We Christadelphians claim to have a fuller acquaintance with the Scriptures than any other body of people, as well as a better understanding of their meaning. For this acquaintance the main credit must be given to our system of daily Bible reading. More than one competent brother has expressed the view that, among all the valuable works of Bro. Roberts, the little “Bible Companion” takes first place. There is deep wisdom in the following words quoted from his preface to the tables, “Salvation depends on the assimilation of the mind to the divine ideas, principles, and affections exhibited in the Scriptures. This process commences with a belief of the gospel, but is by no means completed thereby; it takes a lifetime for its scope, and untiring diligence for its accomplishment. The mind is naturally alien from God and all His ideas (Rom. 8. 7; 1 Cor. 2. 14),and cannot be brought at once to the Divine likeness. This is a work of slow development, and can only be achieved by the industrious application of the individual to the means which God has given for the purpose, namely the expression of His mind in the Scriptures of truth. . . . The infallible advice to every man and woman anxious about their salvation is—READ THE SCRIPTURES DAILY”.
The use of these tables throughout the brotherhood has a great unifying effect, for, wherever we meet, in whatever country, at meetings or in the homes of brethren and sisters, we turn naturally to the portions of Scripture listed for the day.
Some brethren have thought that the tables could be improved. Perhaps they could, to a small extent; but the present tables are so good and so deeply embedded in the life of our community that any slight benefit would be swamped by the chaos of an attempted change. Let us leave well alone.
There are brethren and sisters who feel that their special circumstances make it almost impossible to fit in the daily readings regularly and faithfully as part of their routine. But, if we look deeper, we shall find that the very circumstances which make it difficult also render it most necessary to partake regularly of the spiritual food.
The farmer, toiling from dawn till dark and after, finds himself nodding as soon as evening meal is over, and cannot concentrate on reading. But it is the only thing that can compensate for the isolation in which he generally lives, and can act as a corrective to the concentration on material things which enslaves all his neighbours. Perhaps a little time spared for the readings after the mid-day meal would not only build up the spiritual man but would “pay dividends” as relaxation for the physical frame.
Couples with young children of various ages may find all the evening taken up in attending to their needs, and the time slips away. But, surely, our first and highest duty to the children at that formative stage is to mould their minds to a godly pattern, and nothing can surpass the early cultivation of the habit of Bible reading and study. Get into the way of reading “the lessons” with them.
These are but two cases out of many that might be considered. Whatever our difficulties, we can find a solution once we have resolutely decided to give the things of God their rightful place.
Monthly Notes
The purpose of these notes on “Our Daily Readings”, intended as a monthly feature, is to add interest to our reading, to suggest explanations of difficulties and apparent discrepancies, to uncover meanings and allusions that may not be obvious on the surface, and in any other way to help in the digestion of our spiritual “daily bread”.
Subjects considered in the Notes in this (October) issue are taken from the readings between mid-October and mid-November, and so on.
Any references to Hebrew or Greek words will be based on Young’s Analytical Concordance, which is recommended as a great help in comparing Scripture with Scripture.
Temples
Temples figure prominently in our readings during the next month. Those associated with the names of Solomon, Zerubbabel and Ezekiel are dealt with in detail. Herod’s temple is frequently mentioned by John in connection with Christ’s ministry, and the beloved disciple also records the saying of Jesus concerning the “temple of his body”. There are several short references to the Tabernacle. Two pagan temples are mentioned, the temple at Babylon (Ezra 5. 14) and the temple of Diana at Ephesus (Acts 19. 27), and there are the general references by Stephen and by Paul to “temples made with hands”. The details of the heathen temples have no great interest for us; but so many particulars and measurements are specified concerning the sanctuaries of God that we are evidently meant to study them.
The Tabernacle
The first of these sanctuaries was the Tabernacle in the wilderness, and our study of it has been greatly assisted by Bro. R. Roberts’ book, “The Law of Moses” and Bro. W. F. Barling’s, “Law and Grace”. Both its structure and its ordinances of service are shown to foreshadow the “greater and more perfect tabernacle” provided in Christ.
The portable building had two compartments, the Holy Place 20 cubits long, 10 wide and 10 high, and the Holy of Holies (Qodesh Haq-Qodashim), a 10 cubit cube, in which the Ark enshrining the Law of God was surmounted by the golden Mercy-seat and the Cherubim of Glory, between which God said that He would dwell in the midst of Israel.
Solomon’s Temple
Solomon’s Temple had the same central feature, but, as the size was not now restricted by considerations of portability, the dimensions were doubled. The Holy of Holies was a cube with inside measurements of 20 cubits in width, length, and height (1 Kings 6. 20), which would be 30 feet, if we take the early cubit as about 18 inches. The Holy Place was 20 cubits wide and 40 long, but the ceiling height is not stated. The dimensions of the combined structure are given in 1 Kings 6. 2 as 60 cubits long, 20 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. Some authorities suggest that the extra 10 cubits in height are measured to the ridge of the gable roof, and that there was a ceiling 20 cubits above the floor.
It would be strange, however, to combine the internal dimensions for length and width with an external dimension for height. The only objection to taking the 30 cubits as the height of the ceiling is that it would break the general rule of doubling the tabernacle dimensions. There seems to be no way of reaching a decision on the matter.
At the front or east end of the building was a porch across the full width and 10 cubits deep. For the height of the porch the surprising figure of 120 cubits, or 180 feet, is given in 2 Chr. 3. 4. Some authorities, including the Companion Bible, suggest that a slight transposition of letters would change this to 20 cubits, which they regard as a more probable dimension. Support for the reading of 120 cubits is found in Josephus and in the Talmud, though these may, of course, have taken the figure from Chronicles. There are not sufficient grounds for departing from the Authorized Version figure.
Around the other three sides of the temple were built three-storey structures of small chambers. Some of these appear to have been used for storage purposes, some as sleeping quarters for priests on duty, and some as offices for prominent officials. (See Jer. 35. 4).
The Second Temple
The only dimensions given for the temple built by the Ben-Golah, or sons of the carrying away (Ezra 4. 1) are those contained in the decree of Cyrus that the house of God should be built with a height of 60 cubits and breadth of 60 cubits (Ezra 6. 3). The length is not stated. The 60 cubits width would be much the same as the overall width of Solomon’s temple. when allowance is made for the thickness of the massive stone walls and the side chambers. This suggests that the returned exiles may have found at least part of the foundation of the former building still usable, and that they followed the same plan. References in the Book of Maccabees, Josephus and other Jewish writings suggest that the restored temple retained the central features of a Holy Place 40 cubits by 20, and a Holy of Holies 20 cubits square.
The disparity between the new temple and that of Solomon, which moved the “ancient men” to lamentation (Ezra 3. 12; Hag. 2. 3), was apparently not a matter of size but of “glory”. For Solomon’s temple had been lavishly adorned with gold linings and carvings and precious stones. The gold used in overlaying the Most Holy Place alone amounted to 600 talents, that is, about 25 tons, or, at present day prices, about twelve million pounds worth!
Herod’s Temple
Concerning the temple that was standing in the time of Christ, the Bible gives no measurements at all. From references in Jewish literature, however, it has been concluded that “its internal dimensions were the same as those of the Temple of Solomon, with a 20 cubit cubical Holy of Holies and a Holy Place twice as long”. (Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Art. “Temple”). Some have thought that Herod simply elaborated and embellished the still standing Second Temple; but Josephus states that “Herod took away the old foundations, and laid others, and erected the Temple upon them”. One thing is sure—that he surrounded the building with a much more extensive system of courts. Plans in reference books show the Court of the Gentiles, the Court of the Women, the Court of the Israelites, and the Court of the Priests.
The later sanctuaries differed from those of Moses and Solomon in one important respect—the Holy of Holies was empty, as the Roman soldiers were astonished to find when they invaded the innermost shrine. The Ark had disappeared, presumably when the Babylonians destroyed the temple, and no authority had ever been given for its replacement. The glory had departed from the House.
The Temple Of Ezekiel’s Prophecy
There is no lack of measurements in Ezekiel’s narration of his visions of the future “House of Prayer for all Peoples”. But different investigators, attempting to produce from them a definite plan, have reached widely divergent conclusions. Most of us have some knowledge of Bro. H. Sulley’s interpretation. He pictures a temple of quite different form from all those that existed in the past, consisting of a hollow square about a mile long on each side, the building being mainly in the form of open colonnades. In the hollow centre he fits another building in the form of a circular ring, similarly constructed of columns and arches.
As against this “large temple” idea, some brethren prefer the “small temple” theory, illustrated, for instance, in the Cambridge Bible. According to this theory the outer enclosure surrounding the courts is about 750 feet square, and the buildings within follow the same general pattern as in the temples of Solomon and Herod. The great difference in size arises from differing interpretations of Ezek. 42. 16-20. Each side of the square is given in the A.V. as 500 reeds, the reed having been defined in Ezek. 40. 5 as six great cubits, equal to seven ordinary cubits. Five hundred reeds would be 3,500 ordinary cubits, or about 5,250 feet. The Septuagint Greek version, however, gives the measurement as 500 cubits, and this reading has been adopted by the R.S.V. which shows considerable partiality to LXX readings in general.
The “small temple” interpretation takes the “key” structure, or temple, to be, as in earlier temples, a two-compartment building with a Holy Place 40 cubits by 20, and a Most Holy Place 20 cubits square. In confirmation, reference is made to Ezek. 41. 1-4, where the first compartment of the temple is stated to be 40 cubits long and 20 cubits wide, and the Most Holy Place “beyond the nave” (R.S.V.) 20 cubits each way. Bro. Sulley apparently regards such a relatively small building as inappropriate to his interpretation, and he applies the figures differently, taking the 40 cubits as a vertical dimension. (See his book, “The Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy”, 5th Edit., p. 101).
It is interesting to note that another English architect, James Ferguson, F.R.S., writing in Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible” about 100 years ago, insisted, like Bro. Sulley, that the outer court was nearly a mile square. He was not prepared to construct a plan from the complicated verbal description, but adds, “Be this as it may, we find that the Temple itself was of the exact dimensions of that built by Solomon, namely an adytum (Most Holy Place) 20 cubits square, a naos (Nave or Holy Place) 20 by 40, and surrounded by cells 10 cubits wide, including the thickness of the walls”.
On grounds of general appropriateness we could expect that the courts of the “house of prayer for all peoples” would greatly exceed in size those which served the small nation of Israel, but there seem to be grounds for the idea that the Sanctuary itself will maintain continuity with all the former temples in size and form.
Daniel The Prophet – (Part 3)