Clifford A. Wilson
Jewish people today look back on Solomon’s long reign from about 961 to 922 B.C. as their “golden age”. Archaeology has brought to light much background information about this time of prosperity.
South of Israel the great power through the centuries had been Egypt. To the northeast, the Assyrians were the mighty oppressors. When Solomon lived, both the Egyptians and the Assyrians were ruled by men who were not able to maintain the greatness of their predecessors. The weak Tanite Dynasty controlled Egypt, and Tiglath-Pileser II reigned in Assyria from 966 to 935 B.C., a notoriously weak period in Assyrian history. As a result, Israel, the buffer state between these two great powers, was able to prosper under the wise leadership of Solomon. Solomon’s name means “peace” and during his reign over Israel there was no major war.
Solomon and the Phoenicians
Another nearby nation was Phoenicia, on the seacoast. Archaeology endorses the Israelite association with these people as recorded in the Bible. At one time, it was claimed that the Phoenicians were not strong at this time in history and that the Bible had exaggerated their importance. We now know that the Bible presents a remarkably accurate record of these ancient seafaring people. This was an era of the greatest commercial expansion that the Phoenicians had ever known. They established colonies as far west as Sardinia. This is but one of the evidences that has caused scholars to recognize that the earlier criticism against the Biblical references to Solomon’s background must be revised.
Phoenician Influence in Solomon’s Buildings
Phoenician influence was dominant in the plans of Solomon’s palace and Temple. The late Professor W.F. Albright summarized this in these words:
“Solomon launched out into an elaborate series of building operations. .. Throughout Phoenician influence is dominant — in the plan of palace and Temple; in the details of hewing, laying courses and quoin [corner] construction which characterize Solomonic masonry in sharpest contrast
BSP 1:2 (Spring 1972) p. 44
to the masonry of Saul and David.” (THE BIBLICAL PERIOD FROM ABRAHAM TO EZRA, p. 55.)
Professor Albright goes on to describe the architectural features used by Solomon. Under Solomon, there was great development in many spheres. There was, in fact, extraordinary material and cultural progress during his long reign of peace.
One interesting passage on which archaeology has thrown light is I Kings 7:12:
“And the great court round about was with three rows of hewn stones, and a row of cedar beams, both for the inner court of the house of the Lord, and for the porch of the house.”
This passage refers to the Temple, but it touches on a feature that was used in other buildings as well. When the city of Megiddo was excavated, the excavators commented on this sort of pattern in the level of Solomon’s time. They wrote:
“One feature of building 338 is that the piers of its podium consist of three rows of hewed stones. Wherever the third course was preserved, the upper surface was burned black, and therefore some combustible material, presumably wood, must have overlain the stones. On the floor of courtyard 313, near the northwest corner of the building, there was found a large piece of wood charcoal in a deposit of ash which lay along the west wall of the building and which, when analyzed, proved to be that of cedar. In addition to indications of timber above stonework, there were still to be seen lying on top of the podium walls sufficient remains of mud brick to show that this material too entered into the composition of the superstructure. This evidence accords well with the type of construction in Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem as described in I Kings 7:12.” (R.S. Lamon and G.M. Skipton, MEGIDDO I, p. 59.)
Phoenician Influence as Solomon Builds the Temple
Solomon chose to build the temple at Jerusalem. David had conquered the Jebusite city at this site, but it was much too small for the ambitious Solomon. He added a large tract to the north and the city fortifications were extended to include this new area. It was here that he began his great work of building the Temple.
BSP 1:2 (Spring 1972) p. 45
Building 338 at Megiddo. The three rows of hewn stone can clearly be seen at the corner and at other points around the foundation.
The Temple was primarily a royal chapel which was subject to the king’s control, while the priests were members of the royal court. In a political sense this was protection for Solomon. It meant that no High Priest would be likely to usurp the kingship as had happened at various times in Egypt.
The Temple is described in I Kings 6 and Ezekiel 41. The latter is a vision by Ezekiel, but it gives detailed measurements which agree with, and augment, those given in I Kings 6. In Kings we find that Solomon was helped by two Phoenician men named Hiram. One was a highly skilled craftsman responsible for making many of the bronze implements for the Temple (I Kings 7:13–14). Solomon would have drawn much of the labor from his own men of Israel, but the highly skilled workmen such as architects and artisans were Phoenicians. The other Hiram was the King of Tyre who provided both materials and technical advice for this great enterprise (I Kings 9:11 ff).
The association between King Hiram and Solomon is also endorsed by Phoenician records. A priest named Sanchuniathon wrote of how Hiram
BSP 1:2 (Spring 1972) p. 46
provided the ruler of Judah with building materials in exchange for seaport facilities. This ancient priest said that there were plenty of palm trees but no suitable building materials, and so Hiram had timbers transported on 8,000 camels. It is recorded in I Kings 9:27 that Hiram sent “shipmen that had knowledge of the sea”. The Phoenician priest actually tells us the names of these ancient mariners — Kedarus, Jaminus, and Kotilus. This is another one of those little sidelights where archaeology adds to our knowledge of particular Bible happenings.
Several Phoenician temples have been excavated and their ivory panelling and sculptures give a fairly good idea of the patterns Solomon used. For instance, I Kings 6:35 refers to cherubim, palm trees, and open flowers. Treasures such as these have been found in Phoenician temples.
One of these Phoenician temples has been excavated at Hazor in Galilee. It was built 200 years earlier than Solomon’s, but its pattern was similar. It had three rooms extending from south to north – a porch, a central hall, and a holy of holies. The building was 83 feet, 4 inches long and 56 feet 8 inches wide. At each side of the entrance to the main hall was a round pillar, reminding us of the two pillars in Solomon’s Temple (I Kings 7:13–22). Solomon’s pillars were named Jachin and Boaz, which probably mean “He shall establish” and “In it is strength”, thus attributing power to Jehovah Himself.
The similarities between Solomon’s Temple and Phoenician temples were at first surface resemblances, being limited to ornamentation and physical structures. Initially, there were no idolatrous statues or images of creeping things. The glory of God filled a Temple that had no image of Himself in the Holy of Holies. In that holy place were only the two cherubim and the Ark of the Covenant. The differences from Phoenician temples were far greater than the similarities. How tragic it was that Solomon did not maintain that essential difference by recognizing only Jehovah as the one true God to be worshipped.
Altars to Pagan Gods
Solomon was taking a measure of risk in using patterns from Phoenician temples. It has often been stated that the reign of Solomon was in some ways the greatest period of Israelite religious syncretism. Religious syncretism is where one selects various concepts from other religions and adapts them
BSP 1:2 (Spring 1972) p. 47
to one’s own. Solomon was prepared to do this, and it became increasingly obvious as he added altars from the gods of his various pagan wives. While those marriages were often merely political arrangements, it is also sadly true that Solomon slipped so far that he recognized the gods of these foreign women. Political marriages such as these were well-known in the East, and were a recognized means of putting a seal on political alliances. These alliances not only preserved good relations but also guaranteed the loyalty of subservient countries. But Solomon went a long way beyond mere political expediency as he allowed this false worship in the very prescence of the Temple itself (I Kings 11:1–8).
In later years God raised up prophets to pronounce judgment against such practices, and the people were urged to be separate and uncorrupted by the paganism around them. However, these practices were also condemned in Solomon’s own time. Scripture makes it clear that God’s condemnation of Solomon was because of his introduction of foreign cults and worship. In I Kings 11:1–8 we find the record of his failure and his rejection by the Lord.
Among the foreign deities whose worship Solomon introduced were Ashtaroth, a Phoenician goddess of Sidon; Molech, a god of the Ammonites; and Chemosh, a god of the Moabites. Chemosh is of special interest because he is referred to in the famous Moabite Stone. The discovery of this Stone endorsed the Bible story at 2 Kings 3:4 ff which tells how the Moabites rebelled against the Israelites, and though this was at a later time than Solomon, it is
The Canaanite goddess Ashtaroth.
BSP 1:2 (Spring 1972) p. 48
interesting to see that this is another one of those cases where a particular Bible story has been endorsed by archaeology. (See “The Moabite Stone — A Solution to a Conflict” on page 55 — Ed.)
Although it seems that the worship of Molech was only a formality in the days of Solomon, with it he introduced a dreadful prospect. Child sacrifice was part of the worship of Molech. In Israel’s later history there is an incident where this probably took place. In 2 Kings 16:3 we read of King Ahaz of Judah doing what was evil in the sight of the Lord even making his son to pass through the fire according to the abominations of the surrounding nations. As “passing through the fire” was associated with the sacrificing of children, it seems that King Ahaz sacrificed his own son in this way.
As we look at these deities whose worship Solomon condoned we are again reminded of the accuracy of the Bible in recording the background of the times. Even the gods of neighboring peoples are correctly identified.
Temple Implements
Another aspect of Solomon’s Temple on which archaeology has thrown light is in connection with some of the items used in the temple. We now know more about what some of these implements looked like. The “flesh-hooks” referred to in 2 Chronicles 4:16 were three-pronged forks. The
The bottom of a kaf, showing the outline of a hand.
BSP 1:2 (Spring 1972) p. 49
“spoons” referred to in verse 22 of that same chapter were actually bowls or dishes, sometimes with an open hand shown on the back. This probably explains why they were called “kaf”, which is the Hebrew word for the palm of the hand. It is easy to see how the translators would think of this as meaning spoons, but they were actually dishes. They were possibly used as incense burners or for the pouring out of libations.
The Temple and the Glory of God
The question might well be asked, “If Solomon used Phoenician patterns in the Temple, why was it filled with the glory of God?” This was before Solomon had allowed gods of other peoples to come into the Temple. In the early days of his reign, Solomon was a wise man whose heart was right towards God. His motives in building the Temple were God-honoring and his prayer to God was “That thine eyes may be open towards this house night and day” (I Kings 8:29).
The glory of God filled the Temple despite the human elements associated with it. We see a very wonderful spiritual parallel to this today. All believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are temples of the living God (2 Corinthians 6:16) and as such, God the Holy Spirit indwells them. This is the clear teaching of Scripture. And yet each one who is so indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God will acknowledge that he is at best an unprofitable servant. It is only the grace of God that causes him – a weak and failing vessel of clay – to be a temple of the living God. As the glory of God can fill our lives and the grace of God be thus displayed, so in a figure we see the glory of God filling the Temple in Solomon’s day despite some areas in which Solomon did not seek the mind of the Lord.
Perhaps we should say in passing that Scripture does not endorse the Temple of Solomon in the same way as the Tabernacle in the wilderness. With the Tabernacle it was stressed to Moses that it was to be made in strict accordance with the pattern God had shown him on the mountain (Exodus 25:9, 40; 26:30; 27:8; Numbers 8:4; Acts 7:44). No such injunction was given for the building of the Temple by Solomon. As a result, much more of the human element entered into its construction than was permitted with the Tabernacle.
The Dead Sea “Temple” Scroll
In 1968 another Dead Sea Scroll, known as the Temple Scroll, was made available to the scholars of the world. It is the longest scroll yet discovered,
BSP 1:2 (Spring 1972) p. 50
being 28 feet three inches in length. This is about four feet longer than the Scroll of Isaiah which was previously the longest scroll found in the caves in the vicinity of Qumran. This new scroll touches on various subjects, especially statues of the king, sacrifices and feasts, a collection of rules, and a description of the Temple. The instructions in the Scriptures for the Tabernacle are far more specific and definite than those for the Temple, and the Jews themselves recognized this. It is interesting to find that this new scroll was written as a Torah – that is, as a divine law, as though it was given by God to Moses. The whole of the text is in the first person, and God Himself is named as the speaker. This is quite different from the other Dead Sea Scrolls and it seems that the author of this scroll was under the impression that he was giving his people a new book of Scripture. Professor Yigael Yadin, who recovered the scroll, commented on the fact that there is no law from God for the building of the Temple. He said, “I am sure that this scroll of ours is one attempt to supply that missing Torah of God regarding the building of the Temple.” It is interesting to note that some of the measurements given in the scroll differ from those recorded in Scripture.
The Jewish people put tremendous emphasis on their famous Temple, but the humble Tabernacle was given a greater place by being specified directly by God. Perhaps the statement of the Apostle Paul in Acts 17 is relevant. The God Who made the heavens and the earth cannot be contained in temples made by the hands of men (Acts 17:24 ff).
Solomon’s Temple was eventually destroyed in 587 B.C. when Nebuchadnezzar’s troops razed Jerusalem. Seventy years later when a new temple had been built and was dedicated to God, many of the old people wept because they knew that the glory had departed – the glory that had been associated with the magnificent temple of Solomon. But in a coming day there will be an even greater temple. The Temple of God, His dwelling place, will be the New Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven, as we are told in Revelation 21. This is a picture of the wonderful spiritual truth that God will dwell eternally with His people. This was seen only faintly in the days of Solomon when the glory of God filled the Temple.
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life (1 John 5:11, 12).
BSP 1:2 (Spring 1972) p. 51