A. STRUCTURE AND HISTORY I. SOLOMON’S TEMPLE
III. New Testament Associations of Herod’s Temple
5. Assertion by Solomon That the Temple Would Be Used as a Central Sanctuary
That the Temple-service was carried out in accordance with the regulations of the Priestly Code does not prove that the Chronicles account is
unreliable, unless it is certain that the postexilic Priestly Code was an entirely new ritual which had never existed before, which some modern critics do not admit. But, if it was merely, as some maintain, a codification of a cult that existed before, then no sufficient reason exists for holding that Solomon’s Temple was designed to be a private chapel for the king (Benzinger), erected partly out of piety but partly also out of love of splendor and statecraft (Reuss), rather than a central sanctuary for the people. A study of Solomon’s letter to Hiram (<140204>
2 Chronicles 2:4) shows that the Temple was intended for the concentration of the nation’s
sacrificial worship which had up till then been frequently offered at local shrines, though originally meant for celebration at the Mosaic tabernacle — for the burning of sweet incense (<023001>
Exodus 30:1), the offering day by day continually of the burnt offering (<022939>Exodus 29:39). And though, it is admitted, the letter to Hiram as reported in 1 Kings makes no mention of this intention, yet it is clear from <110862>1 Kings 8:62-65, that Solomon, after dedicating the Temple by prayer, used it for this purpose. Wherefore, if Chronicles simply transferred to the consecration of the Temple a ritual that had no existence until after the exile, the author of Kings did the same, which again would destroy Wellhausen’s admission that historical validity attaches to the earlier source. A much more likely supposition is that the
ritual reported by both historians was not that of a Priestly Code
manufactured for the second temple, but that which had been published by Moses for the tabernacle, in place of which it had come. That local shrines for many years existed alongside of the Temple only proves that Solomon’s original idea was not perfectly carried out either by himself or his people.
LITERATURE.
The Commentaries of Bertheau and Keil on Chronicles; Reuss. Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments; articles on “Temple” in Sch- Herz; Riehm. Handworterbuch; HDB; EB; Wellhausen. Prolegomena schichte Israels.
T. Whitelaw TEMPLE KEEPERS (SERVANTS)
After the conquest of Midian, “Moses took one drawn out of every fifty, both of man and of beast, and gave them unto the Levites, that kept the charge of the tabernacle of Yahweh” (<043147>Numbers 31:47; compare 31:30).
Similarly, after the deception of Joshua by the Gibeonites, “Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of Yahweh, unto this day” (<060927>Joshua 9:27). The object of these notices, evidently, is to explain how a non-Israelitish class of
sanctuary servants had taken their origin. Their existence at the time of Ezekiel, however, is the object of one of the latter’s severest
denunciations: “Ye have brought in foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to profane it. .... And ye have not kept the charge of my holy things; but ye have set keepers of my
charge in my sanctuary for yourselves” (<264407>Ezekiel 44:7 f). In place of these servants or “keepers” Ezekiel directs that such Levites are to be employed as have been degraded from priestly privileges for participating in idolatrous worship. On them shall devolve all the various duties of the temple except the actual offering of sacrifices, which is reserved for “the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” (44:10-15). For the use of this deposed class, “the priests, the keepers of the charge of the house,” is reserved a special room in the inner court of the temple (40:44 f).
See, further, NETHINIM.
Burton Scott Easton
TEMPLES
<tem’-p’lz> (hQ;r’ [raqqah], “thinness,” “upper cheeks”): The original
signifies the thinnest part of the skull (<070421>
Judges 4:21,22; 5:26). In
<220403>Song of Solomon 4:3; 6:7, the bride’s cheeks are likened to
pomegranates because of the rich coloring of a slice of this fruit.
TEMPLES, ROBBERS OF
([iJero>suloi, hierosuloi]; the King James Version “robbers of churches,”
<441937>Acts 19:37): To explain this as “sacrilegious persons” is irreconcilable
with the contrast in <450222>Romans 2:22. In <050725>Deuteronomy 7:25, the Jews were commanded entirely to destroy the gold and silver idols, ornaments of the heathen temples. The sin reproved is that of making that a matter of gain which, without regard to its value, they should have destroyed. “Dost thou, who regardest the mere touch of an idol as a horrible defilement, presume to rob their temples?” There is abundant evidence to show that this crime was not unusual. When the town-clerk of Ephesus declares the companions of Paul innocent of such charge, his words imply that the fact that they were Jews rendered them liable to such suspicion. So Josephus goes out of his way (Ant., IV, viii, 10) to deny that Jews ever committed the crime.
H. E. Jacobs TEMPT, TEMPTATION
<temt>, <tem-ta’-shun> (hs;n: [nacah], “to prove” “try,” “tempt” hS;m”
[maccah], “a trial,” “temptation”; [peira>zw, peirazo], “to try” “prove”
[peirasmo>v, peirasmos] “a trial,” “proof”): The words have a sinister connotation in present-day usage which has not always attached to them.
Originally the words were of neutral content, with the sense of “putting to the proof,” the testing of character or quality. Thus, God is “tempted” by Israel’s distrust of Him, as if the people were actually challenging Him to show His perfections (<021702>Exodus 17:2; <197818>Psalm 78:18; <441510>Acts 15:10;
<580309>Hebrews 3:9, and often); Abraham is “tempted,” being called upon to
offer up Isaac (<012201>Genesis 22:1); and Jesus is “tempted” to a spectacular Messiahship (Matthew 4 and parallel passages (see TEMPTATION OF CHRIST)). No evil is implied in the subject of these temptations.
Temptation therefore in the Scripture sense has possibilities of holiness as
well as of sin. For as all experience witnesses, it is one thing to be tempted, another thing to fall. To be tempted — one may rejoice in that (<590102>James 1:2), since in temptation, by conquering it, one may achieve a higher and nobler manhood.
“Why comes temptation but for man to meet And master and make crouch beneath his foot,
And so be pedestaled in triumph?”
Holiness in its best estate is possible only under conditions which make it necessary to meet, resist and triumph over temptation. Thus, Jesus Himself became our Great High Priest in that, being tempted in all points like as we are, He never once yielded, but fought and triumphed (<580415>
Hebrews 4:15).
One must not deceive one’s self, however, in thinking that, because by the grace of God one may have profit of virtue through temptation as an instrument, all temptation is equally innocent and virtuous. It is noticeable in the case of Jesus that His temptation was under the direction of the Spirit (<410112>
Mark 1:12); He Himself did not seek it, nor did He fear it.
Temptations encountered in this way, the way of duty, the way of the Spirit, alone constitute the true challenge of saintship (<590112>James 1:12); but it is the mark of an ignoble nature to be perpetually the center of vicious fancies and tempers which are not of God but of the devil (<590113>
James 1:13- 15). One may not escape entirely such buffetings of faith, but by any sound nature they are easily disposed of. Not so easily disposed of are the trials (temptations) to faith through adversity, affliction, trouble (<422228>Luke 22:28;
<442019>
Acts 20:19; <590102>
James 1:2; <600106>
1 Peter 1:6); and yet there is no lack of evidence to the consoling fact that God does not suffer His own to be tempted above what they are able to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13) and that for every crisis His grace will be sufficient (2 Corinthians 12:8,9).
Charles M. Stuart TEMPTATION OF CHRIST