The House of the Lord: A Study of Holy Sanctuaries Ancient and Modern. James E. Talmage

The people of Canaan—Israelites who had forgotten their allegiance to God, and had mingled with idolaters, took offense at the activity of the returned Jews. At first they offered to assist in the work, but being refused recognition because of their idolatrous associations, they became obstructionists, and "weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building; and hired counsellors against them, to frustrate their purpose, all the days of Cyrus king of Persia, even until the reign of Darius king of Persia."^[77] The claim was made that of old the people of Judah had been a trouble to other nations, and that with the restoration of their Temple they would again become seditious. At last the protests and charges reached Darius, the reigning monarch; and he, having investigated the whole matter, issued a decree, that not only should the Jews be free from interruption in the building of the Temple, but that a portion of the king's tribute, the regular taxes of the land, should be devoted to the work; and, said the king:

      "Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this. And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed."^[78]

      With such support the people soon completed the building. Though nearly twenty years elapsed between the laying of the foundation and the finishing, the greater part of the labor was done during the last four years. The dedicatory services were solemn and inspiring. For seven days the Feast of Unleavened Bread was observed; the Passover was eaten by those who had returned from captivity and by such others as had "separated themselves unto them from the filthiness of the heathen of the land, to seek the Lord God of Israel."^[79]

      This, the second Temple, was finished in the year 515 BC; it is known in history as the Temple of Zerubbabel. In general plan it was patterned after the Temple of Solomon, though in many of its dimensions it exceeded its prototype. The court was divided into a section for priests only and another for the public; according to Josephus the division was effected by a wooden railing.^[80] An alter of unhewn stone was erected in place of the great brazen alter of old.^[81] The Holy Place was graced by but one candlestick instead of ten; and by a single table for the shew-bread instead of the ten tables overlaid with gold which stood in the first Temple. We read also of a golden altar of incense, and of some minor appurtenances. The Most Holy Place was empty, for the Ark of the Covenant had not been known after the people had gone into captivity.

      In many respects the Temple of Zerubbabel appeared poor in comparison with its splendid predecessor and in certain particulars, indeed, it ranked lower than the ancient Tabernacle of the Congregation—the sanctuary of the nomadic tribes. Critical scholars specify the following features characteristic of the Temple of Solomon and lacking in the Temple of Zerubbabel: (1) the Ark of the Covenant; (2) the sacred fire; (3) the Shekinah, or glory of the Lord, manifested of old as the Divine Presence; (4) the Urim and Thummim, by which Jehovah made plain His will to the priests of the Aaronic order; (5) the genius or spirit of prophecy, indicative of the closest communion between mortals and their God. Notwithstanding these differences the Temple of Zerubbabel was recognized of God and was undoubtedly the site or seat of Divine revelation to duly constituted prophets.

      The inferiority of the second Temple as compared with the first is generally conceded; the difference, however, was rather in matter of splendor than in point of size.^[82] But even such glory as it did possess was not to be long maintained. Again the people became recreant to their God, and the voice of the prophet was unheeded. Again did Jehovah permit the heathen to oppress Judah. Of the later history of this Temple the Biblical record gives but few details; but from other sources we learn of its vicissitudes. In connection with the Maccabean persecution the House of the Lord was profaned. A Syrian king, Antiochus Epiphanes, captured Jerusalem (168 to 165 BC) and perpetrated blasphemous outrage against the religion of the people. He plundered the Temple and carried away its golden candlestick, its golden altar of incense, its table of shewbread, and even tore down the sacred veils, which were of fine linen and scarlet. His malignity was carried so far that he purposely desecrated the altar of sacrifice by offering swine thereon, and erected a heathen altar within the sacred enclosure. Not content with the violation of the Temple, this wicked monarch had altars erected in the towns and ordered the offering of unclean beasts upon them. The rite of circumcision was forbidden on pain of death, and the worship of Jehovah was declared a crime.^[83] As a result of this persecution many of the Jews apostatized, and declared that they belonged to the Medes and Persians—the nations from whose dominion they had been delivered by the power of God.

      Among those who remained true to the religion of their fathers was Mattathias, who was a priest, and a man of prominence. He was besought to offer heathen sacrifice; not only did he refuse but in righteous indignation he slew those who did attempt the sacrilege. This act led to further strife and for three years the struggle continued. Judas, son of Mattathias, came into prominence and is known as Judas Maccabeus—the first of the Maccabees. Under his leadership the people returned to Jerusalem and found the Temple deserted, as it had been left by the army of Antiochus. Its gates had been broken down and burned; and within the walls weeds were growing. Judas tried to cleanse and rehabilitate the House; he brought in new vessels, and replaced the candlestick, the altar of incense, the table of shewbread, and the veils, and built a new altar for burnt offerings. Then in the year 163 BC the House was rededicated; and the occasion was remembered in annual festival thereafter under the name of the Feast of Dedication.^[84]

      In the interest of self-preservation the Jews entered into an alliance with the Romans, who eventually became their masters. During the reign of the Maccabees the Temple fell into decay, and when the last of that dynasty had been succeeded by Herod the Great, the House was little more than a ruin. Nevertheless the priestly orders had been maintained; and some semblance of ritualistic worship had continued. The history of the Temple of Zerubbabel is merged with that of the Temple of Herod.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD

       Table of Contents

      In the year 37 BC Herod I, known in history as Herod the Great, was established on the throne as King of Judea. He had already served successively as procurator and tetrarch, and, indeed, had been king in name for some time prior to his enthronement, during which period he had been in hostile conflict with the people over whom the decree of the Roman Senate had made him ruler. He came to the throne noted for arrogance and cruelty; and his reign was one of tyranny, in which even family relationship and the closest ties of blood proved unavailing to protect the victims of his displeasure. In the early part of his reign he put to death nearly all the members of the Sanhedrin, the great Jewish Council, and throughout he ruled with increasing severity. Nevertheless he was successful in maintaining peace with other governments, and by his Roman masters was accounted an able ruler. Among his acts of cruelty was the slaughter of the babes of Bethlehem, a murder planned and executed in the hope of including among the victims the Child Jesus.^[85]

      Such is the character of the man who proposed to replace the time-worn Temple of Zerubbabel by a new and more splendid structure. Can it be thought that a proffered gift from such a donor could be acceptable to the Lord? David had aforetime offered to build a House to the Lord, but had been restrained, for he was a man of blood. Herod's purpose in the great undertaking was that of aggrandizing himself and the nation, rather than the rendering of homage to Jehovah. His proposition to rebuild or restore the Temple on a scale of increased magnificence was regarded with suspicion and received with disfavor by the Jews, who feared that were the ancient edifice demolished, the arbitrary monarch might abandon his plan and the people would be left without a Temple. To allay these fears the king proceeded to reconstruct and restore the old edifice, part by part, directing the work so that at no time was the Temple service seriously interrupted. So little of the ancient structure was allowed to stand, however, that the Temple of Herod must be regarded as a new creation. The work was begun about sixteen years before the birth of Christ; and while the Holy House itself was practically completed within a year and a half, this