Holy Bible

The Lord said unto him, I have heard thy prayer . 1 Kings 9:2-9 Essential points in prayer It was an exceedingly encouraging thing to Solomon that the Lord should appear to him before the beginning of his great work of building the temple. See in the third chapter of this First Book of the Kings, at the fifth verse, "In Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night: and God said, Ask what I shall give thee." I cannot forget when the Lord appeared unto me in Gibeon at the first. Truly there are things about the lives of Christian men that would not have been possible if God had not appeared to them at the beginning. If he had not strengthened and tutored them, and given them wisdom beyond what they possess in themselves; if he had not inspirited them. It is a priceless blessing to begin with God, and not to lay a stone of the temple of our life-work till the Lord has appeared unto us. I do not know, however, but that it is an equal, perhaps a superior, blessing for the Lord to appear to us after a certain work is done; even as in this case: "The Lord appeared to Solomon the second time, as He had appeared unto him at Gibeon." We want renewed appearances, fresh manifestations, new visitations from on high; and I commend to those of you who are getting on in life, that while you thank God for the past, and look back with joy to His visits to you in your early days, you now seek and ask for a second visitation of the Most High. All days in a palace are not days of banqueting, and all days with God are not so clear and glorious as certain special Sabbaths of the soul in which the Lord unveils His glory. Happy are we if we have once beheld His face; but happier still if He again comes to us in fulness of favour. I think that we should be seeking those second appearances: we should be crying to God most pleadingly that He would speak to us a second time. I. OUR PROPER PLACE IN PRAYER. The Lord said, "I have heard thy prayer, and thy supplication, that thou hast made before Me." There is the place to pray — "before Me": that is to say, before the Lord. But we should take care that the place is hallowed by our prayer being deliberately and reverently presented before God. 1. This place is not always found. The Pharisee went up to the temple to pray, and yet, evidently, he did not pray "before God"; so that even in the most holy courts he did not find the place desired. 2. This blessed place "before God" can be found in public prayer. Solomon's prayer before God was offered in the midst of a great multitude. 3. But prayer before God can just as well be offered in private. 4. The prayer is to be directed to God. 5. We should endeavour in prayer to realise the presence of God. II. OUR GREAT DESIDERATUM IN PRAYER. It is that which God said that He had given to Solomon. "I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication." 1. The first thing the soul desires in prayer is audience with God. If the Lord do not hear us, we have gained nothing. And what an honour it is to have audience with God! 2. But we Want more than that: we want that He should accept. It were a painful thing to be permitted to speak to a great friend, and then for him to stand austere and stern, and say, "I have heard what you have to say. Go your way." We ask not this of God. 3. Still, there is a third thing which we want, which God gave to Solomon, and that was an answer. III. OUR ASSURANCE OF ANSWER TO PRAYER. Can we have an assurance that God has heard and answered prayer? Solomon had it. The Lord said unto him, "I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before Me." Does the Lord ever say that to us? I think so. Let us consider how He does so. 1. I think that He says it to us very often in our usual faith. 2. But sometimes you require strong confidence. You have to solicit some extraordinary blessing. You get to a place like that to which Jacob came, when common prayer was not sufficient. 3. Sometimes this comes in the form of a comfortable persuasion. 4. The Lord also gives to His people a manifest preparation for the blessing. He prepares them to receive it. Their expectation is raised, so that they begin to look out for the blessing, and make room for it; and when it is so, you may be sure that it is coming. 5. Actual observation also breeds in us a solid confidence that our suit is succeeding. ( C. H. Spurgeon . ) Prayer penetrates Signal. Which are the sounds that penetrate furthest? We on terra firma are scarcely in a position to judge. However, a number of scientists have been making a series of experiments to test the relative penetrating quality of sounds, The Government lent them a military balloon, which ascended from the artillery camp at Woolwich, and passed over London. A sharp ear was kept for the sounds of the vast city that penetrated upward. Trains were heard in practically continuous rumble, punctuated by their shrill whistles. Sirens from the river and various factories rose sharp and clear. Most noticeable were the barkings of high-voiced dogs, which could be distinctly heard even at a mile high. The highly-instructive fact was noted, however, that, though the city was crossed just at neon, when from the streets the striking of clocks and bells is always such a noticeable feature, yet the most careful listener aloft could detect no such sounds. These observations go to prove how inferior are the carrying powers of bells as heard from aloft, and to emphasise the fact that noises of an unmusical, discordant nature have much better chance of making themselves heard at a distance than have more harmonious sounds. But the reverse is the case in the spiritual sphere. It is the discords of earth that have no carrying power, and that last but for a day. It is the sweet and harmonious utterance, the secret prayer, the quiet deed, that reaches unto the heavens. ( Signal. ) If thou writ walk before Me, as David thy father walked. 1 Kings 9:4 Imperativeness of law J. B. Morgan. General Grant, while president, caused the injury of a woman by his fast driving. He invited a police officer to enter his buggy, and drove with him to the police station, where he paid a fine of twenty dollars for "fast and reckless driving." President M'Kinley once had to reprove his driver for crossing a chalk-line which marked the limit of space allowed to carriages. He leaned his head out of the window, apologised to the policeman in charge, and ordered his driver to obey the rule at once. Obedience comes hard when we think that for some reason we ought to be exceptions to the rules that govern others. ( J. B. Morgan. ) The power of a sainted parent F. Y. Leggatt. After the news of his father's death, Thomas Carlyle set himself to describe with pride his peasant parent. A living picture he gives: the large head, grey ever since he could remember; the strong face, full of earnestness; the clear eyes, through which honesty streamed — his dear, good father! Only a common farmer, though. Digging and ditching were part of his work. He drove the plough through the furrow. But, writes Thomas, "his son also is part of his work. An inspiring example I owe him. The pale face stiffened into death will certainly impel me. I seem to myself the second volume of my father." The dead spirit of the Ecclefechan farmer lived in the brilliant writer of books. The instructions of his father soaked into his very flesh and bone. He, being dead, yet shaped his life. O blessed office of parenthood! ( F. Y. Leggatt. ) The law of obedience N. D. Hillis, D. D. To that law of truth that firmly fixes foundations for cathedrals, Ruskin adds the law of obedience. In springing his wall the architect must plumb the stones of obedience to the law of gravity. In springing his arch he must brace it, obeying the laws of resistance. In lifting his tower he must relate it to the temple, obeying the law of proportion and symmetry; and he who disobeys one fundamental law will find great nature puking his towers down over his head. For no architect builds as he pleases, but only as nature pleases, through laws of gravity, and stone and steel. In the kingdom of the soul also obedience is strength and life, and disobedience is weakness and death. In the last analysis liberty is a phantom, a dream, a mere figment of the brain. Society's greatest peril of to-day is the demagogues who teach, and the ignorant classes who believe that there is such a thing as liberty. The planets have no liberty; they follow their sun. The seas know no liberty; they follow the moon in tidal waves. When the river refuses to keep within its banks, it becomes a curse and a destruction. It is the stream that is restrained by its banks that turns mill wheels for men. The clouds, too, have their beauty in that they are led forth in ranks and columns generaled by the night winds. And in proportion as things pass from littleness towards largeness they go toward obedience to law. ( N. D. Hillis, D. D. ) But if ye shall at all turn from following Me. 1 Kings 9:6-9 A note of warning A druggist in Ansonia, Conn., has an electric bell in a cabinet containing poisons. When the door is opened the bell rings, reminding the compounder he is handling poisons. What a grand thing it would be were it possible to sound an alarm every time a man puts forth his hand to touch that which will kill the soul. True, God in His great love has provided such an alarm, but, alas, men are prone to disregard its notes of alarm, and by and by it tolls forth its notes only to fall upon closed ears, and finally the bell, like that spoken of in the legend, is cut loose by the hand of a ruthless pirate, and its warning notes no longer are heard.

Benson Commentary 1 Kings 9:1 And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do, 1 Kings 9:1-2 . And it came to pass when Solomon had finished, &c. — Or rather, according to 2 Chronicles 7:11 , Thus Solomon finished the house of the Lord, &c., and concluded all with the foregoing prayer, and the great festival which he kept. That the Lord appeared to Solomon the second time — That is, the second time in a dream or vision; the divine message, mentioned 1 Kings 6:11 , having been imparted unto him by some prophet or messenger sent from God on that errand. Accordingly this appearance, like the former at Gibeon, is said ( 2 Chronicles 7:10 ) to have been made by night, and in all probability the very night after he had finished the solemnities of his festival, as the other had been. God had given a real answer to Solomon’s prayer, and tokens of his acceptance of it, immediately, by the fire from heaven which consumed the sacrifice, ( 2 Chronicles 7:1 ,) but here we have a more express and distinct answer to it. 1 Kings 9:2 That the LORD appeared to Solomon the second time, as he had appeared unto him at Gibeon. 1 Kings 9:3 And the LORD said unto him, I have heard thy prayer and thy supplication, that thou hast made before me: I have hallowed this house, which thou hast built, to put my name there for ever; and mine eyes and mine heart shall be there perpetually. 1 Kings 9:3 . The Lord said, I have heard thy prayer — This shows that the first verse is to be understood as we have just stated: for otherwise we must suppose this appearance of God to Solomon to have taken place, and this answer to have been given to his prayer, eleven years after he had finished the house, and addressed that prayer to him at the dedication of it; which is very unlikely. I have hallowed this house — By my glorious presence in the cloud, and by my acceptance of thy sacrifices. I have sanctified it to my proper use and service. Solomon had dedicated it, but it was God’s prerogative to hallow or consecrate it. Men cannot make a place holy; yet what we in sincerity devote to God, we may hope he will graciously accept as his. To put my name there for ever — As long as the Mosaic dispensation lasts: whereas hitherto my worship has been successively in several places. And mine eyes — My watchful and gracious providence. My heart — My true and tender affection. Shall be there perpetually — Shall be toward this place and people, upon condition of your obedience, as it here follows. Apply this to persons, to God’s living temples: those whom he hallows or sanctifies; whom he sets apart for himself, in consequence of their repentance and faith in Jesus, have his eye upon and his heart toward them; they have his love and his care, and this perpetually. 1 Kings 9:4 And if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: 1 Kings 9:4-5 . If thou wilt walk before me, &c. — He shows him that he and his people were for the future upon their good behaviour: Let them not be secure now, as if they might conduct themselves as they please, having the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord among them, Jeremiah 7:4 . No: this house was designed to protect them in their allegiance to God, not in their rebellion against him, or disobedience to him. As David thy father walked — Who, though he foully miscarried in some things, yet in the general course of his life was upright and faithful, especially in things relating to the worship of God and civil government. Then will I establish the throne of thy kingdom — Upon that condition, and not otherwise; for my promise to David was conditional, Psalm 132:12 . If we perform our part of the condition, God will not fail to perform his. If we improve the grace God has given us, he will confirm us to the end. Let not the children of godly parents expect the entail of the blessing, unless they tread in the steps of those that are gone before them, and keep up the virtue and piety of their ancestors. 1 Kings 9:5 Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel. 1 Kings 9:6 But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: 1 Kings 9:6-7 . If you shall at all turn from following me — Hebrew, If in turning you turn from me; that is, if you assuredly, and indeed, or, as some understand it, altogether turn from me; if you forsake my service, desert my altar, and go and serve other gods; (for that was the covenant-breaking sin;) if you or your children break off from me, and knowingly and wilfully violate my laws, this house will not save you. Then will I cut off Israel — By one judgment after another, till they become the most despicable people under the sun, though they be now the most honourable. This implies the destruction of the royal family, though it is not particularly threatened; for the king is of course undone if his kingdom be destroyed. And this house — will I cast out of my sight — I will not regard it, but will take away my presence and protection from it: it shall be abandoned and laid desolate. And Israel shall be a proverb — Their calamities and miseries shall be mentioned proverbially, to express extreme affliction and distress. And a byword among all people — Who would mock at their calamitous and deplorable state. 1 Kings 9:7 Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight; and Israel shall be a proverb and a byword among all people: 1 Kings 9:8 And at this house, which is high, every one that passeth by it shall be astonished, and shall hiss; and they shall say, Why hath the LORD done thus unto this land, and to this house? 1 Kings 9:8-9 . And at this house, which is high — Exalted in its privileges, and renowned for its riches and splendour, and the great resort of people to it. They gloried in the stateliness and magnificence of the structure; but God here lets them know it was not so high as to be out of the reach of his judgments, which should assuredly fall upon it and them, if they vilified it so as to exchange it for groves and idol-temples, and yet, at the same time, most inconsistently and absurdly magnified it, so as to suppose it would secure the favour of God to them, although they ever so much corrupted themselves. Every one that passeth by it shall be astonished — At its unexpected and wonderful ruin. As they who now pass by it are astonished at the bulk and beauty, the richness, contrivance, and workmanship of it, and call it a stupendous fabric; so, if you forsake God, its height will make its fall the more amazing, and they that pass by will be as much astonished at its ruins. And shall hiss — By way of contempt and derision; and shall say, Why hath the Lord, &c. — What is the reason that this famous place, which boasted so much of the favour and protection of God, is thus laid in ruins? And they shall answer, Because they forsook, &c. — The guilty, self-convicted, self-condemned Israelites will be forced to acknowledge with shame, that they themselves were the ruin of it. See Deuteronomy 29:24 . Their sin will be read in their punishment. They deserted the temple, and therefore God deserted it; they profaned it with their sins, and laid it common; and therefore God profaned it with his judgments, and laid it waste. Of this God thus gave Solomon fair warning, now he had newly built and dedicated it, that he and his people might not be high-minded, but fear. 1 Kings 9:9 And they shall answer, Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought forth their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and have taken hold upon other gods, and have worshipped them, and served them: therefore hath the LORD brought upon them all this evil. 1 Kings 9:10 And it came to pass at the end of twenty years, when Solomon had built the two houses, the house of the LORD, and the king's house, 1 Kings 9:11 ( Now Hiram the king of Tyre had furnished Solomon with cedar trees and fir trees, and with gold, according to all his desire,) that then king Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee. 1 Kings 9:11-14 . Solomon gave Hiram twenty cities in the land of Galilee — Or, near the land of Galilee, bordering upon it; in those parts which were near, and adjoining to, Hiram’s dominions: with the cities, understand the territories belonging to them. These cities, though they were within those large bounds which God fixed to the land of promise, ( Genesis 15:18 ; Joshua 1:4 ,) yet were not within those parts which were distributed by lot in Joshua’s time. It is probable they were not inhabited by Israelites, but by Canaanites, or other heathen; who having been subdued and made tributary by David or Solomon, those cities became a part of their dominions; and afterward were reckoned a part of Galilee, as Josephus notes. They pleased him not — Were not suitable to his desire, and the genius of his people. He called them the land of Cabul — A Phenician word, says Josephus, which signifies displeasing. But Rabbi Salomon writes that the land was so called because it was “quasi compedita, id est, argillacea, tenax, et infrugifera,” bound, stiff, clayey, and unfruitful. Hiram did not like it, because, though it might be very good, yet being a thick and stiff clay, and therefore requiring great pains to cultivate and manure it, it was very unsuitable to the disposition of the Tyrians, who were delicate, and lazy, and luxurious, and wholly given to merchandise. And, on his returning them, there is no doubt but Solomon gave him an equivalent, more to his taste. And Hiram sent to the king — Or rather, For Hiram had sent, &c. And this seems to be here added, both to declare the quantity of the gold sent, which had been only named before, ( 1 Kings 9:11 ,) and as the reason why he resented Solomon’s action, because so great a sum required a better recompense. 1 Kings 9:12 And Hiram came out from Tyre to see the cities which Solomon had given him; and they pleased him not. 1 Kings 9:13 And he said, What cities are these which thou hast given me, my brother? And he called them the land of Cabul unto this day. 1 Kings 9:14 And Hiram sent to the king sixscore talents of gold. 1 Kings 9:15 And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the LORD, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer. 1 Kings 9:15 . This is the reason of the levy, &c. — That the raising of a great tribute upon the people, and employing so many men in his works, might not seem strange, the sacred writer here shows the cause of it; which was, his great and numerous buildings, suitable to the high dignity to which God had advanced him. The Hebrew word, ?? , mass, here rendered levy, as Mr. Selden hath shown, by many instances, is not only used for pecuniary tribute, but also for bodily labour; it means a levy of men as well as a levy of money. And he thus interprets this clause: This is the cause of requiring the labour of so many men; it was to build, &c. Having thus declared the cause, the historian proceeds ( 1 Kings 9:20 ) to relate who they were that he employed in this service. And Millo — David had built round about Zion, from Millo inward, ( 2 Samuel 5:9 ,) but had left the structure of Millo itself imperfect, which Solomon now completed, with a particular respect to Pharaoh’s daughter, whose house was near it, 1 Kings 9:24 . It seems, from 1 Kings 11:27 , and 2 Chronicles 32:5 , to have been an eminent, large, and strong fort, or castle, in that part of Jerusalem termed the city of David, where the fortress which David took from the Jebusites anciently stood. Here, it is thought, the people of Israel assembled when there was any consultation to be made about public affairs. The name ???? , Millo, appears to be derived from the word ??? , malee, which signifies full. Kimchi thinks it was so called because it was frequently full of people, being “locus amplus et latus, comitiis et conventibus publicis destinatus,” a large and open place, appointed for holding public courts and assemblies. And the wall of Jerusalem — Which was a great structure: for there were three walls, one within another, as Abarbinel and Joseph Ben-Gorion explain it; the inner wall encompassing the house of God and the house of the king; the middle wall encompassing the houses of great persons; (termed the College, 2 Kings 22:14 ;) and the third the houses of all the people. And Hazor — Which had been a very eminent city, and the head of some kingdoms before the conquest of Canaan, ( Joshua 11:10 ,) and was given to the tribe of Naphtali, Joshua 19:36 . Megiddo — A city in the tribe of Manasseh, Joshua 17:11 . And Gezer — In the tribe of Ephraim, Joshua 21:21 . 1 Kings 9:16 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife. 1 Kings 9:16 . For Pharaoh had gone up and taken Gezer, &c., and slain the Canaanites — For the Israelites did not dispossess the Canaanites, but they continued to dwell in Gezer in Joshua’s time and after, Joshua 16:10 ; Jdg 1:29 . And, it seems, neither David nor Solomon expelled them, but only kept them under tribute; till Pharaoh, upon some provocation which is not recorded, extirpated them, and burned their city. This, Sir John Marsham thinks, was the first expedition which the Egyptians made out of their own country. 1 Kings 9:17 And Solomon built Gezer, and Bethhoron the nether, 1 Kings 9:17-19 . And Beth-horon the nether — The lower Beth-horon, which was in the tribe of Benjamin, Joshua 18:13 . Baalath — A city in the tribe of Dan, Joshua 19:44 . And Tadmor in the wilderness — The name of this city signifies wonderful, or admirable, and it was so named, probably, from the singularity of the thing, in finding here springs and wells of water, and other conveniences to subsist a city, among such horrid and parched sands, with which it was on all sides surrounded. It is probable that Solomon built this city among the deserts to hinder the communication between the Syrians and the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, that they might not join their forces in confederacy together against the Israelites, as they had done in the time of David. This city appears to have been the same which was afterward called Palmyra by the Greeks, the ruins of which still remain. Some English gentlemen of credit and fortune visited it about the year 1750, who have published such a description of the exceeding magnificence and beauty of its ruins, at this day, as is astonishing. We refer our readers to that publication, not only that they may receive great pleasure, but great improvement; since it is not possible to conceive higher ideas of Solomon’s magnificence than these ruins present, nor more humiliating ideas of the vanity and weakness of all human splendour. See Messrs. Dawkin’s and Wood’s Ruins of Palmyra. In the land — Of Hamath — Zoba, a part of Syria, as is said 2 Chronicles 8:3-4 , which country Solomon had conquered. And all the cities of store that Solomon had — Where he laid up corn against a time of need; or arms and ammunition in case of war. And cities for his chariots and — his horsemen — Which he had in great numbers. 1 Kings 9:18 And Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land, 1 Kings 9:19 And all the cities of store that Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion. 1 Kings 9:20 And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, 1 Kings 9:20-21 . All the people that were left of the Amorites — Who, it is likely, by this time were become proselytes to the Jewish religion, as the Gibeonites were, or at least renounced their idolatry. Upon those did Solomon levy a tribute — He used them as bond-men, and imposed bodily labours upon them. “But why did not Solomon destroy them, as God had commanded, when now it was fully in his power to do so?” The command to destroy them, ( Deuteronomy 7:2 ,) did chiefly, if not only, concern that generation of Canaanites who lived in or near the time of the Israelites entering into Canaan. And that command seems not to have been absolute, but conditional, and with some exception for those who should submit and embrace the true religion, as may be gathered both from Joshua 11:19 , and from the history of the Gibeonites. For if God’s command had been absolute, the oaths of Joshua, and of the princes, could not have obliged them, nor dispensed with such a command. 1 Kings 9:21 Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice unto this day. 1 Kings 9:22 But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen. 1 Kings 9:22-23 . Of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bond-men — He spared them, and did not employ them in any servile labours about his public works, but put them into nobler offices, as it here follows. They were men of war — Which was accounted an honourable employment. And his servants — Officers in his court. And his princes — Governors of provinces. And his captains, &c. — Commanders of his guards. Five hundred and fifty — In 2 Chronicles 8:10 , they are said to be but two hundred and fifty. But perhaps the meaning there is, that there were two hundred and fifty set over those that wrought in the temple; the rest probably being employed in overseeing his public works in other places. And it must be observed also, that there were far greater numbers employed when the temple work was carried on with great speed. 1 Kings 9:23 These were the chief of the officers that were over Solomon's work, five hundred and fifty, which bare rule over the people that wrought in the work. 1 Kings 9:24 But Pharaoh's daughter came up out of the city of David unto her house which Solomon had built for her: then did he build Millo. 1 Kings 9:24 . Pharaoh’s daughter came up, &c. — In 2 Chronicles 8:11 , we learn the reason why she did not continue in the house where David had dwelt; which was because it was a kind of holy place, where it was not fit she should remain, the ark of God having dwelt there. 1 Kings 9:25 And three times in a year did Solomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar which he built unto the LORD, and he burnt incense upon the altar that was before the LORD. So he finished the house. 1 Kings 9:25 . Three times in a year did Solomon offer burnt offerings — That is, at least three times, namely, at the three solemn feasts which God had commanded to be observed by till the people. Then he offered sacrifices suitable to those great mercies which were at these seasons commemorated, and to the great blessings which God had bestowed on his family. But undoubtedly he also offered at all other appointed times. And he burned incense upon the altar — In the holy place, before the ark. The meaning is not that he burned it himself, but only that he gave it to the priests at his own charge, to be offered with a particular respect to him. This he probably did every morning and evening. So he finished the house — This, though said before, is now repeated, because, after he had kept the three great festivals there, the temple was not only consecrated, but all divine offices had been performed in it, and nothing more was to be added. 1 Kings 9:26 And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth, on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom. 1 Kings 9:26-27 . King Solomon made a navy of ships — Not now, in the order in which it is placed in the history, but in the beginning of his reign; as appears from this consideration, that the almug-trees, used in the work of the Lord’s house, were brought in this navy from Ophir, ( 1 Kings 10:11-12 ; 2 Chronicles 9:10-11 ,) which was a three years voyage, 1 Kings 9:22 . And Hiram sent in the navy his servants — The navy was Solomon’s, who had servants of his own on board the ships, to manage the traffic; but as they had no skill in navigation, Hiram sent as many sailors as were necessary to man the ships, the Tyrians being in general bred at sea, and famous for their knowledge in maritime affairs. 1 Kings 9:27 And Hiram sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. 1 Kings 9:28 And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon. 1 Kings 9:28 . They came to Ophir — A place famous for gold, which was found there in great plenty, and peculiarly fine. It is highly probable that this place was in India, but in what part of it is not easy to determine. Bochart thinks it was Taprobana, now called Ceylon, and shows that the account which the ancients give of the former, answers to that which the moderns give of the latter. It is certain that this island affords gold, ivory, and precious stones. The authors of the Universal History after confuting at large those opinions which seemed to them less probable, observe as follows: “Ophir appears most likely to have been in some of those remote, rich countries of India beyond the Ganges, and perhaps as far as China or Japan; which last still abounds with the finest gold, and several other commodities in which Solomon’s fleet dealt, as silver, precious stones, ebony, and other valuable sorts of wood, to say nothing of spices, peacocks, parrots, apes, and other such creatures; and by its distance best answers to the length of the voyage.” Gold, four hundred and twenty talents — It is said ( 2 Chronicles 8:18 ) that they brought four hundred and fifty; but we may well suppose that thirty talents might be partly spent in the charges of the voyage to and fro, and partly allowed to Hiram and his men; so that only four hundred and twenty came clear into the king’s treasury. This, however, was a prodigious sum, being calculated to be above three millions two hundred thousand pounds sterling. How they obtained this vast quantity of gold, whether by exchanging various merchandises for it, or by finding out mines, or procuring it from the natives, does not appear. Benson Commentary on the Old and New Testaments Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.

Expositor's Bible Commentary 1 Kings 9:1 And it came to pass, when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do, 1 Kings 9:25 And three times in a year did Solomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the altar which he built unto the LORD, and he burnt incense upon the altar that was before the LORD. So he finished the house. -66 THE TEMPLE SACRIFICES 1 Kings 8:62-66 ; 1 Kings 9:25 "I have chosen this house to Myself for a house of sacrifice." - 2 Chronicles 7:12 "Gifts and sacrifices, that cannot, as touching the conscience make the worshipper perfect, being only carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation." - Hebrews 9:9-10 THE whole sacrificial system with which our thoughts of Judaism are perhaps erroneously, and much too exclusively identified, furnishes us with many problems. Whether it was originally of Divine origin, or whether it was only an instinctive expression, now of the gratitude, and now of the guilt and fear, of the human heart, we are not told. Nor is the basal idea on which it was founded ever explained to us. Were the ideas of "atonement" or propitiation ( Kippurim ) really connected with those of substitution and vicarious punishment? Or was the main conception that of self-sacrifice, which was certainly most prominent in the burnt offerings? Doubtless the views alike of priests and worshippers were to a great extent indefinite. We are not told what led Cain and Abel to present their sacrifices to God; nor did Moses-if he were its founder-furnish any theories to explain the elaborate system laid down in the book of Leviticus. The large majority of the Jews probably sacrificed simply because to do so had become a part of their religious observances, and because in doing so they believed themselves to be obeying a Divine command. Others, doubtless, had as many divergent theories as Christians have when they attempt to explain the Atonement. The "substitution" theory of the "sin offering" finds little or no support from the Old Testament; not only is it never stated, but there is not a single clear allusion to it. It is emphatically asserted by later Jewish authorities, such as Rashi, Aben Ezra, Moses ben-Nachman, and Maimonides, and is enshrined in the Jewish liturgy. Yet Dr. Edersheim writes: "The common idea that the burning, either of part or the whole of the sacrifice, pointed to its destruction, and symbolized the wrath of God and the punishment due to sin, does not seem to accord with the statements of scripture." Sacrifices were of two kinds, bloody ( Zebach ), or unbloody ( minchah, korban ). The latter were oblations. Such were the cakes of shewbread, the meal and drink offerings, the first sheaf at Passover, the two loaves at Pentecost. In almost every instance the minchah accompanied the offering of a sacrificial victim. The two general rules about all victims for sacrifice were, (1) that they should be without blemish and without spot, as types of perfectness; and (2) that every sacrifice should be salted with salt, as an antiseptic, and therefore a type of incorruption. {Mar 9:49} Sacrificial victims could only be chosen from oxen, sheep, goats, turtle doves; and young pigeons-the latter being the offering of the poor who could not afford the costlier victims. Sacrifices were also divided generally (1) into free, or obligatory; (2) public, or private; and (3) most holy or less holy, of which the latter were slain at the north and the former at the east side of the altar. The offerer, according to the Rabbis, had to do five things-to lay on hands, slay, skin, dissect, and wash the inwards. The priest had also to do five things at the altar itself-to catch the blood, sprinkle it, light the fire, bring up the pieces, and complete the sacrifices. Sacrifices are chiefly dwelt upon in the Priestly Code; but nowhere in the Old Testament is their significance formally explained, nor for many centuries was the Levitic ritual much regarded. {See Jdg 6:19-21 1Sa 2:13, 1Ki 19:21 2Ki 5:17}The sacrifices commanded in the Pentateuch fall under four heads. (1) The burnt offering ( Olah, Kalil ), which typified complete self-dedication, and which even the heathen might offer; (2) the sin offering ( Chattath ), which made atonement for the offender; (3) the trespass offering ( Asham ), which atones for some special offence, whether doubtful or certain, committed through ignorance; and (4) the thank offering, eucharistic peace offering ( Shelem ), or "offering of completion," which followed the other sacrifices, and of which the flesh was eaten by the priest and the worshippers. The oldest practice seems only to have known of burnt offerings and thank offerings, and the former seem only to have been offered at great sacrificial feasts. Even in Deuteronomy a common phrase for sacrifices is "eating before the Lord," which is almost ignored in the Priestly Code. Of the sin offering, which in that code has acquired such enormous importance, there is scarcely a trace-unless Hosea 4:8 be one, which is doubtful-before Ezekiel, in whom the Asham and Chattath occur in place of the old pecuniary fines. {2Ki 12:16} Originally sacrifice was a glad meal, and even in the oldest part of the code {Lev 18:1-30; Lev 19:1-37; Lev 20:1-27; Lev 21:1-24; Lev 22:1-33; Lev 23:1-44; Lev 24:1-23; Lev 25:1-55; Lev 26:1-46} sacrifices are comprised under the Olam and Zebach . The turning-point of the history of the Sacrificial system is Josiah’s reformation, of which the Priestly Code is the matured result. It is easy to see that sacrifices in general were eucharistic, dedicatory, and expiatory. The eucharistic sacrifices (the meal and peace offerings) and the burnt offerings, which indicated the entire sacrifice of self, were the offerings of those who were in communion with God. They were recognitions of His absolute supremacy. The sin and trespass offerings were intended to recover a lost communion with God and thus the sacrifices were, or ultimately came to be, the expression of the great ideas of thanksgiving, of self-dedication, and of propitiation. But the Israelites, "while they seem always to have retained the idea of propitiation and of eucharistic offering, constantly ignored the self-dedication, which is the link between the two, and which the regular burnt offering should have impressed upon them as their daily thought and duty." Had they kept this in view they would have been saved from the superstitions and degeneracies which made their use of the sacrificial system a curse and not a blessing. The expiatory conception, which was probably the latest of the three, expelled the others, and was perverted into the notion that God was a God of wrath, whose fury could be averted by gifts and His favor won by bribes. There was this truth in the notion of propitiation-that God hates, and is alienated by, and will punish, sin; and yet that in His mercy He has provided an Atonement for us. But in trying to imagine how the sacrifice affected God, the Israelites lost sight of the truth that this is an inexplicable mystery, and that all which we can know is the effect which it can produce on the souls of man. If they had interpreted the sacrifices as a whole to mean this only - that man is guilty and that God is merciful; and that though man’s guilt separates him from God, reunion with him can be gained by confession, penitence, and self-sacrifice, by virtue of an Atonement which he had revealed and would accept-then the effect of them would have been spiritually wholesome and ennobling. But when they came to think that sacrifices were presents to God, which might be put in the place of amendment and moral obedience, and that the punishment due to their offences might be thus mechanically diverted upon the heads of innocent victims, then the sacrificial system was rendered not only nugatory but pernicious. Nor have Christians been exempt from a similar corruption of the doctrine of the Atonement. In treating it as vicarious and expiatory they have forgotten that it is unavailing unless it be also representative. In looking upon it as the atonement for sin they have overlooked that there can be no such atonement unless it be accompanied by redemption from sin. They have tacitly and practically acted on the notion, which in the days of St. Paul some even avowed, that "we may continue in sin that grace may abound." But in the great work of redemption the will of man cannot be otiose. He must himself die with Christ. As Christ was sacrificed for him, he, too, must offer his body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. "Without the sin offering of the Cross," says Bishop Barry, "our burnt offering (of self-dedication) would be impossible; so also without the burnt offering the sin offering will, to us, be unavailing." Many of the crudities, and even horrors, which, alike in Jewish and Christian times, have been mixed up with the idea of bloody sacrifices, would have been removed if more attention had been paid to the prominence and real significance of blood in the entire ritual. As taught by some revivalists the doctrine of the blood adds the most revolting touches to theories which assimilate God to Moloch; hut the true significance of the phrase and of the symbol elevates the entire doctrine of sacrifice into a purer and more spiritual atmosphere. The central significance of the whole doctrine lies in the ancient opinion that "the blood" of the sacrifice was "its life." This was why an expiatory power was ascribed to the blood. There was certainly no transfer of guilt to the animal, for its blood remained clean and cleansing. Nor was the animal supposed to undergo the transgressor’s punishment; first, because this is nowhere stated, and next, because had that been the case, fine flour would certainly not have been permitted (as it was) as a sin offering. {Lev 5:11-13} Moreover, no willful offence, no offense "with uplifted hand," i.e. , with evil premeditation, could be atoned for either by sin or trespass offerings; -though certainly so wide a latitude was given to the notion of sin as an involuntary error as to tend to break down the notion of moral responsibility. The sin offering was further offered for some purely accidental and ceremonial offences, which could not involve any real consciousness of guilt. The "blood of the covenant" {Exo 24:4-8} was not of the sin offering, but of peace and burnt offerings; and though, as Canon Cook says, we read of blood in paganism as a propitiation to a hostile demon, "we seem to seek in vain for an instance in which the blood, as a natural symbol for the soul, was offered as an atoning sacrifice." "The atoning virtue of the blood lies not in its material substance, but in the life of which it is the vehicle," says Bishop Westcott. "The blood always includes the thought of the life preserved and active beyond death. It is not simply the price by which the redeemed were purchased, but the power by which they were quickened so as to be capable of belonging to God." "To drink the blood of Christ," says Clement of Alexandria, "is to partake of the Lord’s incorruption." Besides the points to which we have alluded, there is a further difficulty created by the singular silence respecting sin offerings of any kind, except in that part of the Old Testament which has recently acquired the name of the Priestly Code. The word Chattath , in the sense of sin offering, occurs in Exodus 29:1-46 ; Exodus 30:1-38 , and many times in Leviticus and Numbers, and six times in Ezekiel. Otherwise in the Old Testament it is barely mentioned, except in the post-exilic Books of Chronicles {2Ch 29:24} and Ezra. {Ezr 8:25} It is not mentioned in any other historic book; nor in any prophet except Ezekiel. Again as we have seen, the Day of Atonement leaves not a trace in any of the earlier historic records of Scripture, and is found only in the authorities above mentioned. Through all the rest of Scripture the scapegoat is unmentioned, and Azazel is ignored. Dr. Kalisch goes so far as to say that there is conclusive evidence to prove that the Day of Atonement was instituted considerably more than a thousand years after the death of Moses and Aaron. For even in Ezekiel, who wrote B.C. 574, there is no Day of Atonement on the tenth day of the seventh month, but on the first and seventh of the first month ( Abib, Nisan ). He thinks it utterly impossible that, had it existed in his time, Ezekiel could have blotted out the holiest day of the year, and substituted two of his own arbitrary choice. The rites, moreover, which he describes differ wholly from those laid down in Leviticus. Even in Nehemiah there is no notice of the day of Atonement, though a day was observed on the twenty-fourth of the month. Hence this learned writer infers that even in B.C. 440 the Great Day of Atonement was not yet recognized, and that the pagan element of sending the scapegoat to Azazel , the demon of the wilderness, proves the late date of the ceremony. It is interesting to observe how utterly the sacrificial priestly system, in the abuses which not only became involved in it, but seemed to be almost inseparable from it, is condemned by the loftier spiritual intuition which belongs to phases of revelation higher than the external and the typical. Thus in the Old Testament no series of inspired utterances is more interesting, more eloquent, more impassioned and ennobling, than those which insist upon the utter nullity of all sacrifices in themselves, and their absolute insignificance in comparison with the lightest element of the moral law. On this subject the Prophets and the Psalmists use language so sweeping and exceptionless as almost to repudiate the desirability of sacrifices altogether. They speak of them with a depreciation akin to scorn. It may be doubted whether they had the Mosaic system with all its details, as we know it, before them. They do not enter into those final elaborations which it assumed, and not one of them so much as alludes to any service which resembles the powerfully symbolic ceremonial of the Great Day of Atonement. But they speak of the ceremonial law in such fragments and aspects of it as were known to them. They deal with it as priests practiced it, and as priests taught-if they ever taught anything-respecting it. They speak of it as it presented itself to the minds of the people around them, with whom it had become rather a substitute for moral efforts and an obstacle in the path of righteousness, than an aid to true religion. And this is what they say:- "Hath the Lord as great delight in sacrifice," asks the indignant SAMUEL, "as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." {1Sa 15:22} "I hate, I despise your feasts," says Jehovah by Amos, "and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer Me your burnt offerings and meal offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Turn thou away from Me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream." {Amo 5:21-23} "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord," asks MICAH, "and bow myself before the most high God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" {Mic 6:6-8} HOSEA again in a message of Jehovah, twice quoted on different occasions by our Lord, says: "I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." {Hos 6:6} ISAIAH also, in the word of the Lord, gives burning expression to the same conviction: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of lambs, arid the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hands, to trample My courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto Me; new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies, -I cannot away with iniquity and the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts My soul hateth: they are a cumbrance unto Me; I am weary to bear them Wash you, make you clean!" {Isa 1:11-16} The language of JEREMIAH’S message is even more startling: "I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Obey My voice." And again-in the version of the LXX, given in the margin of the Revised Version for the unintelligible rendering of the Authorized Version-he asks: "Why hath the-beloved wrought abomination in My house? Shall vows and holy flesh take away from thee thy wickedness, or shalt thou escape by these?" {Jer 7:22, Jer 11:15} Jeremiah, is, in fact the most anti-ritualistic of the prophets. So far from having hid and saved the Ark, he regarded it as entirely obsolete. {Jer 3:16} He cares only for the spiritual covenant written on the heart, and very little, if at all, for Temple services and Levitic scrupulosities. {Jer 7:4-15; Jer 31:31-34} THE PSALMISTS are no less clear and emphatic in putting sacrifices nowhere in comparison with righteousness:-"I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices; Nor for thy burnt offerings which are continually before Me. I will take no bullock out of thine house, Nor he-goats out of thy folds." "Will I eat the flesh of bulls, Or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving; And pay thy vows unto the Most High." {Psa 50:8-14} And again:- "For Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it Thee: Thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." {Psa 51:16-17} And again:- "Sacrifice and offering Thou hast no delight in; Mine ears hast thou opened: Burnt offering and sin offering hast Thou not required." {Psa 40:6} And again:- "To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice." {Pro 21:3} And again:- "I will praise the name of God with a song, And magnify it with thanksgiving. This also shall please the Lord rather than a bullock that hath horns and hoofs." {Psa 69:30-31} Surely the most careless and conventional reader cannot fail to see that there is a wide difference between the standpoint of the prophets, which is so purely spiritual, and that of the writers and redactors of the Priestly Code, whose whole interest centered in the sacrificial and ceremonial observances. Nor is the intrinsic nullity of the sacrificial system less distinctly pointed out in the New Testament. The better-instructed Jews, enlightened by Christ’s teaching, could give emphatic testimony to the immeasurable superiority of the moral to the ceremonial. The candid scribe, hearing from Christ’s lips the two great commandments, answers, "Of a truth, Master, Thou hast well said that He is one; and there is none other but He: and to love Him with all the heart and to love his neighbor as himself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." And our Lord quoted Hosea with the emphatic commendation, "Go ye and learn what that meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice." {Mat 9:13} And on another occasion: "But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." {Mat 12:7} The presenting of our bodies, says St. Paul, as a living sacrifice is our reasonable service; and St. Peter calls all Christians a holy priesthood to offer up spiritual sacrifice. {1Pe 2:5} It is impossible, says the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, "that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins; and he speaks of the priests daily offering the same sacrifice, the which can never take away sins." {Heb 10:4; Heb 10:11} And again:-"To do good and to distribute forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." {Heb 13:16} The wisest fathers of Jewish thought in the post-exilic epoch held the same views. Thus the son of Sirach says: "He that keepeth the law bringeth offerings enough." ( Sir 35:1-15 ) And Philo, echoing an opinion common among the best heathen moralists from Socrates to Marcus Aurelius, writes, "The mind, when without blemish, is itself the most holy sacrifice, being entirely and in all respects pleasing to God." And what is very remarkable, modern Judaism now emphasizes its belief that "neither sacrifice nor a Levitical system belong to the essence of the Old Testament," Such was the view of the ancient Essenes, no less than of Maimonides or Abarbanel. Modern Rabbis even go so far as to argue that the whole system of Levitical sacrifice was an alien element, introduced into Judaism from without, tolerated indeed by Moses, but only as a concession to the immaturity of his people and their hardness of heart. Such, too, was the opinion of the ancient Fathers of the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, of Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Jerome, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril, and Theodoret, who are followed by such Roman Catholic theologians as Petavius and Bellarmine. This at any rate is certain-that the Judaic system is not only abrogated, but rendered impossible. Whatever were its functions, God has stamped with absolute disapproval any attempt to continue them. They are utterly annulled and obliterated forever. "I am come to repeal the sacrifices." Such is the {missing Greek words} ascribed to Christ; "and unless ye desist from sacrificing, the wrath of God will not desist from you." The argument of St. Paul in the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians, and of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, show us why this was inevitable; and they were but following the initiative of Christ and the teaching of His Spirit. It is a mistake to imagine that our Lord merely repudiated the inane pettinesses of Pharisaic formalism. He went much further. There is not the slightest trace that He personally observed the requirements of the ceremonial law. It is certain that He broke them when he touched the leper and the dead youth’s bier. The law insisted on the centralization of worship, but Jesus said, "The day cometh, and now is, when neither in Jerusalem, nor yet in this mountain, shall men worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." The law insisted, with extreme emphasis, on the burdensome distinctions between clean and unclean meats. Jesus said that it is not that which cometh from without, but that which cometh from within which defileth a man, and this He said "making all meats clean." {Mar 7:19} St. Paul, when the types of Mosaism had been forever fulfilled in Christ, and the antitype had thus become obsolete and pernicious, went further still. Taking circumcision, the most ancient and most distinctive rite of the Old Dispensation, he called it "concision" or mere mutilation, and said thrice over, "Circumcision, is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but ‘a new creature"’; "but faith working by love," "but the keeping of the commandment of God." The whole system of Judaism was local, was external, was minute, was inferior, was transient, was a concession to infirmity, was a yoke of bondage: the whole system of Christianity is universal, is spiritual, is simple, is un-sacrificial, is un-sacerdotal, is perfect freedom. Judaism was a religion of a temple, of sacrifices, of a sacrificial priesthood: Christianity is a religion in which the Spirit of God "Doth prefer before all temples the upright heart and pure." It is a religion in which there is no more sacrifice for sin, because the one perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction, has been consummated for ever. It is a religion in which there is no altar but the Cross; in which there is no priest but Christ, except so far as every Christian is by metaphor a priest to offer up spiritual sacrifices which alone are acceptable to God. The Temple of Solomon lasted only four centuries, and they were for the most part years of dishonor, disgrace, and decadence. Solomon was scarcely in his grave before it was plundered by Shishak. During its four centuries of existence it was again stripped of its precious possessions at least six times, sometimes by foreign oppressors, sometimes by distressed kings. It was despoiled of its treasure by Asa, by Jehoash of Judah, by Jehoash of Israel, by Ahaz, by Hezekiah, and lastly by Nebuchadnezzar. After such plunderings it must have completely lost its pristine splendor. But the plunder of its treasures was nothing to the pollutions of its sanctity. They began as early as the reigns of Rehoboam and Abijah. Ahaz gave it a Syrian altar, Manasseh stained it with impurities, and Ezekiel in its secret chambers surveyed "the dark idolatries of alienated Judah." And in the days when Judaism most prized itself on ritual faithfulness, the Lord of the Temple was insulted in the Temple of the Lord, and its courts were turned by greedy priests and Sadducees into a cowshed, and a dovecot, and a fair, and a usurer’s mart, and a robber’s den. From the first the centralization of worship in the Temple must have been accompanied by the danger of dissociating religious life from its daily social environments. The "multitudes who lived in remote country places would no longer be able to join in forms of worship which had been carried on at local shrines. Judaism, as the prophets so often complain, tended to become too much a matter of officialism and function, of rubric and technique, which always tend to substitute external service for true devotion, and to leave the shell of religion without its soul." Even when it had been purified by Josiah’s reformation, the Temple proved to be a source of danger and false security. It was regarded as a sort of Palladium. The formalists began to talk and act as though it furnished a mechanical protection, and gave them license to transgress the moral law. Jeremiah had sternly to warn his countrymen against this trust in an idle formalism. "Amend your ways and your doings," he said. "Behold, ye trust in lying words which cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye have not known, and come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, We are delivered; that ye may do all these abominations?" The Temple of Solomon was defaced and destroyed and polluted by the Babylonians, but not until it had been polluted by the Jews themselves with the blood of prophets, by idolatries, by chambers of unclean imagery. It was rebuilt by a poor band of disheartened exiles to be again polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes, and ultimately to become the headquarters of a narrow, arrogant, and intriguing Pharisaism. It was rebuilt once more by Herod, the brutal Idumean usurper, and its splendor inspired such passionate enthusiasm that when it was wrapped in flames by Titus, it witnessed the carnage of thousands of maddened and despairing combatants. "As ‘mid the cedar courts and gates of gold The trampled ranks in miry carnage rolled To save their Temple every hand essayed, And with cold fingers grasp’d the feeble blade; Through their torn veins reviving fury ran And life’s last anger warm’d the dying man." Yet that last Temple had been defiled by a worse crime than the other two. It had witnessed the priestly idols and the priestly machinations which ended in the murder of the Son of God. From the Temple sprang little or nothing of spiritual importance. Intended to teach the supremacy of righteousness, it became the stronghold of mere ritual. For the development of true holiness, as apart from ceremonial scrupulosity, its official protectors rendered it valueless. We are not surprised that Christianity knows no temple but the hearts of all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and truth; and that the characteristic of the New Jerusalem, which descends out of heaven like a bride adorned for her husband, is:- "And I saw no temple therein." {Rev 21:22} Abundantly was the menace fulfilled in which Jehovah warned Solomon after the Feast of Dedication that if Israel swerved into immorality and idolatry, that house should be an awful warning-that its blessing should be exchanged into a curse, and that every one who passed by it should be astonished and should hiss. The Expositor's Bible Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com . Used by Permission.