Ezechiel 41
1 M-a dus în Templu. A măsurat stâlpii; aveau o lăţime de şase coţi deoparte, şi o lăţime de şase coţi de alta-aceasta este lăţimea stâlpilor.
2 Lăţimea uşii era de zece coţi; iar canaturile uşii erau laţi de cinci coţi deoparte, şi cinci coţi de cealaltă parte. A măsurat şi lungimea Templului: patruzeci de coţi, şi lăţimea: douăzeci de coţi.
3 Apoi a intrat înlăuntru. A măsurat uşiorii uşii: doi coţi, uşa şase coţi, şi lăţimea uşii, şapte coţi.
4 Pe partea dinainte a Templului a măsurat în lungime douăzeci de coţi şi în lăţime douăzeci de coţi; şi mi-a zis: ,,Acesta este Locul prea sfânt!``
5 A măsurat zidul casei: gros de şase coţi, şi lăţimea odăilor lăturalnice de jur împrejurul casei, patru coţi.
6 Odăile lăturalnice erau unele peste altele, în număr de treizeci, aşezate în trei caturi; ele dădeau în nişte îmbucături de zid făcute anume pentru odăile acestea din jur împrejurul casei, aşa că se sprijineau pe ele, şi nu pe zidul casei.
7 Odăile, cu cât erau mai sus, cu atât erau mai încăpătoare, şi te suiai la ele ocolind; căci te suiai împrejurul casei pe o scară şerpuitoare. Astfel era mai mult loc, ca lărgime, în partea de sus a casei, şi din catul de jos te suiai în catul de sus prin cel dela mijloc.
8 De jur împrejurul casei se vedea o pardoseală ieşită în afară. Odăile lăturalnice aveau nişte temelii, şi erau de o prăjină întreagă, adică şase coţi la unghiu.
9 Zidul de afară al odăilor lăturalnice avea o grosime de cinci coţi.
10 Locul gol dintre odăile lăturalnice ale casei şi odăile dimprejurul casei, avea o lăţime de două zeci de coţi, de jur împrejur.
11 Uşa odăilor lăturalnice dădea în locul gol: o uşă la miază noapte, şi o uşă la miază zi; şi lărgimea locului gol era de cinci coţi de jur împrejur.
12 Clădirea din faţa locului gol, din partea de apus, avea o lăţime de şaptezeci de coţi, un zid de cinci coţi de gros de jur împrejur, şi era lung de nouăzeci de coţi.
13 A măsurat şi casa, care avea o lungime de o sută de coţi. Locul gol, clădirea şi zidurile sale, aveau de asemenea o lungime de o sută de coţi.
14 Lăţimea feţei casei şi a locului gol, din spre răsărit, era de o sută de coţi.
15 A măsurat lungimea clădirii dinaintea locului gol, pe partea dinapoi a casei, şi pridvoarele ei de fiecare parte: erau o sută de coţi.
16 Templul şi casa dinlăuntru, tinda de afară, pragurile, ferestrele îngrădite, pridvoarele din jurul celor trei caturi, din faţa pragurilor, erau acoperite cu lemn de jurâmprejur. Dela pământ până la ferestrele acoperite,
17 până deasupra uşii, partea dinlăuntrul casei, partea de afară, tot zidul de jur împrejurul casei din lăuntru şi din afară, totul era după măsură,
18 şi împodobit cu heruvimi şi finici. Între doi heruvimi era un finic. Fiecare heruvim avea două feţe,
19 o faţă de om întoarsă spre un finic deoparte, şi o faţă de leu întoarsă spre celalt finic, de cealaltă parte; aşa era de jur împrejurul casei.
20 Dela pământ până deasupra uşii, erau heruvimi şi finici, şi tot aşa şi pe zidul Templului.
21 Uşiorii Templului era în patru muchi. Şi în faţa Locului prea sfânt erau ceva care se vedea
22 ca un altar de lemn, înalt de trei coţi, lung de doi coţi şi lat de doi coţi. Colţurile, temelia, şi pereţii lui erau de lemn. Omul acela mi-a zis: ,,Aceasta este masa care este înaintea Domnului!
23 Templul şi Locul prea sfânt aveau două uşi.
24 Fiecare uşă avea două canaturi, cari se întorceau amândouă pe uşi, două canaturi pentru o uşă şi două pentru cealaltă.
25 Pe uşile Templului erau săpaţi heruvimi şi finici, ca şi pe ziduri. În faţa pridvorului de afară erau nişte grinzi de lemn îmbucate între ele.
26 Erau ferestre îngrădite, şi deoparte şi de cealaltă erau finici, şi tot aşa era şi pe laturile pridvorului, pe odăile lăturalnice şi pe grinzile de sus.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":53347,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:1-2<\/strong> The Temple <em>walls<\/em> were <em>10½ feet<\/em> <em>thick<\/em><em>,<\/em> but here the gates could be replaced by a <em>doorway<\/em> because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:1-2<\/strong> The Temple <em>walls<\/em> were <em>10½ feet<\/em> <em>thick<\/em><em>,<\/em> but here the gates could be replaced by a <em>doorway<\/em> because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:1-2 The Temple walls were 10½ feet thick, but here the gates could be replaced by a doorway because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.","summary_en":"41:1-2 The Temple walls were 10½ feet thick, but here the gates could be replaced by a doorway because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80973,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:1-2<\/strong> The Temple <em>walls<\/em> were <em>10½ feet<\/em> <em>thick<\/em><em>,<\/em> but here the gates could be replaced by a <em>doorway<\/em> because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:1-2<\/strong> The Temple <em>walls<\/em> were <em>10½ feet<\/em> <em>thick<\/em><em>,<\/em> but here the gates could be replaced by a <em>doorway<\/em> because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:1-2 The Temple walls were 10½ feet thick, but here the gates could be replaced by a doorway because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.","summary_en":"41:1-2 The Temple walls were 10½ feet thick, but here the gates could be replaced by a doorway because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108599,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:1-2<\/strong> The Temple <em>walls<\/em> were <em>10½ feet<\/em> <em>thick<\/em><em>,<\/em> but here the gates could be replaced by a <em>doorway<\/em> because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:1-2<\/strong> The Temple <em>walls<\/em> were <em>10½ feet<\/em> <em>thick<\/em><em>,<\/em> but here the gates could be replaced by a <em>doorway<\/em> because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:1-2 The Temple walls were 10½ feet thick, but here the gates could be replaced by a doorway because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.","summary_en":"41:1-2 The Temple walls were 10½ feet thick, but here the gates could be replaced by a doorway because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136225,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:1-2<\/strong> The Temple <em>walls<\/em> were <em>10½ feet<\/em> <em>thick<\/em><em>,<\/em> but here the gates could be replaced by a <em>doorway<\/em> because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:1-2<\/strong> The Temple <em>walls<\/em> were <em>10½ feet<\/em> <em>thick<\/em><em>,<\/em> but here the gates could be replaced by a <em>doorway<\/em> because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:1-2 The Temple walls were 10½ feet thick, but here the gates could be replaced by a doorway because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.","summary_en":"41:1-2 The Temple walls were 10½ feet thick, but here the gates could be replaced by a doorway because only the priests would have access to the surrounding inner court. The sanctuary was the most important space in the new Temple, so it is described in the most detail and with the most precise measurements.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":53348,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:3-4<\/strong> The <em>inner room<\/em> was the <em>Most Holy Place<\/em>, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and measured it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:3-4<\/strong> The <em>inner room<\/em> was the <em>Most Holy Place<\/em>, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and measured it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:3-4 The inner room was the Most Holy Place, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and mea...","summary_en":"41:3-4 The inner room was the Most Holy Place, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and mea...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80974,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:3-4<\/strong> The <em>inner room<\/em> was the <em>Most Holy Place<\/em>, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and measured it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:3-4<\/strong> The <em>inner room<\/em> was the <em>Most Holy Place<\/em>, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and measured it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:3-4 The inner room was the Most Holy Place, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and mea...","summary_en":"41:3-4 The inner room was the Most Holy Place, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and mea...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108600,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:3-4<\/strong> The <em>inner room<\/em> was the <em>Most Holy Place<\/em>, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and measured it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:3-4<\/strong> The <em>inner room<\/em> was the <em>Most Holy Place<\/em>, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and measured it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:3-4 The inner room was the Most Holy Place, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and mea...","summary_en":"41:3-4 The inner room was the Most Holy Place, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and mea...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136226,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:3-4<\/strong> The <em>inner room<\/em> was the <em>Most Holy Place<\/em>, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and measured it.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:3-4<\/strong> The <em>inner room<\/em> was the <em>Most Holy Place<\/em>, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and measured it.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:3-4 The inner room was the Most Holy Place, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and mea...","summary_en":"41:3-4 The inner room was the Most Holy Place, the only square space within the Temple. It was reached by passing through three openings of decreasing width—access was increasingly restricted as one approached God. The entrance to the entry room was 24½ feet wide (40:48), and the doorway into the sanctuary was 17½ feet wide (41:2), but the entrance to the Most Holy Place was only 10½ feet wide. Ezekiel did not enter the Most Holy Place, but waited outside while the angel went in alone and mea...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":53349,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:5-26<\/strong> Around the Temple building were ninety <em>side rooms<\/em> on three levels. To the rear was a <em>large building<\/em> of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:5-26<\/strong> Around the Temple building were ninety <em>side rooms<\/em> on three levels. To the rear was a <em>large building<\/em> of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:5-26 Around the Temple building were ninety side rooms on three levels. To the rear was a large building of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.","summary_en":"41:5-26 Around the Temple building were ninety side rooms on three levels. To the rear was a large building of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80975,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:5-26<\/strong> Around the Temple building were ninety <em>side rooms<\/em> on three levels. To the rear was a <em>large building<\/em> of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:5-26<\/strong> Around the Temple building were ninety <em>side rooms<\/em> on three levels. To the rear was a <em>large building<\/em> of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:5-26 Around the Temple building were ninety side rooms on three levels. To the rear was a large building of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.","summary_en":"41:5-26 Around the Temple building were ninety side rooms on three levels. To the rear was a large building of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108601,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:5-26<\/strong> Around the Temple building were ninety <em>side rooms<\/em> on three levels. To the rear was a <em>large building<\/em> of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:5-26<\/strong> Around the Temple building were ninety <em>side rooms<\/em> on three levels. To the rear was a <em>large building<\/em> of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:5-26 Around the Temple building were ninety side rooms on three levels. To the rear was a large building of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.","summary_en":"41:5-26 Around the Temple building were ninety side rooms on three levels. To the rear was a large building of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136227,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:5-26<\/strong> Around the Temple building were ninety <em>side rooms<\/em> on three levels. To the rear was a <em>large building<\/em> of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:5-26<\/strong> Around the Temple building were ninety <em>side rooms<\/em> on three levels. To the rear was a <em>large building<\/em> of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:5-26 Around the Temple building were ninety side rooms on three levels. To the rear was a large building of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.","summary_en":"41:5-26 Around the Temple building were ninety side rooms on three levels. To the rear was a large building of unspecified purpose that might have protected the back of the Temple from unauthorized access. No one was permitted to approach God’s presence from behind. The side rooms might have been designed to store priestly clothing and equipment.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":36949,"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}],"15":[{"id":53350,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:15-20<\/strong> The Temple building was <em>all paneled with wood<\/em> and decorated with palm trees and <em>cherubim<\/em>. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbols of judgment that complemented the palm trees, traditional symbols of blessing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:15-20<\/strong> The Temple building was <em>all paneled with wood<\/em> and decorated with palm trees and <em>cherubim<\/em>. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbols of judgment that complemented the palm trees, traditional symbols of blessing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:15-20 The Temple building was all paneled with wood and decorated with palm trees and cherubim. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbo...","summary_en":"41:15-20 The Temple building was all paneled with wood and decorated with palm trees and cherubim. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbo...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80976,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:15-20<\/strong> The Temple building was <em>all paneled with wood<\/em> and decorated with palm trees and <em>cherubim<\/em>. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbols of judgment that complemented the palm trees, traditional symbols of blessing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:15-20<\/strong> The Temple building was <em>all paneled with wood<\/em> and decorated with palm trees and <em>cherubim<\/em>. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbols of judgment that complemented the palm trees, traditional symbols of blessing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:15-20 The Temple building was all paneled with wood and decorated with palm trees and cherubim. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbo...","summary_en":"41:15-20 The Temple building was all paneled with wood and decorated with palm trees and cherubim. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbo...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108602,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:15-20<\/strong> The Temple building was <em>all paneled with wood<\/em> and decorated with palm trees and <em>cherubim<\/em>. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbols of judgment that complemented the palm trees, traditional symbols of blessing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:15-20<\/strong> The Temple building was <em>all paneled with wood<\/em> and decorated with palm trees and <em>cherubim<\/em>. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbols of judgment that complemented the palm trees, traditional symbols of blessing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:15-20 The Temple building was all paneled with wood and decorated with palm trees and cherubim. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbo...","summary_en":"41:15-20 The Temple building was all paneled with wood and decorated with palm trees and cherubim. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbo...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136228,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:15","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:15","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:15-20<\/strong> The Temple building was <em>all paneled with wood<\/em> and decorated with palm trees and <em>cherubim<\/em>. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbols of judgment that complemented the palm trees, traditional symbols of blessing.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:15-20<\/strong> The Temple building was <em>all paneled with wood<\/em> and decorated with palm trees and <em>cherubim<\/em>. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbols of judgment that complemented the palm trees, traditional symbols of blessing.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:15-20 The Temple building was all paneled with wood and decorated with palm trees and cherubim. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbo...","summary_en":"41:15-20 The Temple building was all paneled with wood and decorated with palm trees and cherubim. The cherubim were like those described in Ezekiel’s earlier visions of judgment (see 1:5-12; 10:2-14). But where those real-life cherubim had four faces, the carved two-dimensional models are depicted with only two faces—that of a lion, the highest of the wild animals, and a human, the pinnacle of the created order. Cherubim also adorned Solomon’s Temple (1 Kgs 6:32); they were traditional symbo...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"17":[{"id":6288,"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}],"18":[{"id":1618,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Angel","title_en":"Angel","content_ro":"<h3>ANGEL<\/h3>\n<p>Messenger of God or supernatural being, either good or evil, with powers greater than humans possess.<\/p>\n<p>The first kind of angels mentioned in the Bible are cherubim (plural of “cherub,” a Hebrew word). They were celestial beings sent by God to guard the tree of life in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24). They were represented symbolically on the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:18-22), in the tabernacle (Ex 26:31) and temple (2 Chr 3:7), and seen by the prophet Ezekiel in a vision of the restored Jerusalem (Ez 41:18-20). Two angels, Gabriel and the chief, or archangel, Michael, are named in the Bible (Dn 8:16; 9:21; 10:13; Lk 1:19, 26; Jude 1:9; Rv 12:7-9).<\/p>\n\n<p>In the Bible, angels are spiritual beings who serve primarily as messengers. The English word “angel” comes directly from a Greek word for messenger. In Luke 9:52, Jesus sent “messengers” ahead of him. Usually the same word is translated “angel” and is understood to mean a spiritual messenger from God. In the OT also, one Hebrew word can refer either to a human messenger or to a spiritual being. It is not always immediately clear which is meant, especially since angels sometimes appeared in human form. In certain passages, “the angel of God” or a similar phrase may refer to God delivering his own message (see Gn 18:2-15).<\/p>\n<p>Angels appeared to many of God’s people in the Bible to announce good news (Jgs 13:3), warn of danger (Gn 19:15), guard from evil (Dn 3:28; 6:22), guide and protect (Ex 14:19), nourish (Gn 21:14-20; 1 Kgs 19:4-7), or instruct (Acts 7:38; Gal 3:19). When Christ came to earth as the Savior, angels heralded his birth (Lk 2:8-15), guided and warned his parents (Mt 2:13), strengthened him when he was tempted (Mt 4:11) and in his last distress (Lk 22:43-44 in some manuscripts), and observed his resurrection (Mt 28:1-6). Jesus spoke about the guardian angels of little children (Mt 18:10). Philip was guided by an angel (Acts 8:26). Apostles were rescued from prison by an angel (Acts 5:19; 12:7-11). In a frightening situation, the apostle Paul was encouraged by an angel (Acts 27:21-25).<\/p>\n\n<p>The physical appearance of angels in biblical encounters was often unusual enough to distinguish them from ordinary people. The angel who moved the stone from the entrance to Jesus’ tomb had an appearance like lightning and raiment white as snow (Mt 28:3). Many passages about angels are descriptions of dreams or visions. “Jacob’s ladder” with angels ascending and descending (Gn 28:12) is an example. In another dream an angel spoke to Jacob (Gn 31:11). An angel appeared to Cornelius in a vision (Acts 10:1-3). Major passages of this type include Isaiah 6 (the seraphim), much of the book of Ezekiel (the cherubim), and much of Daniel and Zechariah. In the NT, over a third of the references to angels are in the book of Revelation. In most cases there, the angelic beings are glorious or grotesque figures seen in visions and are not to be confused with human persons. The language describing such visions is appropriately mystical, or at least metaphorical and difficult to interpret.<\/p>\n<p>Angelology, or the doctrine of angels, is not a major theme in Christian theology in spite of the many references to angels in the Bible. Angels are included in descriptions of all that God created (Ps 148:2; Col 1:16). There are hints that they witnessed the creation of the world (Jb 38:7). No matter how close to God angels may be, they share with humankind the status of creatures. But as wholly spiritual creatures they are free from many human limitations, such as death (Lk 20:36). They do not marry (Mt 22:30), so they could be regarded as sexless. In all their appearances, angels in human form were taken to be men, never women or children. Their ability to communicate in human language and to affect human life in other ways is basic to their role in the Bible. Their power and awesome appearance (Mt 28:2-4) sometimes tempted people to fear or worship them, but the NT does not condone the worship of angels (Col 2:18; Rv 22:8-9). Though angels are stronger and wiser than human beings, their power and knowledge are also limited by God (Ps 103:20; Mt 24:36; 1 Pt 1:11-12; 2 Pt 2:11). <em>See<\/em> Cherub, Cherubim; Seraph, Seraphim; Demon; Demon-possession; Satan.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ANGEL<\/h3>\n<p>Messenger of God or supernatural being, either good or evil, with powers greater than humans possess.<\/p>\n<p>The first kind of angels mentioned in the Bible are cherubim (plural of “cherub,” a Hebrew word). They were celestial beings sent by God to guard the tree of life in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24). They were represented symbolically on the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:18-22), in the tabernacle (Ex 26:31) and temple (2 Chr 3:7), and seen by the prophet Ezekiel in a vision of the restored Jerusalem (Ez 41:18-20). Two angels, Gabriel and the chief, or archangel, Michael, are named in the Bible (Dn 8:16; 9:21; 10:13; Lk 1:19, 26; Jude 1:9; Rv 12:7-9).<\/p>\n\n<p>In the Bible, angels are spiritual beings who serve primarily as messengers. The English word “angel” comes directly from a Greek word for messenger. In Luke 9:52, Jesus sent “messengers” ahead of him. Usually the same word is translated “angel” and is understood to mean a spiritual messenger from God. In the OT also, one Hebrew word can refer either to a human messenger or to a spiritual being. It is not always immediately clear which is meant, especially since angels sometimes appeared in human form. In certain passages, “the angel of God” or a similar phrase may refer to God delivering his own message (see Gn 18:2-15).<\/p>\n<p>Angels appeared to many of God’s people in the Bible to announce good news (Jgs 13:3), warn of danger (Gn 19:15), guard from evil (Dn 3:28; 6:22), guide and protect (Ex 14:19), nourish (Gn 21:14-20; 1 Kgs 19:4-7), or instruct (Acts 7:38; Gal 3:19). When Christ came to earth as the Savior, angels heralded his birth (Lk 2:8-15), guided and warned his parents (Mt 2:13), strengthened him when he was tempted (Mt 4:11) and in his last distress (Lk 22:43-44 in some manuscripts), and observed his resurrection (Mt 28:1-6). Jesus spoke about the guardian angels of little children (Mt 18:10). Philip was guided by an angel (Acts 8:26). Apostles were rescued from prison by an angel (Acts 5:19; 12:7-11). In a frightening situation, the apostle Paul was encouraged by an angel (Acts 27:21-25).<\/p>\n\n<p>The physical appearance of angels in biblical encounters was often unusual enough to distinguish them from ordinary people. The angel who moved the stone from the entrance to Jesus’ tomb had an appearance like lightning and raiment white as snow (Mt 28:3). Many passages about angels are descriptions of dreams or visions. “Jacob’s ladder” with angels ascending and descending (Gn 28:12) is an example. In another dream an angel spoke to Jacob (Gn 31:11). An angel appeared to Cornelius in a vision (Acts 10:1-3). Major passages of this type include Isaiah 6 (the seraphim), much of the book of Ezekiel (the cherubim), and much of Daniel and Zechariah. In the NT, over a third of the references to angels are in the book of Revelation. In most cases there, the angelic beings are glorious or grotesque figures seen in visions and are not to be confused with human persons. The language describing such visions is appropriately mystical, or at least metaphorical and difficult to interpret.<\/p>\n<p>Angelology, or the doctrine of angels, is not a major theme in Christian theology in spite of the many references to angels in the Bible. Angels are included in descriptions of all that God created (Ps 148:2; Col 1:16). There are hints that they witnessed the creation of the world (Jb 38:7). No matter how close to God angels may be, they share with humankind the status of creatures. But as wholly spiritual creatures they are free from many human limitations, such as death (Lk 20:36). They do not marry (Mt 22:30), so they could be regarded as sexless. In all their appearances, angels in human form were taken to be men, never women or children. Their ability to communicate in human language and to affect human life in other ways is basic to their role in the Bible. Their power and awesome appearance (Mt 28:2-4) sometimes tempted people to fear or worship them, but the NT does not condone the worship of angels (Col 2:18; Rv 22:8-9). Though angels are stronger and wiser than human beings, their power and knowledge are also limited by God (Ps 103:20; Mt 24:36; 1 Pt 1:11-12; 2 Pt 2:11). <em>See<\/em> Cherub, Cherubim; Seraph, Seraphim; Demon; Demon-possession; Satan.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ANGEL Messenger of God or supernatural being, either good or evil, with powers greater than humans possess. The first kind of angels mentioned in the Bible are cherubim (plural of “cherub,” a Hebrew word). They were celestial beings sent by God to guard the tree of life in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24). They were represented symbolically on the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:18-22), in the tabernacle (Ex 26:31) and temple (2 Chr 3:7), and seen by the prophet Ezekiel in a vision of the restored Jer...","summary_en":"ANGEL Messenger of God or supernatural being, either good or evil, with powers greater than humans possess. The first kind of angels mentioned in the Bible are cherubim (plural of “cherub,” a Hebrew word). They were celestial beings sent by God to guard the tree of life in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24). They were represented symbolically on the ark of the covenant (Ex 25:18-22), in the tabernacle (Ex 26:31) and temple (2 Chr 3:7), and seen by the prophet Ezekiel in a vision of the restored Jer...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6264,"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}],"22":[{"id":53351,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:22","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:22<\/strong> The only piece of furniture was an <em>altar made of wood<\/em>, <em>the table that stands in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em>. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:22<\/strong> The only piece of furniture was an <em>altar made of wood<\/em>, <em>the table that stands in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em>. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:22 The only piece of furniture was an altar made of wood, the table that stands in the Lord’s presence. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.","summary_en":"41:22 The only piece of furniture was an altar made of wood, the table that stands in the Lord’s presence. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":80977,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:22","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:22<\/strong> The only piece of furniture was an <em>altar made of wood<\/em>, <em>the table that stands in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em>. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:22<\/strong> The only piece of furniture was an <em>altar made of wood<\/em>, <em>the table that stands in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em>. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:22 The only piece of furniture was an altar made of wood, the table that stands in the Lord’s presence. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.","summary_en":"41:22 The only piece of furniture was an altar made of wood, the table that stands in the Lord’s presence. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":108603,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:22","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:22<\/strong> The only piece of furniture was an <em>altar made of wood<\/em>, <em>the table that stands in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em>. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:22<\/strong> The only piece of furniture was an <em>altar made of wood<\/em>, <em>the table that stands in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em>. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:22 The only piece of furniture was an altar made of wood, the table that stands in the Lord’s presence. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.","summary_en":"41:22 The only piece of furniture was an altar made of wood, the table that stands in the Lord’s presence. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":136229,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezechiel 41:22","title_en":"Study Note: Ezechiel 41:22","content_ro":"<p><strong>41:22<\/strong> The only piece of furniture was an <em>altar made of wood<\/em>, <em>the table that stands in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em>. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>41:22<\/strong> The only piece of furniture was an <em>altar made of wood<\/em>, <em>the table that stands in the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span><em>’s presence<\/em>. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"41:22 The only piece of furniture was an altar made of wood, the table that stands in the Lord’s presence. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.","summary_en":"41:22 The only piece of furniture was an altar made of wood, the table that stands in the Lord’s presence. This is presumably where the bread of the presence was daily laid out by the priests before the Lord (Exod 25:30). The description of this table as an altar highlights the focus on sacrifice in Ezekiel’s Temple.","source":"StudyNotes.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.
Ezechiel 41
— 26 versete
Ezechiel 41
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse