While the prior discussion of pagan temples may appear tangential, it is important. The Israelites considered their temple a miniature representation of the cosmos. Given that many are unfamiliar with Jewish temple-tradition, it may be helpful to know that Hebrew temple-thought has this parallel with pagan temple-tradition. That the temple was a representation of the cosmos appears ubiquitous throughout the Ancient Near East. That all ancient cultures appear to converge on temple as creation lends insight into Paul’s claim that from creation God’s invisible qualities can be understood from what is visible (Romans 1:20). We will endeavor to explore this premise in greater detail in the hope that Christians will gain a greater appreciation of the centrality of the temple to Hebrew life and worship.
Historical Witness to the Temple as a Model of Creation
In the Old Testament we are told that Solomon, when constructing the temple, contracted with Hiram who supplied cedar and skilled artisans for the temple (1 Kings 5:1-18). It seems likely Hiram understood temple design and its witness to creation. Millard has reported a ninth century B.C. excavated shrine at Tell Tainat of similar construction with three rooms, an altar in the innermost and two columns on the porch. [1] Given these similarities, it would have been simple for Hiram’s artisans to cut and prepare timbers and other building materials fit for the Solomonic temple. Numerous scholars have observed parallels between creation and temple in Israel’s cult. The belief that the Hebrew temple represented the cosmos is quite ancient:
In the biblical text the descriptions of the tabernacle and temple contain many transparent connections to the cosmos. This connection was explicitly recognized as early as the second century A.D. in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, who says of the tabernacle: “every one of these objects is intended to recall and represent the universe.” In the outer courtyard were representations of various aspects of cosmic geography. Most important are the water basin, which 1 Kings 7:23-26 designates “sea,” and the bronze pillars, described in 1 Kings 7:15-22, which perhaps represented the pillars of the earth. [2] The horizontal axis in the temple was arranged in the same order as the vertical axis in the cosmos. From the courtyard, which contained the elements outside the organized cosmos (cosmic waters and pillars of the earth), one would move into the organized cosmos as he entered the antechamber. Here were the Menorah, the Table of Bread and the incense altar. In the Pentateuch’s descriptions of the tabernacle, the lamp and its olive oil are provided for “light” (especially Exodus 25:6; 35:14; Numbers 4:9). This word for light is the same word used to describe the celestial bodies in day four (rather than calling them sun and moon). As the Menorah represented the light provided by God, the “Bread of the presence” (Exodus 25:30) represented food provided by God. The altar of incense provided a sweet-smelling cloud across the face of the veil that separated the two chambers. If we transpose from the horizontal axis to the vertical , the veil separated the earthly sphere, with its functions, from the heavenly sphere, where God dwells. This latter was represented in the holy of holies, where the footstool of the throne of God (the ark) was placed. Thus the veil served the same symbolic function as the firmament. To review then, the courtyard represented the cosmic spheres outside of the organized cosmos (sea and pillars). The antechamber held the representations of lights and food. The veil separated the heavens and earth – the place of God’s presence from the place of human habitation.[3]
The ancient writings of Josephus confirm that from antiquity, the temple represented the cosmos, God’s created order. Secondarily, the temple represented a nexus between heaven and earth, allowing a meeting point between God in heaven infinitely separated from man on earth by the firmament. That two of the parts of the temple were accessible to men, but the third restricted also parallels the three-tiered structure of the cosmos where man was seen to dwell alive on earth and the dead in tĕhowm. Separation between men and God was enforced in the firmament. These parallels were well understood by ancient Hebrews:
Most importantly of all for our purposes was the belief that the temple was regarded as the “epitome of the world, a concentrated form of its essence, a miniature of the cosmos”. The temple was far more than the point at which heaven and earth met. Rather, it was thought to correspond to, represent, or in some sense, to be “heaven and earth” in its totality. The idea is readily grasped if its three-fold structure, the sanctuary (supremely the Holy of Holies), the inner and outer courts, are allowed to correspond to heaven, earth and sea respectively. In the words of Num. Rab. 13:19;
The Court surrounds the temple just as the sea surrounds the world.
For Josephus the original pre-temple tabernacle was similarly divided into three parts, two of which were “approachable and open to all”. Moses thereby “signifies the earth and the sea, since these two are accessible to all; but the third portion he reserved for God alone, because heaven is inaccessible to men” (Ant. 3:181, cf. 3:123). [4]
The infinite separation between God’s domain in heaven and man’s domain on earth is modeled in the tabernacle structure with its restrictions on entrance into the Holy of Holies, inaccessible to the general populace, enforced by the curtain. It was not simply the structure that provided correlatives however. Josephus and Philo both argue that the materials used in the tabernacle relate to the earth’s elements and that the seven-branched menorah represented the seven visible heavenly bodies:
Both [Josephus and Philo] agree that the woven work of the tabernacle and the temple veil are made from four materials symbolizing the four elements – earth, water, air and fire (War 5:212-213; Ant. 3:128-134; Quaestiones in Exodum 2:85, cf. Mos. 2:88). Both regard the seven lamps as symbolic of the planets (Mos. 2:103; War 5:146, 217). . . . It is clear that in the main Philo’s cosmological interpretation of the sanctuary is that of mainstream Judaism [5]
That Josephus and Philo see a correspondence between the tabernacle materials and the four basic elements affirms a connection between the temple and the earth. That the lampstand represented the seven planets extends the interpretation into the heavens. The presence of the brass sea, representative of the remnant of the pre-creative watery abyss (tĕhowm) completes the cosmic description of the temple. Brown has noted another correlation between the elements used in the tabernacle and the tripartite structure with earthly elements representing the earthly sphere, water representing the deep and the light of the menorah representing the heavens:
Not fortuitously, the cosmic domains of creation are represented in the tabernacle’s constituent elements: metals, stones, and wood from the earth, water for ritual washing from the bronze basin (30:17-21), and lamps to render perpetual light (25:31-38; 27:20-21). From these raw materials, a “sanctuary” or holy place (miqdāš, v. 8) is to be built, along with all its furnishings, including the priestly vestments. [6]
Likewise Talmudic traditions reveal that the inner walls of the temples were constructed to look like the waves of the sea, further confirming creation’s parallels with temple construction. [7] Carvings within the tabernacle of pomegranites and palm trees recall Eden. [8] Similarly there was a strong belief that God’s dwelling place should be on a mountain, a belief that drove construction of the temple on a mountaintop:
The conviction that deity dwells upon a mountain (and by way of contrast, the wicked dwell in the abyss, cf. Luke 8:31; Revelation 9:1) is pervasive in antiquity. For the Syrians, god dwelt upon Mt. Casios; for the Greeks, the divine residence was upon Mt. Olympus. The Hindus regarded Mt. Meru as a divine residence. The Mesopotamians (like the Egyptians) lacked natural mountains and so built the zigguratu(Assyrian-Babylonian “mountain-top”), a tower or step-pyramid surmounted by a temple. Each step-like stage had a different color of brick, a structure presenting a picture strikingly parallel to John’s vision of the heavenly Zion (cf. Revelation 21:19-20; Isaiah 54:11-12). Cf. also the staged pyramids throughout Meso-America. [9]
The Israelite “mountain” motif dates back at least as far as the exodus, seen in the Song of the Sea:
In the Song of the Sea, which contains the earliest scriptural reference to the sanctuary, Moses remarks that God would establish the place of his dwelling upon the mountain of his inheritance (Exodus 15:17; cf. Psalm 78:54), a passage alluded to by Solomon in his dedicatory prayer for the temple. Consequently, Solomon’s temple was built upon the high ground of Mount Zion, the acropolis of ancient Jerusalem. [10]
Creation of the cosmos is ordered to teach mankind about God’s heavenly sanctuary and order:
The cosmology of the Old Testament is fond of describing creation as a tabernacle which God has pitched (cf. Psalm 104; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22) or a house which God has established (with pillars, windows, and doors; Job 26:11; Genesis 7:11; Psalm 78:23). Consequently, the temple of Zion, as a sanctuary which God has established, becomes a microcosmic metaphor for creation itself. This idea finds explicit expression in Psalm 78:69: “And he built his sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which he has founded forever.” [11]
The Genesis 1 creation-narrative as temple-building now begins to take shape. The basin with its sea models the remnants of pre-creative tĕhowm, the deep, while the “light” of the seven-branched candlestick models the celestial luminaries in the heavens that provide lights to the earth. Add to this the pillars whose footings sank deep below the earth to the base of tĕhowm, supporting the firmament that spanned the heavens. [12] The tripartite structure of the universe parallels the structure and furnishings of the tabernacle/temple (see Figure 1). The outer-court was tĕhowm, the Holy Place was the earth where man served as priest, and the Most-Holy-Place represented the heavens above the firmament (represented in the curtain), where God dwelt. Even the furnishings and manna have representative meaning, allowing communion with Yahweh (through breaking bread) in a space which provided spiritual light/revelation from the heavens via the lampstand to those who were cultically cleansed and thus qualified to be in His presence. Given the evidence presented, and the great antiquity of these concepts, we can safely conclude that for the Hebrews, the temple was a representation of the cosmos.
Figure 1: Creation Temple and Tabernacle Structural Parallels
Parallels between Creation and Tabernacle Erection
Some additional correspondences between the creation account and tabernacle-erection are fascinating. A number of scholars have observed parallels between the tabernacle account in Exodus 25-40 and the creation account of Genesis 1:
. . . Joseph Blenkinsopp argued in a 1976 article that the writer of P has structured his material in order to establish a set of literary and linguistic correspondences between creation (Genesis 1) and the tabernacle (Exodus 25-40). In a similar vein P. J. Kearney has argued that in Exodus 25-31, where in seven speeches each beginning with the words “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying . . .” (Exodus 25:1-30:10; 30:11-16; 30:17-21; 30:22-33; 30:34-38; 31:1-11; 31:12-17), God gives Moses His blueprint for the tabernacle, there is a deliberate correspondence to the seven days of creation in Genesis 1. Obviously, this means that creation has its home in the liturgy of the cult and the tabernacle is a mini-cosmos.[13]
The series of instructions and the account of the tabernacle’s construction mark the pinnacle of the Priestly narrative in Exodus 25-40. At Sinai Yahweh legislates a building program (25:1-31:17) that is then dutifully fulfilled (35:1-40:38). Despite some variation, command and fulfillment, as in the creation account, exhibit close correspondence; both are theologically integral to the narrative and stylistically typical of the priestly penchant for repetition. Recalling the days of creation, seven divine instructions are given, dominating the Priestly tôrâ (25:1-31:17). [14]
The first six of these speeches focus on the instructions for building the tabernacle and establishing the cult. The seventh speech is a command to observe the Sabbath but also contains a direct link back to the creation narrative with the words “for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.” It establishes a strong tie between the tabernacle and creation narratives. The parallels between creation and the seven speeches can be summarized in Table 1:
Table 1: Creation and Tabernacle Parallels
| Day: | Created: | Tabernacle: |
| 1 | Light/Darkness Day/Night | Aaron to tend menorah lamps from evening to morning (Exodus 27:20-21; 30:7-8) [15] |
| 2 | Separates Waters Above from below | Tax separates those twenty and older from those below twenty |
| 3 | Earth/Seas | Bronze laver made between tabernacle & altar Laver called the Sea in Solomon’s Temple (2 Kings 25:13, 16; 1 Chronicles 18:8; 2 Chronicles 4:2-15) |
| 4 | Luminaries | Tabernacle anointed (“filled”) with oil made with spices Like heavens filled with stars Same Hebrew root words used for David’s anointing where Sun and moon are mentioned (Psalm 89:21-38) |
| 5 | Birds/Fish | Incense made to “fill” the air (sky) Incense made from mollusks (things in the sea) |
| 6 | Animals/Man | Bezalel and Oholiab (men) chosen to make sanctuary [16] |
| 7 | Rest, holy | Sabbath rest to be observed by God’s people as holy [17] |
The presence of “sevens” in the account of the tabernacle and temple bears testifies that tabernacle and temple-building draw from the creation narrative. The consecration ritual was marked by sevens with the consecration of the priest spanning seven days and the atonement and consecration of the altar seven days. The construction and dedication of the temple was also marked by “sevens”:
The biblical notion that the number seven represents wholeness and completion begins with the sanctification of the seventh day as the Sabbath following the completion of the universe in Genesis, chapter 2. The number seven figures prominently throughout the Temple narrative of 1 Kings. The Temple took seven years to complete (1 Kings 6:35) and was dedicated on the festival of Sukkot, a holiday of seven days that occurs during the seventh month of the year (1 Kings 8:2). Finally, Solomon’s dedication address is composed of seven petitions (1 Kings 8:12-53). [18]
Another parallel between the creation narrative and the construction of the tabernacle can be seen in the selection and usage of words and phrases in each, further validating the view of the temple as a microcosm of the cosmos (Table 2):
Table 2: Creation and Tabernacle Affirmation Parallels
| Genesis 1-2 | Exodus 39-40 | |
| And God saw all that He had made and behold it was very good. (1:31) | Moses saw all of the skilled work and behold they had done it; as God had commanded it they had done it. (39:43) | |
| The heavens and earth and all of their array were completed. (2:1) | All the work of the Tabernacle of the Tent meeting was completed. (39:32) | |
| And God completed all the work that He had done. (2:2) | And Moses completed the work. (40:33) | |
| And God blessed . . . (2:3) | And Moses blessed . . . (39:43) | |
| And Sanctified it. (2:3) | And you shall sanctify it and all its vessels. (40:9 ) [19] |
In the events leading up to the construction and consecration of the tabernacle, the familiar creation-pattern emerges. It begins with separation of God’s people from the Egyptians, necessary to free God’s people from the chaos of slavery of constant and unfulfilling work. The separation also involved bounding, as is observed at the Red Sea, where a permanent bound is established between the Egyptians and the Israelites. In the battle that ensues between the Egyptian forces and God, the Egyptians are defeated and in effect, the chaos they brought upon God’s people is subdued. Creation language is observed with the Angel of the Lord separating light from darkness (Exodus 14:20), dividing the sea with land (Exodus 14:21-22), bringing a resurgence of the sea by the breath or wind of God (Exodus 15:10 using the word ruah from Genesis 1:2, [cf. Exodus 15:8]) and drowning the Egyptian army in the sea (Exodus 15:8 using the word tĕhowm). [20]
The great victory over the forces of chaos is followed by a covenant with God at Sinai (Exodus 19) with its covenantal obligations (Exodus 20-23) and its covenantal blessings for obedience (Exodus 19:5-6; Exodus 23:20-33), with the covenant confirmed in Exodus 24. Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and the seventy elders of Israel then shared a covenantal meal with God on the mountain. Following the meal, Moses ascended the mountain where he waited six days before the Lord called to him on the seventh day (Exodus 24). Moses is said to be on the mountain forty days and forty nights. The instructions for the construction of and consecration of the tabernacle follow (Exodus 25-31), establishing a parallel with creation (Table 3):
Table 3: Parallels between Creation and Tabernacle Construction
- Subduing the powers of chaos
- Creation in six days via separating, bounding and blessing
- Sabbath Rest on the seventh day
- Temple-building during a time of rest [21]
Correlative parallels can be extended to the Israelite camp and the wilderness (Table 4):
Table 4: Structural Parallels Creation and Tabernacle
| Creation | Tabernacle |
| Heaven | Holy of Holies |
| Earth/Land | Holy Place |
| Waters of the Deep/Chaos | Outer Court (with basin called the “sea”/wilderness camp |
The extended correspondence suggests true rest is found in God’s presence (requiring covenantal compliance), the land represents the paradisal confines of the Edenic garden where the priests were to mediate for the nations while the camp illustrates Israel representing the nations (signified in the seventy elders who represent the seventy nations of Genesis 10), on an exodus to God’s promised land (symbolic of re-entering relationship with God), yet whose fate is chaos (spiritual death apart from God) should the priesthood fail.
There is an eschatological inference in this correspondence. The fate of the nations rests in the hands of God’s priesthood as they are the ones God has assigned to be peace-makers between God and men. Their mediatorial efforts determine whether God’s creation will experience restoration and their mediation is dependent upon compliance to God’s laws. The terms of the Sinaic covenant detail the blessings and cursings for lawful compliance and covenantal failure (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). The judgments introduce de-creative consequences designed by God to bring repentance to His people. Cosmic order cannot be maintained without obedience. Failure to obey the laws brings dissolution of the cosmos – a return to chaos. This link between creation, temple and law was a deep-seated Jewish belief dating to antiquity:
Philo gives both a theological and a moral warrant. First, law and creation find their nexus in God. Second, observing the law involves living in accordance with the cosmic order . . . [22]
Not only do history and law interpret one another in reciprocal fashion, but the cosmos, as the beginning point of history, offers for Philo a paradigm of ethical conduct. As in Psalms 19 and 119, the order of the cosmos reflects in some discernible sense Torah, and vice versa. In his own words, the laws of Moses are “stamped” (sesēmasmena), as it were with the seals of nature herself. [23]
With Israel as God’s priesthood created through separation from the nations and marked by Sabbath rest, there is implication that Israel has a special role partnering with God on execution of His redemptive plan. It introduces an eschatological element into Israel’s history and calling, in evidence in parallels between temple and creation. These parallels extend to the end of God’s plan, envisioning a restored sanctuary after the model of Eden:
That mythology thought of the temple as the point at which the creation had taken place and around which it now revolved – the Navel of the Earth (Jubilees 8:19; 1 Enoch 26:1, cf. Ezekiel 38:12); the meeting point of heaven and earth – the Gate of Heaven. As such the temple cult exists in a mythological space and time, closely identified with both Eden and the future “eschatological” paradise. [24]
No wonder then the temple played a central role in Jewish life. Its erection and consecration modeled creation. It was the meeting point between God and man, the place of cultic mediation for all creation. it represented all of creation’s cosmic order and thus served as a reminder of covenantal faithfulness needed to maintain an ordered and predictable cosmos. It was through the observation of the cult and compliance with the covenant that blessing passed to Israel. Yet it was far more. It was a reminder to the faithful of God’s promise to re-establish cosmic order at the end of days envisioned in the hope of a restored Eden. While such views for modern Christians may seem hard to grasp, to the Israelite the temple was the center of the Universe, a paradisal Eden, the point from which the entire cosmos was oriented and controlled. [25] It is as if the temple is the cosmic control room that not only brings order but somehow leads its followers back to Eden’s lost paradise. It is the connection between the first and final Eden that bridges the divide that separates God’s sacred space in heaven from man’s dwelling place on earth. It is the place where peace is made between God and men and where communion with God is found. It was the place where man served as priest, mediating between God and creation.
Relevance to Christians Today
For some Christians, the idea that the tabernacle and temple were earthly representations of the cosmos may seem strange. Yet it makes sense. The Hebrews were those called by God to (re)acquaint the nations with God. That they would envision creation as a temple would logically be part of their viewpoint. It adds credence to earlier claims that the creation narrative was never intended to provide a scientific explanation of creation, but a theological one.
The tabernacle/temple were considered God’s House, and one would expect that His house would encompass the cosmos. Nothing less than all creation could contain the Architect and Creator of all. Solomon eloquently stated as much in his consecration prayer of 1 Kings 8:
27 “But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!
Solomon’s statement is insightful. If the highest heavens cannot contain God, what chance has a man-made temple? Scripture records that Yahweh’s essence dwelt in the Holy-of-Holies (Leviticus 16:2), a room only ten cubits by ten cubits by ten cubits, too small a space to contain God’s very essence. That is likely why His presence was also seen above the tabernacle. Such a small space could not fully contain God’s presence, anticipating that the tabernacle and temple would never be able to provide a suitable house for God. It introduces a tension that cannot be resolved apart from a new eschatological temple. It hints that a grand temple-transformation awaited the coming of the Messiah. That the tabernacle came with the old covenant, provides an expectation of a new temple with the introduction of the new covenant in Christ. Such a belief is enhanced when one recognizes that Christ’s coming also introduces a new heaven and a new earth. With a new cosmos, would we not expect a new temple that would represent the new cosmos? It would bring far-reaching implications to Judaism whose temple would be destroyed within one generation of Christ’s death (Matthew 23:38-24:34).
The tabernacle and temple structures sufficed for execution of the cult in accordance with the Sinaic covenant. Though not adequate as God’s house, it could still teach important ethical lessons. Cosmic order would be assured through covenantal obedience (cf. Deuteronomy 28:1-24). Covenantal failure would bring dissolution of Israel’s universe (cf. Deuteronomy 28:15-68). Disobedience would bring destruction of the people, crops and land, accompanied by famine, disease, disaster and ultimately exile again to slavery, bringing the chaos that preceded their creation as God’s people. Deuteronomy 31 predicted Israel’s rebellion and idolatry specifically prophesying Israel’s destruction (vs 17) for covenantal failure (see also Deuteronomy 32:46-47). Deuteronomy 32:22-26 speaks of the judgments in language reminiscent of the chaos that preceded creation.
It reminds God’s people of an important ethic. Sin and rebellion are boundary breaking that bring anti-creative consequences, well known to Israel at the time of their creation and entrance into Palestine. [26] Covenantal failures brought the “anti-creation” of Israel and a return to the pre-creative chaos of sin, modeled as captivity to the nations. Sin not only destroys God’s people and their land, but also brings destruction of God’s temple. This outcome is inherent in Israel’s equating creation of the cosmos with creation of God’s temple.
This outcome is manifest in Ezekiel 7:1-10:22 where God declares “the end” to the four corners of the land. The end comes in the form of destruction and captivity, chaos in the land by elimination of the boundaries that separate Israel from the nations. It brings Israel’s destruction. The reasons include detestable practices (Ezekiel 7:3), bloodshed (Ezekiel 7:23) and idolatry (Ezekiel 8:6, 9-10, 15). Chapter 9 declares judgment on idolaters and chapter 10 brings “the end” with the symbolic departure of God’s presence from the temple (v. 4). God’s departure from His house portends destruction of God’s temple.
Christians should reflect upon what this means, particularly in light of Paul’s claim that the church are God’s temple (2 Corinthians 6:16). Our sins and failures are destructive to God’s temple, the church! Our failures not only deeply damage our relationship with God but can destroy others in the body, potentially disqualifying them from salvation. Personal holiness is thus seen to be of critical import to church corporate health.
Further, Christ referred to Himself as God’s new (eschatological) temple that would replace Israel’s old temple of stone (Mark 14:58; John 2:19; cf. Matthew 26:61). It follows then, that our sins and covenantal failures are a direct attack upon Christ – an attempt to destroy Him! No wonder then sin can be so harshly judged by God! Christians should not expect God to simply forgive sin, flippantly foregoing negative consequences upon our lives. Since sin destroys God’s new creation (the cosmos and the church), Christians should expect sin will destroy them, their families and the church with far-reaching consequences to all God’s creation. Since sin undermines our testimony, it can lead to an unfruitful life that robs others of the blessing of salvation through our personal witness. No Christian wishes to be accountable for failing to bring the lost to Christ. It again emphasizes personal holiness.
Finally, the Jewish people believed that God’s creation was not completed until the temple had been completed:
. . . the presence of the Sanctuary . . . symbolizes the completion of the creation of the universe. [27]
The notion that the erection of the Sanctuary completes the process of creation is conveyed explicitly in the Midrash concerning the completion of the First Temple:
“All the work [that King Solomon had done in the House of the Lord] was completed (1 Kings 7:51)” – scripture does not say the work, but all the work, which refers to the work of the six days of creation, as it says, “[And God] completed all the work that He had planned to do” (Genesis 2:2). Scripture does not say [that He] had done, but, [that He] had planned to do, implying that there was yet more work to do. When Solomon completed the Temple, God proclaimed: “Now the work of the heavens and the earth are complete (shelemah). [When it says] “All the work was completed (va-tashlem),” it indicates why he was named Solomon (Shelomoh), for God completed (hishlim) the work of the six days of creation through him. [28]
The belief that the establishment of the temple completes creation has far-reaching implications. If the temple is destroyed, it leaves creation incomplete and unfinished. There can be no Sabbatical rest. The destruction of the temple in Ezekiel typologically anticipates the completion of a new temple (Ezekiel 40-48) that truly “completes” creation. The Jewish desire for a new temple in Jerusalem is no surprise in light of this understanding. It creates a tension within Judaism for a new temple. But that tension is not limited to Judaism. That the temple models creation gives a clue that a new creation awaits “in eager expectation . . . in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay . . . groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Romans 8:19-22). Creation awaits eschatological completion, and with it one would expect the final eschatological temple would also await completion. For with its completion comes Sabbatical rest for creation, an eternal Sabbath with the Lord. This is our great hope through Christ.
[1] Millard, A.R., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary Part 3,Temple, Wheaton, IL, Inter-Varsity Press, Tyndale House Publishers, 1980, p. 1524. Millard notes a Late Bronze Age tri-partite shrine at Hazor. Also noted are numerous carved panels of Phoenician work with flowers, palms and winged sphinxes, “undoubtedly comparable with the carvings in the Temple.”
[2] The temple pillars modeled creation’s prototypical mountains, built upon a subterranean foundation and stretching to the firmament. Gage noted similar practice in pagan temples: “In his eighth night vision, Zechariah describes four winds of heaven coming forth from the presence of God, who dwells behind two bronze mountains. The mountains, in the metaphor of a house, become pillars, and the two free-standing bronze pillars (Jachin and Boaz) set at the entrance to Solomon’s temple were identified by Gressmann as representating these cosmic mountains, which in ancient cosmography supported the weight of the heavens. Similar pillars were noted by Herodotus before the temple of Melqart in Tyre, a Phoenician divinity the Greek historian identified with Hercules, after whom the straights of Gibraltar (the pillars of Hercules) were named. In classical mythology these mountains became the cosmic focal point of the heavens resting upon the earth. Similarly, the biblical model for Hercules, Samson, is associated with the pillars of the Philistine temple of Gaza upon which the weight of the temple was supported. Finally, the capitals of the Solomonic pillars displayed pomegranates, a fertility emblem, suggesting the garden at the summit of the mountain, once again clearly a paradise motif.” Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 55-56
[3] Walton, John H., The Lost World of Genesis One, Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 2009, p. 81-81
[4] Fletcher-Louis, Crispin, H. T., The destruction of the Temple and the Relativization of the Old Covenant, presented in Brower, Kent E. & Elliott, Mark W. , Eschatology in the Bible & Theology, Downers Grove, Il, Intervarsity Press, 1997, p. 157
[5] Ibid, p. 160-161
[6] Brown, William P., The Ethos of the Cosmos, The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, p. 75
[7] Fletcher-Louis, Crispin, H. T., The destruction of the Temple and the Relativization of the Old Covenant, presented in Brower, Kent E. & Elliott, Mark W. , Eschatology in the Bible & Theology, Downers Grove, Il, Intervarsity Press, 1997, p. 161
[8] That Eden also represented a sanctuary, an archetypal temple will be covered in the analysis of the Genesis 2-3 creation-narrative. Interestingly, both Borsch and Beale note the practice of Ancient Near Eastern pagan temples having a garden adjacent the temple or with carvings indicative of a garden within the temple, enhancing the idea of a paradisal garden as a sanctuary between God and man, a widespread belief in antiquity. Borsch, Frederick Houk, The Son of Man in Myth and History, Philadelphia PA, SCM Press Ltd, 1967, p. 98. Beale, G. K., The Temple and the Church’s Mission, A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, Downers Grove IL, InterVarsity Press, 2004, p. 72, footnote 101, quoting Stager.
[9] Gage, Warren Austin, The Gospel of Genesis, Winona Lake IN, Carpenter Books, 1984, p. 55 Footnote 29
[10] Ibid, p. 55
[11] Ibid, p. 54
[12] The idea that the two pillars located at the front of the temple hold up the firmament/sky is the only credible explanation we have seen to date for these pillars that do not appear to be part of the temple structure. These pillars have baffled many as they seem to have no structural purpose in the temple and are free-standing, holding up nothing.
[13] Fletcher-Louis, Crispin, H. T., The destruction of the Temple and the Relativization of the Old Covenant, presented in Brower, Kent E. & Elliott, Mark W. , Eschatology in the Bible & Theology, Downers Grove, Il, Intervarsity Press, 1997, p. 158
[14] Brown, William P., The Ethos of the Cosmos, The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, p. 73
[15] The consecration of the priesthood is also marked by the first occurrence of time in the tabernacle account (time was created on the first day) with the seven day ordination period (Exodus 29:30, 35-37). The ordination period also emphasizes the sacrifices to be performed in the evenings and mornings, a further allusion to the days of creation.
[16] Bezalel was filled with God’s Spirit much as Adam was in God’s image and filled with the breath of God. Berman notes Exodus 31:3 describes Bezalel as being filled with the spirit of God in wisdom, understanding and knowledge, adjectives used of God in His creation of the cosmos (cf. Proverbs 3:19-20 ). Proverbs uses this language deliberately as Solomon sought to draw a link between the tabernacle’s construction and the creation of the universe. Berman states, “ . . . Bezalel’s creation of the Tabernacle is tantamount to God’s creation of the universe.” Berman, Joshua, The Temple, Its Symbolism and Meaning Then and Now, Northvale, NJ, Jason Aronson Inc., 1995, p. 15-16
[17] The Table is based upon Kearney’s work with updates. Kearney, Peter J., Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Exodus 25-40, available at www.bhporter.com/Porter%20PDF%20Files/creation%20and%[email protected]
[18] The dedication was during the Feast of Tabernacles, a festival of seven days. Morrow, Jeff, Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1-3, available @ www.ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/43/18
[19] Berman, Joshua, The Temple, Its Symbolism and Meaning Then and Now, Northvale, NJ, Jason Aronson Inc., 1995, p. 13 Weinfeld notes a similarity in usage of Hebrew phrases associated with each account. (cf. Morrow, Jeff, Creation as Temple-Building and Work as Liturgy in Genesis 1-3, available @ www.ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/43/18
[20] The parallels with creation are recognized even by Isaiah who later describes this event as “cutting Rahab to pieces” (Isaiah 51:9-10), an allusion to pagan creation myths with Rahab as chaos monster.
[21] In creation as a model of God’s temple, the pattern places Sabbath before temple-building which is consistent with the creation passage Genesis 1-3. Eden is alluded to as a model of the temple (or more precisely the Holy of Holies); the account of Eden following creation’s Sabbath. This pattern appears to be deliberate, having typological significance when the Temple is viewed eschatologically. Matthew and Mark seem to structure their accounts of Jesus as a parallel to creation. In Matthew 8:23-27, Jesus subdues the storm (cf. Mark 4:35-41; Mark 6:45-52; Matthew 14:22-33). The covenant is presented in Matthew 5:1- 7:29 and Mark 4 in parables (cf. Matthew 13). The twelve disciples representing the new Israel are appointed in Matthew 4:12-22; 9:9 (cf. Mark 3:13-19) and sent to communicate the new covenant in Matthew 10:1-14 (cf. Mark 6:7-11). Jesus “feasts” by feeding the four thousand in Matthew 15:32-38 and Mark 8:1-10 (cf. Matthew 14:13-21 and Mark 6:31-44 where Jesus feeds five thousand). Peter’s confession of Christ in Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30 parallels the Israelites acceptance of the covenant. Then in Matthew 17:1-8 (cf. Mark 9:2-4) there is the transfiguration of Jesus where Jesus led Peter, James and John up a high mountain after six days, paralleling the events of Sinai – Jesus’ transfiguration paralleling that of the radiance of Moses’ face that followed his encounters with Yahweh on Sinai and at the tent of meeting (Exodus 34:29:35). Note also Jesus subdued spiritual forces of chaos through healing and giving his disciples power over evil spirits. There may also be a parallel between Mark’s account of Jesus’ baptism and Genesis 1:2.
[22] Brown, William P., The Ethos of the Cosmos, The Genesis of Moral Imagination in the Bible, Grand Rapids MI, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999, p. 13
[23] Ibid, p. 12 This idea is not wholly unexpected. In the Genesis account, creation comes into existence as the result of ten commands given by God, “And God said . . .” These ten commands establish the order of creation in Genesis 1. Likewise, with the creation of Israel, God’s people, come ten commands written on tablets of stone that establish the order of his creation Israel.
[24] Fletcher-Louis, Crispin, H. T., The destruction of the Temple and the Relativization of the Old Covenant, presented in Brower, Kent E. & Elliott, Mark W. , Eschatology in the Bible & Theology, Downers Grove, Il, Intervarsity Press, 1997, p. 156-157
[25] The temple is central to Jewish life and thought even today. In a July 15, 2010 article published by BBC news titled House-by-house struggle for East Jerusalem one of the residents of East Jerusalem expressed it this way: “Jerusalem is the centre of the Jewish world. For a Jew, for generations, the best thing they could do is to sing “next year in Jerusalem” on Passover. Today they have the opportunity to live close to God’s house, near Temple Mount. Every Jew wants a piece of the action, wants to be here, close to God in the heart of Jerusalem.” This conviction that being close to God requires a physical temple located on Jerusalem’s acropolis appears still strong in the hearts of zealous Jews.
[26] Proverbs 30:21-23 illustrates the equivalence of unrighteousness/social breakdown with cosmic upheavel: “Under three things the earth trembles, under four it cannot bear up: a servant who becomes king, a fool who is full of food, an unloved woman who is married, and a maidservant who displaces her mistress.”
[27] Berman, Joshua, The Temple, Its Symbolism and Meaning Then and Now, Northvale, NJ, Jason Aronson Inc., 1995, p. 14
[28] Ibid, p. 14-15, quoting from Pesikta Rabbati 6