HAVERFORD COLLEGE
Rebuilt History
The Significance of the First Temple in 1 and 2
Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles
Brian Z. Sokas
4/17/2014
2
Brian Z. Sokas
Acknowledgments
For Naomi, who put up with my eccentricities. Had I known we’d
be spending so much time together, I would have cherished it more early
on. And for my teammates, the Haverford College Goats, whose
shenanigans and camaraderie have pulled me through many a late night,
including the one it took to finish this.
3
Brian Z. Sokas
Abstract
The First Temple in Jerusalem is an incredibly complex structure, standing for hundreds
of years initially as a representation of a thriving Israelite nation. Though modern discussions of
Solomon’s Temple typically include mention of sanctity or divine presence, the initial
significance of the structure differed for early Israelites and was religiously reassessed during the
Babylonian exile. This thesis seeks to reveal that the First Temple, in fact, lacked its presently
touted sacred nature. The Temple, a unifying factor for both pre-exilic Israelites and modern
Jews, stands as just one of many examples in which historically impactful and religiously central
architecture transcends time and space, elevated and eternalized in the minds of believers.
Israelite perception of the space, divided by hundreds of years and catastrophic destruction,
varied. The tumult of its destruction and the subsequent exile changed the ideals of the Israelites
and propelled the space from a political centralizer into an eternal religious and spiritual unifier
irreplaceable to post-exilic Jews. Revealing the complex identity differences between the
completed first Temple and evolved post-exilic priestly perceptions of the space, requires two
prominent biblical texts, pre-exilic 1 and 2 Kings and post-exilic 1 and 2 Chronicles. These texts,
paired with clarifying historical and literary context, expose the First Temple as altered initially
by the more politically-minded pre-exilic Israelite kings and transformed into a more spiritual
and holy communal space by kingless post-exilic Israelites.
4
Brian Z. Sokas
I.
Introduction
Religious structures have the capacity to strongly embody communal experiences and
ideologies. The worldly materials comprising Christian Churches, Jewish synagogues and
Islamic mosques hold for their faithful an other-worldly capability to inspire belief and
encourage personal religious connection with a higher being. Early institutionally constructed
religious buildings, while physically faded by age or human damage (or both), become idealized
in the minds of believers. Recorded perceptions of these early spaces provide glimpses into the
impacts of man-made religious structures at their initial erection and their ideological
development over time. At the heart of this symbiosis between physical space, history and
religious belief lies Solomon’s First Temple in Jerusalem. Though lacking verifiable
archaeological proof of existence, the tales of the first Temple found in early Biblical literature
present a structure eternalized by religious ritual and physical representing the once prominent
Israelite nation. A variety of texts, capturing perceptions of the space both during its victorious
standing and after its horrifying destruction in 587 BCE, illustrate a surprising evolution of
significance for the first Temple in Israelite thought.
Extensive Biblical scholarship and archaeological research has been conducted in the
hopes of uncovering the First Temple’s actual function. Such expansive investigation, much of
which points to the Temple as a unifying utility rather than holy space, brings into question the
impact of its destruction and the chronological timeframe over which the building evolved into
something beyond its initial purpose. Historical estimates, largely reliant on biblical sources,
place the Temple’s construction sometime around 3000 years ago. As such, comparing different
biblical texts produced during the Temple’s residence and after its destruction provides the sole
perspective into the Temple’s role in Israelite life. Specifying the study of the Temple’s
5
Brian Z. Sokas
evolution over time, and taking into account pre-exilic and post-exilic Biblical literature,
provides an equally valuable insight into understanding the significance (or lack thereof) of the
First Temple.
The Babylonian destruction of the Temple serves as a divider between pre- and postexilic perceptions of the structure. On August 16, 586 BCE, Nebuzaradan, his Babylonian
soldiers and Chaldeans swept through Jerusalem.1 Burning the city in swift retribution for
disobedience, Babylonian soldiers worked their way northwards towards the royal palace and its
lofty Temple, erected hundreds of years prior and refurbished by numerous kings.2 Though
already raided and desecrated by the mercenaries for its immense supply of gold and other
treasures, the Temple remained standing, overlooking the city from the north, as a symbol of
historic Israelite success and national unification. Nebuzaradan and his ruthless band rushed to
the Temple where, in a moment set to forever change Judaic history and the development of
monotheistic world religion, they tore down its pillars, broke down its stone walls and lit the
structure aflame.3 The once majestic edifice lay scattered and smoldering across the Mount, its
physical supremacy revoked and its religious, political and spiritual significance in great doubt.
As Babylonians expelled Israelites from Jerusalem and the land of Israel and scattered them
throughout the empire, they carried with them the shock of such reversal of fortune and the
immense heartbreak of witnessing such a nationally significant monument so easily torn asunder.
This thesis seeks to reveal that the First Temple, in fact, lacked its presently touted sacred
nature. The tumult of its destruction and the subsequent exile changed the ideals of the Israelites
and propelled the space from a political centralizer into an eternal religious and spiritual unifier
irreplaceable to post-exilic Jews. Revealing the complex identity differences between the
1
Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, The Anchor Bible: II Kings (Doubleday and Co., 1988), 323.
Mordechai Cogan, The Anchor Bible: 1 Kings (New York, Doubleday and Co., 2001), 251.
3
2 Kings 25: 9
2
6
Brian Z. Sokas
completed first Temple and evolved post-exilic priestly perceptions of the space, requires two
prominent biblical texts, pre-exilic 1 and 2 Kings and post-exilic 1 and 2 Chronicles. These texts,
paired with clarifying historical and literary context, expose the First Temple as a space
impacted, altered and molded initially by the more politically-minded pre-exilic Israelite kings
and transformed into a more spiritual and holy communal space by kingless post-exilic Israelites.
This transfer in perceptions, exposed by authorial bias and differing narrative themes, illustrates
a pre-exilic focus on political strength and a post-Temple attachment to religious significance
and larger spiritual connection.
II.
History, Texts and an Evolving Temple
The two primary texts this thesis will explore are 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles.
Though technically four books in Biblical collection, each is a full text broken in half, initially
drafted without breaks in the narrative.4 The texts are noticeably similar, with large portions of
Chronicles clearly transferred directly from Kings and 1 and 2 Samuel, another pre-exilic text
narrating pre-Solomon Israelite history.5 At times it becomes nearly impossible to differentiate
excerpts in Chronicles from those found in Kings. The historical atmosphere at the time of
writing was vastly different for each text, however, and as such the similarities between the texts
dissipate with the extraction of differing themes and authorial emphases. Exploring the social
and political situations at the time of writing for each author is an imperative step in uncovering
and explaining the different portrayals of the First Temple in each text.
As its namesake suggests, the Book(s) of Kings covers the Israelite royal narrative
beginning with David’s death and finishing with Zedekiah’s rebellion, the Temple’s destruction
and the beginning of the Diaspora. Scholarly estimates place its initial drafting sometime around
4
5
Thomas RÖmer, “1 Kings” from The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
Jacob M. Myers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (Doubleday and Co., 1965)
7
Brian Z. Sokas
620 B.C.E, more than half a century before the Babylonian exile but well after the Temple’s
construction under King Solomon. Biblical scholars refer to this author as the ‘Deuteronomist’, a
title resultant of the Deuteronomic themes found throughout the narrative, primarily unwavering
loyalty to YHWH.6 While religio-political interpretation varies widely regarding Kings, the
focus placed on the royal house of Israel and the likely date of writing confirms an authorial
focus on the centrality of the Davidic line.
620 B.C.E was marked by sweeping religious overhauls under King Josiah, who assumed
rule over an Israelite nation distracted by the rise and fall of the Assyrian Empire, mismanaged
by unfaithful rulers, influenced by increasing interactions with pagan foreigners (mostly due to
military conquests) and a consequential affinity for non-Israelite ritual.7 In a return to Davidic
and Solomonic practices, Josiah decreed “[Put] away the mediums, wizard, teraphim, idols and
all the abominations [in] the land of Judah and in Jerusalem,” (2 Kings 23:24) and refurbished
the First Temple, renewing its significance in Israel and conforming to the YHWH-centric
thought common to Deuteronomic codes. The Deuteronomist, unsurprisingly, lauds Josiah’s
return to faithfulness and declares, “[There] was no king like him, who turned to the LORD
[according] to the Law of Moses” (2 Kings 23:25). The intense approval allotted Josiah and the
emphasis on a return to religious faithfulness acts as a microcosm of the Deuteronomist’s larger
literary focus on the kings of Israel. He structures his narrative entirely around the actions,
victories, shortcomings and sins of each King.
The book of Chronicles, in contrast, was the product of tumultuous historical experience
and a vastly different world situation as compared to the social, theological and political
atmosphere affecting the Deuteronomist’s writings. Upper class Israelites and the priestly class
6
7
Mordechai Cogan, The Anchor Bible: 1 Kings (New York, Doubleday and Co., 2001), 96.
Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, The Anchor Bible: II Kings (Doubleday and Co., 1988), 291-293.
8
Brian Z. Sokas
were seized from their homes and moved to Babylon, while others remained in Judah. Many
meditated on the recent atrocities, grappling to reconcile the shocking historical upheaval with
the remaining potential of covenantal connection with the divine.8 The Babylonians, by killing
Zedekiah and high-ranking members of the royal political court, essentially eliminated the
Israelite pre-exilic governing body. With royal rule effectively quashed, religious leaders, left
exiled but intact, stepped into the political vacuum and led the nation, mourning the spiritual
disconnect and divine punishment exhibited by the Temple’s destruction and the Babylonian
exile.9 Unlike their pre-exilic rulers and pro-royalty authors like the Deuteronomist, empowered
Israelite religious elite gravitated towards religious devotion and spiritual connection as keys to
reconciling the recent atrocities and guaranteeing national unity. By the time a new dominant
world power arrived, Israelite religious belief and the Temple’s significance had transitioned
immensely, leading to new textual offerings forwarding a new role for the structure in Israelite
life.
Cyrus the Great and the spread of his Persian Empire spelt doom for the Babylonians and
the end of the exile for Israelites. In 539 BCE, Cyrus issued a decree which, as cited in 2
Chronicles 36, declared “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has
given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem,
which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may the LORD his God be with him!
Let him go up."10 Diaspora Israelites gradually trickled back into Judah and attempted to build
8
Beate Ego, “Interpreting the Exile: The Experience of the Destruction of the Temple and Devastation of the Land
as Reflected Within the Nonpentateuchal Biblical Abraham Tradition”. (Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature,
2005). 170-172.
9
Marjo C.A. Korpel, “Disillusion among Jews in the Postexilic Period”. (Brill Academic, 2003). 142-143. Even with
the fall of the Babylonians in 539, the royal house remained dormant. Cyrus, likely out of fear of potential political
insolence, refrained from appointing a new Davidic king and instead let priestly folk direct national rebuilding.
10
Cyrus’ decree is found in the ‘Cyrus cylinder’ held at the British Museum in London. While translations are
heavily debated, the decree other mentions in the Old Testament book of Ezra and its archaeological discovery
corroborate the reference found in Chronicles.
9
Brian Z. Sokas
new lives and a new nation upon the ashes of Jerusalem and the ruins of the Temple.11 The actual
date of composition is greatly debated; Chronicles is constructed from considerable portions of
much older Hebrew biblical texts and lacks recognizable markers of historical events. With a
dearth of specific in-text examples to tie with specific centuries of the post-exilic time period, the
narrative could have been scribed anytime between the late 500s and the early 200s BCE.12
The anonymous author of Chronicles is typically referred to as ‘The Chronicler’. With a
substantial portion of Chronicles taken directly from Kings, along with other biblical sources like
Samuel and Exodus, the Chronicler clearly had access to earlier Hebrew texts. Drawing
primarily from the Kings narrative and adding a heavy amount of his own commentary into an
astounding (and at times tedious) 64 chapters, the Chronicler utilizes the Davidic history of 1 and
2 Samuel and the royal narrative of Kings to construct un updated (for the time period) Israelite
history intertwining and emphasizing religious significance with historical event.13 The
Chronicler, with access to a vast spectrum of Israelite history, particularly from the Samuel and
Kings texts, offered a reinterpreted understanding of past events. Moving away from his
Deuteronimcal predecessor, who found greater significance in the political logistics of the
Israelite kingdom, the Chronicler grappled with YHWH’s influence in both everyday
occurrences and cataclysmic events. The overarching motifs found in Chronicles emphasize a
religious understanding of Israelite history, framing past events as products of divine action in
the hopes of unifying post-exilic Israelites under renewed belief in the omnipotent YHWH.14 The
Chronicler’s intent to intertwine history with religion does not completely reject the
Deuteronomist’s textual focus, however, as both authors employ divine influence to bolster their
11
Gary N. Knoppers, “1 Chronicles”, The New Oxford Annotated Bible. (New York, Oxford University Press, 2010).
Ibid.
13
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) xiii-xix.
14
Ibid., xiii.
12
10
Brian Z. Sokas
respective perceptions of the Temple. Instead, the Chronicler’s methods emphasize the
connectedness between personal spiritual connection and religious ritual. He utilizes
Deuteronomist’s textual inclusion on loyalty to YHWH while stepping away from political
concerns. The Chronicler’s motivation in redirecting collective Israelite devotion back to God
climaxed with the Temple’s completion, a moment in Kings more politically pragmatic than
spiritually connective. The Chronicler’s desire to learn from historical event pulled the Temple
well away from its mundane origins, transitioning the space from Solomon’s political
strengthener to a collectively revered holy space.
III.
1 and 2 Kings
The Temple construction and completion story is one of numerous topics covered in 1
Kings. Though heavily overshadowed by the extensive literary attention given to the royal
lineage of Israelite kings, the tale of the Temple’s erection is afforded an impressively lengthy
four chapters.15 More than half of 1 Kings is awarded to Solomon and the events of his rule. The
Temple narrative, by owning a similarly large textual profile, gains elevated importance over
other topics covered in Kings. No other king discussed in either the first or second book garners
anywhere near as much reading time as Solomon or the Temple. In some cases, even, royalty
mentioned in 2 Kings barely survive a single chapter before, in the repetitive Deuteronomic
writing style, they “slept with [their] ancestors” in Jerusalem.16 The Deuteronomist, in allocating
another four chapters for Temple-related activities, impresses unmistakable significance upon the
building and the events surrounding it.
15
1 Kings, The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 2010).
This example is taken from 1 Kings 12:43, after the death of Solomon, but the Deuteronomist uses this exact line
about ‘sleeping’ with ancestors to summarize the death and conclude the reign of any Israelite or Judaic king
mentioned in Kings.
16
11
Brian Z. Sokas
First mention of the Temple appears in 1 Kings 5. Blessed by a sharp drop in warfare,
Solomon lauds God’s assistance in preventing further violence and, in response to the
unexpected break in necessary military movements, declares, in fulfillment of his father’s
supposed covenant, “I intend to build a house for the name of the LORD my God” (1 Kings 5:4).
Thus begins a nationwide mobilization of labor and resource allocation. David gathered a
hundred thousand stone-cutters, woodworkers, and assembly servants are gathered along with
substantial reserves of stone and Lebanon cedar.17 Chapter 6 supplies details of the Temple’s
shape and dimensions (in cubits), placement of the windows, arrangement of the tripartite
containment arenas and the order of construction. The plethora of construction-related details,
taking up the better part of two chapters and seemingly arbitrary in relation to a larger royal
narrative, indicates the overarching importance of all facets of the Temple’s path to physical
existence. By devoting considerable attention to the building, even before its actual construction,
Kings appreciates the budding political impact of the First Temple.
The most valuable passages relating the Temple, its function and the themes represented
by it arise out of Temple completion in 1 Kings 8. Specifically, portions of Solomon’s obeisant
benediction speech from 1 Kings 8:15-20 and 27-30 and his subsequent interaction and
confirmation of his lineal covenant in 1 Kings 9:3-5 provide an ideal, though loquaciously
enigmatic, example of the Temple’s larger function and essence in the minds of the
Deuteronomic author and Israelites of the time period. These passages, when simultaneously
related to other major literary themes found in the larger framework of the Kings narrative,
reveal a surprisingly political function of the First Temple and a striking dichotomy in Israelite
historical significance between kings and non-royalty.
17
1 Kings 5:18. The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New York, Oxford University Press, 2010).
12
Brian Z. Sokas
The first excerpt arises out of Solomon’s Temple Benediction found in 1 Kings 8,
following the arrival and placement of the Ark of the Covenant in the middle of the Holy of
Holies. The Ark’s internment in the Temple sparks YHWH’s descent in cloud form, a common
early Hebrew biblical motif representing divine guidance tied closely to Exodus 13: 21-22,
where God appears as a column of fire.18 With his priests expelled by divine condensation,
Solomon finds it appropriate to interject with a long prayer. 1 Kings 8:15-20 reads:
“He said, “Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, who with his hands has
fulfilled what he promised with his mouth to my father David, saying, ‘Since the
day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from
any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there,
but I chose David to be over my people Israel.’ My father David had it in mind to
build a house for the name of the LORD, the God of Israel. But the LORD said to
my father David, ‘You did well to consider building a house for my name;
nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you
shall build the house for my name. Now the LORD has upheld the promise that he
made; for I have risen in the place of my father David; I sit on the throne of Israel,
as the LORD promised, and have built the house for the name of the LORD, the
God of Israel.” (NRSV). 19
Solomon’s prayer emphasizes the significance of this moment in Israelite history.
The Deuteronomist, by intertwining divine influence with David’s covenant with
YHWH, impresses the same historical significance upon the Temple’s completion as
placed on David’s initial agreement with God to build a dynastic royal ‘house’ for his
family in 2 Samuel 7.20 By drawing upon older Hebrew sources and relating motifs like
divine clouds and royal-divine interaction to the erection of the Temple, the space
becomes more than just a melding of metal, rock and wood. It instead serves to validate
18
Lieber, D. L. (2007). Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire. In M. Berenbaum & F. Skolnik (Eds.), Encyclopaedia Judaica
(2nd ed., Vol. 16, p. 161). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2587515772&v=2.1&u=have19984&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=0
3670f6ff82ec8169299c36a0fd25cd9
19
All Biblical quotations come from the New Revised Standard Version.
20
Mordechai Cogan, The Anchor Bible: 1 Kings (New York, Doubleday and Co., 2001), 283.
13
Brian Z. Sokas
Solomon’s political position, strengthening his unstable rise to the throne, as well as
centralize national focus and obedience upon Jerusalem and the Davidic house.
Romantic notions of the spiritual significance of the Temple, like those found in
modern histories of Jerusalem, seize upon the surface-level religious rhetoric of verses 15
and 16. A preliminary read of verses 15-20, drenched in divine titles (the words ‘LORD’
and ‘God’ appear 10 times in three sentences) and invoking Davidic history, offer an
apparently easy instance of divine action and religious significance. Take, for example,
Simon Sebag Montefiore’s Jerusalem: The Biography, a national bestseller lauded as a
comprehensive history of the city. In his recapitulation of the First Temple’s final
completion Montefiore declares, “At that moment, the concept of sanctity in the Judaeo
[world] found its eternal home. Jews and other Peoples of the Book believe that the
Divine Presence has never left the Temple Mount”.21 Montefiore’s assertion, though
intense and heavily overextended, is not entirely false. The location of the Temple’s
completion within the text, just after Solomon’s ascension to the throne, is widely
interpreted as a Deuteronomic confirmation of the immensity of the moment in Israelite
history.22 However, the attribution of religious significance and the immediate centrality
of the Temple overshadow the deeper textual intentions and historical influences
directing the wording of 1 Kings 8:15-20 and the likely functions of the First Temple.
The Deuteronomist emphasizes political validation over religious significance. The
Temple, though presented as a house of sacrifice and repentance to YHWH, bypasses the
structure’s religious functions to instead reveal divine approval for Solomon’s reign. The
21
22
Simon Sebag Montefiore, Jerusalem: The Biography. (New York, Random House Inc., 2011). 33.
Mordechai Cogan, The Anchor Bible: 1 Kings (New York, Doubleday and Co., 2001), 290-291.
14
Brian Z. Sokas
text requires a much more intense examination and contextual backing than Montefiore
or others provide.
Solomon’s speech seeks to address the two essential parties involved in
establishing the relevance and centrality of the Temple: YHWH and the Israelites.23 Since
historical corroboration of the Temple benediction is virtually impossible, understanding
the textual intentions behind the Temple’s benediction in verses 15-20 is vitally
important. While at first glance the text advocates religious connection, drawing on
covenantal confirmation and salutatory offerings to the divine, Solomon’s political
individuality and his shaky ascension to the throne reveal largely human concerns for the
new structure.
Solomon’s public presentation of the Temple, as a divinely approved (or preapproved) work, solidifies his reign. His reflections in vv. 16-20 offer initially
inconspicuous historical context on the goals and functions of the space in ancient Israel.
In an indication of earlier Biblical influence, the Deuteronomist employs the covenantal
discussion between David and YHWH from 2 Samuel 7:13: “[Your son] shall build a
house for my name and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever”. Solomon, by
overseeing the divine directive in developing this ‘house’, dualistically achieves both the
fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and bolsters his rule over his people (as the inheritor
of the covenant), as he is keen to mention, “I sit on the throne of Israel” (1 Kings 8:20).
The Temple is tangible proof that King Solomon and the Davidic house have achieved
political superiority and covenantal confirmation. More personally, though, the Temple’s
completion serves as a political championing of the land of Israel and a boost for the
validity of Solomon’s reign. While Solomon is quick to regale attendant Israelites with
23
Ibid. 290.
15
Brian Z. Sokas
the 2 Samuel 7 narrative of his father’s covenant, the Deuteronomist actually altered the
story to fit both Solomon’s personal royal place and a larger emphasis on Jerusalem as
the singular Israelite arbiter of political direction and religious ritual. In vv. 16-17,
Solomon narrates the covenantal discussion between David and YHWH in 2 Samuel 7,
making it appear that Jerusalem was the assumed location for the Temple’s construction.
In fact, 2 Samuel 7:6-7 finds YHWH, as delivered by the prophet Nathan, highly
ambivalent as to the potential location for the future Temple;
“I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from
Egypt…but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle” (2 Samuel 7:6,
NRSV).
The Deuteronomist subtly alters the text cited by Solomon, leaving out any of the
ambiguity forwarded through Nathan.24 Instead, Solomon asserts that YHWH was simply
waiting to choose a metropolitan area from his self-appointed twelve tribes; “I have not chosen a
city from the tribes of Israel” (1 Kings 8:16). The Deuteronomist, in modifying Davidic history,
allowed for easier connection between Solomon’s reign, his successful Temple construction and
the divine preference placed upon the Davidic line in the midst of 2 Samuel. The Deuteronomist,
following associated literary themes, provides Solomon with a considerable amount of divine
favor for maintaining a relatively subservient nature with YHWH. His loyalty to the singular
deity is made all the more apparent by the historical connection drawn between YHWH’s divine
favor and Solomon’s assumption to the throne (vv. 20).25 Solomon’s proven place as Israelite
royal superior in verse 20 goes far beyond divine preference, however. Though the continued use
of the covenantal narrative emphasizes Solomon’s Temple as a national unifier, taking into
24
25
Mordechai Cogan, The Anchor Bible: 1 Kings (New York, Doubleday and Co., 2001), 282.
See 1 Kings 8: 20, where Solomon declares “I sit on the throne of Israel…” (NRSV).
16
Brian Z. Sokas
account the political realities of the time period and King’s Solomon’s path to the throne reveal
the primarily political purposes of a structure disguised by theologically infused rhetoric.
Solomon’s ascension to the royal throne, as outlined seven chapters prior in 1
Kings 1-2, was anything but guaranteed. Though allotted a considerable amount of
Biblical attention in both Kings and Chronicles, Solomon was not initially slated to
assume David’s throne. The child of David’s seventh wife Batsheba, Solomon was
systematically outranked by at least three other half-brothers, offspring of David’s other
wives.26 At the end of David’s reign sometime in the late 900s BCE Solomon’s brother
Adonijah, taking advantage of David’s senility and a history of internal family strife,
declared his intention to receive the throne and began advertising his soon-to-be
kingship.27 The prophet Nathan, spooked by Adonijah’s premature claims to throne,
conspires with Bathsheba, deceiving a heavily-aged David into believing he had made an
earlier agreement to place Solomon on the throne. 28 David, reacting rapidly to the news,
dispatches his high priest Zadok and the prophet Nathan (along with their entourage) who
anoint Solomon in 1 Kings 1: 38-40.
Solomon’s new royal title, however, was not attained without some drama.
Though harsh on Adonijah’s boastful disobedience, Solomon initially refrained from
killing his brother, instead concerning himself with political management.29 Solomon is
incensed, however, after Adonijah outlandishly requests one of David’s former
26
1 Kings 1:5 and 2 Samuel 3 both contain snippets of information on David’s marital status and his male heirs.
2 Samuel 13 follows Amnon and Absalom’s fall from royal graces, while 1 Kings 1-2 reveals Adonijah’s conniving
in hopes of seizing the throne.
28
Mordechai Cogan, The Anchor Bible: 1 Kings (New York, Doubleday and Co., 2001), 164-165. Cogan, like other
biblical commentators, does not provide an earlier indication of a conversation between David and Bathsheba
regarding David. Nathan teams with Bathseba in 1 King 1 7-14 to save himself impending execution that would
follow Adonijah’s ascension to the throne.
29
1 Kings 2 revolves around the assassinations of Joab and Adonijah, both of whom were killed by king’s assistants
for their insolence.
27
17
Brian Z. Sokas
concubines as a bride, and has his brother killed.30 Following with a sweeping (and
bloody) clearance of inner-circle opponents, Solomon has Joab, David’s former military
commander and an ardent Adonijah supporter, slashed to death while clinging to the
horns of Jerusalem’s sacrificial altar.31 Solomon’s brutal responses are the result of a
much deeper political crisis than clarified by the text. His ascension to the throne though,
acknowledged by David’s cabinet and the Israelite nation, coincided with brewing
discontent in David’s royal court, a group consisting of tribal leaders, David’s offspring,
political advisers and military generals. Seasoned members of the entourage who had
accompanied David throughout his rule (like Joab) were increasingly at odds with newer
appointees like Nathan and the high priest Zadok.32 Solomon, unable to gain the outright
support of both parties as indicated by Joab and Adonijah’s disobedience, was forced to
side with the newer coalition of the bifurcated court.
Though supported by the ‘up and coming’ group of advisers, Solomon’s decisions
alienated northern tribal leaders and essentially eliminated the potential of holistic
national approval. Building the Temple, which concentrated ritual worship to a single
location, Solomon’s political capital in Jerusalem, politically concretized Solomon’s rule
and ‘proved’ divine favoritism in a fractured nation. Solomon’s intentions in building the
Temple and presenting it in such a politicized manner illustrate the true initial purpose of
the edifice. The rectangular structure visually represents the divine favor placed upon the
Israelite kingdom, with Jerusalem as its capital and Solomon as its king.
Though heavily political in its purpose, the Temple is not entirely void of
religious function in the Kings narrative. It is readily acknowledged by scholarly
30
1 Kings 2:19-25
1 Kings 2:34
32
Mordechai Cogan, The Anchor Bible: 1 Kings (New York, Doubleday and Co., 2001), 168.
31
18
Brian Z. Sokas
interpretation that the Temple was a place of human-divine interaction, as is indicated by
Solomon’s pleas for heavenly attention in the midst of his benediction speech. 1 Kings
8:27-30 reads:
“27But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Even heaven and the highest heaven
cannot contain you, much less this house that I have built! 28Regard your servant’s
prayer and his plea, O LORD my God, heeding the cry and the prayer that your
servant prays to you today; 29that your eyes may be open night and day toward
this house, the place of which you said, ‘My name shall be there,’ that you may
heed the prayer that your servant prays toward this place. 30Hear the plea of your
servant and of your people Israel when they pray toward this place; O hear in
heaven your dwelling place; heed and forgive.” (NRSV).
Solomon’s explanation of the Temple’s purpose offers a clever attention to detail that
appreciates divine omnipotence while introducing a bilateral mechanism to overcome the
incompatibility between worldly edifice and divine containment. The Temple is undoubtedly a
focal point of the Israelite people; in the Ancient Near East, both in 620 BCE and earlier during
Solomon’s reign, religion was the prominent social component of daily life. Without modern
worries of investment portfolios and college tuition or mass print media coupled with high
literacy rates, life revolved around successful military excursions and expanding the nation.33
Victories, defeats and the health of the empire were typically framed in reference to obedience to
a number of deities who controlled, among other things, weather, military successes, and natural
disasters.34 Religious ritual permeated everyday life, impacting and altering all spheres of
existence. Solomon, understanding the symbiosis between religion and daily life, centralizes
Israelite worship under the Temple. As pleaded in v. 30, “Hear the plea of you servant
[Solomon] and your people Israel when they pray toward this place” (1 Kings 8:30). The First
Temple serves as the sole focal point of Israelite worship and intention. No other mention is
33
Marty E. Stevens, Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of Ancient Israel.
(Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 2006.) pp 36-37.
34
Stephen A. Geller, “Religion of the Bible,” Oxford Jewish Study Bible, ed. by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); 2028.
19
Brian Z. Sokas
made of similar locations--this ‘house’ is a singular political and religious establishment.
Solomon’s desire for divine attention and mercy at the end of verse 30, “heed and forgive”,
envisages continuing divine influence in directing Israelite history and the growth of the nation.
Important to note in 1 Kings 8:27-30, however, is the lack of YHWH’s presence in the
structure. The mechanism by which worship is conducted and prayers are answered is glaringly
indirect, save for Solomon’s apparently personal relationship with the divine.35 All Israelites,
anywhere in the world, can direct their religious focus to the ‘house’ in Jerusalem, where their
intentions and reconciliations will be archived. YHWH, at a point of convenience, can then view
these intentions like documents in a folder and, if seeking to reward Solomon’s plea in v. 30,
“heed and forgive”. The emphasis on centrality is unmistakable and certainly understood, but
hidden within Solomon’s outline of the Temple’s purpose emerges a darker implication of the
value, or lack thereof, of the Israelites in worshipful interaction. Solomon, at numerous points
throughout 1 Kings 1-7 and even more so in his speech in 1 Kings 8, essentially holds a direct
line to YHWH. Though forced to plead for attention in verses 28-30, Solomon appears much
more concerned with elevating his own relationship with the divine while relegating the rest of
the nation to a delayed-answer system. He begins his explanation of the space in verse 28 by
requesting, in a wholly self-concerned manner, “Regard you servant’s prayer and his plea, O
Lord…” and only later incorporates greater Israelite worship.
This line of royal favoritism clearly illustrates the Deuteronomic bias in favoring
historical king-to-YHWH interaction and has greater implications on the ever-evolving function
of the Temple. A collection of Biblical historians, pairing Solomon’s rhetoric in 1 Kings 8 with
some of the Ancient Near Eastern historical realities and the textual volume devoted to
Solomon’s palace construction, have even theorized that the First Temple was initially a royal
35
See 1 Kings 3, where God appears to Solomon in a dream and engages in conversation.
20
Brian Z. Sokas
chapel, solely attended to by Solomon and the high priests of his royal court.36 Though difficult
to prove, this assertion is certainly reasonable. Solomon, as the singular conversationalist in
delegating the Temple’s function and significance, is noticeably self-concerned. In both the
passages investigated in this thesis so far and Solomon’s larger benediction throughout 1 Kings
8, no mention is made of interaction with the space by anyone else. Solomon’s initial struggles to
validate his rule and consolidate power once again return to the spotlight; since the Temple is the
singular centralizing factor of Israel and Solomon is the only individual granted leadership of its
construction and presentation, no other member of the Israelite nation (Levites included) can
challenge his authority. Thus the Temple continues to emerge as a political monument, serving a
function more human than supernatural. Solomon’s monstrous royal palace provides added proof
of the ‘royal chapel’ theory. The Deuteronomist, seeking to bolster the king’s image, includes
details of a sprawling royal palace constructed beside the Temple. Modern estimations, using
dimension and details provided in 1 Kings 7, indicate that Solomon’s palace was at least four
times the Temple’s size.37 Using conservative estimates as taken from 1 Kings 7, Solomon’s
palace would have dwarfed the First Temple. Even with the historical significance forwarded in
Solomon’s benediction of the space, the physical inequity between the two structures cuts any
semblance of communal appreciation, as Solomon’s palace would sooner capture an onlooker’s
eye than the congruent chapel. The chapel was thus likely Solomon’s personal political tool,
advertised as religiously significant but in fact used to direct national obedience and attention.
36
th
André Lemaire, “The Evolution of the 8 -Century B.C.E. Jerusalem Temple”, Israel Finkelstein, Fire Signals of
Lachish : Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in
Honor of David Ussishkin.(Eisenbrauns, 2005). 195.
37
Mordechai Cogan, The Anchor Bible: 1 Kings (New York, Doubleday and Co., 2001), 258. Cogan provides a highly
useful visual representation of the Temple and the palace’s relative dimensions.
21
Brian Z. Sokas
The Deuteronomic royal bias, however, does not stop with Solomon’s speech. Further
indication of the Temple’s political function emerges in YHWH’s response to Solomon’s pleas
in 1 Kings 9:3-5. In 1 Kings 9:3-7, we read:
“3I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you made before me; I have
consecrated this house that you have built, and put my name there forever; my
eyes and my heart will be there for all time. 4As for you, if you will walk before
me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing
according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my
ordinance, 5then I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I
promised your father David, saying “There shall not fail you a successor on the
throne of Israel.’ 6If you turn aside from following me…and do not keep my
commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other
gods and worship them, 7then I will cut Israel off from the land I have given
them;” (NRSV).
In a positive response to Solomon’s completion of the First Temple, YHWH agrees to
aim his presence towards the structure. The direct transaction between Solomon and YHWH is
remarkable considering that David, in many ways more theologically important, frequently
communicated through prophetic intermediaries.38 The unimpeded communication between
YHWH and Solomon further solidifies the interconnectedness between the Temple and the
kingship. Solomon earns a rare Biblical privilege unseen both by David and lesser succeeding
Israelite kings. The interaction subsequently elevates Solomon above other Ancient Near-Eastern
royalty and his Judean neighbors, neither of whom have the privilege of direct communication
with YHWH or a ‘house’ capturing divine focus.39 YHWH confirms his approval for both the
structure and the covenant with the Davidic line. The Temple, individually granted YHWH’s
favor and completed by divine action, proves that Solomon as king and the Israelites as a nation
are unequaled. The Temple still carries political implications, uniting the nation and validating
Solomon’s political superiority.
38
See 2 Samuel, in which David’s covenant with YHWH is mediated by the prophet Nathan.
Stephen A. Geller, “Religion of the Bible,” Oxford Jewish Study Bible, ed. by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004); 2029.
39
22
Brian Z. Sokas
Individual spiritual connection with the Temple falls as an ancillary concern in Kings.
While the Temple bears divine attention both in construction and completion, Israelite
interaction with the space remains limited. The Deuteronomist incorporates religious aspect of
worship in 1 Kings 8:27-30, but more for the purpose of capturing Israelite loyalty than
bolstering moral behavior. The Deuteronomist lucidly displays his bias. Solomon fulfills the
covenant, but only through unfailing obedience will it remain intact.40 However, as indicated by
vv 6-7, a failed covenant is not the result of Solomon’s wrongdoings but the collective of the
Israelite peoples. The impact of Israelite sin is surprising, considering their relative
insignificance in regards to the Temple thus far. Israelite handiwork in creating the Temple,
requiring hundreds of thousands of workers and seven years to complete, was credited to YHWH
in 1 Kings 8:15 as divine action.41 The Deuteronomist largely disregarded both the personal and
collective Israelite interaction with the space in 1 Kings 8:27-30, mentioning the intentions of his
people only after pleading for attention of his. The motifs sprouting from 1 Kings 8 suggest that
Solomon, as the sole representative of the space, should bear the punishments for covenantal
undoing.
Instead, in an ominous rebuke of potential royal disobedience, YHWH asserts, “I will cut
Israel off from the land that I have given them” (1 Kings 9:7). The people, forgotten in
construction and relegated in completion, must equally share the harsh chastisement of royal sin.
That is not to say the citizenry are blameless; while wandering in the Exodus narrative, the
Israelites constantly sinned against YHWH. At one point they even melted their gold and
constructed a golden calf, a cataclysmic moment recalled vividly from Cecil B. Demille’s epic
40
41
Mordechai Cogan, The Anchor Bible: 1 Kings (New York, Doubleday and Co., 2001), 297.
See 1 Kings 5-6.
23
Brian Z. Sokas
The Ten Commandments.42 Charleton Heston’s Moses, with his enraged vaulting of the Ten
Commandments upon the Golden Idol, compares with YHWH’s rebuke doled out in 1 Kings 9:7.
The Israelites must sustain unwavering ritualistic devotion to YHWH for fear of losing out on
divine favor, an expectation further impressing national obedience to Solomon’s throne.
Solomon, the gleaming political and religious champion of Israel, unifier of the nation and
superior in divine communication, individually earns the profits of Temple construction and
covenantal confirmation. The Israelites, relatively insignificant in the narrative thus far,43 earn all
of the downsides but few of the benefits. Solomon, by completing construction and confirming
the covenant with YHWH in 1 Kings 9:3, throws himself and his kingdom into a new phase of
devotion and responsibility. Potential disobedience now creates a much harsher punishment,
expulsion from the nation, not just for a single king or his cabinet but the nation as a whole.
The Temple, on display for a substantial portion of 1 Kings, dissolves from view as
Solomon’s reign progresses. He is succeeded by heirs more concerned with political
maneuvering and military expansion than personal connection with God and the communicative
value of the function fades. Many of the Deuteronomic themes found throughout the First
Temple narrative still abound, however. 2 Kings covers Israelite royal lineage post-Solomon and
typically frames successes or failures as divine responses to kingly obedience. “He did what was
evil in the sight of the LORD” (2 Kings 3:2) emerges as a favorite line, appearing in nine
different chapters and applied to sixteen different kings.44 The Israelite people still bear the brunt
of divine punishment, at points rebuked by prophets and eventually expelled by the Babylonians
at the end of the text. As the narrative closes, the Babylonians tear the Temple apart and cart its
42
The golden calf episode is taken from the wandering narrative in Exodus 32.
This is a bold claim, but looking past 1 Kings 8, Solomon’s entire speech is constructed on the sins of the nation,
not his own. He is conspicuously absent in discussions of expiation and required prayer offerings.
44
2 Kings, New Revised Standard Version. The Unbound Bible.
43
24
Brian Z. Sokas
precious vessels off to their capital. The structure, which marked the fulfillment of a royalYHWH covenant, a political championing of Israel and Judah and the validation of Solomon’s
reign, lay in crumbles. The military and political power of the Babylonians trumped the
Temple’s ability to elevate a kingdom and unify a nation. The final chapter of Kings is virtually
void of religious language, lacking any connection between the event and divine action. With the
Temple’s destruction and the beginning of the exile fully summarized, it is highly likely that the
Deuteronomist (or similar authors) completed the final chapters while sitting in exile.45 The
Israelite nation lay scattered across the Babylonian Empire. The Temple, once a symbol of
political strength, national unity and an unparalleled connection with the divine, smoldered on
the north side of a once-vibrant city. Rebuilding and reuniting a nation of ‘chosen’ people would
require half a century, a change in empires and a new pillar of unification.
IV.
Exile
The Israelites had ample time to reflect on the rise and fall of their kingdom while living
in exile. The Diaspora proved brutal not singularly because of the violent oppression that
destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple but the disunity it produced within the Israelite community.
Israelites were scattered throughout the Babylonian Empire unable to unite under the religious
ritual that had centralized their nation. Separated from their homes and each other for half a
century, they consequentially developed new perspectives on the causes of the recent
catastrophes. An immense sense of guilt overrode other emotions. Numerous exilic Biblical
texts, primarily Lamentations, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, convey the weight of Israelite disobedience
and the bitter sadness of its mourning authors.46 Many exiles, the priestly class in particular,
struggled to come to terms with the violence sustained in the siege of Jerusalem and meditated
45
46
Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, The Anchor Bible: II Kings. (New York, Doubleday and Co. 1988) 330.
Marjo C.A. Korpel, “Disillusion among Jews in the Postexilic Period”. (Brill Academic, 2003). 136.
25
Brian Z. Sokas
on the ramifications of historical Israelite sin.47 Others started new lives in the Babylonian
Empire. Embittered and confused Israelites, restricted by their Babylonian overlords and
discouraged by the apparent lack of divine assistance, contemplated lives eternally separate from
Judaism. They married foreigners and drifted away from the belief and rituals that had bound the
nation together, challenging the existence and strength of an exiled Israelite nation.48
In opposition, equally discouraged Judeans, panicked by the disunity and abandonment
among exiles, reflected, learned and attempted to reunite the nation under a refreshed religious
banner. Unlike the Deuteronomist, who explained historical Israelite victories and defeats using
the governing capabilities and religious devotion of individual kings, exiled authors mourned
collective Israelite sin. Framing the brutality of recent events in light of disobedience to YHWH,
with rampant idolatry in particular, still-believing Judeans attempted expiation by forwarding a
return to the YHWH-centric ritual they believed to be imperative for the initial rise of their
nation. Drafting texts laden with religious devotion and spiritual connection with the divine,
optimistic Israelites sought to survive the sin, guilt and oppression of the exile by demonstrating
a return to faithfulness while simultaneously attempting to prevent the mounting loss of former
believers.49 Exilic texts took on a variety of strong emotions resultant of the national
predicament, lamenting both Jerusalem and the Temple’s destruction and invoking YHWH
through prophetic intermediaries in the hopes of illustrating a favored spiritual relationship.50
In 539 B.C.E. the Persians conquered the Babylonian Empire. Now under Persian rule
and the leadership of Cyrus the Great, exiled Israelites soon had a chance to rejoice. Upon
47
Marjo C.A. Korpel, “Disillusion among Jews in the Postexilic Period”. (Brill Academic, 2003). 139.
Ibid., 139-140.
49
Beate Ego, “Interpreting the Exile: The Experience of the Destruction of the Temple and Devastation of the Land
as Reflected Within the Nonpentateuchal Biblical Abraham Tradition”. (Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature,
2005). 172.
50
Marjo C.A. Korpel, “Disillusion among Jews in the Postexilic Period”. (Brill Academic, 2003). 138. See
Lamentations and Isaiah especially for religious rhetoric.
48
26
Brian Z. Sokas
conquering the Babylonians, Cyrus issued an edict declaring religious liberties throughout his
new empire. Exiled Israelites, free to resume sacrifice and other religious rituals, were
additionally allowed to return to Israel and the city of Jerusalem.51 Numerous Israelites poured
back into Israel and took up the capital once again in Jerusalem, building a new sacrificial altar
and eventually, in 515 B.C.E., completing a new Temple.52 With this new structure in place and
the misery of exile essentially ended, the empowered priestly class and devotees of a strong
communal religious emphasis attempted to restructure the politics of the kingdom around
worship and simultaneously assess the tumultuous Israelite history of the past 600 years.
V.
Post-Exile and the Book of Chronicles
The new religious leadership prevailing in Jerusalem required a reassessment of history
elucidating the religious basis and divine hand in effecting the victories and defeats of the
Israelite nation. The book of Chronicles, one of the most prominent post-exilic texts, grapples
with this retelling of history and provides fascinating insights into the evolution of religious
thought. The most valuable of these updates is the Temple’s new identity. Once a political
unifier, personalized for kings and functioning as proof of the prominence of the pre-exilic
kingdom, the image of the Temple instead evolves into something entirely different. Shedding
the predominantly mundane political functions exhibited in Kings, the First Temple of
Chronicles transitions into a more communally significant sacred space uniting the post-exilic
Israelite nation by religious ritual and spiritual connection with YHWH. The structure, once
erected as political validation and support for the personal victories of a political dynasty, instead
stands as a portal for YHWH’s presence and affect on earth, organizing the Israelites into a
religious community with a superior spiritual connection to the divine.
51
52
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) xxvii.
Ibid., xxviii.
27
Brian Z. Sokas
Comparing and contrasting Kings and Chronicles demands an endless use of ‘political’,
‘religious’, ‘spiritual’, ‘sacred’ and ‘holy’(as well as their derivations) as differentiators. In
seeking to illustrate the Temple’s transfer from political significance in Kings to more
‘spiritually’ and ‘religiously’ prominent themes in Chronicles, the success of the exploration
relies on a clarification of these numerous terms. As revealed in 1 Kings 8, the Temple served
political purposes insofar as it validated Solomon’s position and effectiveness in ruling the
Israelites. As framed by the Kings narrative, the Temple served as a divine political endorsement
for Solomon’s initially tumultuous reign.53 In this case, consistently attributing profane
‘political’ significance to the Temple serves to connect its completion to the historical
atmosphere of the Ancient Near-East and the expanding fractures in the Judean kingdom. The
Temple’s relevance in Kings is rooted in the ability to concretize and elevate Solomon’s
governing power, and as such the structure’s identity is proportionately defined by its political
impact.
The Chronicles’ Temple, by contrast, emerges out of harsh political reality and exilic
experience with a more complex identity. A new divine essence, established both by a new
religious-historical framework and an updated Temple benediction in 2 Chronicles 21, leads to
my designation as ‘holy’ or ‘sacred’. For the purposes of this thesis, following the prominent
scholarship of Mircea Eliade and Sara Japhet on sacred space, ‘holy’ and ‘sacred’ imply
YHWH’s impression or ownership.54 The Chronicles’ Temple, with a reconstructed history
meant to establish eternal divine planning, belongs to YHWH. That is not to say the
Deuteronomist’s Temple in Kings lacks a similar divine infusion. As seen in 1 Kings 8:15,
53
Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, “Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space”, Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology
and the Religion of Israel. (Indiana, Eisenbrauns, 2002). 84-85.
54
Sara Japhet, “Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred Place”. B. . edar, and R. J. wi Werblowsky. Sacred Space:
Shrine, City, Land. (New York, New York UP, 1998). 55-72.
28
Brian Z. Sokas
YHWH is the primary influence in successful completion of the structure. The distinction in
holiness between the Temple in Chronicles and Kings rises out of the larger thematic differences
in each text. The Chronicler retells Israelite history as a divine plan, interpreting all historical
events he finds relevant as divinely originated.55 The Deuteronomist, conversely, mixes
pragmatism with divine influence, favoring a political narrative intermittently injected with
divine manipulation. The degree to which the divine impacts and alters the Temple’s
completions illustrates authorial concerns and further reveals a textual divide between the
political pragmatism in Kings and religious history in Chronicles. The Chronicles Temple is
‘holier’ because it directs more attention to perpetual divine influence in establishing the Temple
rather than its immediate political impact within the Israelite nation.
1 and 2 Chronicles differs from 1 and 2 Kings in a multitude of ways, particularly in
historical spectrum. Considerably longer than its literary predecessor, Chronicles comprises a
vast array of Hebrew history including Adam’s creation, the Hebrew patrilineage that produced
the twelve tribes of Israel and a political narrative beginning with David and ending with
Zedekiah. The widened history as compared to Kings, though, is not entirely original writing. A
substantial amount of 1 Chronicles, exclusively covering David’s reign, is extracted verbatim
from 1 and 2 Samuel. Similarly most of 2 Chronicles, beginning with Solomon’s reign and
ending with Zedekiah and the fall of the kingdom, includes a word-for-word retelling of Kings.
Though incessantly repetitive at times, the Chronicler’s reliance on earlier Biblical text assists in
observing the differing literary emphasis between Kings and Chronicles. Passages mirrored from
Kings are frequently adjusted to fit the Chronicler’s goal in reframing history from a religious
standpoint. The Chronicler’s intent was not to provide an extended history of Israel but instead
55
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) xviii.
29
Brian Z. Sokas
nuance experienced events with explanations of Israelite action and divine influence.56 Original
literary additions planted between older narratives stand out immediately when juxtaposing
similar segments from Kings and Chronicles.
The first nine chapters of Chronicles in particular provide initial insight into the
Chronicler’s desire to retell history. This segment consists entirely of human genealogy,
beginning with Adam and ending with divisions into the twelve tribes of Israel.57 Though the
monotonous string of names proves challenging to read fully, the Chronicler includes it in the
text as traceable proof of King David’s divine backing as master of the covenant and leader
Israelite people. By tracing David, king of Israel, back thousands of years of ancestors through to
Adam (a direct creation of YHWH) the text effectively proves by correlation YHWH’s influence
in the establishment of King David’s prosperous Israelite kingdom.58 Unlike Kings, which
principally focuses on Solomon’s activities, 1 Chronicles is wholly devoted to concretizing
David’s leadership in sanctifying the Israelite people and setting the nation apart from other
Ancient Near Eastern kingdoms.
Such essential divine action directing the formation of the Israelites changes the
significance of their actions, drawing heavier critique upon their failures and attributing an aspect
of divine influence to their successes or defeats. In contrast to Kings, Israelite participation
impacts and alters important biblical moments. An interesting example arises from Solomon’s
coronation in 1 Chronicles 29. The Chronicler’s literary goal in illustrating a divinely impacted
history is on full display as he modifies a narrative extracted from 1 Kings.59 The Chronicler
whitewashes Solomon’s admittedly choppy ascent to the throne, leaving absent the drama found
56
Idib.
See 1 Chronicles: 1-9
58
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) 6.
59
See 1 Kings 1-2, which summarize the tumult surrounding David’s abdication and Solomon’s messy ascension to
the throne.
57
30
Brian Z. Sokas
in Kings. In a rare biblical instance Solomon is instead divinely selected (bahar) and assumes his
political position void of violent drama.60 Solomon, as unquestioned appointee and future
Temple constructor, settles into YHWH’s pre-determined pathway, serving as a stepping stone in
the Temple’s drawn out and divinely directed history.
The Israelites’ inclusion in the coronation ceremony, however, is substantially more
significant than Solomon’s role in the altered narrative. Israelite representative leaders, gathered
at David’s request, “[Made] their freewill offerings” (1 Chr 29:6), donating immense amounts of
gold, silver and bronze for the Temple construction fund. The willing submission of vast
amounts of valuable tender mimics a voting process.61 Each donation serves as a metaphorical
ballot, providing YHWH and his selected leadership with popular approval and faithful
enthusiasm for the divine plan to come. The process lends power to an Israelite popular opinion
previously absent and essentially superfluous in Kings. The whole nation contributes to the
Temple’s successful completion, illustrating the space’s centrality and importance in the
Chronicler’s newly constructed biblical history.
The First Temple makes its initial appearance in 1 Chronicles 17, in the midst of King
David’s rule. King David, uttering a technically cryptic comment typically interpreted as his
expressed interest in erecting a Temple, mirrors a storyline extracted from 2 Samuel 7 in
announcing to YHWH’s prophet Nathan, “I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of the
covenant of the LORD is under a tent” (1 Chr 17:1).62 However, returning to David after
discoursing with YHWH, Nathan declares that David is, in fact, not destined to construct such a
house, but instead stands as the initiator of an eternal covenant favoring David’s lineage and the
60
Roddy Braun, “Solomon, The Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1 Chronicles 22, 28 and 29 for the
Theology of Chronicles” Journal of Biblical Literature 95.4 (Indiana, JBL, 1976). 588-589. Braun explores the
translation of the Hebrew bahar, which essentially implies divine ‘voting’ in choosing Israelite kings.
61
1 Chronicles 29:9-“The the people rejoiced because these had been given willingly…”
62
Ibid, 125.
31
Brian Z. Sokas
dynastic ‘house’ of Israel.63 The text offers few clues as to why such a rapid change of divine
opinion occurred, but the Chronicler’s trademark devotion to heavenly influence is certainly
apparent. While in all likelihood David was distracted by military endeavors and political
centralization, the absence of the Temple during his reign is presented as solely by divine
choice.64 Mundane distractions like military campaigns were not a valid reason for delay in a
religiously-focused text.
The Chronicler, similar to his authorial predecessors from Samuel and Kings, grapples
with and provides his own personal interpretive solution to the issue of the Temple in Davidic
history. While in Kings the Temple reinforces a personal covenant between YHWH and David’s
descendants, the Chronicler views the Temple as a national unifier through collective spiritual
connection and worship. YHWH’s forbiddance to David in 1 Chronicles 17:3-9 is followed by
promises of military victories and national prominence for Israel, indicating a divine plan in
delayed Temple construction.65 Though David essentially establishes the kingdom and physically
prepares the nation for the Temple’s completion, he is not the builder in YHWH’s eternally
imagined ‘plan’. The Chronicler, by inserting substantial genealogies and offering purposeful
reasons for an absence of Davidic construction, emphasizes meaningfulness in every event,
minute or momentous, in Israelite history. Each action, like David’s military victories, or each
person extracted from the genealogy all sit congruently in a historical plan leading to the
Temple’s completion. The construction, or lack thereof, of an edifice for YHWH’s presence was
a fulfillment of another step in a larger divine arrangement.66 The Chronicler, by mapping out the
63
See 1 Chronicles 17:3-10.
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) 125.
65
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) 125-126.
66
Piet B. Dirksen, “Why Was David Disqualified as Temple Builder? The Meaning of 1 Chronicles 22.8”. Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament. 70. (Netherlands, 1966). 54. For Dirksen, the Chronicler used moments like this to
illustrate divine influence in seemingly inexplicable events like why David wasn’t given precedence to construct the
64
32
Brian Z. Sokas
historical blueprint for the Temple, impresses a greater historical and personal significance on
the structure absent in Kings. The Chronicler’s interpretation of Israelite history, basically a
series of events collectively explaining and impacting the entire nation, culminates with the
Temple, a monument celebrating the meandering and tumultuous journey leading up to YHWH’s
confirmatory presence with the Israelites.
Two passages in particular, the tale of Ornan’s threshing floor found in 1 Chronicles 21
and an original account of Solomon’s benediction of the Temple in 2 Chronicles 7:1-6,
demonstrate the chasm of difference and thematic evolution separating the presentation,
construction and understanding of Temple in Chronicles from that of Kings. Themes of divine
impact and alteration, exhibited in the negation of David’s interest in building the Temple in 1
Chronicles 17, permeate the entire Chronicles text, turning corporeal worries of military
expansion and national centralization into a larger function of YHWH’s plans and desires for the
Israelites. These passages, by incorporating larger textual motifs with new historical perspectives
on the Temple, transform the building from mundane political centralizer into communally
acknowledged sacred space. The Chronicles’ Temple includes and unites the entire Israelite
nation under a banner of religious ritualistic devotion and establishes superiority not singularly
through its physical completion but simultaneously by divine infusion within the space. The
Chronicler constructs a new long-term historical framework for the Temple, emphasizing its
religious significance and providing it with a greater sense of divine attention coupled with
holistic national participation and interaction. In contrast to the Deuteronomic interpretations
found in Kings, where the Temple completion caps more of an individual kingly accomplishment
than an opportunity for collective spiritual connection, the Chronicler molds new abstract
Temple. The Chronicler, to succeed to in illustrating divine influence in Israelite history, had to appear behind
historical events like this one.
33
Brian Z. Sokas
significance for the structure. The Temple evolves into an edifice encapsulating the heart and
minds of an entire nation through both physical supremacy and a more personalized and
inclusive religious spiritual connection.
1 Chronicles 21, the first of the two supporting passages, falls after David’s refuted desire
to build the Temple. On the heels of numerous divinely assisted military victories, David
oversteps royal-divine covenantal bounds. Drama ensues in 1 Chronicles 21:1-7 when, “Satan
stood up against Israel and incited David to count the people of Israel”. This single verse, just
fourteen words in total, spells doom for David and the Israelites and leads to a crowning moment
in the development of the Temple and the history of the Israelite people. The Chronicler extracts
and reinterprets the ensuing debacle from 2 Samuel 24, the final chapter and culmination of
David’s significance in biblical history. Though similar in narrative content, the passages differ
markedly in thematic significance, with the Chronicles text including a heavy emphasis on
benevolent divine impact in preparing Jerusalem, the political elite and the people for the
Temple. Two typically unrealized but incredibly important details spring from the initiation of
the impending debacle: David’s violation of Deuteronomic codes and a previously unforeseen
Satanic influence in affecting kingly decisions.
Firstly, the instruction to conduct a census lies in direct violation of Mosaic Law. While
censuses were common Israelite practice, divine law as recorded in Numbers restricted censustaking solely for military endeavors.67 David’s population census, more for the purposes of
measuring Israel’s size than its military base, stood in violation of Deuteronomic Law. By
violating YHWH’s mandates, David set himself and the kingdom on a path to punishment. His
blatant defiance, however, is particularly strange considering the textual attention provided to his
connection with the divine. This shocking disobedience is explained by the Satanic influence
67
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) 125.
34
Brian Z. Sokas
initiated in verse 1.68 The reference to Satan explains David’s surprisingly bad deed while
simultaneously relieving him of the full responsibility of disobeying God.69
The Chronicler’s intent in drafting his text was to reframe Israelite history with a central
focus on divine influence. Up to this point, 1 Chronicles has primarily solidified the uniquely
superior spiritual connection between the Israelites, both through the extensive genealogy and
the covenant between David and YHWH. David is religiously connected and morally superior;
his positive actions in the sight of YHWH contribute to a larger literary emphasis on the
righteousness of the king and, by correlation, his kingdom. David sinning willfully would have
refuted the divine favoritism for the Israelite nation imperative in reframing history and
centralizing the post-exilic community under religious beliefs. The Chronicler, seeking to
reconcile David’s historical centrality and disobedience, cites Satanic influence to excuse
David’s transgressions. David’s proclivity to violate holy law must have been instigated by
Satan, relieving David full blame and maintaining divine connection.70
With the sin still committed, however, David is dealt harsh divine punishment. Reacting
to David’s non-divinely mandated population census with a reciprocal population truncation,
YHWH provides three potential chastisements: “either three years of famine; or three months of
devastation by your foes[;] or three days of the sword of the LORD, pestilence on the land” (1
Chronicles 21:12). David, after some deliberation, chooses the pestilence, bringing death upon
more than 70,000 Israelites.71 As the disease eats away at the kingdom YHWH stays its fatal
68
The Chronicler’s use of Satan is a rare biblical occurrence and evolved from its prior usage in the books of Job
and Zechariah. Previously, Satan was used to insinuate some ambivalent force causing sin, but in Chronicles it
stands as an outright opponent of God. He is, according to Jacob Myers (The Anchor Bible: I Chronicles), “an
instigator, or inciter, to evil and [a] personality with a will and purpose of its own.”
69
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) 146-147.
70
Satan
71
See 1 Chronicles 22:14.
35
Brian Z. Sokas
spread, planting an angel on the northern periphery of Jerusalem in a wheat threshing floor
owned by Ornan, a local resident.
The angel’s appearance sparks the beginnings of the new Chronicles Temple. Using the
angel as a beacon, David treks northwards. 1 Chronicles 21:22-27 and 22:1 reads:
22
David said to Ornan, “Give me the site of the threshing floor that I may build on
it an altar to the LORD—give it to me at its full price—so that the plague may be
averted from the people.” 23Then Ornan said to David, “Take it; and let my lord
the king do what seems good to him; 24[But] King David said to Ornan, “No; I
will buy them for the full price. I will not take for the LORD what is yours nor
offer burnt offerings that cost me nothing.” 25So David paid Ornan six hundred
shekels of gold by weight for the site. 26David built there an altar to the LORD
and presented burnt offerings and offerings of well-being. He called upon the
LORD and he answered him with fire from heaven on the altar of burnt offering.
27
Then the LORD commanded the angel, and he put his sword back into its
sheath….Then David said, ‘Here shall be the house of the LORD God and here
the altar of burnt offering for Israel.’” (NRSV).
The narrative impresses an incomparably rich historical significance upon the first
Temple. YHWH, by ending the pestilence and delivering an angel upon the threshing floor,
infuses the space with a divine essence indicative of forgiven sins and a return to favor with the
Israelites. David, humbled by divine punishment, accepts the angel’s descent on the threshing
floor as a sign of sanctity and immediately moves to purchase the space. Focused for so long on
the construction of the Temple, he realizes the adequacy of the space in bearing a ‘house’ for
God and envisages the home of the First Temple.72
The Chronicler reuses the tale of Ornan’s threshing floor from 2 Samuel 24. Numerous
differences arise between the Chronicler’s narrative and that found in 2 Samuel, all of which
illustrate a historically impacted evolution towards a more sacred perception of the First Temple.
The pre-exilic account in 2 Samuel is heavily concerned with the mundane logistics accurate but
irrelevant for the Chronicler, who rejects the geographical details provided in Samuel in place of
72
David spends much of his military conquests in 1 Chronicles 18-20 gathering vast amounts of treasures to hold in
the future Temple.
36
Brian Z. Sokas
text stressing the Temple Mount’s historical sanctity.73 The Chronicler offers an extended back
story explaining David’s transgressions and more detailed instances of divine influence
previously unseen in Samuel. By updating the Samuel narrative with increased instances of
divine influence and ritualistic devotion, the Chronicler illustrates the greater divine planning
and importance in establishing the Temple. The Mount takes on a new significance, assuming
holiness solidified by angelic contact and divine direction and undoubtedly declared by David in
1 Chronicles 22:1, “Here shall be the house of the LORD God”.
Resisting Ornan’s generous attempts to give the floor away, David instead pays 600
shekels for the floor. The payment, just one of numerous metaphorically significant moments in
this textual segment, reveals a deeper meaning behind the newly purchased real estate. Tapping
into the Genesis story of Abraham, interpretative theories pull similarities between David’s
transaction for the threshing floor with Abraham’s purchase of the Machpelah burial cave.
Abraham, the father of the Hebrew people and the originator of the covenant with YHWH,
purchases Machpelah, his future burial site, in Genesis 23 for 400 shekels of silver. By
mimicking the Machpelah narrative in Genesis and paying more for the threshing floor than
Abraham paid for the cave, David’s transaction aligns itself with that of Abraham’s. Abraham
was considered the greatest Hebrew, both as father of the people and representative of the first
covenant with YHWH. David’s purchase then, by mirroring Abraham’s actions in Genesis 23,
places the threshing floor’s sanctity parallel with that of the Machpelah cave, the holy resting
place for the first Hebrew family.74 The floor is as significant, if not more, than Abraham’s burial
site. The Chronicler mimics the Genesis account of Machpelah, connecting David, YHWH’s
chosen King, with Abraham, covenantal father of the Hebrew nation. The Chronicler emphasizes
73
74
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965). 149.
Ibid. 146-147.
37
Brian Z. Sokas
the floor’s superior sanctity by having David pay more for it than Abraham did for Machpelah.75
While the floor is certainly divinely favored, the method by which one divinely-selected space
trumps another relies ironically on human definitions of monetary value. Still though, the added
value elevates the significance of the threshing floor with that of the Machpelah cave.
The passage, by manipulating 2 Samuel and inserting new divine themes, concretizes the
Temple’s significance in Israelite history. Unlike Kings, which jumps into the Temple narrative
following David’s death, 1 Chronicles 21 provides a religiously rich historical reasoning for the
Temple’s location and the identity of the space. The episode with Ornan’s threshing floor
intertwines divine precedence with long-term religious significance. Between Satan’s deceptive
impact on David and YHWH’s brutal reaction, the tale is entirely directed by divine forces. The
text, by lending such extensive dedication to divine direction, demonstrates the incorporeal
nature of the entire space. David’s sins are caused by a supernatural being, which then leads to a
divinely just response emphasizing loyalty and expiation eventually finalized by divine presence
(in angelic form) upon the threshing floor. The entire narrative of obtaining the Temple’s future
location illustrates the divine nature of the space. Compared to Kings, which narrates the
construction on a seemingly arbitrary space north of the city, the Chronicles narrative of David’s
sin and Ornan’s threshing floor provides a long-term validation of the sanctity of the space. The
space was picked by the divine, and as such the future Temple serves as more than the mundane
edifice presented in Kings. The Temple’s long-term significance as illustrated by Chronicles 21
builds a new image of the Temple as eternally planned and the space as divinely selected.
In following with the Kings narrative, Solomon, upon his father’s death, mobilizes the
nation and begins Temple construction in 2 Chronicles. The first seven chapters mirror the
Temple development narrative from Kings but minute references scattered throughout the text
75
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: 1 Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965). 147.
38
Brian Z. Sokas
subtly indicate a new emphasis on the Temple’s religious significance and spiritual portal with
YHWH. In 2 Chronicles 3:1, the text relays that construction began “in Jerusalem, on Mount
Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to [David]”. Mt. Moriah was the early biblical location
where Abraham nearly sacrificed his son to Isaac.76 By declaring the threshing floor as Mt.
Moriah, the Chronicler fuses Abrahamic tradition with the Davidic dynasty and Israelite history,
connecting the first Hebrew sacrifice to the Temple, the completed eternal sacrificial locus. The
Chronicler, in citing Moriah, also pulls the Temple’s completion and correlative covenantal
confirmation equal with that of the first Hebrew covenant between Abraham and YHWH. The
scenario is similar to the threshing floor narrative and the comparison with the Machpelah cave.
While neither covenant outweighs the other, their comparison promotes an increased dimension
of sanctity both upon the space and the Davidic house.77 David’s dynastic covenant and
Solomon’s construction of the Temple append the historic covenant between the Hebrew people
(now the Israelites) and YHWH, absorbing refreshed divine favor. Along with the new Mt.
Moriah reference, the dimensions of the Temple differ markedly, particularly in height. The First
Temple of Chronicles is taller by more than 100 feet in some parts, a literary insertion dually
illustrating the desire to bolster the physical prowess of the First Temple while also exhibiting
the differences in the post-exilic Temple.78 These smaller details abound throughout the text,
incessantly reminding the reader of the religious significance and long-term divine influence in
creating the structure.
The cornerstone example of a holier, religiously central Temple is found in Solomon’s
new benediction of the space in 2 Chronicles 7. In an odd conglomeration of earlier Hebrew text
and the Chronicler’s personal form of Israelite religious history, 2 Chronicles includes the entire
76
See Genesis 22
Jon Douglas Levenson, Sinai in Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. (Minneapolis, Winston, 1985). 99.
78
S. Yeivin, “Was there a High Portal in the First Temple?” (Jerusalem, 1964). 331-332.
77
39
Brian Z. Sokas
benediction speech as found in 1 Kings 8 but is followed by an entirely original ceremony
depicting a religiously infused, spiritually significant space vastly different from the structure
found in Kings. 2 Chronicles 7:1-5 reads:
1
When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and
consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled
the temple. 2The priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory
of the Lord filled the LORD’s house. 3When all the people of Israel saw the fire
come down and the glory of the LORD on the temple, they bowed down on the
pavement with their faces to the ground and worshiped and gave thanks to the
LORD saying, ‘For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever.’ 4Then the
king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD. 5King Solomon offered
as a sacrifice twenty-two thousand oxen and one hundred twenty thousand sheep.
So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God.” (NRSV).
The deviations from the royal-centric and politically minded Kings narrative are
lucidly apparent. The divine imagery, elemental mastery and Israelite participation are
strong indicators of a reconstructed or imagined space, elevated above the political
battlefield and bridging YHWH and the Israelites. The blatant divine favor for the space
coupled with hyperbolic celebration and Israelite participation encapsulates the new
identity of an evolved Temple. The holy fire entrances both Solomon and the people,
seizing their attention and driving them to join together in communal worship and
sacrifice. The political significance found in Kings is noticeably absent. Validating
Solomon’s reign falls aside as a biblically secondary issue. Instead, YHWH’s validation
by fire and the communal spiritual connection, opposed to the individual royal
communication found in Kings, reframes the Temple’s completion as both a mundane
and spiritually abstract Israelite unification.79 The Temple, drawing together an Israelite
history and people by religious ritualistic sacrifice, assumes a sacred significance unseen
in Kings.
79
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: II Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) 41.
40
Brian Z. Sokas
Divine interaction with the space is by far the most important aspect of this textual
segment. YHWH, responding with an immediate and elementally magnificent confirmation,
directs divine favor and attention to the Temple. As read from verse 1, divine flame engulfs the
sacrificial altar and YHWH mysteriously inundates the sanctuary, expelling human presence
from the space. Fire, a common motif among early Hebrew Biblical texts, exclusively represents
the omnipotence and immutability of the divine.80 By engulfing the offerings of both the King
and the Israelites, YHWH accepts the edifice as a collectively uniting spiritual portal fusing his
divinity with the intentions and repentances of the entire nation, not just the royal house. The
heavenly fire indicates an indubitable acceptance of the Temple as a holy space.81 Along with
offering flammable confirmation of divine favor for the structure, YHWH also fills the house,
preventing Solomon or the Levites from entering. The Temple, entirely encased by divine
presence both in the inner Sanctuary and the outer altar, separates from its corporeality and
represents divine presence on earth. There is little discussion of YHWH’s intentions or an
underlying desire to illustrate political superiority. Instead, by engulfing the entire space in
divine presence, YHWH thrusts the Temple onto a superior sacred plane, crowning the structure
as a religious ritualistic unifier and spiritual doorway to the divine.
Secondly, the larger Israelite nation’s inclusion within the initiation ceremony marks a
vastly different precedent for the Temple. Kings presents the Temple as a personalized space for
Solomon, as indicated by his exclusive interaction with the structure and individual
communication with the divine. The Israelite people serve to support Solomon in his
architectural success, but their place in religious ritual is auxiliary at best, with their approval and
interaction of the divine glaringly non-existent. In 2 Chronicles 7, however, in a noticeable
80
81
“Fire”, Encyclopaedia Judaica.
Jacob M. Meyers, The Anchor Bible: II Chronicles (New York, Doubleday and Co., 1965) 40-41.
41
Brian Z. Sokas
change from the Kings narrative, the Israelites participate in the ceremony. Their inclusion is not,
in fact, the first instance of newfound political and religious relevance, as was sporadically seen
in instances in their necessary Israelite approval in cases like Solomon’s coronation.82 Greater
Israelite participation is a momentous occasion, however, as it does ritualistically alter the
unifying properties of the Temple from individual political, in the case of King Solomon, to
public, communal and spiritually connective.
The Israelites actively participate in the benediction ceremony. In stark contrast to their
static functions in 1 Kings 8 (or just as easily found in 2 Chronicles 22:6), they gain both
ritualistic movement and confirmatory voice. The Israelites not only act in the ceremony and
sacrifice, but serve a central role in allowing the Temple to permeate their lives and join the
nation together under religious ritual. Solomon and the Israelite nation communally view the
descent of the heavenly fire and in verse 3 are humbled by the apparent sanctity of the structure.
Collectively bowing down in a sign of ritualistic engagement, Israelites gain a voice as they extol
“For [the LORD] is good, for his steadfast love endures forever” (2 Chronicles 7:3). Following
their gratitude they offer sacrifices with King Solomon and together dedicate the Temple,
YHWH’s representative residence on Earth. In a stunning evolution from Kings, the Chronicler
incorporates a once insignificant citizenry into a vital ceremonial force. Israelites emerge as
relevant in religious ritualistic and with some spiritual connection with divine. Though direct
divine-to-Israelite communication remains to be seen, Israelites sense faith and fear upon
interaction with the Temple. The sacred structure serves as the locus of worship and sacrifice, an
activity no longer confined to royalty but opened to and emphasized for all Israelites. The
Temple sparks Judaic religious ritual, gathering both the spiritual attention and ritualistic practice
82
See 1 Chronicles 29
42
Brian Z. Sokas
of post-exilic Judaism into an exclusive divine portal.83 The nation unites as in Kings, but with a
vastly different purpose. The Temple’s completion, a crowning moment of religious
establishment and national unification, functions as the ideological and chronological climax of a
long-term divinely enacted plan for the sacred space.
VI.
Conclusion
This thesis has sought to reveal the differing authorial interpretations of the 1st Israelite
Temple found in the pre-exilic book of Kings and the post-exilic Chronicles text. The prominent
differences between the two authors, primarily a Deuteronomical attachment to the structures’
political pragmatism and the Chronicler’s drive to establish and extend the spaces’ religious
significance and spiritual connection, expose the varying ideals and historical circumstances
impacting their writing.
Simplicity eludes the Temple. The structure, tossed from an author clinging to political
significance to a newly empowered religious representative, epitomizes evolving motifs. While
Solomon’s Temple, so-named for its exuberant builder, lacks verifiable historical proof of
existence, its power lies not in the reality backing it but the historical identity it represents.
Worldly materials fall to metaphorical significance, both for pre-exilic politics and post-exilic
theological agendas. For the Deuteronomist, stone validates and strengthens Solomon’s political
standing. For the Chronicler, the cedars of Lebanon signify growing religious devotion and
spiritual connection. Both find complex importance in the Temple.
The Deuteronomist and the Chronicler, though differing in interpretation, transformed the
Temple from simple building to significant space. While other Ancient Near Eastern structures,
Jerusalem’s neighborhood streets and Judah and Israel were battered by wind, aged by time and
destroyed by violent conquerors, Babylonian or otherwise, the Temple assumed eternality. Stone
83
Roddy L. Braun, “The Message of Chronicles: Rally ‘Round the Temple”. (Indiana, 1971). 511.
43
Brian Z. Sokas
and wood failed to survive saboteurs and a half century of exile, but identity persisted. The
authors certainly vary in interpretation. The Deuteronomist found political pragmatism in the
structure while the Chronicler revealed its divinely guided history and spiritual connection. But
their viewpoints, though markedly different, mold a Temple founded upon metaphorical
significance and abstract ideal rather than worldly wood or stone. The Temple mattered to them,
and it still today impacts biblical interpretation and modern religious discussion. Powerfully
political or extraordinarily holy, its impact and significance survived the exile and catalyzed new
perceptions and thousands of years’ worth of both biblical and non-biblical interpretation.
The First Temple and its historically popular iterations, Herod’s Temple in particular,
forward the transformative power institutionally erected structures have on religious ritual and
spiritual connection. The Temple, a unifying factor for both pre-exilic Israelites and modern
Jews, stands as just one of many examples in which historically impactful and religiously central
architecture transcends time and space, elevated and eternalized in the minds of believers. The
structure, though one of many historically prominent religious structures, offers a unique glimpse
into the lives and thoughts of early Israelites by serving as a central literary focus in both preand post-exilic texts. It absorbs different perspectives and purposes, used by the Deuteronomist
for royal validation and as a political centralizer and employed, conversely, by the Chronicler as
an incomparable sacred space, divinely planned and communally spiritually connective. The
Temple, in assuming such a prominent role in Judaic history and religion, exhibits the impact of
worldly architecture on religious belief. The potential for expanded historical understanding of
religious development dwells in structures just like the Temple, waiting to be uncovered and
interpreted.
44
Brian Z. Sokas
Bibliography
1. Braun, Roddy L., “Solomon, The Chosen Temple Builder: The Significance of 1
Chronicles 22, 28 and 29 for the Theology of Chronicles” Journal of Biblical Literature
95.4. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1976. 581-590.
2. Braun, Roddy L. “The Message of Chronicles: Rally ‘Round the Temple”. Journal of
Biblical Literature. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1971. 502-514.
3. Cogan, Mordechai. The Anchor Bible: I Kings. New York: Doubleday and Co., 2001.
4. Cogan, Mordecahi and Tadmore, Hayim. The Anchor Bible: II Kings. Garden City:
Doubleday and Co., 1988.
5. Dirksen, Piet B. “Why Was David Disqualified as Temple Builder? The Meaning of 1
Chronicles 22.8”. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 70. Netherlands, 1966. 5156. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed April 17, 2014).
6. Ego, Beate. “Interpreting the Exile: The Experience of the Destruction of the Temple and
Devastation of the Land as Reflected Within the Nonpentateuchal Biblical Abraham
Tradition”. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. 165-179.
7. Geller, Stephen A. “Religion of the Bible,” Oxford Jewish Study Bible, ed. by Adele
Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
8. Japhet, Sara, B. Z. edar, and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky. Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred
Space." Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land. New York: New York UP, 1998. 55-72.
9. Knoppers, Gary N. “1 Chronicles”, The New Oxford Annotated Bible. New York, Oxford
University Press, 2010.
10. Korpel, Marjo C.A. “Disillusion among Jews in the Postexilic Period”. Leiden: Brill
Academic, 2003. 135-157.
11. Lemaire, André. “The Evolution of the 8th-Century B.C.E. Jerusalem Temple”, Israel
Finkelstein, Fire Signals of Lachish : Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in
the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.
12. Levenson, Jon Douglas. Sinai in Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. Minneapolis:
Winston, 1985.
13. Lieber, D. L. Pillar of Cloud and Pillar of Fire. In M. Berenbaum & F. Skolnik (Eds.),
Encyclopaedia Judaica (2nd ed., Vol. 16, p. 161). Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA,
2007. Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX2587515772&v=2.1&u=have19984&i
t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=03670f6ff82ec8169299c36a0fd25cd9.
14. Montefiore, Simon Sebag. Jerusalem: The Biography. New York: Random House Inc.,
2011.
15. Myers, Jacob M. The Anchor Bible: I Chronicles New York: Doubleday and Co., 1965.
16. Meyers Jacob M. The Anchor Bible: II Chronicles New York: Doubleday and Co., 1965.
17. Römer, Thomas. “1 Kings” from The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
18. Stevens, Marty E. Temples, Tithes, and Taxes: The Temple and the Economic Life of
Ancient Israel. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. 2006.
19. Yeivin, Shmuel. 1964 “Was there a High Portal in the First Temple?” Vetus Testamentum
14 no.3: 331-343. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed
April 17, 2014).
20. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Edition with the Apocrypha. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011.