The sea club rush or salt marsh club rush <em>(S. maritimus)<\/em> is found in ditches and swamps in many places of the Holy Land. Any of these species may be the one referred to in Job 8:11; Isaiah 9:14; 19:6, 15.<\/p>\n<p>The reference in Genesis 41:2 to the feeding of cattle in the meadow seems to be to the tall reed <em>(Arundo donax),<\/em> which grows 18 feet (5.5 meters) or more in height. This plant is also known as the Persian reed and is common throughout the Holy Land, Syria, and the Sinai peninsula. It is a gigantic grass that may have a stem diameter of two or three inches (5.1 to 7.6 centimeters) at the base and is terminated by a plume of white flowers similar to those of the sugarcane or pampas grass. The plant was used for many purposes by the ancients: for walking sticks, fishing rods, measuring rods, and musical pipes. It is, therefore, quite possible that the “reed” of Matthew 27:48 and Mark 15:36 was a carpenter’s reed or measuring rod.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Papyrus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Rue\">Rue <em>(Ruta chalepensis, R. graveolens)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Aromatic Eurasian plant with evergreen leaves that yield an acrid, volatile oil once used in medicine. There is little question as to the correctness of the translation of “rue” in Luke 11:42, but there is some doubt as to the exact species. Most writers think that it was the common rue <em>(Rue graveolens),<\/em> a perennial shrubby plant with erect stems two to three feet (.6 to .9 meter) tall and deeply cut leaves. A very strong odor emanates from the foliage. This species is native to the Mediterranean region and grows wild in the Holy Land, especially on Mt Tabor.<\/p>\n<p>Rue was highly thought of by the ancients as a medicinal, supposed to prevent dizziness, dumbness, epilepsy, eye inflammations, insanity, and the “evil eye.” Rue was also used for seasoning dishes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Rush\">Rush <em>(Butomus umbellatus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Generic term for any of various grasslike marsh plants having pliant, hollow, or pithy stems. There is considerable uncertainty about the identification of the plant referred to in Genesis 41:2 translated in the <span>kjv<\/span> as “meadow,” and in Job 8:11 as “flag.” Since it is mentioned along with the papyrus in the Job passage, it seems that it refers to a specific kind of plant rather than to an aggregate of plants in a meadow. From the description in Genesis as being a plant on which Pharaoh’s cattle might feed along the banks of the Nile and yet not the papyrus, it may refer to the flowering rush or water gladiola <em>(Butomus umbellatus),<\/em> which flourishes both in Egypt and in the Holy Land, along with the papyrus.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Reed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Saffron\">Saffron <em>(Crocus sativus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Saffron, referred to in Song of Songs 4:14, is the product of several species of <em>Crocus,<\/em> especially of the blue-flowered saffron crocus <em>(C. sativus),<\/em> which is native to Greece and Asia Minor. The commercial product consists of the stigma and upper portions of the style, the top parts of the flower ovary, which are collected shortly after the flower opens. It requires at least 4,000 stigmas to make an ounce of saffron. After being gathered, the stigmas are dried in the sun, pounded, and made into small cakes. Saffron is used principally as a yellow dye and also as a fruit coloring for curries and stews.<\/p>\n<p>Another, entirely different kind of dye-producing plant <em>(Carthamus tinctorius)<\/em> called carthamine, bastard saffron, or safflower is a member of the thistle family. Its red florets yield a dye used extensively for coloring silk, in cooking, and for adulterating genuine saffron. It is an annual spiny plant three to four and a half feet (1.4 meters) tall, native to Syria and Egypt. In Egypt the grave clothes of mummies were dyed with this material, and it is quite possible that this plant may also have been the saffron of the Bible.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sage\">Sage <em>(Salvia judaica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The Judean sage grows to three feet (.9 meter) tall in the mountains and hills of Palestine. Its stems are four-angled, stiff, and rough. The plant grows from Syria south through Nazareth, Hebron, Tiberius, Samaria, and Judea.<\/p>\n<p>This plant is the origin of the design of the seven-branched lampstand of Exodus 37:17-18, which is known as the menorah, the traditional Jewish symbol. The inflorescence of the plant, when pressed flat, has almost exactly the same shape and form as the seven-branched candlestick, with its central spike and three pairs of side branches each bending upward and inward in a symmetrical fashion. On each branch of the plant’s inflorescence are whorls or buds that perhaps give the idea for the “knops” (<span>kjv<\/span>) or “knobs” on the biblical golden candlesticks.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Spelt\">Spelt <em>(Triticum aestivum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Hardy member of the wheat family. The rye of Exodus 9:32 and Isaiah 28:25, as well as the fitches of Ezekiel 4:9 (all <span>kjv<\/span>) are thought to be spelt. It is a hard-grained species of wheat with loose ears and grains triangular in cross-section, and was the most common form of wheat in early times. It has a stouter stem than wheat and strong spikes of grain. Bread made of its flour is much inferior to that made from wheat, but spelt will thrive in almost any kind of soil and will yield a crop on land that is unfit for wheat. The ancients preferred it to barley for bread.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"StoraxTree\">Storax Tree <em>(Styrax officinalis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various trees of this genus yielding an aromatic resin. Today it is thought that the stacte of Exodus 30:34 was derived from the storax tree. It is an irregularly stiff-branched shrub or small tree 9 to 20 feet (2.7 to 6.1 meters) tall. This tree is abundant on low hills and rocky places from Lebanon through the Holy Land. Its gum is obtained by making incisions in the stems and branches. It is highly perfumed and is still prized today as a perfume.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Sycamore\">Sycamore-fig <em>(Ficus sycomorus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Tree of northeastern Africa and adjacent Asia, related to the fig. The word translated “sycamore” in 1 Kings 10:27; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27; Psalm 78:47; Isaiah 9:10; Amos 7:14; and Luke 19:4 undoubtedly refers to the well-known sycamore-fig, which is also known as the mulberry-fig or fig-mulberry. It should not be confused with the common sycamore of the North American continent, which is actually a plane tree. The sycamore-fig of the Bible is a strong-growing, robust, wide-spreading tree growing 30 to 40 feet (9.1 to 12.2 meters) tall and sometimes attaining a trunk circumference of 20 feet (6.1 meters) or more with a crown 120 feet (36.6 meters) in diameter. It is a tree that is easily climbed and is frequently planted along roadsides, which accounts for the reference in Luke 19:4. It produces an abundant amount of fruit in clusters on all parts of the tree, on both young and old branches and even on the trunk itself. It is very similar to the common fig, only smaller and much inferior in quality. In David’s day it was so valuable that he appointed a special overseer for the sycamore trees (1 Chr 27:28). It is thought that Amos was not a gatherer of sycamore fruit but rather a dresser of sycamore trees.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tamarisk\">Tamarisk <em>(Tamarix)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Genesis 21:33 and 1 Samuel 22:6 and 31:13 seem to be to the tamarisk. These trees or shrubs are small and fast-growing with a durable wood. They are abundant in deserts, dunes, and salt marshes. <em>Tamarix aphylla<\/em> is leafless and has small white flowers. These trees or shrubs often provide a soothing touch of green foliage and a promise of cooling shade to the traveler. Tamarisks are able to survive because they either have small, scalelike leaves, which lose little moisture by transpiration, or no leaves at all. The larger of the tamarisks are valued for their wood in a region where wood is scarce. The wood was used for building and also as a source of an excellent type of charcoal.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Terebinth\">Terebinth <em>(Pistacia terebinthus)<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Pistachio (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThistleThorn\">Thistle, Thorn <em>(Lycium europaeum, Solanum incanum, Centaurea, Silybum marianum, Ruscus aculeatus, Agrostemma githago, Paliurus spina-christi, Zizyphus spina-christi)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>There are 22 different Hebrew and Greek words used in Scripture to refer to spiny or prickly shrubs or weeds, and these are translated as “bramble,” “brier,” “cockle,” “thorn,” and “thistle.” At present, there are about 125 species of thorns and thistles that grow in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The bramble in the allegory of Judges 9:14-15 is believed to refer to the European boxthorn or desert-thorn, <em>Lycium europaeum.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The general consensus is that the “briers” of Isaiah 10:17, 55:13, Micah 7:4, and Hebrews 6:8 are the Palestine nightshade <em>(Solanum incanum),<\/em> or “Jericho potato.”<\/p>\n<p>The thistles of Genesis 3:17-18, 2 Kings 14:9, 2 Chronicles 25:18, Hosea 10:8, and Matthew 7:16, as well as the thorns of Matthew 13:7 and Hebrews 6:8, are thought to be one of the species of the thistle, <em>Centaurea.<\/em> Among the more common thistles in the Holy Land are the true star-thistle <em>(Centaurea calcitrapa),<\/em> the dwarf centaury <em>(C. verutum),<\/em> the Iberian centaury <em>(C. iberica),<\/em> and the lady’s thistle <em>(Silybum marianum).<\/em> Some thistles attain a height of five to six feet (.9 to 1.8 meters). Thistles are characteristic of an area that is uncultivated and neglected. Many have beautiful flowers, but all are covered with sharp spines.<\/p>\n<p>The references in Ezekiel 2:6 to “briers” and Ezekiel 28:24 to a “pricking brier” may be to the prickly butchers-broom or knee-holly, <em>Ruscus aculeatus.<\/em> The plant is common in rocky woods in the northern regions of the Holy Land, especially around Mt Tabor and Mt Carmel.<\/p>\n<p>The cockle of Job 31:40 (<span>nlt<\/span> “weeds”) perhaps refers to the corn cockle, <em>Agrostemma githago.<\/em> This plant is common in grainfields throughout the Holy Land. It is a strong-growing and troublesome weed in grainfields, growing from one to three feet (.3 to .9 meter) tall.<\/p>\n<p>Many commentators think that the “thorns” out of which the crown of thorns (Mt 27:29; Jn 19:2) was made were from the Christ-thorn <em>(Paliurus spina-christi).<\/em> This belief has led to its specific name; the Christ-thorn is a spiny plant that ordinarily grows as a straggling shrub three to nine feet (.9 to 2.7 meters) tall. The flexible branches are armed at the base of each leaf with a pair of unequal, stiff, sharp spines. The unusual pliable texture of the young branches renders it particularly easy to plait into a crownlike wreath.<\/p>\n<p>The thorns of Judges 8:7, Isaiah 7:19, 9:18, 55:13, and Matthew 7:16 may refer to the Syrian Christ-thorn <em>(Zizyphus spina-christi),<\/em> a shrub or small tree 9 to 15 feet (2.7 to 4.6 meters) tall, sometimes growing into a 40-foot (12.2-meter) tree with smooth white branches bearing a pair of stout, unequal, recurved spines at the back of each leaf.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bramble; Buckthorn (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tulip\">Tulip <em>(Tulipa montana, T. sharonensis)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several bulbous plants of this family native to Asia. The rose of Sharon in Song of Songs 2:1 may be the mountain tulip, <em>Tulipa montana,<\/em> or the closely related Sharon tulip, <em>T. sharonensis.<\/em> The former is an attractive plant that grows from a bulb and has leaves that are often wavy-margined. The species is common in the mountainous regions of Syria, Lebanon, and the Anti-Lebanon. It is primarily a mountainous species. The Sharon tulip <em>(T. sharonensis)<\/em> is found in sandy places on the Sharon coastal plains.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Tumbleweed\">Tumbleweed <em>(Gundelia tournefortii, Anastatica hierochuntica)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The references in Psalm 83:13 to “whirling dust” and in Isaiah 17:13 to “wheel” or “rolling thing” (<span>niv<\/span> “tumbleweed”) seem to be to the Palestinian tumbleweed <em>(Gundelia tournefortii),<\/em> a member of the thistle family. It is a prickly herb with milky juice. It rolls over the land and gathers in tremendous heaps in hollows.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Vegetable\">Vegetable<\/p>\n<p>Scriptural references to vegetables are probably, in most cases, to the dried leguminous seeds of beans and lentils.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Vine\">Vine <em>(Vitis vinifera)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any plant with a flexible stem that climbs, twines, or creeps along a surface or support. The common grapevine <em>(Vitis vinifera)<\/em> is mentioned throughout the Bible. The fruitful vine (Ez 17:5-10) and the vine brought out of Egypt (Ps 80:8) were symbolic of the Jewish people. Jesus compares himself to the true vine, of which his disciples were the branches (Jn 15:1-6).<\/p>\n<p>The grapevine of the Old World sometimes assumes the characteristics of a tree, with stems up to a foot and a half (45.7 centimeters) in diameter, the branches then being trained on a trellis and bearing bunches of grapes 10 to 12 pounds (4.5 to 5.4 kilograms) in weight, with the individual grapes the size of small plums. Bunches have been produced weighing as much as 26 pounds (11.8 kilograms). The vines of the Holy Land were always renowned both for the luxuriance of their growth and for the immense clusters of grapes they produced. Thus it does not seem improbable that the spies sent to the Promised Land should have employed a pole to transport some of the clusters home (Nm 13:23-24).<\/p>\n<p>The wild grape <em>(Vitis orientalis)<\/em> is referred to in Isaiah 5:2-4, Jeremiah 2:21, and Ezekiel 15:2-6. It is known as the native wild fox grape and has small, black, acidic berries about the size of currants with little juice.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Walnut\">Walnut <em>(Juglans regia)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of several trees of this genus having round, sticky fruit enclosing an edible nut. The reference in Song of Songs 6:11 to “nuts” is thought to refer to the Persian or common walnut, <em>Juglans regia.<\/em> The tree is believed to have been indigenous to northern Persia, but it is actually found wild in many parts of northern India, eastward as far as China, and westward through Persia. At the time of Solomon, it was widely cultivated for its fruit throughout the East. Perhaps Solomon’s garden of nuts was a part of his extensive gardens at Etham, six miles (9.7 kilometers) from Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WaterLily\">Water Lily <em>(Nymphaea)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Any of numerous aquatic plants of this genus with floating leaves and showy flowers. The carved lily ornamentation of 1 Kings 7:19-26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 was probably patterned after the flowers of the water lily. Few flowers can equal the Egyptian lotus or water lily <em>(Nymphaea lotus)<\/em> in beauty. It looks very much like a large white rose and at one time floated in profusion on the waters of the Nile.<\/p>\n<p>The common European white water lily <em>(N. alba)<\/em> was also familiar to the children of Israel. It grows not only in Europe but also in the Holy Land and North Africa. It is, however, not as common in Egypt as is the white lotus.<\/p>\n<p>Another water lily with which the Israelites were probably familiar is the blue lotus, <em>N. caerulea.<\/em> Its leaves are 12 to 16 inches (30.5 to 40.6 centimeters) across and it has light-blue flowers that are three to six inches (7.6 to 15.2 centimeters) in diameter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wheat\">Wheat <em>(Triticum aestivum, T. compositum)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Various cereal grasses of this family widely cultivated for its edible grain. Five kinds of wheat are native to—and still wild in—the Holy Land, and at least eight others are cultivated there today; probably most, if not all, were known in Bible times. The wild varieties were probably more abundant then than they are today. Among these are the einkorn <em>(T. monococcum),<\/em> the thaoudar <em>(T. thaoudar),<\/em> and the wild emmer <em>(T. dicoccoides).<\/em> The composite wheat <em>(T. compositum),<\/em> with its branched spikes, often bearing as many as seven heads per stalk, is definitely referred to in Genesis 41:5-57. It is depicted on numerous Egyptian monuments and on inscriptions and is still commonly seen in the Nile Delta, where it is known as “mummy wheat.” It is also cultivated in the Holy Land.<\/p>\n<p>The most frequently mentioned wheat of the Bible is undoubtedly the commonly cultivated summer and winter wheat, <em>Triticum aestivum.<\/em> It is an abundant annual grass cultivated in Egypt and other Eastern lands since earliest times. The exact place of its origin is unknown. Grains of wheat have been found in the most ancient Egyptian tombs and in the remains of prehistoric lake dwellings in Switzerland. It was certainly the chief grain of Mesopotamia in Jacob’s time (Gn 30:14).<\/p>\n<p>Corn in biblical days often included a mixture of peas, beans, lentils, cummin, barley, millet, and spelt, but wheat was always its main constituent. Egypt was a great grain-producing country, and Abram (Gn 12:10) and Joseph’s brothers (ch 42) naturally turned to Egypt for wheat when famine visited Canaan.<\/p>\n<p>The mills, millstones, granaries, and threshing floors mentioned in the Bible all refer to equipment employed in processing grain to produce flour. The fine flour of which the showbread loaves were made (Lv 24:5) was unquestionably wheat flour. Wheat intended for home consumption was often stored in the central part of the house; this explains the story told in 2 Samuel 4:6. It was also sometimes stored in dry wells (2 Sm 17:19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Wormwood\">Wormwood <em>(Artemisia judaica, A. herba-alba)<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Wormwood is a general name given to a group of woody plants with a strong aromatic odor. Wormwood plants have a strong, bitter taste, and their young shoots and branch tips furnish the “wormwood” of commerce. Its bitter taste accounts for its being spoken of with gall—as being symbolic of bitter calamity and sorrow (Prv 5:4; Jer 9:15; 23:15; Lam 3:15, 19). <em>Artemisia herba-alba<\/em> is the common species of wormwood in the Holy Land today. It is strongly aromatic, smelling like camphor, and bitter. <em>A. judaica<\/em> occurs only in the Sinai.<\/p>\n<p>Absinthe is made from species of this group. It first leads to greater activity and pleasant sensations and fills the mind with grandiose ideas (Lam 3:15). The habitual use of it, however, brings on a stupor and gradual diminution of intellectual faculties, ending in delirium and even death. Perhaps the hemlock of Amos 6:12 was wormwood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PLANTS Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew i...","summary_en":"PLANTS Identifying biblical plants has always been a difficult task, partly because people continue to identify the biblical elm, sycamore, lily, rose, and vine with modern plants, and also because they assume that all the plants now growing in the Holy Land were there in ancient biblical days, or that the plants referred to in the Bible are still to be found there today. Unfortunately, many plants now quite common in the Holy Land were not there in biblical days. Many plants that once grew i...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"21":[{"id":5349,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Boaz (Pillar)","title_en":"Boaz (Pillar)","content_ro":"<h3>BOAZ (P<span>illar<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Name (meaning “strength”) given to one of the two pillars erected in front of King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). <em>See<\/em> Temple; Jachin and Boaz.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BOAZ (P<span>illar<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<p>Name (meaning “strength”) given to one of the two pillars erected in front of King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). <em>See<\/em> Temple; Jachin and Boaz.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BOAZ (Pillar) Name (meaning “strength”) given to one of the two pillars erected in front of King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). See Temple; Jachin and Boaz.","summary_en":"BOAZ (Pillar) Name (meaning “strength”) given to one of the two pillars erected in front of King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). See Temple; Jachin and Boaz.","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":18211,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"and Boaz*, Jachin","title_en":"and Boaz*, Jachin","content_ro":"<h3>JACHIN AND BOAZ*<\/h3>\n<p>Names of two pillars Solomon set up before the temple vestibule. He named the south pillar Jachin and the north pillar Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). These hollow pillars were cast of bronze and measured about 27 feet (8.2 meters) in height and about 18 feet (5.5 meters) in circumference (nearly 6 feet, or 1.8 meters, in diameter). They were crowned with a capital (ornate cap or top) about 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high that consisted of cast lily work, chains, and 200 pomegranates each (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-16; 4:13).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JACHIN AND BOAZ*<\/h3>\n<p>Names of two pillars Solomon set up before the temple vestibule. He named the south pillar Jachin and the north pillar Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). These hollow pillars were cast of bronze and measured about 27 feet (8.2 meters) in height and about 18 feet (5.5 meters) in circumference (nearly 6 feet, or 1.8 meters, in diameter). They were crowned with a capital (ornate cap or top) about 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high that consisted of cast lily work, chains, and 200 pomegranates each (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-16; 4:13).<\/p>","summary_ro":"JACHIN AND BOAZ* Names of two pillars Solomon set up before the temple vestibule. He named the south pillar Jachin and the north pillar Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). These hollow pillars were cast of bronze and measured about 27 feet (8.2 meters) in height and about 18 feet (5.5 meters) in circumference (nearly 6 feet, or 1.8 meters, in diameter). They were crowned with a capital (ornate cap or top) about 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high that consisted of cast lily work, chains, and 200 pomegranate...","summary_en":"JACHIN AND BOAZ* Names of two pillars Solomon set up before the temple vestibule. He named the south pillar Jachin and the north pillar Boaz (1 Kgs 7:21; 2 Chr 3:17). These hollow pillars were cast of bronze and measured about 27 feet (8.2 meters) in height and about 18 feet (5.5 meters) in circumference (nearly 6 feet, or 1.8 meters, in diameter). They were crowned with a capital (ornate cap or top) about 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high that consisted of cast lily work, chains, and 200 pomegranate...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"23":[{"id":5721,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bronze Sea","title_en":"Bronze Sea","content_ro":"<h3>BRONZE SEA<\/h3>\n<p>Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capacity of either 2,000 baths (1 Kgs 7:26) or 3,000 (2 Chr 4:5). The discrepancy possibly comes from a scribal error. The bath (originally a vessel large enough to hold a person) was a liquid measure of about 6 gallons (23 liters), so the tank held perhaps 18,000 gallons (68,136 liters) of water.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple; Laver.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BRONZE SEA<\/h3>\n<p>Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capacity of either 2,000 baths (1 Kgs 7:26) or 3,000 (2 Chr 4:5). The discrepancy possibly comes from a scribal error. The bath (originally a vessel large enough to hold a person) was a liquid measure of about 6 gallons (23 liters), so the tank held perhaps 18,000 gallons (68,136 liters) of water.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple; Laver.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BRONZE SEA Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capaci...","summary_en":"BRONZE SEA Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capaci...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22652,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Laver*","title_en":"Laver*","content_ro":"<h3>LAVER*<\/h3>\n<p>Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished metal given by Israelite women (38:8).<\/p>\n<p>In Solomon’s temple, in addition to the molten sea (1 Kgs 7:23), there were ten smaller lavers, five on the north and five on the south sides of the sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:38-39). Each held 40 baths (320–440 gallons, or 1,211.2–1,665.4 liters), one-fiftieth the capacity of the large laver. The lavishly decorated molten sea was used for the ablutions of the priests, while the ten lavers were no doubt used for the sacrifices (2 Chr 4:6). Later King Ahaz, possibly for religious or financial reasons, severed the lavers from their bases and the sea from its base, placing it on a stone pediment (2 Kgs 16:17). The prophet Jeremiah, during King Jehoiakim’s reign, predicted that the molten sea and the bases would be carried into Babylon (Jer 27:19-22), which in fact happened, according to Jeremiah 52:17. No mention is made of the ten small lavers, which were perhaps already melted down and sold.<\/p>\n<p>In Ezekiel’s description of the temple to come (Ez 40–42), there is no mention of a laver or molten sea. The apostle John, however, in Revelation 4:6 and 15:2 mentions a “sea of glass,” perhaps reminiscent of Solomon’s molten sea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAVER*<\/h3>\n<p>Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished metal given by Israelite women (38:8).<\/p>\n<p>In Solomon’s temple, in addition to the molten sea (1 Kgs 7:23), there were ten smaller lavers, five on the north and five on the south sides of the sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:38-39). Each held 40 baths (320–440 gallons, or 1,211.2–1,665.4 liters), one-fiftieth the capacity of the large laver. The lavishly decorated molten sea was used for the ablutions of the priests, while the ten lavers were no doubt used for the sacrifices (2 Chr 4:6). Later King Ahaz, possibly for religious or financial reasons, severed the lavers from their bases and the sea from its base, placing it on a stone pediment (2 Kgs 16:17). The prophet Jeremiah, during King Jehoiakim’s reign, predicted that the molten sea and the bases would be carried into Babylon (Jer 27:19-22), which in fact happened, according to Jeremiah 52:17. No mention is made of the ten small lavers, which were perhaps already melted down and sold.<\/p>\n<p>In Ezekiel’s description of the temple to come (Ez 40–42), there is no mention of a laver or molten sea. The apostle John, however, in Revelation 4:6 and 15:2 mentions a “sea of glass,” perhaps reminiscent of Solomon’s molten sea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAVER* Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished meta...","summary_en":"LAVER* Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished meta...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26186,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Molten Sea*","title_en":"Molten Sea*","content_ro":"<h3>MOLTEN SEA*<\/h3>\n<p>Alternate name for the laver in King Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 7:23. <em>See<\/em> Bronze Sea; Laver; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MOLTEN SEA*<\/h3>\n<p>Alternate name for the laver in King Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 7:23. <em>See<\/em> Bronze Sea; Laver; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MOLTEN SEA* Alternate name for the laver in King Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 7:23. See Bronze Sea; Laver; Tabernacle; Temple.","summary_en":"MOLTEN SEA* Alternate name for the laver in King Solomon’s temple in 1 Kings 7:23. See Bronze Sea; Laver; Tabernacle; Temple.","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34185,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Molten Sea*","title_en":"Molten Sea*","content_ro":"<h3>SEA*, Molten<\/h3>\n<p>Alternate name for the laver in King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:23). <em>See<\/em> Bronze Sea; Laver; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SEA*, Molten<\/h3>\n<p>Alternate name for the laver in King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:23). <em>See<\/em> Bronze Sea; Laver; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SEA*, Molten Alternate name for the laver in King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:23). See Bronze Sea; Laver; Tabernacle; Temple.","summary_en":"SEA*, Molten Alternate name for the laver in King Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:23). See Bronze Sea; Laver; Tabernacle; Temple.","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36978,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38318,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Weights and Measures","title_en":"Weights and Measures","content_ro":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","summary_en":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46934,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:23","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:23-26<\/strong> The giant bronze basin <em>called the Sea<\/em> replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the <em>twelve bronze oxen<\/em> on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that <em>three faced<\/em> each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for ceremonial washing (2 Chr 4:6) as they prepared to minister before God (see Exod 30:17-21). The apparent discrepancy in the volume of water it could hold (see 2 Chr 4:5) is probably due to standards of measurement that varied according to place and time.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:23-26<\/strong> The giant bronze basin <em>called the Sea<\/em> replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the <em>twelve bronze oxen<\/em> on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that <em>three faced<\/em> each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for ceremonial washing (2 Chr 4:6) as they prepared to minister before God (see Exod 30:17-21). The apparent discrepancy in the volume of water it could hold (see 2 Chr 4:5) is probably due to standards of measurement that varied according to place and time.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:23-26 The giant bronze basin called the Sea replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the twelve bronze oxen on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that three faced each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for...","summary_en":"7:23-26 The giant bronze basin called the Sea replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the twelve bronze oxen on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that three faced each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74560,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:23","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:23-26<\/strong> The giant bronze basin <em>called the Sea<\/em> replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the <em>twelve bronze oxen<\/em> on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that <em>three faced<\/em> each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for ceremonial washing (2 Chr 4:6) as they prepared to minister before God (see Exod 30:17-21). The apparent discrepancy in the volume of water it could hold (see 2 Chr 4:5) is probably due to standards of measurement that varied according to place and time.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:23-26<\/strong> The giant bronze basin <em>called the Sea<\/em> replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the <em>twelve bronze oxen<\/em> on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that <em>three faced<\/em> each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for ceremonial washing (2 Chr 4:6) as they prepared to minister before God (see Exod 30:17-21). The apparent discrepancy in the volume of water it could hold (see 2 Chr 4:5) is probably due to standards of measurement that varied according to place and time.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:23-26 The giant bronze basin called the Sea replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the twelve bronze oxen on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that three faced each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for...","summary_en":"7:23-26 The giant bronze basin called the Sea replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the twelve bronze oxen on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that three faced each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102186,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:23","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:23-26<\/strong> The giant bronze basin <em>called the Sea<\/em> replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the <em>twelve bronze oxen<\/em> on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that <em>three faced<\/em> each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for ceremonial washing (2 Chr 4:6) as they prepared to minister before God (see Exod 30:17-21). The apparent discrepancy in the volume of water it could hold (see 2 Chr 4:5) is probably due to standards of measurement that varied according to place and time.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:23-26<\/strong> The giant bronze basin <em>called the Sea<\/em> replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the <em>twelve bronze oxen<\/em> on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that <em>three faced<\/em> each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for ceremonial washing (2 Chr 4:6) as they prepared to minister before God (see Exod 30:17-21). The apparent discrepancy in the volume of water it could hold (see 2 Chr 4:5) is probably due to standards of measurement that varied according to place and time.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:23-26 The giant bronze basin called the Sea replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the twelve bronze oxen on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that three faced each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for...","summary_en":"7:23-26 The giant bronze basin called the Sea replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the twelve bronze oxen on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that three faced each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129812,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:23","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:23","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:23-26<\/strong> The giant bronze basin <em>called the Sea<\/em> replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the <em>twelve bronze oxen<\/em> on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that <em>three faced<\/em> each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for ceremonial washing (2 Chr 4:6) as they prepared to minister before God (see Exod 30:17-21). The apparent discrepancy in the volume of water it could hold (see 2 Chr 4:5) is probably due to standards of measurement that varied according to place and time.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:23-26<\/strong> The giant bronze basin <em>called the Sea<\/em> replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the <em>twelve bronze oxen<\/em> on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that <em>three faced<\/em> each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for ceremonial washing (2 Chr 4:6) as they prepared to minister before God (see Exod 30:17-21). The apparent discrepancy in the volume of water it could hold (see 2 Chr 4:5) is probably due to standards of measurement that varied according to place and time.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:23-26 The giant bronze basin called the Sea replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the twelve bronze oxen on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that three faced each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for...","summary_en":"7:23-26 The giant bronze basin called the Sea replaced the smaller bronze washbasin used in the Tabernacle service (see Exod 30:17-21). The Sea was cast as one solid piece, excluding the twelve bronze oxen on which it sat. The oxen were placed so that three faced each direction, perhaps to remind priests that they served God on behalf of all twelve tribes of Israel. Ahaz later replaced the oxen with a stone base (2 Kgs 16:17). The priests used the Sea, like the bronze washbasin before it, for...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"26":[{"id":5727,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bronze Sea","title_en":"Bronze Sea","content_ro":"<h3>BRONZE SEA<\/h3>\n<p>Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capacity of either 2,000 baths (1 Kgs 7:26) or 3,000 (2 Chr 4:5). The discrepancy possibly comes from a scribal error. The bath (originally a vessel large enough to hold a person) was a liquid measure of about 6 gallons (23 liters), so the tank held perhaps 18,000 gallons (68,136 liters) of water.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple; Laver.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BRONZE SEA<\/h3>\n<p>Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capacity of either 2,000 baths (1 Kgs 7:26) or 3,000 (2 Chr 4:5). The discrepancy possibly comes from a scribal error. The bath (originally a vessel large enough to hold a person) was a liquid measure of about 6 gallons (23 liters), so the tank held perhaps 18,000 gallons (68,136 liters) of water.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Temple; Laver.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BRONZE SEA Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capaci...","summary_en":"BRONZE SEA Large tank of water in Solomon’s temple yard for the priests’ washing (1 Kgs 7:23-44; 2 Kgs 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chr 18:8; 2 Chr 4:2-6, 15; Jer 52:17). Cast from bronze and about three inches (7.6 centimeters) thick (a handbreadth), it was mounted on 12 bronze oxen (three facing in each compass direction) in the courtyard at the southeast corner of the sanctuary. It was five cubits (about 7.5 feet, or over 2 meters) high and ten cubits (15 feet, or 4.6 meters) in diameter, with a capaci...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":23337,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lily-Work*","title_en":"Lily-Work*","content_ro":"<h3>LILY-WORK*<\/h3>\n<p>Design of a lily or lotus used on ancient pillars, inspired by the large water lily found along the Nile. It appeared at the vestibule of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:19-22), around the brim of the basin (v 26), and in numerous artistic creations of the Assyrians, Persians, and other Near Eastern peoples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea; Laver.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LILY-WORK*<\/h3>\n<p>Design of a lily or lotus used on ancient pillars, inspired by the large water lily found along the Nile. It appeared at the vestibule of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:19-22), around the brim of the basin (v 26), and in numerous artistic creations of the Assyrians, Persians, and other Near Eastern peoples.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea; Laver.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LILY-WORK* Design of a lily or lotus used on ancient pillars, inspired by the large water lily found along the Nile. It appeared at the vestibule of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:19-22), around the brim of the basin (v 26), and in numerous artistic creations of the Assyrians, Persians, and other Near Eastern peoples. See also Bronze Sea; Laver.","summary_en":"LILY-WORK* Design of a lily or lotus used on ancient pillars, inspired by the large water lily found along the Nile. It appeared at the vestibule of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:19-22), around the brim of the basin (v 26), and in numerous artistic creations of the Assyrians, Persians, and other Near Eastern peoples. See also Bronze Sea; Laver.","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38297,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Weights and Measures","title_en":"Weights and Measures","content_ro":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>WEIGHTS AND MEASURES<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While this was a convenient system, it also suffered from a lack of standardization. Some arms were longer than others, and some donkeys could carry more than others. The history of weights and measures, therefore, becomes the story of seeking standards. This was not achieved in the OT but began to take place under Greek and Roman influences in NT times.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT the measures that were used are frequently attested to in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Canaanite literature as well. The Israelites did not have their own unique set of measurements. Yet while the terms are shared, it is not unusual to find a particular term having one value in Israel and a noticeably different value in one of the other cultures.<\/p>\n<p>By the time of the NT, other variables were added. The Israelites of this period were still using many of the measures that had been used and developed throughout the OT period. But added to that were the Greek and Roman systems of measurement. Sometimes these terms were adopted wholesale, while at other times Hebrew terms were adapted to Greco-Roman standards. On still other occasions, the Roman terms were apparently used when dealing with the government, whereas Hebrew terms were still used in everyday practice.<\/p>\n<p>In most of the kinds of measurement, the base unit (i.e., the one that all of the others are fractions or multiples of) is the one about which there is the most uncertainty. So the cubit (length), the shekel (weight), the homer (dry volume), and the bath (liquid volume) are all to some degree uncertain. This makes all of the other measures based on them equally uncertain.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"WeightMeasures\">Weight Measures<\/p>\n<p>The terms used for weights have benefited most from archaeological discoveries. Excavations provide stone weights that are occasionally inscribed with the unit they represent. When the stones are weighed, they frequently give a range of weights that have only a general consistency. However, comparing this data with that provided by the text has given the basis for fairly accurate determinations. The relative scale in any given location is more important than absolute values.<\/p>\n\n<p>There was standardization of weight measures, but precision was difficult to attain. The Israelite system is similar to that used by the Mesopotamians and the Canaanites. For most of the OT period, the weights system provided the monetary system. Minted coinage was the invention of the Persians. Up until that time, silver or gold or any other trading commodity had to be weighed out so that bartering or purchasing could take place. This made the weights system the core of the ancient economy. It also explains why the Scriptures speak so seriously against the use of false weights (Lv 19:36; Dt 25:13; Prv 16:11; 20:10, 23; Mi 6:11; Hos 12:7; Am 8:5).<\/p>\n<p>Stone weights were used on a set of balances for conducting business in the ancient marketplace. Scales or balances are mentioned half a dozen times in the OT, but none of those are in actual economic contexts (Jb 6:2; 31:6; Ps 62:9; Is 40:12; Ez 5:1; Dn 5:27). The scales used were generally of the beam-balance type with dishes on each end.<\/p>\n<h5>Talent<\/h5>\n<p>According to Exodus 38:25-26 the talent must have been equal to 3,000 shekels. (A hundred talents would then have been equal to 300,000 shekels, and if that is added to the 1,175 shekels in verse 25, the total is 301,775, or half a shekel for each of the 603,550 men—as verse 26 states.) Excavated talents weigh from about 65 to 80 pounds (29.5 to 36.3 kilograms). In the OT the talent is used only for precious metals, usually silver or gold. According to 1 Kings 10:14, the annual tribute income of Solomon’s kingdom was 666 talents, which apparently was considered quite extravagant. David bequeathed 100,000 talents of gold and 1,000,000 talents of silver to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Chr 22:14).<\/p>\n<h5>Mina<\/h5>\n<p>In the Canaanite material from Ugarit the mina equals 50 shekels, while in Babylon the mina equals 60 shekels. In Ezekiel 45:12, the mina is set at 60 shekels, but it is unclear whether this represents a change from previous standards.<\/p>\n<h5>Shekel<\/h5>\n<p>The shekel was the basic unit of weight. Besides the regular shekel, there was a “royal” shekel (2 Sm 14:26). Calculating by weights that have been excavated and found labeled as “beka” (one-half shekel), the shekel has been estimated to be about .4 ounce (11.4 grams).<\/p>\n<p>The shekel is used in Scripture almost exclusively in contexts dealing with monetary value. Whether silver, gold, barley, or flour, the shekel valuation assigns the commodity a relative value in the economy. Exceptions to this are Goliath’s armor and spear (1 Sm 17:5-7), which are described in terms of their shekel weight.<\/p>\n<h5>Pim<\/h5>\n<p>The only reference to this unit is in 1 Samuel 13:21, where it is the price charged to the Israelites by the Philistines for sharpening a plowshare. Excavated weights range from .25 to .3 ounce (7.1 to 8.5 grams), suggesting that the pim was two-thirds of a shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Beka<\/h5>\n<p>Seven stones inscribed with this label range in weight from .2 to .23 ounce (5.7 to 6.5 grams). In Exodus 38:26 it is the amount levied on each individual for the census tax. There it is the equivalent of one-half shekel.<\/p>\n<h5>Gerah<\/h5>\n<p>Equal to one-twentieth of a shekel, or .02 ounce (.6 gram). The term is used five times (Ex 30:13; Lv 27:25; Nm 3:47; 18:16; Ez 45:12) and on each occasion is used to give a valuation to the shekel. Its use is strictly monetary in these contexts.<\/p>\n<h5>Litra<\/h5>\n<p>The NT uses the same weights that have already been identified in the OT usage, particularly the shekel, mina, and talent. There is one additional unit used: the litra, which is used in John 12:3 and 19:39 with regard to spices. In Greek literature one litra is approximately 12 ounces (327 grams).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Linear Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Measurements of length and depth generally were derived from a part of the body used to make the measurement. The basic unit was the cubit, and most others were related to it. Precise measurements of geographic distance are lacking in the OT and was most frequently stated in terms of the number of days it would take to arrive at a destination. A single day’s journey was mostly likely 20 to 25 miles (32.2 to 40.2 kilometers). A “pace” was equal to a “step”—about a yard (2 Sm 6:13).<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>The length from the tip of the forefinger to the elbow. There are both long and short cubits, which are used not only in Israel but in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well. Ezekiel 40:5 identifies the long cubit as being the equivalent of a cubit plus a handbreadth (about 20 to 21 inches, or 50.8 to 53.3 centimeters). The inscription found inside the Siloam tunnel built by Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>) indicates that the tunnel is 1,200 cubits long. The actual length of the tunnel was determined to be 1,749 feet (533.1 meters). This would yield a cubit of 17.49 inches (44.4 centimeters). All things considered, 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters) is a good estimation of the length of the cubit in Israel. This would set the long cubit at approximately 20.5 inches (52.1 centimeters). The cubit was most frequently used to give the dimensions of buildings or objects (e.g., curtains, pillars, pieces of furniture, etc.). The largest structure measured in cubits was the ark that Noah built, which was 300 cubits long (Gn 6:15).<\/p>\n<h5>Span<\/h5>\n<p>The distance measured by the stretch of the hand from fingertip to fingertip, equal to one-half a cubit, or eight and three-quarters inches (22.2 centimeters). It is used only seven times in the OT, and four of those are to describe the dimensions of the high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28:15-16; 39:8-9).<\/p>\n<h5>Handbreadth<\/h5>\n<p>The width of the hand at the base, equal to one-sixth of a cubit, one-third of a span, or just under three inches (7.6 centimeters). The term is used only five times and gives the width of the rim around the table of showbread (Ex 25:25) and Solomon’s molten sea (1 Kgs 7:26).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LinearMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Linear Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>In the NT some of the units of length and depth represent Greco-Roman standards, while others are those used in the OT. Like the OT, the NT frequently uses imprecise designations for distance, such as a stone’s throw or a day’s journey. There are, however, a few occurrences of precise terms borrowed from Roman culture.<\/p>\n<h5>Cubit<\/h5>\n<p>For the Romans, the cubit was set at one and a half times their standard foot of 11.66 inches, equaling 17.5 inches (44.5 centimeters), just as the OT cubit.<\/p>\n<h5>Fathom<\/h5>\n<p>The distance between the fingertips of the left and right hand when the arms were outstretched. It is used only in Acts 27:28 and is considered to be about six feet (1.8 meters).<\/p>\n<h5>Furlong\/Stadium<\/h5>\n<p>The length of the ancient Greek racecourse, equal to one-eighth of a Roman mile, or a little over 200 yards (182.9 meters). It is usually used to give approximate distance, but in Revelation 21:16 it is used to give the dimensions of the New Jerusalem and is measured with a measuring rod.<\/p>\n<h5>Mile<\/h5>\n<p>The only occurrence of this term, Matthew 5:41, has reference to the Roman mile of 1,620 yards, about nine-tenths of a modern mile (1.4 kilometers).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheOldTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Amounts of dry goods were oriented toward practical matters such as typical donkey loads, how much seed could be sown in a day, or how much seed would be needed to sow a certain size plot. As with the other types of measures, these then became standardized.<\/p>\n<h5>Cor\/Homer<\/h5>\n<p>The most common dry commodity measure and the equivalent of one donkey load. Estimates of its standard size vary greatly, ranging from 3.8 bushels to 7.5 bushels (133.9 to 264.3 liters). Other than the seven occurrences in Ezekiel 45:11-14, the term occurs only four times in the OT. Three of these contexts feature seed or barley (Lv 27:16; Is 5:10; Hos 3:2), while the fourth is in the context of Israelites gathering quail in the wilderness. A cor is used nine times and occurs with a variety of commodities, including oil, flour, wheat, and barley, in multiples all the way up to 20,000 (1 Kgs 5:11).<\/p>\n<h5>Lethek<\/h5>\n<p>Unit occurring only in Hosea 3:2. The early versions of the Bible identified it as one-half of a cor, or homer.<\/p>\n<h5>Ephah<\/h5>\n<p>This is equal to one-tenth of a homer (Ez 45:11), or one-half of a bushel (17.6 liters). The term occurs dozens of times with all sorts of agricultural products. It seems to have been the unit most used in trading and selling. According to Zechariah 5:6-10, the ephah refers to a container that would hold an ephah of produce, much like the modern-day bushel basket.<\/p>\n<h5>Seah<\/h5>\n<p>A fraction of the homer, which has a very wide range. The term measures flour, seed, barley, and grain, and is roughly one-third of an ephah. A bushel was about five seahs (1 Sm 25:18, <span>nlt<\/span> mg).<\/p>\n<h5>Omer\/Issaron<\/h5>\n<p>The omer occurs only in the account of the collecting of manna by the Israelites (Ex 16:22). It represents a day’s ration of manna and is identified as one-tenth of an ephah (Ex 16:36). The issaron is a term that means a tenth. Its 25 occurrences are all in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers (mostly in Nm 28–29); it refers only to measures of fine flour.<\/p>\n<h5>Cab, Kab<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in 2 Kings 6:25. The estimate given by Josephus, one-eighteenth of an ephah (or about one-half of an omer), is usually accepted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"CapacityDryMeasureintheNewTestament\">Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following dry measures are used in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Choinix<\/h5>\n<p>Occurring only in Revelation 6:6 (see <span>nlt<\/span> mg), the choinix is a little more than a quart (1.1 liters). In Greek literature it was considered the amount of one man’s daily allowance of corn.<\/p>\n<h5>Modius<\/h5>\n<p>This is the “bushel” under which one’s lamp should not be hid (Mt 5:15; Mk 4:21; Lk 11:33). It is actually equal to about a peck, 7.68 dry quarts (8.5 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Saton<\/h5>\n<p>This is the equivalent of the OT seah and can therefore also be approximated at about a peck. It is used only twice in the NT in parallel passages of the parable of the leaven, which is like the kingdom of God (Mt 13:33; Lk 13:21).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheOldTestament\">Liquid Measures in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>Three basic measures were used for liquids in the OT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>The base unit for the measurement of liquids. The biblical data (Ez 45:11-14) sets it as the liquid equivalent to the dry measure, the ephah. It is one-tenth of a homer. Archaeology has also been able to provide some data for this determination. Jars inscribed as “bath of the king” were found at Lachish and Tell en-Nasbeh, and jars marked “bath” were found at Tell Beit Mirsim. The jars are not complete, so their capacity must be calculated based on a reconstruction. Using this data, the bath was approximately 5.5 gallons (20.8 liters). This estimate would provide acceptable results when factored into the information given in 1 Kings 7:23-26, where the “molten sea” of Solomon’s temple is described as being 30 cubits in circumference, 10 cubits in diameter, 5 cubits deep, and capable of holding 2,000 baths of water.<\/p>\n<h5>Hin<\/h5>\n<p>One-sixth of a hin of water was considered a person’s minimum daily requirement (Ez 4:11). A hin is equal to one-sixth of a bath, approximately one gallon (3.8 liters). It is used for a measure of oil, wine, and water, but no context ever mentions more than one hin. Rather, fractions of a hin are used. Occurrences are limited to Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel and are therefore most commonly attested in the context of sacrificial libations.<\/p>\n<h5>Log<\/h5>\n<p>This unit occurs only in Leviticus 14:10-24 and equals one-twelfth of a hin, so about .3 quart or .3 liter.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"LiquidMeasuresintheNewTestament\">Liquid Measures in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p>The following liquid measures occur in the NT.<\/p>\n<h5>Bath<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only once (Lk 16:6) and is the same as the OT bath.<\/p>\n<h5>Metretes<\/h5>\n<p>This is used only in John 2:6, where it describes the containers in which water was turned to wine. Josephus identifies it as equivalent to a Hebrew bath, but in Greek usage it was the equivalent of about ten gallons (37.9 liters).<\/p>\n<h5>Sextarius\/Xestes<\/h5>\n<p>A measure of capacity equal to about one and one-sixth pints (552 milliliters). In Mark 7:4 the word is translated “pitcher” (<span>nlt<\/span>) or “pot” (<span>kjv<\/span>, see mg).<\/p>","summary_ro":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","summary_en":"WEIGHTS AND MEASURES Preview • Introduction • Weight Measures • Linear Measures in the Old Testament • Linear Measures in the New Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the Old Testament • Capacity (Dry Measure) in the New Testament • Liquid Measures in the Old Testament • Liquid Measures in the New Testament Introduction Units of measure in the ancient world were largely based on practical standards: the length of an arm, a day’s journey, how much a donkey could carry, and so forth. While thi...","source":"Articles\/W.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"27":[{"id":36981,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46935,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:27-39<\/strong> The <em>ten bronze water carts<\/em> each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). <em>Five<\/em> stood on either side of the <em>Temple.<\/em> Because they had <em>wheels,<\/em> they could be moved as needed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:27-39<\/strong> The <em>ten bronze water carts<\/em> each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). <em>Five<\/em> stood on either side of the <em>Temple.<\/em> Because they had <em>wheels,<\/em> they could be moved as needed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27-39 The ten bronze water carts each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). Five stood on either side of the Temple. Because they had wheels, they could be moved as needed.","summary_en":"7:27-39 The ten bronze water carts each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). Five stood on either side of the Temple. Because they had wheels, they could be moved as needed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74561,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:27-39<\/strong> The <em>ten bronze water carts<\/em> each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). <em>Five<\/em> stood on either side of the <em>Temple.<\/em> Because they had <em>wheels,<\/em> they could be moved as needed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:27-39<\/strong> The <em>ten bronze water carts<\/em> each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). <em>Five<\/em> stood on either side of the <em>Temple.<\/em> Because they had <em>wheels,<\/em> they could be moved as needed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27-39 The ten bronze water carts each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). Five stood on either side of the Temple. Because they had wheels, they could be moved as needed.","summary_en":"7:27-39 The ten bronze water carts each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). Five stood on either side of the Temple. Because they had wheels, they could be moved as needed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102187,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:27-39<\/strong> The <em>ten bronze water carts<\/em> each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). <em>Five<\/em> stood on either side of the <em>Temple.<\/em> Because they had <em>wheels,<\/em> they could be moved as needed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:27-39<\/strong> The <em>ten bronze water carts<\/em> each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). <em>Five<\/em> stood on either side of the <em>Temple.<\/em> Because they had <em>wheels,<\/em> they could be moved as needed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27-39 The ten bronze water carts each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). Five stood on either side of the Temple. Because they had wheels, they could be moved as needed.","summary_en":"7:27-39 The ten bronze water carts each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). Five stood on either side of the Temple. Because they had wheels, they could be moved as needed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129813,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:27","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:27","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:27-39<\/strong> The <em>ten bronze water carts<\/em> each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). <em>Five<\/em> stood on either side of the <em>Temple.<\/em> Because they had <em>wheels,<\/em> they could be moved as needed.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:27-39<\/strong> The <em>ten bronze water carts<\/em> each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). <em>Five<\/em> stood on either side of the <em>Temple.<\/em> Because they had <em>wheels,<\/em> they could be moved as needed.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:27-39 The ten bronze water carts each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). Five stood on either side of the Temple. Because they had wheels, they could be moved as needed.","summary_en":"7:27-39 The ten bronze water carts each held a basin for rinsing burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:6). Five stood on either side of the Temple. Because they had wheels, they could be moved as needed.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"29":[{"id":6287,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cherub*, Cherubim","title_en":"Cherub*, Cherubim","content_ro":"<h3>CHERUB*, CHERUBIM<\/h3>\n<p>Winged creatures mentioned occasionally in Scripture (“cherubim” is the plural form of the Hebrew “cherub”). They belong to a supernatural created order along with the seraphim and angels. Some scholars have argued that the term “cherub” had its origin in the <em>karibu<\/em> (“intercessor”) of Akkadian mythological texts, commonly represented in Mesopotamian art as a griffin (a creature half lion and half eagle) or as a winged human. The sphinx also appears to go back to this concept. The biblical evidence, however, does not seem to support that identification.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Ezekiel described four “living creatures,” each with four faces and four wings (Ez 1:5-24); those creatures corresponded to cherubim (10:2-22). The splendor of Ezekiel’s vision was recaptured more modestly in his description of the king of Tyre, who in the midst of his own prosperity seemed to be playing the part of a towering or guardian cherub before being dispossessed (28:13-16). That passage has been interpreted by some as a description of Satan’s “fall from grace” after he had once been in the service of God as a ranking member of a high celestial order.<\/p>\n<p>Despite Ezekiel’s elaborate visionary descriptions, it is difficult to be certain about the form in which cherubim appeared. Thus, in Ezekiel 41:18 the cherubim that were to decorate Ezekiel’s ideal temple had only two faces, a man’s and a young lion’s, in contrast to the four-faced creatures of the earlier visions. The four faces of Ezekiel 1:10 were those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle, whereas in Ezekiel 10:14 the cherub had its own face (“the face of the cherub”), along with the faces of a man, a lion, and an eagle. If the cherub’s face corresponded to that of an ox, that might account for the fact that cherubim in Near Eastern art were represented as four-footed creatures, though frequently different otherwise from biblical cherubim. In addition to their wings, the cherubim of Ezekiel’s vision had straight legs and feet with hooves like those of a calf (Ez 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>That complex description has led scholars to try to identify cherubim in the statues and carvings of non-Israelite peoples. The throne of Ahiram, king of Byblos, was flanked by sphinxes, which some have judged to be cherubim. The sphinx, however, seems to have been a popular decorative motif, as evidenced by an ivory box from Megiddo and ivories from Samaria, Nimrud, and elsewhere. Other decorative creatures have various combinations of human and animal bodies, with wings generally prominent. None of them adequately represents the OT descriptions of cherubim.<\/p>\n<p>The four living creatures of the book of Revelation were similar to the cherubim of Ezekiel but lacked their whirling wheels (Rv 4:6-9). Subsequent references to the creatures in Revelation (5:6-14; 6:1-8; 7:1-11; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4) add nothing to the initial description.<\/p>\n<p>The cherubim of Genesis 3:24 acted as guardians or custodians. Supernatural guardians seem to have been common in Near Eastern thought. In Ezekiel 10 the cherubim were also executors of divine judgment, spreading burning coals over a city (Ez 10:2, 7).<\/p>\n<p>In early Israelite thought the cherubim stretched out their wings and provided God with a throne (1 Sm 4:4; 2 Sm 6:2; etc.). God spoke to Moses from such a throne on the cover of the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:22). In Ezekiel’s vision (Ez 1:26; 10:1) God was seated in a four-wheeled chariot moved by the cherubim and borne aloft by their wings. In Hebrew poetry God was portrayed as employing clouds for his chariot (Ps 104:3; cf. Is 19:1) or riding on a cherub in flight (2 Sm 22:11; Ps 18:10). The idea of cherubim furnishing a seat or platform for the invisible deity found expression in Near Eastern art, where the pagan gods stood on the backs of animals.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel cherubim were carved on the covenantal ark (Ex 25:18-20; 37:7-9), and representations of them were also embroidered on the curtains of the tabernacle and the veil that screened the innermost sanctuary in which the ark rested.<\/p>\n<p>The Most Holy Place of Solomon’s temple was adorned by two large representations of cherubim, made of olive wood and covered with gold leaf. When placed side by side with outstretched wings, they spanned the entire width of the inner sanctuary. Smaller cherubim and palms were carved on the temple’s wooden panels and some of the doors, and were also represented on the sides of the laver stands (1 Kgs 7:29, 36). Cherubim alternating with palm trees formed part of the decor of Ezekiel’s visionary temple (Ez 41:17-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Angel; Seraph, Seraphim.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CHERUB*, CHERUBIM<\/h3>\n<p>Winged creatures mentioned occasionally in Scripture (“cherubim” is the plural form of the Hebrew “cherub”). They belong to a supernatural created order along with the seraphim and angels. Some scholars have argued that the term “cherub” had its origin in the <em>karibu<\/em> (“intercessor”) of Akkadian mythological texts, commonly represented in Mesopotamian art as a griffin (a creature half lion and half eagle) or as a winged human. The sphinx also appears to go back to this concept. The biblical evidence, however, does not seem to support that identification.<\/p>\n<p>The prophet Ezekiel described four “living creatures,” each with four faces and four wings (Ez 1:5-24); those creatures corresponded to cherubim (10:2-22). The splendor of Ezekiel’s vision was recaptured more modestly in his description of the king of Tyre, who in the midst of his own prosperity seemed to be playing the part of a towering or guardian cherub before being dispossessed (28:13-16). That passage has been interpreted by some as a description of Satan’s “fall from grace” after he had once been in the service of God as a ranking member of a high celestial order.<\/p>\n<p>Despite Ezekiel’s elaborate visionary descriptions, it is difficult to be certain about the form in which cherubim appeared. Thus, in Ezekiel 41:18 the cherubim that were to decorate Ezekiel’s ideal temple had only two faces, a man’s and a young lion’s, in contrast to the four-faced creatures of the earlier visions. The four faces of Ezekiel 1:10 were those of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle, whereas in Ezekiel 10:14 the cherub had its own face (“the face of the cherub”), along with the faces of a man, a lion, and an eagle. If the cherub’s face corresponded to that of an ox, that might account for the fact that cherubim in Near Eastern art were represented as four-footed creatures, though frequently different otherwise from biblical cherubim. In addition to their wings, the cherubim of Ezekiel’s vision had straight legs and feet with hooves like those of a calf (Ez 1:7).<\/p>\n<p>That complex description has led scholars to try to identify cherubim in the statues and carvings of non-Israelite peoples. The throne of Ahiram, king of Byblos, was flanked by sphinxes, which some have judged to be cherubim. The sphinx, however, seems to have been a popular decorative motif, as evidenced by an ivory box from Megiddo and ivories from Samaria, Nimrud, and elsewhere. Other decorative creatures have various combinations of human and animal bodies, with wings generally prominent. None of them adequately represents the OT descriptions of cherubim.<\/p>\n<p>The four living creatures of the book of Revelation were similar to the cherubim of Ezekiel but lacked their whirling wheels (Rv 4:6-9). Subsequent references to the creatures in Revelation (5:6-14; 6:1-8; 7:1-11; 14:3; 15:7; 19:4) add nothing to the initial description.<\/p>\n<p>The cherubim of Genesis 3:24 acted as guardians or custodians. Supernatural guardians seem to have been common in Near Eastern thought. In Ezekiel 10 the cherubim were also executors of divine judgment, spreading burning coals over a city (Ez 10:2, 7).<\/p>\n<p>In early Israelite thought the cherubim stretched out their wings and provided God with a throne (1 Sm 4:4; 2 Sm 6:2; etc.). God spoke to Moses from such a throne on the cover of the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:22). In Ezekiel’s vision (Ez 1:26; 10:1) God was seated in a four-wheeled chariot moved by the cherubim and borne aloft by their wings. In Hebrew poetry God was portrayed as employing clouds for his chariot (Ps 104:3; cf. Is 19:1) or riding on a cherub in flight (2 Sm 22:11; Ps 18:10). The idea of cherubim furnishing a seat or platform for the invisible deity found expression in Near Eastern art, where the pagan gods stood on the backs of animals.<\/p>\n<p>In Israel cherubim were carved on the covenantal ark (Ex 25:18-20; 37:7-9), and representations of them were also embroidered on the curtains of the tabernacle and the veil that screened the innermost sanctuary in which the ark rested.<\/p>\n<p>The Most Holy Place of Solomon’s temple was adorned by two large representations of cherubim, made of olive wood and covered with gold leaf. When placed side by side with outstretched wings, they spanned the entire width of the inner sanctuary. Smaller cherubim and palms were carved on the temple’s wooden panels and some of the doors, and were also represented on the sides of the laver stands (1 Kgs 7:29, 36). Cherubim alternating with palm trees formed part of the decor of Ezekiel’s visionary temple (Ez 41:17-20).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Angel; Seraph, Seraphim.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CHERUB*, CHERUBIM Winged creatures mentioned occasionally in Scripture (“cherubim” is the plural form of the Hebrew “cherub”). They belong to a supernatural created order along with the seraphim and angels. Some scholars have argued that the term “cherub” had its origin in the karibu (“intercessor”) of Akkadian mythological texts, commonly represented in Mesopotamian art as a griffin (a creature half lion and half eagle) or as a winged human. The sphinx also appears to go back to this concept...","summary_en":"CHERUB*, CHERUBIM Winged creatures mentioned occasionally in Scripture (“cherubim” is the plural form of the Hebrew “cherub”). They belong to a supernatural created order along with the seraphim and angels. Some scholars have argued that the term “cherub” had its origin in the karibu (“intercessor”) of Akkadian mythological texts, commonly represented in Mesopotamian art as a griffin (a creature half lion and half eagle) or as a winged human. The sphinx also appears to go back to this concept...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"38":[{"id":22653,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Laver*","title_en":"Laver*","content_ro":"<h3>LAVER*<\/h3>\n<p>Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished metal given by Israelite women (38:8).<\/p>\n<p>In Solomon’s temple, in addition to the molten sea (1 Kgs 7:23), there were ten smaller lavers, five on the north and five on the south sides of the sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:38-39). Each held 40 baths (320–440 gallons, or 1,211.2–1,665.4 liters), one-fiftieth the capacity of the large laver. The lavishly decorated molten sea was used for the ablutions of the priests, while the ten lavers were no doubt used for the sacrifices (2 Chr 4:6). Later King Ahaz, possibly for religious or financial reasons, severed the lavers from their bases and the sea from its base, placing it on a stone pediment (2 Kgs 16:17). The prophet Jeremiah, during King Jehoiakim’s reign, predicted that the molten sea and the bases would be carried into Babylon (Jer 27:19-22), which in fact happened, according to Jeremiah 52:17. No mention is made of the ten small lavers, which were perhaps already melted down and sold.<\/p>\n<p>In Ezekiel’s description of the temple to come (Ez 40–42), there is no mention of a laver or molten sea. The apostle John, however, in Revelation 4:6 and 15:2 mentions a “sea of glass,” perhaps reminiscent of Solomon’s molten sea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAVER*<\/h3>\n<p>Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished metal given by Israelite women (38:8).<\/p>\n<p>In Solomon’s temple, in addition to the molten sea (1 Kgs 7:23), there were ten smaller lavers, five on the north and five on the south sides of the sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:38-39). Each held 40 baths (320–440 gallons, or 1,211.2–1,665.4 liters), one-fiftieth the capacity of the large laver. The lavishly decorated molten sea was used for the ablutions of the priests, while the ten lavers were no doubt used for the sacrifices (2 Chr 4:6). Later King Ahaz, possibly for religious or financial reasons, severed the lavers from their bases and the sea from its base, placing it on a stone pediment (2 Kgs 16:17). The prophet Jeremiah, during King Jehoiakim’s reign, predicted that the molten sea and the bases would be carried into Babylon (Jer 27:19-22), which in fact happened, according to Jeremiah 52:17. No mention is made of the ten small lavers, which were perhaps already melted down and sold.<\/p>\n<p>In Ezekiel’s description of the temple to come (Ez 40–42), there is no mention of a laver or molten sea. The apostle John, however, in Revelation 4:6 and 15:2 mentions a “sea of glass,” perhaps reminiscent of Solomon’s molten sea.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bronze Sea.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAVER* Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished meta...","summary_en":"LAVER* Basin filled with water that the priests used to wash their hands and feet before entering the Holy Place and before returning to serve at the altar (Ex 30:17-21). In Solomon’s temple a large laver called the “molten sea” was placed between the altar of burnt offerings in the courtyard and the entrance to the inner temple. This consisted of the large basin and the pedestal on which it sat (Ex 30:18); it was made of bronze or brass, melted and shaped from mirrors of highly polished meta...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"40":[{"id":36982,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46936,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:40","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:40","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:40-45<\/strong> <em>Huram<\/em> had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:40-45<\/strong> <em>Huram<\/em> had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:40-45 Huram had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).","summary_en":"7:40-45 Huram had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74562,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:40","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:40","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:40-45<\/strong> <em>Huram<\/em> had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:40-45<\/strong> <em>Huram<\/em> had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:40-45 Huram had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).","summary_en":"7:40-45 Huram had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102188,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:40","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:40","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:40-45<\/strong> <em>Huram<\/em> had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:40-45<\/strong> <em>Huram<\/em> had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:40-45 Huram had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).","summary_en":"7:40-45 Huram had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129814,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:40","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:40","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:40-45<\/strong> <em>Huram<\/em> had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:40-45<\/strong> <em>Huram<\/em> had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:40-45 Huram had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).","summary_en":"7:40-45 Huram had great skill in casting items of varying size and complexity. He also made the bronze altar for the inner court that was used for burnt offerings (2 Chr 4:1).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"46":[{"id":36403,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Succoth","title_en":"Succoth","content_ro":"<h3>SUCCOTH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town in the Jordan Valley listed along with other towns as belonging to the tribe of Gad (Jos 13:27). It is located in the fertile valley called Ghaur Abu ‘Udeidah, known in the Bible as the valley of Succoth (Pss 60:6; 108:7); it comprises the central portion of the Jordan Valley on the eastern side, between the Wadi Rejeb and the Jabbok River.<\/li>\n<p>The place is mentioned for the first time in the account of Jacob’s meeting with Esau, which occurred just south of Penuel. Jacob went from the meeting to Succoth and built some shelters for his cattle, which is given as the explanation for the name of the settlement (Gn 33:17)—Succoth means “shelters.”<\/p>\n<p>Later, the men of Succoth refused to give food to Gideon and his men when they were pursuing the Midianites (Jgs 8:5-9). Upon his return, Gideon made a point of punishing the elders of Succoth (vv 13-17). The form of social organization reflected in this passage has suggested that the population was not Israelite at the time of Gideon’s visitation.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, Succoth is mentioned with regard to Solomon’s building projects. The metal casting for the important fixtures and implements of the temple was performed in the area between Succoth and Zarethan (1 Kgs 7:46; 2 Chr 4:17). It is possible that Succoth of the monarchical period was destroyed by Shishak of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>It has been proposed that the place-name occurs in two other passages: as the staging area for David’s forces in the battle with Ammon, when the ark and the army were “living in shelters (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sukkoth<\/span>)” (2 Sm 11:11), and as the staging area for Ben-hadad’s troops in his war against Samaria (1 Kgs 20:12, 16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Town in Egypt mentioned as the first station of the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt (Ex 12:37; 13:20; Nm 33:5-6); it appears between Rameses and Etham.<\/li>\n<p>Egyptian sources, texts of the Anastasi collection, refer to a place that is most likely the same as biblical Succoth. An Edomite tribe is recorded as bringing their herds in from the desert to pasture them in the Delta, passing by the strong point at <em>Tkw<\/em> [Old Egyptian for Succoth] (Papyrus Anastasi VI, 54). The military garrison there was commanded by a “commander” of (archer) troops, and the fort was named after Pharaoh Mernephta (Papyrus Anastasi, VI, 55).<\/p>\n<p>Scholarly opinion usually places Succoth at Tell el-Maskhuta, a site near the mouth of the Wadi Tumeilat. <em>See<\/em> map.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SUCCOTH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Town in the Jordan Valley listed along with other towns as belonging to the tribe of Gad (Jos 13:27). It is located in the fertile valley called Ghaur Abu ‘Udeidah, known in the Bible as the valley of Succoth (Pss 60:6; 108:7); it comprises the central portion of the Jordan Valley on the eastern side, between the Wadi Rejeb and the Jabbok River.<\/li>\n<p>The place is mentioned for the first time in the account of Jacob’s meeting with Esau, which occurred just south of Penuel. Jacob went from the meeting to Succoth and built some shelters for his cattle, which is given as the explanation for the name of the settlement (Gn 33:17)—Succoth means “shelters.”<\/p>\n<p>Later, the men of Succoth refused to give food to Gideon and his men when they were pursuing the Midianites (Jgs 8:5-9). Upon his return, Gideon made a point of punishing the elders of Succoth (vv 13-17). The form of social organization reflected in this passage has suggested that the population was not Israelite at the time of Gideon’s visitation.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, Succoth is mentioned with regard to Solomon’s building projects. The metal casting for the important fixtures and implements of the temple was performed in the area between Succoth and Zarethan (1 Kgs 7:46; 2 Chr 4:17). It is possible that Succoth of the monarchical period was destroyed by Shishak of Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>It has been proposed that the place-name occurs in two other passages: as the staging area for David’s forces in the battle with Ammon, when the ark and the army were “living in shelters (<span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sukkoth<\/span>)” (2 Sm 11:11), and as the staging area for Ben-hadad’s troops in his war against Samaria (1 Kgs 20:12, 16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Town in Egypt mentioned as the first station of the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt (Ex 12:37; 13:20; Nm 33:5-6); it appears between Rameses and Etham.<\/li>\n<p>Egyptian sources, texts of the Anastasi collection, refer to a place that is most likely the same as biblical Succoth. An Edomite tribe is recorded as bringing their herds in from the desert to pasture them in the Delta, passing by the strong point at <em>Tkw<\/em> [Old Egyptian for Succoth] (Papyrus Anastasi VI, 54). The military garrison there was commanded by a “commander” of (archer) troops, and the fort was named after Pharaoh Mernephta (Papyrus Anastasi, VI, 55).<\/p>\n<p>Scholarly opinion usually places Succoth at Tell el-Maskhuta, a site near the mouth of the Wadi Tumeilat. <em>See<\/em> map.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SUCCOTH 1. Town in the Jordan Valley listed along with other towns as belonging to the tribe of Gad (Jos 13:27). It is located in the fertile valley called Ghaur Abu ‘Udeidah, known in the Bible as the valley of Succoth (Pss 60:6; 108:7); it comprises the central portion of the Jordan Valley on the eastern side, between the Wadi Rejeb and the Jabbok River. The place is mentioned for the first time in the account of Jacob’s meeting with Esau, which occurred just south of Penuel. Jacob went fro...","summary_en":"SUCCOTH 1. Town in the Jordan Valley listed along with other towns as belonging to the tribe of Gad (Jos 13:27). It is located in the fertile valley called Ghaur Abu ‘Udeidah, known in the Bible as the valley of Succoth (Pss 60:6; 108:7); it comprises the central portion of the Jordan Valley on the eastern side, between the Wadi Rejeb and the Jabbok River. The place is mentioned for the first time in the account of Jacob’s meeting with Esau, which occurred just south of Penuel. Jacob went fro...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38921,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zarethan","title_en":"Zarethan","content_ro":"<h3>ZARETHAN<\/h3>\n<p>City or region near the Jordan River north of Jericho. It is first mentioned in connection with the “cutting off” of the waters of the Jordan that occurred at Adam, “the city that is beside Zarethan” (Jos 3:16). Its location is more precisely defined in the list of Solomon’s administrative districts as being in the vicinity of Beth-shan below Jezreel (1 Kgs 4:12). Bronze utensils for Solomon’s temple were cast near there (7:46; 2 Chr 4:17, “Zeredah”).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZARETHAN<\/h3>\n<p>City or region near the Jordan River north of Jericho. It is first mentioned in connection with the “cutting off” of the waters of the Jordan that occurred at Adam, “the city that is beside Zarethan” (Jos 3:16). Its location is more precisely defined in the list of Solomon’s administrative districts as being in the vicinity of Beth-shan below Jezreel (1 Kgs 4:12). Bronze utensils for Solomon’s temple were cast near there (7:46; 2 Chr 4:17, “Zeredah”).<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZARETHAN City or region near the Jordan River north of Jericho. It is first mentioned in connection with the “cutting off” of the waters of the Jordan that occurred at Adam, “the city that is beside Zarethan” (Jos 3:16). Its location is more precisely defined in the list of Solomon’s administrative districts as being in the vicinity of Beth-shan below Jezreel (1 Kgs 4:12). Bronze utensils for Solomon’s temple were cast near there (7:46; 2 Chr 4:17, “Zeredah”).","summary_en":"ZARETHAN City or region near the Jordan River north of Jericho. It is first mentioned in connection with the “cutting off” of the waters of the Jordan that occurred at Adam, “the city that is beside Zarethan” (Jos 3:16). Its location is more precisely defined in the list of Solomon’s administrative districts as being in the vicinity of Beth-shan below Jezreel (1 Kgs 4:12). Bronze utensils for Solomon’s temple were cast near there (7:46; 2 Chr 4:17, “Zeredah”).","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":38927,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zartanah*, Zarthan*","title_en":"Zartanah*, Zarthan*","content_ro":"<h3>ZARTANAH*, ZARTHAN*<\/h3>\n<p>KJV alternate forms of Zarethan in 1 Kings 4:12 and 7:46, respectively. <em>See<\/em> Zarethan.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZARTANAH*, ZARTHAN*<\/h3>\n<p>KJV alternate forms of Zarethan in 1 Kings 4:12 and 7:46, respectively. <em>See<\/em> Zarethan.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZARTANAH*, ZARTHAN* KJV alternate forms of Zarethan in 1 Kings 4:12 and 7:46, respectively. See Zarethan.","summary_en":"ZARTANAH*, ZARTHAN* KJV alternate forms of Zarethan in 1 Kings 4:12 and 7:46, respectively. See Zarethan.","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39259,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zeredah","title_en":"Zeredah","content_ro":"<h3>ZEREDAH<\/h3>\n<p class=\"fl\"\/>\n<p>1. Birthplace (or hometown) of Jeroboam, Israel’s first king during the period of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 11:26).<\/p>\n<li>2. City in the Jordan Valley (2 Chr 4:17; 1 Kgs 7:46 “Zarethan”). <em>See<\/em> Zarethan.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>ZEREDAH<\/h3>\n<p class=\"fl\"\/>\n<p>1. Birthplace (or hometown) of Jeroboam, Israel’s first king during the period of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 11:26).<\/p>\n<li>2. City in the Jordan Valley (2 Chr 4:17; 1 Kgs 7:46 “Zarethan”). <em>See<\/em> Zarethan.<\/li>","summary_ro":"ZEREDAH 1. Birthplace (or hometown) of Jeroboam, Israel’s first king during the period of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 11:26). 2. City in the Jordan Valley (2 Chr 4:17; 1 Kgs 7:46 “Zarethan”). See Zarethan.","summary_en":"ZEREDAH 1. Birthplace (or hometown) of Jeroboam, Israel’s first king during the period of the divided kingdom (1 Kgs 11:26). 2. City in the Jordan Valley (2 Chr 4:17; 1 Kgs 7:46 “Zarethan”). See Zarethan.","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46937,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:46","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:46","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:46-47<\/strong> <em>between Succoth and Zarethan:<\/em> This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:46-47<\/strong> <em>between Succoth and Zarethan:<\/em> This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:46-47 between Succoth and Zarethan: This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.","summary_en":"7:46-47 between Succoth and Zarethan: This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74563,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:46","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:46","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:46-47<\/strong> <em>between Succoth and Zarethan:<\/em> This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:46-47<\/strong> <em>between Succoth and Zarethan:<\/em> This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:46-47 between Succoth and Zarethan: This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.","summary_en":"7:46-47 between Succoth and Zarethan: This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102189,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:46","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:46","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:46-47<\/strong> <em>between Succoth and Zarethan:<\/em> This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:46-47<\/strong> <em>between Succoth and Zarethan:<\/em> This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:46-47 between Succoth and Zarethan: This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.","summary_en":"7:46-47 between Succoth and Zarethan: This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129815,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:46","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:46","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:46-47<\/strong> <em>between Succoth and Zarethan:<\/em> This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:46-47<\/strong> <em>between Succoth and Zarethan:<\/em> This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:46-47 between Succoth and Zarethan: This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.","summary_en":"7:46-47 between Succoth and Zarethan: This area east of the Jordan River (see Josh 3:16; Judg 8:4-5) was known for metallurgy. Abundant clay for molds, wood for fuel, and a prevailing north wind facilitated the casting process.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"48":[{"id":5658,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bread of the Presence","title_en":"Bread of the Presence","content_ro":"<h3>BREAD OF THE PRESENCE<\/h3>\n<p>Loaves of bread placed on a special table in the sanctuary or Holy Place of the tabernacle and later in the temple. Two other terms in the OT are used to describe the “bread of the Presence,” which means bread that has been set before the Lord’s face (Ex 25:23, 30; 35:13; 39:36; 1 Kgs 7:48; 2 Chr 4:19). The term “showbread” (<span>kjv<\/span> “shewbread”) refers to the arrangement of the bread in rows on the table (1 Chr 9:32; 23:29; 28:16; 2 Chr 2:4; 13:11; 29:18).<\/p>\n<p>Although the table of showbread, the altar of incense, and the golden lampstand were not in the Holy of Holies, they were nevertheless considered to be in the presence of God. As an offering placed before the presence of God, the loaves were considered holy and could be eaten only by priests. Later in Israel’s history, provision for offering the bread of the Presence as well as other temple services was financed by a tax of one-third shekel upon all citizens (Neh 10:32-33).<\/p>\n<p>The bread of the Presence consisted of 12 very large loaves, each made of one-fifth ephah of fine flour. Since an ephah was just over a bushel, two and a half bushels (30.3 liters) of finely ground wheat were required to make the 12 loaves. They were sprinkled with frankincense, arranged in two rows, the one leaning against the other, and placed on the table of showbread (Lv 24:5-9). Arranged in that way, the bread became an “offering of food” to the Lord. The loaves were changed weekly on the Sabbath day.<\/p>\n<p>The bread of the Presence is featured in one incident recalled in the NT. The tabernacle was at Nob when David was fleeing from the presence of King Saul. David went to Ahimelech, the priest, in search of food (1 Sm 21:1-6). Ahimelech had only the showbread, which he agreed to share with David’s men, provided they had been sexually continent for a period of time before their eating. Jesus later referred to the incident as a parallel to his own ministry of supplying the needs of those who followed him (Mt 12:1-8; Mk 2:25-26; Lk 6:1-5). As God’s anointed, David and his men were permitted to eat the holy bread. Likewise Jesus, God’s anointed one, provided for the needs of others in spite of the Sabbath regulations.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BREAD OF THE PRESENCE<\/h3>\n<p>Loaves of bread placed on a special table in the sanctuary or Holy Place of the tabernacle and later in the temple. Two other terms in the OT are used to describe the “bread of the Presence,” which means bread that has been set before the Lord’s face (Ex 25:23, 30; 35:13; 39:36; 1 Kgs 7:48; 2 Chr 4:19). The term “showbread” (<span>kjv<\/span> “shewbread”) refers to the arrangement of the bread in rows on the table (1 Chr 9:32; 23:29; 28:16; 2 Chr 2:4; 13:11; 29:18).<\/p>\n<p>Although the table of showbread, the altar of incense, and the golden lampstand were not in the Holy of Holies, they were nevertheless considered to be in the presence of God. As an offering placed before the presence of God, the loaves were considered holy and could be eaten only by priests. Later in Israel’s history, provision for offering the bread of the Presence as well as other temple services was financed by a tax of one-third shekel upon all citizens (Neh 10:32-33).<\/p>\n<p>The bread of the Presence consisted of 12 very large loaves, each made of one-fifth ephah of fine flour. Since an ephah was just over a bushel, two and a half bushels (30.3 liters) of finely ground wheat were required to make the 12 loaves. They were sprinkled with frankincense, arranged in two rows, the one leaning against the other, and placed on the table of showbread (Lv 24:5-9). Arranged in that way, the bread became an “offering of food” to the Lord. The loaves were changed weekly on the Sabbath day.<\/p>\n<p>The bread of the Presence is featured in one incident recalled in the NT. The tabernacle was at Nob when David was fleeing from the presence of King Saul. David went to Ahimelech, the priest, in search of food (1 Sm 21:1-6). Ahimelech had only the showbread, which he agreed to share with David’s men, provided they had been sexually continent for a period of time before their eating. Jesus later referred to the incident as a parallel to his own ministry of supplying the needs of those who followed him (Mt 12:1-8; Mk 2:25-26; Lk 6:1-5). As God’s anointed, David and his men were permitted to eat the holy bread. Likewise Jesus, God’s anointed one, provided for the needs of others in spite of the Sabbath regulations.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BREAD OF THE PRESENCE Loaves of bread placed on a special table in the sanctuary or Holy Place of the tabernacle and later in the temple. Two other terms in the OT are used to describe the “bread of the Presence,” which means bread that has been set before the Lord’s face (Ex 25:23, 30; 35:13; 39:36; 1 Kgs 7:48; 2 Chr 4:19). The term “showbread” (kjv “shewbread”) refers to the arrangement of the bread in rows on the table (1 Chr 9:32; 23:29; 28:16; 2 Chr 2:4; 13:11; 29:18). Although the table...","summary_en":"BREAD OF THE PRESENCE Loaves of bread placed on a special table in the sanctuary or Holy Place of the tabernacle and later in the temple. Two other terms in the OT are used to describe the “bread of the Presence,” which means bread that has been set before the Lord’s face (Ex 25:23, 30; 35:13; 39:36; 1 Kgs 7:48; 2 Chr 4:19). The term “showbread” (kjv “shewbread”) refers to the arrangement of the bread in rows on the table (1 Chr 9:32; 23:29; 28:16; 2 Chr 2:4; 13:11; 29:18). Although the table...","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":36965,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":46938,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:48","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:48","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:48-49<\/strong> <em>The gold altar<\/em> replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single <em>gold table for the Bread of the Presence,<\/em> the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten <em>lampstands of solid gold<\/em>. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lampstand characterized God as the source of life and truth. Both symbols pointed to Christ, the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:48-49<\/strong> <em>The gold altar<\/em> replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single <em>gold table for the Bread of the Presence,<\/em> the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten <em>lampstands of solid gold<\/em>. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lampstand characterized God as the source of life and truth. Both symbols pointed to Christ, the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:48-49 The gold altar replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single gold table for the Bread of the Presence, the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten lampstands of solid gold. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lam...","summary_en":"7:48-49 The gold altar replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single gold table for the Bread of the Presence, the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten lampstands of solid gold. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lam...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74564,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:48","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:48","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:48-49<\/strong> <em>The gold altar<\/em> replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single <em>gold table for the Bread of the Presence,<\/em> the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten <em>lampstands of solid gold<\/em>. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lampstand characterized God as the source of life and truth. Both symbols pointed to Christ, the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:48-49<\/strong> <em>The gold altar<\/em> replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single <em>gold table for the Bread of the Presence,<\/em> the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten <em>lampstands of solid gold<\/em>. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lampstand characterized God as the source of life and truth. Both symbols pointed to Christ, the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:48-49 The gold altar replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single gold table for the Bread of the Presence, the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten lampstands of solid gold. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lam...","summary_en":"7:48-49 The gold altar replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single gold table for the Bread of the Presence, the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten lampstands of solid gold. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lam...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102190,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:48","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:48","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:48-49<\/strong> <em>The gold altar<\/em> replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single <em>gold table for the Bread of the Presence,<\/em> the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten <em>lampstands of solid gold<\/em>. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lampstand characterized God as the source of life and truth. Both symbols pointed to Christ, the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:48-49<\/strong> <em>The gold altar<\/em> replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single <em>gold table for the Bread of the Presence,<\/em> the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten <em>lampstands of solid gold<\/em>. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lampstand characterized God as the source of life and truth. Both symbols pointed to Christ, the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:48-49 The gold altar replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single gold table for the Bread of the Presence, the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten lampstands of solid gold. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lam...","summary_en":"7:48-49 The gold altar replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single gold table for the Bread of the Presence, the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten lampstands of solid gold. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lam...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129816,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:48","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:48","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:48-49<\/strong> <em>The gold altar<\/em> replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single <em>gold table for the Bread of the Presence,<\/em> the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten <em>lampstands of solid gold<\/em>. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lampstand characterized God as the source of life and truth. Both symbols pointed to Christ, the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:48-49<\/strong> <em>The gold altar<\/em> replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single <em>gold table for the Bread of the Presence,<\/em> the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten <em>lampstands of solid gold<\/em>. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lampstand characterized God as the source of life and truth. Both symbols pointed to Christ, the bread of life (John 6:35) and the light of the world (John 8:12).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:48-49 The gold altar replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single gold table for the Bread of the Presence, the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten lampstands of solid gold. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lam...","summary_en":"7:48-49 The gold altar replaced the altar for burning incense used in the Tabernacle (Exod 30:1-10). The one table and one lampstand used in the Tabernacle (Exod 25:23-40) were replaced by ten such sets in the Temple. Although the author lists a single gold table for the Bread of the Presence, the Chronicler reports ten tables, five on each side of the Temple’s main room (cp. 2 Chr 4:8), along with ten lampstands of solid gold. The bread represented God’s provision for his people, and the lam...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"49":[{"id":22482,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lampstand Lamp","title_en":"Lampstand Lamp","content_ro":"<h3>LAMP, LAMPSTAND<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite lamps developed from those in general use among the Canaanites in the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Their shape was similar to a shell or saucer with a lip. Lamps of stone, metal, and shells were used, although the majority were made of pottery. A multitude of clay lamps, fashioned in a variety of designs, have been excavated in Palestine.<\/p>\n\n<p>The clay bowl was fashioned first, and the rim was folded over to help contain the oil. A spout was pinched in place at one end, into which the wick would be placed. When the clay had dried, the lamp would be fired to a dull brown shade. Gradually a style with an increasingly sharply pinched lip was developed. The wick was generally made of flax (Is 42:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), although an old piece of linen cloth was sometimes used. Salt could be added to the wick for a brighter flame, and frequently extra wicks were used. This led to the development of multispouted lamps like those found at Tell Dotha from 1200 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Olive oil provided the most common form of lamp fuel (Ex 27:20), and the average lamp could hold enough oil to burn through the night. Despite this, the housewife would have to get up several times to tend the wick and keep her precious lamp lit (Prv 31:18). Tongs were used for extinguishing the flame of a lamp in the tabernacle or temple (Ex 25:38; 37:23; Nm 4:9; 1 Kgs 7:49; Is 6:6). Since candles were not known in biblical times, the translation in the <span>kjv<\/span> is incorrect.<\/p>\n<p>The saucer lamp, which would have spilled easily, was not suitable for night travel, so a torch was probably used for that purpose (Jgs 7:16-20). In addition, the wick of the open saucer lamp could easily have blown out at night.<\/p>\n<p>Lamps were commonly found in burials along with food offerings. Because the lamp’s flame was associated with life, lamps were frequently placed in tombs as a symbol of life being rekindled.<\/p>\n<p>Although a more elaborate cup-and-saucer style of lamp was developed in which the flame came from the central area, the saucer lamp remained the most popular. The earliest Hellenistic lamp found in Palestine dates from 630 <span>BC<\/span> and already shows indications of the later covered model. During the sixth and fifth centuries <span>BC<\/span>, a flat-bottomed, saucer-style lamp was developed.<\/p>\n<p>In the third century <span>BC<\/span> the more elaborate wheel-made, covered Greek style took precedence. These lamps were often simple in design, rounded, with a central hole for the oil and one in the small spout for the wick.<\/p>\n<p>In the second century <span>BC<\/span> the wheel-made lamp was replaced by a molded ceramic lamp of finer design with a larger spout. Imported Egyptian lamps of this type have been found in southern Palestine. Multispouted lamps were probably used on festive occasions. From the same period comes the Hellenistic-influenced bronze lamp of a seated figure holding out a saucer lamp in his hands. At the end of the Hellenistic age the form of lamps deteriorated as the spouts became thick and squat.<\/p>\n<p>Small, round wheel-made lamps of simple design were prevalent in the time of Christ; this would be the type of lamp used by the woman searching the house for her gold coin (Lk 15:8). With wicks trimmed, the lamps of the foolish virgins would probably have lasted approximately five hours, from dark until about midnight (Mt 25:1-12).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish lamps were part of the religious symbolism of the home, probably dating back to the prohibition against lighting a fire on the Sabbath (Ex 35:3). References to light abound in Scripture. We read of the eye as a lamp (Mt 6:22-23; Lk 11:33-36) and of Christ as the Light of the World (Jn 8:12). We are warned to pay attention to teaching as to a light shining in the dark (Prv 6:23; 2 Pt 1:19). Both God and the spirit of man are symbolized as lamps (2 Sm 22:29; Prv 20:27), while in Proverbs 13:9 “lamp” is synonymous with the essence of life itself. Lamps, with or without stands, were also part of the Jewish ritual of death, mourning, and burial.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle housed an ornate golden lampstand, or menorah. On either side three branches came out from the main central stem, and seven lamps could be lighted in the flower-shaped holders. The menorah from the Jerusalem temple is represented in relief on the Arch of Titus in Rome. This particular seven-branched lampstand resembles the ten that were part of the furnishings of Solomon’s temple.<\/p>\n<p>The seven-branched lampstand has been a particular symbol of the Jewish faith from the time of its earliest appearance on a coin in the reign of Antigonus (40–37 <span>BC<\/span>) up to the present day.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Menorah.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LAMP, LAMPSTAND<\/h3>\n<p>Israelite lamps developed from those in general use among the Canaanites in the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>. Their shape was similar to a shell or saucer with a lip. Lamps of stone, metal, and shells were used, although the majority were made of pottery. A multitude of clay lamps, fashioned in a variety of designs, have been excavated in Palestine.<\/p>\n\n<p>The clay bowl was fashioned first, and the rim was folded over to help contain the oil. A spout was pinched in place at one end, into which the wick would be placed. When the clay had dried, the lamp would be fired to a dull brown shade. Gradually a style with an increasingly sharply pinched lip was developed. The wick was generally made of flax (Is 42:3, <span>kjv<\/span>), although an old piece of linen cloth was sometimes used. Salt could be added to the wick for a brighter flame, and frequently extra wicks were used. This led to the development of multispouted lamps like those found at Tell Dotha from 1200 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Olive oil provided the most common form of lamp fuel (Ex 27:20), and the average lamp could hold enough oil to burn through the night. Despite this, the housewife would have to get up several times to tend the wick and keep her precious lamp lit (Prv 31:18). Tongs were used for extinguishing the flame of a lamp in the tabernacle or temple (Ex 25:38; 37:23; Nm 4:9; 1 Kgs 7:49; Is 6:6). Since candles were not known in biblical times, the translation in the <span>kjv<\/span> is incorrect.<\/p>\n<p>The saucer lamp, which would have spilled easily, was not suitable for night travel, so a torch was probably used for that purpose (Jgs 7:16-20). In addition, the wick of the open saucer lamp could easily have blown out at night.<\/p>\n<p>Lamps were commonly found in burials along with food offerings. Because the lamp’s flame was associated with life, lamps were frequently placed in tombs as a symbol of life being rekindled.<\/p>\n<p>Although a more elaborate cup-and-saucer style of lamp was developed in which the flame came from the central area, the saucer lamp remained the most popular. The earliest Hellenistic lamp found in Palestine dates from 630 <span>BC<\/span> and already shows indications of the later covered model. During the sixth and fifth centuries <span>BC<\/span>, a flat-bottomed, saucer-style lamp was developed.<\/p>\n<p>In the third century <span>BC<\/span> the more elaborate wheel-made, covered Greek style took precedence. These lamps were often simple in design, rounded, with a central hole for the oil and one in the small spout for the wick.<\/p>\n<p>In the second century <span>BC<\/span> the wheel-made lamp was replaced by a molded ceramic lamp of finer design with a larger spout. Imported Egyptian lamps of this type have been found in southern Palestine. Multispouted lamps were probably used on festive occasions. From the same period comes the Hellenistic-influenced bronze lamp of a seated figure holding out a saucer lamp in his hands. At the end of the Hellenistic age the form of lamps deteriorated as the spouts became thick and squat.<\/p>\n<p>Small, round wheel-made lamps of simple design were prevalent in the time of Christ; this would be the type of lamp used by the woman searching the house for her gold coin (Lk 15:8). With wicks trimmed, the lamps of the foolish virgins would probably have lasted approximately five hours, from dark until about midnight (Mt 25:1-12).<\/p>\n<p>Jewish lamps were part of the religious symbolism of the home, probably dating back to the prohibition against lighting a fire on the Sabbath (Ex 35:3). References to light abound in Scripture. We read of the eye as a lamp (Mt 6:22-23; Lk 11:33-36) and of Christ as the Light of the World (Jn 8:12). We are warned to pay attention to teaching as to a light shining in the dark (Prv 6:23; 2 Pt 1:19). Both God and the spirit of man are symbolized as lamps (2 Sm 22:29; Prv 20:27), while in Proverbs 13:9 “lamp” is synonymous with the essence of life itself. Lamps, with or without stands, were also part of the Jewish ritual of death, mourning, and burial.<\/p>\n<p>The tabernacle housed an ornate golden lampstand, or menorah. On either side three branches came out from the main central stem, and seven lamps could be lighted in the flower-shaped holders. The menorah from the Jerusalem temple is represented in relief on the Arch of Titus in Rome. This particular seven-branched lampstand resembles the ten that were part of the furnishings of Solomon’s temple.<\/p>\n<p>The seven-branched lampstand has been a particular symbol of the Jewish faith from the time of its earliest appearance on a coin in the reign of Antigonus (40–37 <span>BC<\/span>) up to the present day.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Menorah.<\/p>","summary_ro":"LAMP, LAMPSTAND Israelite lamps developed from those in general use among the Canaanites in the second millennium BC. Their shape was similar to a shell or saucer with a lip. Lamps of stone, metal, and shells were used, although the majority were made of pottery. A multitude of clay lamps, fashioned in a variety of designs, have been excavated in Palestine. The clay bowl was fashioned first, and the rim was folded over to help contain the oil. A spout was pinched in place at one end, into whi...","summary_en":"LAMP, LAMPSTAND Israelite lamps developed from those in general use among the Canaanites in the second millennium BC. Their shape was similar to a shell or saucer with a lip. Lamps of stone, metal, and shells were used, although the majority were made of pottery. A multitude of clay lamps, fashioned in a variety of designs, have been excavated in Palestine. The clay bowl was fashioned first, and the rim was folded over to help contain the oil. A spout was pinched in place at one end, into whi...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":25091,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Menorah*","title_en":"Menorah*","content_ro":"<h3>MENORAH*<\/h3>\n<p>Lamp or lampstand in the tabernacle. It refers to the seven-branched lamp (candelabrum) that was to lighten the tabernacle: these seven lamps gave light in front of the lampstand (Nm 8:2). In Solomon’s temple there were ten such lampstands, five on each side before the inner sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:49). The design of the original lamp was conceived by Bezalel, the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, a man filled with the Spirit of God who was an excellent craftsmen (Ex 31:1-4). Bezalel was also responsible for designing the other utensils for the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Exodus 25:31-40 and 37:17-24 provide us with details regarding the lamp and its decorations. Made of a single piece of pure gold and ornamented with almond flowers and knobs in the shape of apples, it consisted of a central shaft branching out into three arms on either side. Each branch was surmounted with a cup narrowed into a lip to hold the wick and the special olive oil.<\/p>\n\n<p>Archaeologists have dug up clay bowls with seven spouts, which date back to the middle Bronze Period. According to Josephus, the central shaft was fixed to a base, and from it extended slender branches placed like prongs of a trident—with the end of each one forged into a lamp. Josephus’s account of the temple lamp tallies well with that of Zechariah in his vision of the restored temple after the exile (Zec 4:2-3). Several facsimiles have come down to us from archaeological finds, as well as the famous sculpture of the menorah with some of the other temple vessels on the Arch of Titus in Rome. The menorah on the panel in Rome differs from Josephus’s description, being a massive object with thick arms carried by five men on either side.<\/p>\n<p>According to Exodus 37:24, the weight of the menorah was one <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kikar<\/span> in pure gold. This equals a Babylonian talent, which is computed to weigh 34 kilograms (or 75 pounds). But from Exodus 25:39 it would appear that this weight included accessories, such as snuffers, trays, etc. (cf. 2 Chr 4:22). There is also another discrepancy regarding the base of the lamp. On the panel of Titus’s Arch the pedestal consists of two tiers and is rectangular, whereas archaeologists have uncovered ancient designs of the lamp that end in a tripod. Scholars are undecided which is the more original, and there are several theories to explain the difference. In Jewish mystical lore the menorah symbolizes the tree of life, the seven planets, and the seven days of creation.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the lampstand in the book of Revelation is a carryover of the temple tradition, with special reference to Zechariah 4:2, 11. By an association of ideas it refers to the witness of the seven churches, to Christ who is the Light of the World, and to God, who is the source of all light (Rv 1:12-13, 20; 2:1; 11:4).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MENORAH*<\/h3>\n<p>Lamp or lampstand in the tabernacle. It refers to the seven-branched lamp (candelabrum) that was to lighten the tabernacle: these seven lamps gave light in front of the lampstand (Nm 8:2). In Solomon’s temple there were ten such lampstands, five on each side before the inner sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:49). The design of the original lamp was conceived by Bezalel, the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, a man filled with the Spirit of God who was an excellent craftsmen (Ex 31:1-4). Bezalel was also responsible for designing the other utensils for the tabernacle.<\/p>\n<p>Exodus 25:31-40 and 37:17-24 provide us with details regarding the lamp and its decorations. Made of a single piece of pure gold and ornamented with almond flowers and knobs in the shape of apples, it consisted of a central shaft branching out into three arms on either side. Each branch was surmounted with a cup narrowed into a lip to hold the wick and the special olive oil.<\/p>\n\n<p>Archaeologists have dug up clay bowls with seven spouts, which date back to the middle Bronze Period. According to Josephus, the central shaft was fixed to a base, and from it extended slender branches placed like prongs of a trident—with the end of each one forged into a lamp. Josephus’s account of the temple lamp tallies well with that of Zechariah in his vision of the restored temple after the exile (Zec 4:2-3). Several facsimiles have come down to us from archaeological finds, as well as the famous sculpture of the menorah with some of the other temple vessels on the Arch of Titus in Rome. The menorah on the panel in Rome differs from Josephus’s description, being a massive object with thick arms carried by five men on either side.<\/p>\n<p>According to Exodus 37:24, the weight of the menorah was one <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">kikar<\/span> in pure gold. This equals a Babylonian talent, which is computed to weigh 34 kilograms (or 75 pounds). But from Exodus 25:39 it would appear that this weight included accessories, such as snuffers, trays, etc. (cf. 2 Chr 4:22). There is also another discrepancy regarding the base of the lamp. On the panel of Titus’s Arch the pedestal consists of two tiers and is rectangular, whereas archaeologists have uncovered ancient designs of the lamp that end in a tripod. Scholars are undecided which is the more original, and there are several theories to explain the difference. In Jewish mystical lore the menorah symbolizes the tree of life, the seven planets, and the seven days of creation.<\/p>\n<p>In the NT the lampstand in the book of Revelation is a carryover of the temple tradition, with special reference to Zechariah 4:2, 11. By an association of ideas it refers to the witness of the seven churches, to Christ who is the Light of the World, and to God, who is the source of all light (Rv 1:12-13, 20; 2:1; 11:4).<\/p>","summary_ro":"MENORAH* Lamp or lampstand in the tabernacle. It refers to the seven-branched lamp (candelabrum) that was to lighten the tabernacle: these seven lamps gave light in front of the lampstand (Nm 8:2). In Solomon’s temple there were ten such lampstands, five on each side before the inner sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:49). The design of the original lamp was conceived by Bezalel, the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, a man filled with the Spirit of God who was an excellent craftsmen ...","summary_en":"MENORAH* Lamp or lampstand in the tabernacle. It refers to the seven-branched lamp (candelabrum) that was to lighten the tabernacle: these seven lamps gave light in front of the lampstand (Nm 8:2). In Solomon’s temple there were ten such lampstands, five on each side before the inner sanctuary (1 Kgs 7:49). The design of the original lamp was conceived by Bezalel, the son of Uri and the grandson of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, a man filled with the Spirit of God who was an excellent craftsmen ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"50":[{"id":46939,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:50","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:50","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:50-51<\/strong> The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:50-51<\/strong> The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:50-51 The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).","summary_en":"7:50-51 The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":74565,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:50","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:50","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:50-51<\/strong> The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:50-51<\/strong> The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:50-51 The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).","summary_en":"7:50-51 The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":102191,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:50","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:50","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:50-51<\/strong> The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:50-51<\/strong> The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:50-51 The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).","summary_en":"7:50-51 The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":129817,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: 1 Împărați 7:50","title_en":"Study Note: 1 Împărați 7:50","content_ro":"<p><strong>7:50-51<\/strong> The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>7:50-51<\/strong> The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"7:50-51 The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).","summary_en":"7:50-51 The writer emphasizes Solomon’s abundant use of gold in furnishing the Temple. David and the people had collected an enormous amount of gold to be used for the Temple (1 Chr 29:1-9), and Solomon also amassed gold annually (1 Kgs 10:14), so he had a ready supply (see 10:21).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"51":[{"id":62114,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\n<p>The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 <span>BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\n<p>This joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\n<p>The dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\n<p>The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 <span>BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\n<p>This joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\n<p>The dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89740,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\n<p>The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 <span>BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\n<p>This joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\n<p>The dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\n<p>The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 <span>BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\n<p>This joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\n<p>The dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117366,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\n<p>The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 <span>BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\n<p>This joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\n<p>The dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\n<p>The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 <span>BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\n<p>This joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\n<p>The dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144992,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple","title_en":"Completion of the Second Temple","content_ro":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\n<p>The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 <span>BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\n<p>This joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\n<p>The dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Completion of the Second Temple<\/h3>\n<p>The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 <span>BC<\/span>, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After seventy years of estrangement from God, the covenant community was now restored.<\/p>\n<p>This joyous event did not come without difficulty. With God’s help, the returned exiles overcame sixteen years of opposition from the people who had inhabited their land and from Persian officials. Although their enemies made every attempt to discourage them, the Israelites completed the job of rebuilding the Temple and reestablishing worship through patience, persistence, and strong prophetic encouragement (Ezra 5:1-5; 6:14).<\/p>\n<p>The dedication of the Temple demonstrates that God can accomplish his will through a small group of people who set their priorities on pleasing him and who trust him to provide the resources to fulfill his promises (see Hag 2:6-9). Instead of focusing on what little they had, the people of God trusted in what he could provide. They were dedicated to glorifying God and maintaining their relationship with him. God proved that he was sovereignly in control of nations and could change the hearts of the leaders of those nations to accomplish his will (Ezra 5:5; 6:6-12, 22).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 40:1-38; 1 Kgs 7:51–9:9; Ezra 6:14-22; Hag 1:8; 2:7-8; Zech 4:1-10; Rev 21:1-27<\/p>","summary_ro":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","summary_en":"Completion of the Second Temple The dedication of Israel’s second Temple on March 12, 515 BC, was the most significant event in the lives of those who returned from Babylonian exile. Now they could worship and praise God in the same way their ancestors had worshiped before the Exile, and God’s requirements for covenant relationship with him could be fulfilled. The high priest could go into God’s presence to sprinkle the blood once a year on the Day of Atonement for the nation’s sins. After se...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
1 Împărați 7
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse
Muzică de relaxareSelectează o piesă
0:00
Redare audio
0 piese
🍪 Folosim cookie-uri
Folosim cookie-uri esențiale pentru funcționarea platformei și cookie-uri de analiză pentru a îmbunătăți experiența ta.
Află mai multe
✝️
Logosasistentul Biserica Online
✝️
Bine ai venit! 👋
Sunt Logos, prietenul tău spiritual. Începe conversația — te ascult cu drag! ✨