Haran, Menahem.  “Temples and Cultic Open Areas as Reflected in the Bible.”  In Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, 31-6.  Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, 1981. [Israel/Canaan]

Haran discusses various special places of worship in Israel and differentiates between temples, high places, altars, and sanctuaries.  He defines or explains different important terms, several of which referred to the temple, such as bet Yahweh or Bet elohim for house of God; miqdas, a place or object of holiness.  He also carefully distinguishes between an altar and temple.  About a dozen temples are referred to in the Bible.  The “high place”bamah (bamot) is a distinct type of altar (p. 33).  It is accepted in pre-Deuteronomic writings, but considered absolutely illegitimate and detestable by the Deuteronomists and were wiped out in Josiah’s reforms (2 Kgs. 23:8-20).  There is very little real information about temples in the Bible.  He concludes with a brief discussion of open-cult areas.

Lemaire, Andre.  “Another Temple to the Israelite God.”  Biblical Archaeology Review 30, No. 4 (July-August 2004): 38-44, 60. [Israel/Persian Period/Maqqedah]

For many years a large number of potsherds inscribed in Aramaic, dating from the late Persian and early Hellenistic times have come on to the antiquities market.  About eight hundred of more than a thousand, largely in private hands, have been published.  They are thought to come from an area about 15 miles west of Hebron, the village of Khirbet el-Kom, thought to be biblical Maqqedah.  The majority of these inscriptions are “accounting notes” related to taxes, from a royal storeroom. Many contain precise dates; so far all the dates are between 362 and 312 B.C. Theophoric names (names incorporating the name of God), indicate the region was inhabited by Israelites and several other cultures.

The ostracon also provide new information about Israelite religion and its cultic places.  Before this time Israelite “sanctuaries” have been found at Beersheba, Arad, Lachish, Gibeon, Bethel, Ophrah, Shechem, Samaria, Carmel, Dan, Gibeon, Gezer, and elsewhere.  Two reform movements during the time of Hezekiah and Josiah appear to have tried to shut such places down and centralize worship in the Jerusalem temple. Only one Israelite sanctuary outside of Jerusalem from the Persian Period was thought to exist, that on the island of Elephantine in the Nile River.  However, one of the inscriptions from this recently excavated hoard indicates the presence of another Israelite temple at Maqqedah during this period, with the exact name–Beit Yaho–as the one in Elephantine.  The six lines of the inscription not only identify this sanctuary, but two more, one to the god Uzza, a north Arabian deity, and a third to the god Nabu, of Mesopotamian origin.

Barker, Margaret, and Kevin Christensen.  “Seeking the Face of the Lord: Joseph Smith and the First Temple Tradition.”  In Joseph Smith Jr. Reappraisals After Two Centuries, edited by Reid L. Neilson and Terryl L. Givens, 143-88.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. [Israel/Mormon/Theology/First Temple/Solomon/Presence]

This is a two-part essay.  Barker is a Methodist preacher and scholar who has devoted her lifetime career to studying Christianity in the light of the First Temple, its theology, purpose, meaning, and rituals.  She is something of the Hugh Nibley of the Protestant world because over the decades she has mined and mastered a vast array of early source material from Jewish and Christian apocrypha and pseudepigrapha to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and from the Mishnah and Talmud to Philo and Josephus.  Her section of this essay is the longer and better of the two.  She documents that the earliest Jewish and Christian traditions were that the Temple was the place, not only of the presence of the Lord, but the place where the face of the Lord was seen.  Indeed “presence” and “face” are synonymous.  She documents many fascinating changes in the texts of the scriptures and targums by those she calls Deuteronomists who rejected both the notion that God was anthropomorphic and that he could be seen in the Temple.  She further comments on a number of canonical visions, most of which were related to the Temple.  She argues that this was the essence of the purpose of the temple.

Christensen’s part of the essay is less direct and concentrated on the point than Barker’s.  From modern scholarship he argues that there were two types of visions of God, those which he calls numinous, and the mystic.  The first is an encounter with the divine in institutionalized worship; the second is a personal but largely ineffable experience and unity with God.  Christensen argues that Mormonism, unique in religion, blends the two.  Joseph Smith not only had a drive to create a community centered on the temple, but he allowed for the individual to receive revelation and enjoy a mystical experience with God.  All of this, he argues, is consistent with the First Temple tradition.  Moreover, Mormonism also believes in the anthropomorphic nature of God.  One thing I wish he would have add would be to show that not only do Mormons believe that God may be seen and that one of the purposes of the temple is to facilitate this, but also to document that this theoretical belief has and is being fulfilled.

David Rolph Seely and Jo Ann H. Seely, “The Crown of Creation.”   In, Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, The Temple on Mount Zion, 22 September 2012, edited by William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely, 11-22. Temple on Mount Zion Series 2.  Orem/Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation/Eborn Books, 2014. [Eden/Creation/Tabernacle/Solomon’s Temple/

This essay by David and Jo Ann Seely of BYU, treat the subject of the relationship of creation and the temple, an area which covers turf that has undergone extreme study in recent decades.  They acknowledge this and refer to an number of authors, Mormon and non-Mormon who have written on the subject.  Nevertheless they do give us a new emphasis that will be especially appealing to LDS audiences. Continue reading →

Bauckham, Richard.  “The Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast (Matthew 22:1-14) and the Parable of the Lame Man and the Blind Man (Apocryphon of Ezekiel).” Journal of Biblical Literature 115 (Autumn 1996): 471-88. [Christian/Theology/Marriage]

The Parable of the Royal Wedding Feast in Matthew 22:1-14 shares a general theme of the wedding of a king’s son with a rabbinic parable of the Lame Man and the Blind Man.  This article seeks to make the point that many Jewish and Christian parables are misinterpreted by those who ignore the first step of interpretation which is to determine that all elements of the story contribute to a coherent plot.  He argues that in the case of both of the parables which are the subject of this study do possess a coherent plot.  There is little here of value regarding understanding the wedding symbolism.  The most important insight in this respect regards the man without a wedding garment.  “Wearing festal garments indicated one’s participation in the joy of the feast.  To appear in ordinary, soiled working clothes would show contempt for the occasion, a refusal to join in the king’s rejoicing. …this is no ordinary act of dishonor to a host but a matter of political significance.”  (p. 486)  He concludes by arguing that the point of the parable is that the king is trying to furnish the wedding banquet with worthy guests, but the man without the garment is as unworthy, because of his contempt, as those who reject the invitation.

Gillihan, Yonder Moynihan.  “Jewish Laws on Illicit Marriage, the Defilement of Offspring, and the Holiness of the Temple: A New Halakic Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:14.”  Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (Winter 2002): 711-44. [Israel/Christian/Marriage/Ritual/Liturgy/ Worship]

This article answers the question of what Paul means when he says the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and that the children of such a union are “holy”.  It appears to mean that unbelievers were considered legitimate mates.  In contemporary terms it is almost like saying, common law marriages are recognized and legitimate.  This definition is derived linguistically and in comparisons with similar usages in Jewish literature by the rabbis.  The last third of the article reviews and critiques the three main explanations of this verse in scholarly literature.  (Which seems a little backward from the usual structure of this type of article.)  The essay is helpful regarding the temple in several ways.  It has many useful insights regarding marriage and rulings on marriage in the centuries before and after Christ.  It contains several new references on Jewish marriage.  The most interesting items are the concerns about the purity of the temple being defiled by those who are married to those who are forbidden in Jewish law.  It is pointed out that in early Judaism “contaminating the temple was considered the most severe sin.”  The Book of Jubilees conveys the same relationship between illegal marriage, sexual impurity, mamzerim and the defilement of the temple.  Although, the article does not address in any detailed or systematic way, why this is the case.

Hiers, Richard H.  “‘Binding’ and ‘Loosing’: The Matthean Authorizations.” Journal of Biblical Literature 104 (June 1983): 233-50. [Priesthood/Sealing]

The terms “binding” and “loosing” used by Matthew are not easily understood by Bible interpreters.  Hiers reviews both the Catholic and Protestant views on both Mt. 16:19 and 18:18.  The Catholics see it as authority establishing the primacy of Peter in Church governance and the apostolic power of excommunication.  The Protestants either deny the authenticity of the passage or that it refers to something other than sacerdotal authority.  A group Hiers calls “critics” have postulated a number of ideas about the meaning of the passage.  It is the authority: 1) to absolve or release someone from vows.  2) to determine what actions are forbidden or permitted.  3) to make judgments about doctrine and discipline.  4) to exclude someone from the Church.  5) in terms of John 20:23 to forgive or withhold forgiveness of sin.  6) to condemn impenitent offenders.   7) in connections with Mt. 10:23; 11:20-24; 19:28 to bring judgment upon cities in Israel.

Hiers then suggests that the use and meaning of the term in the Intertestamental Jewish literature has not been adequately explored.  When he does so, he concludes that the vast majority of references refer to the power to bind Satan and demons and at the same time loose those in Satan’s power.  For Hiers this was how Matthew understood the words too, but he broadened its meaning to include power given to determine who would be permitted to eternal life, and even more broadly to authority for Peter and the Apostles to deal with whatever arises in the Church.

Eppstein, V.  “The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple.”  Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Alteren Kirche 55 (1964): 42-58. [Israel/Herod/Christian/Ritual/Liturgy/Worship/Cleansing]

This article  examines the story of the cleansing of the temple in the light of what is known historically about temple administration and selling sacrificial animals.  Though the story fits known history in a general way, the Gospel writers seem to get some details incorrectly.  The two most helpful parts of this analysis are, first, the gain in greater understanding about the interrelationship between the sanhedrin, the High Priest, temple priests (priesthood), and Jewish sects such as Pharisees and Sadducees.   Secondly, the selling of sacrifices in the temple precincts was not normal.  Usually it took place in four markets on the Mt. of Olives.  However, the sanhedrin had recently been expelled from the Temple and moved to the Mt. of Olives.  The markets were apparently likewise permitted to dwell inside the temple.

Brown, Matthew B.   “The Handclasp, the Temple, and the King.”  In, Temple Insights: Proceedings of the Interpreter Matthew B. Brown Memorial Conference, The Temple on Mount Zion, 22 September 2012, edited by William J. Hamblin and David Rolph Seely, 5-9.  Temple on Mount Zion Series 2.  Orem/Salt Lake City, UT: The Interpreter Foundation/Eborn Books, 2014. [Israel/Ritual/Liturgy/Worship/Symbolism]

In this brief article Matt Brown examines the imagery of the handclasp between God in the heavens and the earthly king, as this imagery is expressed in Psalms 27, 41, 63, 73, and 89.  His conclusion about Psalms 41 and 73 seems to apply to the study generally.  Brown wrote, “Taken altogether, Psalms 41 and 73 point to the possibility that when the king of Israel was initiated into his office in the temple precincts, he passed through the veil of the Holy of Holies (see Exodus 26:33) and into God’s symbolic presence.”  (p. 6)

A particularly interesting example among the royal psalms is an illustration in a manuscript of Ps. 27:10 which says “the Lord will take [the king] up.”  The illustration is from the Utrecht Psalter created in a Benedictine Abbey near Epernay, France about 820 AD.  In the image the “Lord is shown reaching down a stairway and grasping the king by the right hand, probably to induct him into the heavenly assembly.”  (p. 7)

Williamson, H. G. M. “The Temple in the Books of Chronicles,” in William Horbury, ed., Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), pp. 15-31. [Israel/Solomon]

A wonderfully insightful article showing that the author of the books of Chronicles attempted to use the temple as a unifying factor to restore divided Israel.  To do this he went back in time before the division to an important element common to both, in this case the tabernacle/temple. (p. 19.)  Its site is connected to Abraham and its design to Moses–the two most revered leaders of Judaism.  The details showing the Chronicler’s references to the temple and their purpose is interesting and insightful.  In his treatment of Solomon for example, the three themes for which he is most well known building the temple, wealth, and wisdom, are all oriented in Chronicles around the temple.  At the end of the article Williamson connects Ezra 1-6 with the same intent as Chronicles.  I found this argument more difficult to follow, and therefore, less persuasive.   The article also contains a brief but important statement about the use of typology in Chronicles.  (p. 21)