_THE IDEAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEMPLE._
1 KINGS vii. 13-51, viii. 12-61.
"The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet
at Jerusalem, worship the Father.... But the hour cometh, and now
is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit
and in truth."--JOHN iv. 21, 23.
Five long chapters of the First Book of Kings are devoted to the
description of Solomon's Temple, which occupies a still larger space
in the Books of Chronicles. The Temple was regarded as the permanent
form of the ancient Tabernacle,[290] which is described with lengthy
and minute detail in Exodus. It might seem, therefore, that there
must be some clear explanation of the idea which this sacred building
was intended to embody. Yet it is by no means easy to ascertain what
this idea was, and those who have deeply studied the question have in
age after age been led to widely different views.
1. Philo and Josephus,[291] with certain variations of detail, regard
it as a symbol of the universe--the world of idea and the world of
sense. Thus the seven-branched candlestick represents the seven
planets; the twelve cakes of shewbread are the twelve signs of the
Zodiac; the court is the earth; the sanctuary the sea; and the oracle
the heavens. The theory derives no importance from its authorship.
Neither Philo nor Josephus, nor the Rabbis, nor the Fathers who adopted
their views,[292] have the least authority in such matters; and Philo,
who led the way in mystical interpretation, abounds in fantasies which
are ludicrously impossible, and are now universally rejected.
2. The Talmudists held that the Tabernacle was the exact copy of
one in heaven,[293] and that its services reflected those of the
heavenly hierarchy. This view went into the extreme of literalism, as
the other did into the extreme of spiritualisation. It was based on
the text, "Look that thou make them after their pattern, which was
showed thee in the mount."[294] The Book of Chronicles goes so far in
this direction as to say that David received from Jehovah the exact
pattern of the Temple down to its minutest details, together with the
entire priestly and Levitic organisation of its services. "All this,"
says David to Solomon, "the Lord made me to understand _in writing_,
by His hand upon me, even all the works in the pattern."
3. Christian writers have seen in the Temple an emblem of the visible,
the invisible, and the triumphant Church. Such symbolic interpretation
depends on the most arbitrary combinations, and does not rise higher
than an exercise of fancy. It has not the smallest exegetic importance.
4. Luther thought that the Tabernacle and Temple were emblems of
human nature:--the court, the sanctuary, and the oracle corresponding
to the body, the soul, and the spirit. Later writers have pushed this
opinion, already sufficiently baseless, into the absurdest detail.
5. The much simpler view of Maimonides[295] who is followed by our
learned Spencer, is that the Temple was simply the palace of Jehovah,
with its vestibule, its audience hall, its Presence-chamber, its
attendant courtiers, its throne, and its offerings of food and wine
and sacrifice. The simplicity of this conception seems to be in
accordance with what we know of ancient forms of worship, and it
is certain that in many heathen temples the offerings of food and
wine were supposed to be consumed by the god. The name "palace" is,
however, only given to the Temple in one chapter (1 Chron. xxix. 1,
19); and the Hebrew, or rather the Persian,[296] word so rendered
(_bîrah_) may also be rendered "fortress."
6. In truth we cannot be sure that the idea of the Temple remained
single and definite through so many ages. It was probably a composite
and varying emblem, of which the original significance had become
mingled with many later elements. It is, however, certain that many
numbers and details were symbolical, and there was a deep insight
and magnificent completeness in the manner in which certain truths
were shadowed forth by its construction and its central service.
The book in which its symbolism is most thoroughly worked out is
Bähr's _Symbolik_. He elaborates, in a simpler form, the opinion
of Philo, that the Temple represented "the structure which God has
erected, the house in which God lives." So far the fact cannot be
disputed for, in Exod. xxix. 45 we are told that the Tabernacle is
called the "House of God" because "I will dwell in the midst of the
children of Israel, and will be their God." But Bähr takes a great
leap when he proceeds to explain the house of God as "the creation
of heaven and earth." If his views were true _as a whole_, it would
indeed be strange that they are not indicated in a single passage
either of the Old or New Testaments.
The Tabernacle was called "the Tabernacle of the Testimony" because
its two tables of stone were a witness of the covenant between
God and man. It was also called "the Tabernacle of Meeting," by
which is not meant the place where Israel assembled, but the place
where God met Moses and the children of Israel.[297] "For there
will I meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the
mercy-seat," says Jehovah to Moses;[298] and "at the entrance of
the tent of meeting I will meet with you to speak there unto thee,
and there I will meet with the children of Israel."[299] Thus,
in its broadest idea, the Temple brought before the soul of every
thoughtful Israelite the three great beliefs, (1) that God deigned
to dwell in the midst of His people; (2) that, in His infinite mercy
and condescension, He admitted a reciprocity between Himself and His
human children; and (3) that the most absolute expression of His will
was the moral law, obedience to which was the condition of heavenly
favour and earthly happiness.
"In the Porch," says Bishop Hall, "we may see the regenerate soul
entering into the blessed society of the Church; in the Holy Place
we may see a figure of the Communion of the true visible Church on
earth; in the Holy of Holies the glories of Heaven opened to us by
our true High Priest Christ Jesus, who entered once for all to make
an Atonement betwixt God and man."
FOOTNOTES:
[290] The scepticism of modern critics, who doubt whether there ever
was a Tabernacle in the wilderness at all, seems to be insufficiently
grounded.
[291] _Vit. Mos._, iii.; _Antt._, III. vi. 4, vii. 7; _B. J._, VII.
v. 5.
[292] _E.g._, Origen (_Hom._, ix.), Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._,
v.), Theodoret (_Qu._, xl. _in Exod._), Jerome (_Ep._, lxiv.), and
others. See Kalisch, _Exodus_, p. 495.
[293] Wisdom ix. 8: "A copy of the holy tabernacle which Thou didst
prepare from the beginning."
[294] Exod. xxv. 40, xxvi. 30; Acts vii. 44; Heb. viii. 5.
[295] _More Nebochim_, iii, 45-49; Kalisch, _Exodus_, p. 497.
[296] The three names given to the Tabernacle are _Ohel_ ("tent"),
_Mishkan_ ("tabernacle," "habitation," or "dwelling-place"), and
_Baith_ ("house"). It is undoubted that the Tabernacle followed the
ordinary construction of the Oriental tent, with its two divisions,
of which the interior could not be entered by strangers.
[297] Numb. xvii. 7, xviii. 2; 2 Chron. xxiv. 6; Acts vii. 44; Exod.
xxix. 10, etc.; 1 Kings viii. 4; 2 Chron. viii. 13. The phrase "Tent
of Meeting" in the R.V. removes the complete obscuring of the meaning
involved by the A.V. rendering of "Tabernacle of the Congregation."
[298] Exod. xxv. 22.
[299] Exod. xxix. 42, 43.