Temples

In the eleventh year in the month of Bul, the eighth month, the temple was finished in all its details according to its specifications. He had spent seven years building it. It took Solomon thirteen years, however, to complete the construction of his palace. (I Kings 6:38-7:1)

 

       We interrupt our regularly scheduled posting which should have been on Romans 8:9) to bring you this special posting based on I Kings. Yesterday as I was running errands, I listened to a CD of this passage. Whatever translation it was, it was just a little different from what I've shared above. It said, "He had spent seven years building it. But, it took Solomon thirteen years to complete the construction of his palace." I think that makes a useful comparison. It took Solomon almost twice as long to build his home, his capital building and his Egyptian wife's home as it did to make the Temple. His palace was twice the size of the Temple. Maybe the size of the palace was logistically necessary. I'm a little disturbed by it. I don't see anything in Scripture that suggests that God was angry with Solomon about. I know God didn't need a house to live in. I'm uncertain quite what to make of it.

       There are two other comparisons that come to mind. The first is that the Egyptian kings, as well as others, spent their lives building, decorating and stocking their tombs. Those tombs are tourist attractions and engineering marvels today, but while we marvel at their size and the skill with which they were built, the point is that they were made for the dead. Solomon's palace was built for the living. It was eventually destroyed, but there's really little said or (to my knowledge) known about Solomon's tomb. There was never any sense of the idea that he took anything "with" him or used it to buy his way into a better afterlife.

            The second is the comparison of the Temple with the temples and worship of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans and other pagans nations. Some time ago, I watched a fascinating program about Stonehenge that dealt with what that structure did to sound waves. They bounced off the various stones and echoed back to the high priest who stood at the center. Pillars seem to be a standard feature in most of the pagan temples. The Tabernacle, being mostly fabric, would have absorbed sound. The Temple that Solomon built seems to have been rectangular. The veil separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place, which again would have absorbed sound. Sounds in the Temple would have been more muted. Sound was not the focus of the Temple in Jerusalem as it may have been in the pagan nations.

       Then there is the question of color. Another program, this one about Egypt, brought this to mind. The carvings that are shown on programs about Egypt were apparently originally painted. The program in question showed just one painted as they believed it would have been. What comes to mind as a comparison is graffiti. There was a lot of color involved. Lots to see. The Temple Solomon built, on the other hand, was mostly gold with bronze furniture. Yes, it was gold but it was all gold: monochromatic. The room itself would sort of disappear. Look here, it's gold. Look there, it's gold. Oh and look over there in the corner, it's ... gold. No fashionably acceptable pop of color, just gold, gold and more gold. Visually boring. The craftsmanship was impeccable, but it could easily fade into the background. Sight was not the focus of the Temple in Jerusalem.

       A third show had to do with the technology of the ancients. Apparently, they had steam-power that could cause little bird figurines to "sing" (like a tea kettle) or idols of goddesses to emerge from behind massive doors. The temples of some ancient pagans were engineered by the Walt Disneys of their day. In Jerusalem, the closest they came to  a show was the one time each year when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies. He had a rope tied around his ankle and bells on the hem of his robe so that if he stopped moving for long enough, he could be assumed dead and dragged back out without violating the sanctity of the Holy of Holies (which would have resulted in death.) For the duration of the "show,"  he was the man behind the curtain. Suspenseful, perhaps but also about as exciting as watching grass grow. ("Oh, look, the rope moved to the right a half an inch! Yes, and listen, the bells are still tinkling.")

        Another of the differences between the Temple in Jerusalem and the pagan temples was the lack of a chorus line. No dancing girls or boys. No temple prostitutes. Definitely rated G in terms of costuming and human behavior. The priest wasn't even supposed to flash his leg as he approached the altar. Sacrifices were made, but that seems to have had all the allure of a slaughterhouse. Not pleasant, perhaps, but nonromantic, and with no human victims to excite the audience.

       Worship at the Temple in Jerusalem did not center on the worship experience. It centered on the One being worshipped. Which does your place of worship resemble more? I fear that too often we mean well, but build our temples using the blueprints of the Egyptians, not the blueprints of Moses and Solomon.