Difference between revisions of "Temple"

<p> While the temple certainly has a history and integrity of its own, it was created by extension of the tabernacle and is associated with such diverse topics as a mountain and a city, the cosmos and a person's body, and God's glory and name. The biblical authors from Moses through Ezekiel and Haggai to John of [[Patmos]] never describe a complete temple, but offer a vision of what the temple was to be: the locus of the presence of God. </p> <p> [[Offering]] a vision rather than a blueprint for the temple is in keeping with the inherent ambiguity of the concept "temple of the Lord, " for how can the transcendent deity be localized in a building? The vision is also in keeping with the function of temple as a symbol. The temple is indeterminate literally and figuratively. </p> <p> <i> The Preexistence of the Temple </i> . The foundation for temple is laid in the Pentateuch. [[Already]] in the patriarchs we find the promise of God's presence: "Do not be afraid, for I am with you, I will bless you" (&nbsp;Genesis 26:24 ). How and <i> where </i> will this presence be mediated? </p> <p> Although various locales were deemed sacred by virtue of God's presence (&nbsp;Genesis 32:30 ), patriarchal religion did not put much importance on sacred space or the cultic practices that typify [[Mosaic]] Yahwism. Nevertheless, in various forms of foreshadowing, we find the usual lines of continuity with later persons, events, institutions, and practices—Scripture's penchant for typology. Thus "Jerusalem, " where centralization of the cult eventually took place, figures prominently in two key texts that address "cultic" issues: in &nbsp;Genesis 22 with the "binding" (sacrifice) of Isaac ("Moriah" cf. &nbsp; 2 Chronicles 3:1 ) and in &nbsp;Genesis 14 with the tithe paid to Melchizedek. </p> <p> With Mosaic Yahwism a change in perspective and practice occurs. God appears to the newly created covenantal community, a community formed by the exodus and, now at [[Sinai]] (which parallels Jerusalem as a place par excellence for "visions" of God), given an identity, including instructions where Yahweh's presencewith the full implication of both blessing and dangerwould be manifest (&nbsp;Exodus 24-26; &nbsp;33:12-17 ). </p> <p> How would God's presence in the covenant community and ceremony be evident? Inevitably certain symbols were necessary (despite the aniconic nature of Mosaic Yahwism &nbsp;Exodus 20:4 ). The symbols appeal to the senses, but not simply as "visual aids." The ark, cherubim, and the tent of the meeting become the institutional representations of the Lord's presence among his people. Here, in this <i> place </i> , [[Yahweh]] appears and makes his will known (&nbsp;Exodus 33:7-11 ). </p> <p> The tent of the meeting in the Pentateuch, and the priestly tabernacle, is not, however, a projection (or retrojection!) of the temple, but an independent dwelling reflecting the life of Israel prior to settlement and the centralization of worship. The tent is a "portable temple" of sorts, but not provisional nor simply a pattern; rather, the tent is a unique "dwelling." </p> <p> With the ritual performances in the tabernacle/ temple complex, and the personnel and attendant appurtenances, we come to a theologically significant point about temple practice: coming into the presence of a holy God. In each change of location, vestment, instrument, or ritual act, with their various gradations of importance, the "needs" of the people and the holiness of God come together: I am holy, it is holy, you are (to be) holy. </p> <p> The extensions and the symbolic associations began early in the canonical literature. As a commentary on the Torah, Deuteronomy expresses the presence of Yahweh in the cult devoid of some simplistic equation of Yahweh's presence constrained by the natural order of cause and effect by utilizing his alter ego, his "name, " as the manifestation of his transcendent reality. Even the ark itself is divested of its throne-like setting by its role as the "container" of the tablets of the law (&nbsp;Deuteronomy 10:1-5 ). Yahweh is not seated on a throne like some dowager duchess. </p> <p> The paradoxical and symbolic nature of the temple is thus seen as the author(s) construct the parameters of temple theology: the transcendent deity graciously appears before his holy people in the <i> place </i> of his choosing, a dwelling symbolically rich by virtue of its ability to generate varied metaphoric associations (fire, cloud, tent, ark, and most especially "name" in the Pentateuch). </p> <p> <i> The Construction of the Temple </i> . The construction of the temple began with David to serve as, at least on sociopolitical grounds, a "media event" of divine support and favor. David, however, was deterred from completing the task. No doubt sociopolitical forces played their usual role in this. The biblical authors were not oblivious to these explanations (&nbsp;1 Kings 5:13-18 ), but characteristically pass theological judgment (&nbsp;1 Chronicles 22:8-9 ), or, more important, God himself divulges his feelings on the matter: "Did I ever say Why have you not built me a house of cedar'?" (&nbsp;2 Samuel 7:7 ). God does not <i> require </i> an immutable dwelling, but the metaphoric associations are kept open, even those of monarchal justification (i.e., a "house" like the house in which the monarch resides). </p> <p> The "cedar house" is ultimately built. And in Solomon's great prayer of dedication the paradox of this dwelling is acknowledged once again by his classic statement: "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!" (&nbsp;1 Kings 8:27 ). The paradox is softened by "quoting" the Deuteronomic "name" formula: "My Name shall be [in this place]" (v. 29). (This terminology underscores the point that the correspondence between God's presence and his "dwelling"tabernacle or templeis more "textual" than physical.) But what does the Lord <i> think </i> of this structure? </p> <p> Solomon, like [[Bezalel]] before him with the building of the tabernacle, is described as having "wisdom." Unlike Bezalel, however, Solomon sends straightaway for supplies and instructions from Phoenician artisans. Moreover, a labor force is needed to complete the project, a force not unlike what the Israelites experienced in Egypt. Finally, Solomon is portrayed as the central figure in the planning and implementation of the project: "As for this temple that <i> you </i> are building " (&nbsp; 1 Kings 6:12 ). No editorial judgment from the author is forthcoming from these contrasts, but the reader is left with the impression that Solomon's project is equivocal before God. </p> <p> The equivocal nature of the project is supported by the Lord's response to it in &nbsp;1 Kings 9:3-5 . The Lord does hallow the place, but it is still Solomon's doing: "I have <i> consecrated </i> this temple which <i> you </i> have built" (v. 3). A clear stipulation is also attached: "if you walk <i> before me </i> " (v. 4; the sanctity of the place must be preserved, at the very least). </p> <p> <i> [[Responses]] to the Temple </i> . What responses do we find in Scripture to the building of the temple beyond those found in the immediate context of it being built? </p> <p> Rather than "going up" to the mountain of the house of the Lord to hear the word of the Lord, as in the eschatological visions of Isaiah and Micah (4:1-2), the [[Babylonians]] "descend" upon the temple to break down its wall and carry off the temple treasures. After centuries of covenant disloyalty, the Lord withdraws his presence from this <i> place </i> (&nbsp; Ezekiel 10:18 ); in fact, he is driven from the temple because of the abominations of the people (&nbsp;Ezekiel 8:6 ). This destruction could be seen as one of the contingencies of history except for the interpretations put upon it; the theologian of Lamentations states the destruction of the temple in unequivocal terms: "The Lord <i> determined </i> to tear down the wall of the Daughter of Zion" (2:8). The destruction is purposed by God because the people failed to live <i> before him </i> . </p> <p> <i> Reconstructing the Temple </i> . High on the agenda of the postexilic community was the rebuilding of the temple. Indeed, it was not long before all their troubleswhich were manywere attributed to the disrepair, the virtual absence, of the dwelling of God (&nbsp;Haggai 1:3-9 ). The question must surely be asked: Why? Why, after a stern critique by the prophets, an outmaneuvering in the wisdom tradition, and its abandonment by God and destruction, would the people rebuild this structure? </p> <p> The most obvious and strongest answer is that the Lord commands its construction (&nbsp;Ezra 1:2 ). But a further answer lies in the theological sophistication of the biblical authors themselves and in the power of this symbol to go beyond mere structure. The means for rebuilding temple theology are present in the preexilic theology itself, the selfsame theology that so thoroughly critiqued an overly literal-minded approach to the presence of God. </p> <p> The temple was always symbolic, "textual" even before (and as much as) it was physical. To the extent that the metaphoric associations speak to the reality of our experience(s) before God, the symbol retains its power <i> as a symbol </i> . Although Jeremiah held little esteem for the ark/temple, he nevertheless prophesied that God's <i> throne </i> would be Jerusalem itself (3:17), and [[Torah]] would be written in their hearts (31:31-34). These extensions of the symbol are developed further in the New [[Testament]] (&nbsp;Revelation 21:22-27 : "I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple Nothing impure will ever enter it." ). The relativizing of the temple and moral earnestness that we see in Jeremiah were precisely the points of the Deuteronomic theology that influenced the short-lived reforms of Josiah. </p> <p> The most extensive view of the new temple comes from Ezekiel. The construction of the temple is once again more ideal than real. In Ezekiel's new temple a remarkable event takes place: water flows from the temple (in Jerusalem) with such abundance that it calls to mind the rivers of paradise (see also &nbsp;Psalm 46:4; &nbsp;Revelation 21:6 ). </p> <p> The Songs of Zion in the [[Psalter]] are particularly rich in their celebration of the temple. With all their "sensuality"the reader is instructed to "behold" the beauty of the temple; walk about it; clap and shout; smell; bow down; and other sense-oriented activitiesthe Songs show that one is not to ponder the temple simply as a theological abstraction. The one who enters the temple not only receives spiritual blessings but material ones as well (&nbsp;Psalm 36:7-9 ). </p> <p> While we do not find much by way of extensions of this symbol, its paradoxical and metaphoric nature are everywhere testified to in what takes place in the life of the communicant. The most powerful statement of this sort comes in &nbsp;Psalm 73 , where the psalmist cries out because his inherited beliefs are at odds with his personal experiences. Everything is "oppressive" (v. 16). "Till I entered the sanctuary of God " and what unfolds is a transformation of his character and his understanding of God. What happens in the sanctuary? It is, as it should be, unspecified. We are simply told at the end of the psalm that "as for me, it is good to be near God I will tell of all your deeds." </p> <p> In sum, by building the temple and by extending the metaphoric associations with temple, a continuity between the pre- and postexilic community was established (&nbsp;Ezra 1:7; &nbsp;Haggai 2:9 ). For all the critique of the temple, in the final analysis, Yahweh takes pleasure in this place and it is a source of delight for those who assemble there (&nbsp;Psalm 43:3-4; &nbsp;65:4; &nbsp;84:1 ). </p> <p> <i> Jesus, Paul, and [[Judaism]] </i> . In Judaism the temple was the religious, cultural, and national center; indeed, the temple was a microcosm of the universe. The power of the temple as a symbol is especially seen in its ability to continue long after the temple building itself was destroyed in a.d. 70. </p> <p> According to the Gospels, Jesus participated fully in the practices and ethos of the temple. Jesus' birth was announced in the temple (&nbsp;Luke 1:17; &nbsp;2:27-32 ), where he was also circumcised and studied with the rabbis as a lad (&nbsp;Luke 2:46 ). Later, of course, Jesus taught in the temple himself (&nbsp;John 7:14 ). It is not without significance that while Jesus is teaching in the temple precincts, he says, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me" (&nbsp;John 7:37 ), and the next day offers forgiveness to the woman taken in adultery (&nbsp;John 8:1-11 ). Blessing and forgiveness, priestly functions, are pronounced by Jesus in the shadow of the temple. </p> <p> Jesus is not only a communicant and priest of sorts; he is also a prophet. Thus, when the temple practices are compromised, Jesus assails those who jeopardize the sanctity of the temple: "My house will be called a house of prayer But you have made it a den of robbers" (&nbsp;Mark 11:17 ). They were not living <i> before God </i> . Jesus, while teaching in its precincts, preserves the sanctity of the temple by his ethical admonitions. Even the forgiven woman is told to sin no more (&nbsp;John 8:11; see also &nbsp;John 4:23 ). </p> <p> In the cleansing of the temple we also find a development and extension of the metaphoric associations of temple. Jesus employs a wordplay equivocating on the term "body" to break the parochial thinking of his audience (&nbsp;John 2:19 ). John characteristically points out the error of their literal-mindedness: "But the temple he had spoken of was his body" (&nbsp;John 2:21 ). Thus, in Jesus' acts and words we see the temple once again as a place of holiness, of danger (words of judgment; Jesus's own death) as well as blessing, and further extensions of the symbol are generated. </p> <p> Paul also makes the correspondence between the temple and body: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit?" (&nbsp;1 Corinthians 6:19; see also &nbsp;Romans 12:1-2 ). Of course, the believer can be called the temple of God only because Christ himself is the temple and the believer participates <i> in Christ </i> (&nbsp; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17 ). The believer, like Paul himself, must be (cultically) pure in order to live in God's presence (&nbsp;2 Corinthians 2:17 ). If God can dwell in a holy <i> place </i> , by extension, he could dwell in a holy person! </p> <p> After the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70, temple theology loses none of its living and healing power since the temple was always "beyond" its physical presence. A theology of temple answers the problem of how God's presence is mediated. Specifically, temple theology recognizes the importance of "sacred space." Its analogue is sacred timeSabbath, festivals, and appointed times of prayer. Humankind is oriented in time and space, thus [[Sabbath]] and temple testify to "eternity" beyond the confines of our usual orientation. Sabbath and temple redeem time and space. </p> <p> Temple theology shows a high degree of theological sophisticationholding ambivalent attitudes/doctrines in tension, part of the mystery of faith, of paradox. Temple theology is most fruitful when it is functioning as a powerful symbol, with the ability to be fully grounded in (sacred) space and yet generate new metaphoric associationsa vision of life in the presence of the Lord. Even though the temple is both protological and eschatological, it is always grounded in the realities of our lives: it is a mere edifice, yet, Behold! [[Thy]] God. </p> <p> [[Anthony]] J. Petrotta </p> <p> <i> See also </i> [[Altar]]; Israel; [[Offerings And Sacrifices]]; [[Priesthood Priest]]; Tabernacle </p> <p> <i> Bibliography </i> . B. Childs, <i> Old Testament [[Theology]] in a Canonical Context </i> ; R. E. Clements, <i> God and Temple </i> ; idem, <i> Wisdom for a [[Changing]] World </i> ; R. H. Gundry, [[Soma]] <i> in Biblical Theology </i> ; M. Haran, <i> [[Temples]] and Temple [[Service]] in [[Ancient]] Israel </i> ; A. J. Heschel, <i> [[Quest]] for God </i> ; A. F. Kirkpatrick, <i> The Book of Psalms </i> ; M. E. Isaacs, <i> An [[Approach]] to the Theology of the [[Epistle]] to the Hebrews </i> ; G. Josipovici, <i> The Book of God </i> ; K. Koch, <i> The Prophets: The [[Assyrian]] Period </i> ; C. Koester, <i> The [[Dwelling]] of God </i> ; H. J. Kraus, <i> The Theology of the Psalms </i> ; J. D. Levenson, <i> Sinai and Zion </i> ; J. G. McConville, <i> Law and Theology in Deuteronomy </i> ; W. McKane, <i> ZAW </i> 94 (1982): 251-66; D. H. Madvig, <i> NIDNTT, </i> 3; R. Mason, <i> [[Preaching]] the Tradition </i> ; C. Meyers, <i> Ancient Israelite [[Religion]] </i> ; R. W. L. Moberly, <i> The Old Testament of the Old Testament </i> ; J. Neusner, <i> [[Wrong]] [[Ways]] and Right Ways in the Study of Formative Judaism </i> ; W. Nowottny, <i> The [[Language]] [[Poets]] Use </i> ; D. A. Renwick, <i> Paul, the Temple, and the [[Presence]] of God </i> ; J. Z. Smith, <i> To Take Place </i> ; W. R. Smith, <i> The [[Prophets]] of Israel and Their Place in History </i> ; idem, <i> The Religion of the Semites </i> ; J. Soskice, <i> [[Metaphor]] and [[Religious]] Language </i> ; N. T. Wright, <i> The New Testament and the People of God </i> . </p>

<div> '''1: '''''Ἱερόν''''' ''' (Strong'S #2411 — Noun Neuter — hieron — hee-er-on' ) </div> <p> the neuter of the adjective hieros, "sacred," is used as a noun denoting "a sacred place, a temple," that of [[Artemis]] (Diana), &nbsp;Acts 19:27; that in Jerusalem, &nbsp;Mark 11:11 , signifying the entire building with its precincts, or some part thereof, as distinct from the naos, "the inner sanctuary" (see No. 2); apart from the Gospels and Acts, it is mentioned only in &nbsp;1—Corinthians 9:13 . Christ taught in one of the courts, to which all the people had access. Hieron is never used figuratively. The Temple mentioned in the Gospels and Acts was begun by Herod in 20 B.C., and destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. </p> <div> '''2: '''''Ναός''''' ''' (Strong'S #3485 — Noun Masculine — naos — nah-os' ) </div> <p> "a shrine or sanctuary," was used (a) among the heathen, to denote the shrine containing the idol, &nbsp;Acts 17:24; &nbsp;19:24 (in the latter, miniatures); (b) among the Jews, the sanctuary in the "Temple," into which only the priests could lawfully enter, e.g., &nbsp; Luke 1:9,21,22; Christ, as being of the tribe of Judah, and thus not being a priest while upon the earth (&nbsp;Hebrews 7:13,14; &nbsp;8:4 ), did not enter the naos; for &nbsp;2—Thessalonians 2:4 see Note (below); (c) by Christ metaphorically, of His own physical body, &nbsp; John 2:19,21; (d) in apostolic teaching, metaphorically, (1) of the Church, the mystical Body of Christ, &nbsp;Ephesians 2:21; (2) of a local church, &nbsp;1—Corinthians 3:16,17; &nbsp;2—Corinthians 6:16; (3) of the present body of the individual believer, &nbsp;1—Corinthians 6:19; (4) of the "Temple" seen in visions in the Apocalypse, &nbsp;Revelation 3:12; &nbsp;7:15; &nbsp;11:19; &nbsp;14:15,17; &nbsp;15:5,6,8; &nbsp;16:1,17; (5) of the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb, as the "Temple" of the new and heavenly Jerusalem, &nbsp;Revelation 21:22 . See SANCTUARY and [[Holy, B]]  (b), par. 4. </p> &nbsp;2—Thessalonians 2:4&nbsp; Daniel 11:31&nbsp;12:11&nbsp;Matthew 24:15&nbsp;Luke 11:51[[House]]

<p> <em> Hêykâl </em> ( '''''הֵיכָל''''' , Strong'S #1964), “palace; temple.” This word is indirectly derived from the Sumerian <em> egal </em> , “large house, palace,” and more directly from the [[Akkadian]] <em> ekallu </em> , “large house.” The influence of the Akkadian <em> ekallu </em> spread to the Northwest Semitic languages. In post-biblical Hebrew the meaning became limited to “temple.” The <em> Hekhal Chlomo </em> (“Temple of Solomon”) in modern Jerusalem signifies the building of Israel’s chief rabbinate, in absence of the temple. The word occurs 78 times from First Samuel to Malachi, most frequently in Ezekiel. The first usage pertains to the tabernacle at [[Shiloh]] (1 Sam. 1:9). </p> <p> The word “palace” in English versions may have one of three Hebrew words behind it: <em> hêykâl </em> , <em> bayit </em> , or <em> ‘armon </em> .—The Sumero-Akkadian meaning “palace” for <em> hêykâl </em> is still to be found in biblical Hebrew. The <em> hekal </em> —with its 15 usages as “palace” refers to the palaces of [[Ahab]] (1 Kings 21:1), of the king of Babylon (2 Kings 20:18), and of [[Nineveh]] (Nah. 2:6). The “palace” was luxuriously decorated and the residents enjoyed the fulfillment of their pleasures; cf.: “And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged” (Isa. 13:22). The psalmist compared beautiful girls to fine pillars in an ornate “palace”: “… That our sons may be as plants grown up in their youth; that our daughters may be as corner stones, polished after the similitude of a palace” (Ps. 144:12). Amos prophesied that the “songs of the palace” (KJV, “temple”) were to turn to wailing at the destruction of the northern kingdom (Amos 8:3, NASB). </p> <p> <em> Hêykâl </em> with the meaning “temple” is generally clarified in the context by two markers that follow. The first marker is the addition “of the Lord”: “And when the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord, they set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Levites the sons of [[Asaph]] with cymbals, to praise the Lord, after the ordinance of David king of Israel” (Ezra 3:10). The second marker is a form of the word <em> qodesh </em> , “holy”: “O God, the heathen are come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have laid Jerusalem on heaps” (Ps. 79:1). Sometimes the definite article suffices to identify the “temple in Jerusalem”: “In the year that King [[Uzziah]] died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple” (Isa. 6:1), especially in a section dealing with the “temple” (Ezek. 41). </p> <p> The Old Testament also speaks about the heavenly <em> hêykâl </em> , the <em> hêykâl </em> of God. It is difficult to decide on a translation, whether “palace” or “temple.” Most versions opt in favor of the “temple” idea: “Hear, all ye people; hearken, [[O]] earth, and all that therein is: and let the Lord God be witness against you, the Lord from his holy temple” (Mic. 1:2; cf. Ps. 5:7; 11:4; Hab. 2:20). “In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried to my God: and he did hear my voice out of his temple, and my cry did enter into his ears” (2 Sam. 22:7). However, since Scripture portrays the presence of the royal judgment throne in heaven, it is not altogether impossible that the original authors had a royal “palace” in mind. The imagery of the throne, the “palace,” and judgment seems to lie behind Ps. 11:4-5. “The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord’s throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men. The Lord trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.” </p> <p> The [[Septuagint]] has the words <em> naos </em> (“temple”) and <em> oikos </em> (“house; palace; dwelling; household”). </p>

<p> The inner court was extended westward by a second square of 100 cubits, within which, on a platform elevated another 6 cubits (9 ft.), stood the temple proper and its connected buildings (&nbsp;Ezekiel 41:8 ). This platform or basement is shown by the measurements to be 60 cubits broad (North and and South) and 105 cubits long (East and West) - 5 cubits projecting into the eastern square. The ascent to the temple-porch was by 10 steps (&nbsp;Ezekiel 40:49; Septuagint, the Revised Version margin). The temple itself was a building consisting, like Solomon's, of three parts - a porch at the entrance, 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad by 12 cubits (18 ft.) deep (so most, following the Septuagint, as required by the other measurements); the holy place or <i> ''''' hēkhāl ''''' </i> , 40 cubits (60 ft.) long by 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad; and the most holy place, 20 cubits by 20 (&nbsp;Ezekiel 40:48 , &nbsp;Ezekiel 40:49; &nbsp;Ezekiel 41:1-4 ); the measurements are internal. At the sides of the porch stood two pillars (&nbsp;Ezekiel 40:49 ), corresponding to the Jachin and [[Boaz]] of the older Temple. The holy and the most holy places were separated by a partition 2 cubits in thickness (&nbsp;Ezekiel 41:3; so most interpret). The most holy place was empty; of the furniture of the holy place mention is made only of an altar of wood (&nbsp;Ezekiel 41:22; see Altar A , III, 7; B, III, 3). [[Walls]] and doors were ornamented with cherubim and palm trees (&nbsp;Ezekiel 41:18 , &nbsp;Ezekiel 41:25 ). The wall of the temple building was 6 cubits (9 ft.) in thickness (&nbsp;Ezekiel 41:5 ), and on the north, south, and west sides, as in Solomon's Temple, there were side-chambers in three stories, 30 in number (&nbsp;Ezekiel 41:6; in each story?), with an outer wall 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) in thickness ( <p> '''Copyright Statement''' These files are public domain and were generously provided by the folks at WordSearch Software. </p> <p> '''Bibliography Information''' Orr, James, [[M.A., DD]]  General Editor. Entry for 'Temple'. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/isb/t/temple.html. 1915. </p> </p>