The Temple Is Constructed (6:1–38)

Ziv (6:1). This is the Canaanite name of the second month in the Israelite calendar, a term associated with springtime and the latter rains.

New Kings and Temples

Mesopotamian kings are known to have started their reigns with the planning and implementation of new building projects or the repair of famous temples.A-6 The sequence of events prior to and following the biblical building account fits precisely the pattern of Mesopotamian building accounts from the third through first millennia B.C.A-7 A similar pattern is found in the Baal Cycle myth from Ugarit, a second millennium city on the shores of northern Syria. Baal’s house is rebuilt when it is recognized that unlike other gods, he lacks a dwelling.A-8

Solomon commenced building in his fourth year, which later records this date as the eleventh year of Hiram, king of Phoenicia. The Jewish historian Josephus quotes Phoenician sources that date Solomon’s temple 143 years prior to the founding of Carthage. When these two dates are used, the most likely date for Solomon’s fourth year is 967 B.C.A-9

As with many ancient Near Eastern building accounts, the date of the temple’s founding is related to other significant dates in the nation’s history. In Solomon’s case, the Hebrew Bible places the temple construction 480 years after the Israelites left Egypt. This would place the Exodus at 1447 B.C. Many scholars consider the 480 years to be a schematic number representing twelve generations, which allows for a later date of the Exodus (1280 B.C.). This late date for the Exodus places the entry into Canaan at time when the Egyptian empire was in retreat and it resolves the anachronism of Ramesses, a thirteenth-century B.C. city that the Israelites are said to have built but could not have if the early date is followed (Ex. 11:1; 12:37).

The biblical description of the temple fits comfortably into the ever-growing typology of Syrian temples. Its features as described in 1 Kings indicate that it is of Syrian or Phoenician influence and that it dates to the late second or early first millennium B.C.

Cylinder A describes Gudea’s dedication of the Temple of Ningirsu in Lagash.

Rama/Wikimedia Commons, courtesy of the Louvre

The Theology of Zion in Texts and Artifacts

Zion became the permanent locus of religious activity for the tribes and for the whole empire.A-10 Therefore a host of expressions and metaphors could now be directed toward the earthly seat of Yahweh’s glory. Vivid imagery included the divine dwelling atop a high mountain, a life-giving water source, and the conquest of chaos (figuratively and politically)—all images readily available in Jerusalem’s topography and David’s military triumphs (Ps. 29; 89; 104). The structure, style, and motifs of this emergent Zion tradition are reminiscent of other religious expressions from the ancient Near East.A-11

These themes need not, however, be considered a direct borrowing from Ugaritic and Canaanite texts, as many assume. Rather, Israel’s tradition with its temple and texts was expressing itself in the language and art of its day.A-12 It retained, moreover, a number of significant distinctives.A-13 In addition to the newly developed themes, individual traditions of Mount Sinai eventually were also transferred to Mount Zion, as J. Levenson has shown.A-14

These images received their highest expression in the divine abode built by Solomon. Visual reminders of creation and Eden could be found throughout this meeting point between heaven, earth, and the world below.A-15 Carvings on the entry pillars, doors, and walls depicted palmettes, sacred floral designs, and cherubs. These were all motifs from the garden, whose story had always factored into the theology of Israel.

The plan of the temple reflected spheres of increasing holiness, each with its protocol for worship. Behind them all was housed the ark of the covenant and the cherub throne of God, from which judgment was proclaimed (Ps. 76:8–9). The significance of the place and the potency of its imagery were not lost on the pilgrims who made the ascent. In the context of the temple the liturgies demanded uprightness (Ps. 24), guaranteed security (Ps. 46), and evoked praise (Ps. 48).

Like the biblical cherubs, winged composite creatures guarded sacred space at the temple at Ain Dara.

John Monson

The temple that King Solomon built for the LORD was sixty cubits long, twenty wide and thirty high (6:2). The Hebrew word used here is bayit (“house”), a ubiquitous term that has a wide semantic range in many Semitic languages. The biblical cubit is commonly understood to be 52.5 centimeters length, based on parallels with the Egyptian “royal” cubit.93 The dimensions of the temple were therefore roughly 100 feet long and 35 feet wide, making it a large structure by the standards of the Levant.

Portico (6:3). This feature is best described as a porch. Perched atop a broad staircase, it served as a type of transitional passageway linking the courtyard to the temple’s main room. Identical temple porches are known from Syria and Phoenicia.94 In Syrian and Mesopotamian temples the porch is the access point to the interior of the temple, a mysterious and holy place where the deity resides.

Clerestory windows (6:4). The Hebrew expression literally reads “framed, blocked windows” or “recessed, latticed windows.” An examination of cognate languages suggests windows that are blocked, perhaps by a screen or some other ornamentation. Further clarity comes through a comparison with the windows of the well-preserved the temple at ʿAin Dara in Syria, which is the closest parallel to Solomon’s temple in size and features. Images of windows with screens and frames were carved into its basalt rock walls.95 The Hebrew expression could therefore mean ornamental faux windows instead of clerestory windows. This would accord with the impression the Bible gives of the temple as a dark, mysterious place. Texts from Ugarit describe in considerable detail the features of Baal’s house, including windows that look down on the world.96

Framed lattice windows could indeed have been open to air and light, but may also be simulated in relief as here in the temple at Ain Dara.

John Monson

Against the walls of the main hall and inner sanctuary Solomon built a structure around the building, in which there were side rooms (6:5–6). The Hebrew terms indicate “ribs” or “sides,” which are best translated as a multistoried structure that surrounded the building on three sides. This conclusion is based on parallel architecture in Egypt, Syria, and Anatolia.97 The three stories of the side chambers increase in width from lowest to highest. At first glance this seems to defy common sense because one would expect that wider rooms on the upper floors would be difficult to support. This problem was solved by using stair-like recesses on the outer face of the temple’s main wall. The design may reflect the architect’s desire to avoid inserting beams into the walls of the main shrine.

Cedar beams attached the side chambers to the temple’s main structure (6:10). While the side chambers may have been used for priestly storage space, it is possible that ritual processions passed through the corridors on the first floor. This interpretation is supported by the odd presence of fine relief on the interior of the ʿAin Dara temple side chambers and by the description of the processions through the temple itself at the city of Emar in northern Syria.98

Only blocks dressed at the quarry (6:7). The stones for the temple were prepared at some distance from the construction site. This may be for practical rather than religious reasons, as seen in Assyrian reliefs depicting completed stones and statues being removed from a quarry.99 Sennacherib of Assyria, for his part, built a temple to Ashur complete with limestone foundations from nearby mountains.100

Stairway (6:8). The entrance on the southern side chamber parallels the design of the ʿAin Dara temple in Syria. This indicates that the temple was oriented east-west. Most temples of the “long room” type (long sides with shorter ends) are found in northern Israel or in Syria and are oriented in the same direction.101 The means of ascent was not a ladder as some translations suggest, but rather a substantial return staircase fashioned from wood or stone. Examples are known from the palace at Alalakh and the temple of ʿAin Dara, both in Syria.102

Cedar boards (6:15). Expensive wood such as cedar is found in burnt houses at various Iron Age cities in Israel. Because cedar had to be imported from Lebanon, it was reserved for special buildings or structures requiring long beams. Texts and reliefs from Egypt and Mesopotamia indicate that nations throughout the eastern Mediterranean imported cedars from Lebanon for use in architecture and, in the case of Egypt, for building fleets. The second millennium Egyptian Tale of Wen-Amun, for example, describes the importation of large planks for boat construction in Egypt.103

Assyrian relief of cedar being transported by sea

Sarinee Achavanuntakul, courtesy of the Louvre

Comparable traces of cedar paneling have been uncovered in several palaces and temples in northern Syria. In some structures the holes for attaching the paneling are all that remain.104

Partitioned … at the rear of the temple (6:16). The vast majority of temples in Syria, Phoenicia, and Mesopotamia contain an elevated area at the back of the main room that was originally blocked off by wood paneling. In some cases the rear partition was constructed of stone or mud brick, as at Tell Tayanat in Syria.105 The partition was comparable to the ambulatory or chancel screen in some churches. It separated from view the most sacred space in the temple.

Inner sanctuary (6:19–20). This was the Most Holy Place, the holiest place in the temple, where the ark was located. It was accessible only by ascent through increasing spheres of holiness from outer courtyard, the porch, and the main hall. In addition to its central position, the Most Holy Place was elevated. North Syrian temples at Tayanat, Munbaqa, ʿAin Dara, and Ebla have elevated areas in the back third of the main temple room.106 This would explain the smaller size of the inner shrine in comparison to the dimensions of the temple. The symmetry of its cube shape is attested in Mesopotamian and Anatolian temples.107

Ebla Temple

John Monson

Solomon covered the inside of the temple with pure gold (6:21–22). Although the dimensions of the temple are widely accepted, most scholars approach its lavish decoration with considerable skepticism. There is, however, a large body of comparative evidence that proves the temple’s wealth to be entirely plausible. The third millennium kings of Lagash in Mesopotamia covered their temples with gold and silver while Esarhaddon, an Assyrian monarch of the seventh century B.C., is documented as coating the walls of Ashur’s shrine with gold. Egyptian documents recount that monuments and pillars in the second millennium Karnak temple were plated with gold and electrum.108 The vast gold of King Tutankhamun’s famous tomb, with is myriad utensils and miniature shrines, makes the claims of this biblical verse more believable.

Cherubim (6:23–28). Winged sphinxes or cherub figures from religious and royal iconography in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Levant correspond nicely to the creatures described in the temple’s Most Holy Place (see comment on 8:7).109 A wall relief at Mari depicts such creatures flanking a fertile tree of life, as a divine being summons the king.110 Several of the north Syrian temples yielded stone cherubim that are reminiscent of the ones described in this passage.111 They crouch at the entrance of the temples in order, it would seem, to reinforce the fearful power of the deity and to demarcate the perimeter of his presence. The cherubim and the ark in the innermost part of the temple most likely represented the footstool of Yahweh.

This column base with double sphinxes (basalt) once supported the wooden columns of Hilani III, the palace of the Aramaean King Barrekup. From Zinjirli. Neo-Hittite, 8th c. B.C.

Michele Rau, courtesy of the Istanbul Museum of Archaeology

Here as elsewhere, Solomon seems to have appropriated elements from surrounding cultures and put them in the service of Yahweh.112 The Israelites encountered God’s strength and majesty through the iconography and artistic vocabulary that was widely known in their day. It would have evoked in the worshiper both reverence and a set of associations hearkening back to the axis mundi, the meeting point between heaven and earth, and even the perfect splendor of Eden itself.113

Mari wall fresco

Rama/Wikimedia Commons, courtesy of the Louvre

He carved cherubim, palm trees and open flowers (6:29). The ornate carvings of flowers, vines, rosettes, and the palmette or tree of life combine to evoke images of paradise. These motifs are ubiquitous in ancient Near Eastern temples and are attested in the sacred architecture of the region as late as the seventh century A.D.114 Many of the temples in the ancient world were built within sacred groves as evidenced by pits and acorns in temple courtyards and lush vegetation in temple scenes depicted in a considerable number of Egyptian and Assyrian reliefs.

Israelite worshipers, regardless of status, would doubtless have a sense of wonder as they approached the temple, elevated as it was above a sacred grove built with perfect symmetry. It was the cosmic center of the universe, where Yahweh met his people.

Doors of olive wood with five-sided jambs (6:31–35). The Hebrew words used here are usually translated as “four-sided or five-sided door frames” or “door jambs.” The temples at Ur and Tel Tayanat allow for a better interpretation. In those temples the main door frame is “rabbeted,” possessing stepped indents on three sides. Most commonly the frames have four indented steps, but in some cases, as at the Ningal Temple at Ur, they have five. This was also the case with Solomon’s temple. In addition to their indented frames, the doors in Solomon’s temple exhibited the same garden-like motifs as the walls.115

Ivory plaque of “woman in the window” showing rabbeted architecture

Musée du Louvre, Autorisation de photographer et de filmer; © James C. Martin

Three courses of dressed stone and one course of trimmed cedar beams (6:36). The description of the inner courtyard suggests that the sacred precinct or temenos of the temple was already large in Solomon’s day. A comparable inner courtyard116 was unearthed in the lower city of Hazor.117 The alternating stone and cedar construction of this courtyard has parallels at the Tel Dan high place, but its purpose, beyond aesthetic appeal, remains uncertain.118

The grey line running the length of the cultic platform at Dan is modern repair work to shore up the stones where the wood had rotted away.

Kim Walton

Month of Bul (6:38). This is the original Canaanite name for Israel’s eighth month, corresponding to the gathering of olives and the planting of grain. Many of the Canaanite names for months persisted in Deuteronomy and in other Israelite religious contexts.