110 



PROFESSOE JAMES ORE, D.D.^ ON THE 



the holy place was 40 cubits long, but 30 cubits high. This 

 has no analogy in the tabernacle. When we proceed to the 

 furniture and belongings of the sanctuaries the halving theory 

 breaks down altogether. There is no halving in the ark, for it is- 

 the same old Mosaic ark which accompanied the Israelites in 

 their wanderings, which — small and disproportionate as it was 

 — was brought up by Solomon, and placed in his more splendid 

 house. What Solomon did was to erect two new massive 

 cherubim of olive wood, plated with gold, the wings of which 

 stretched from side to side of the chamber, and overshadowed 

 the mercy seat and its lesser figures. In the holy place, instead 

 of one candlestick there were 10 ; instead of one table there 

 were, according to Chronicles, also 10 ; the dimensions of the 

 altar of incense are not given ; in no single particular is a 

 principle of halving discernible in the tabernacle. The altar of 

 burnt-offering is an even more signal example. The dimensions 

 are not given in I Kings, but Chronicles, probably on good 

 authority, gives it at 20 cubits square and 10 cubits high (iv, 1) 

 — an immense enlargement of the 5 cubits square altar of the 

 tabernacle. I think, accordingly, I am justified in saying that, 

 as far as the new theory rests on any assumption of halving the 

 sizes in Solomon's temple, it has no real foundation. 



There is another point worth noticing about the temple as 

 bearing on our subject. While special detailed descriptions are 

 given of the new objects in the sanctuary — as the great molten 

 sea and the ten lavers with their ornamented bases in the court 

 of the temple — only allusion is made to such objects as existed 

 in the older sanctuary, as the golden candlestick and the table 

 of shewbread, with their utensils. Beyond the fact of the 

 multiplication of their number (i Kings vii, 48,49 ; ii Chronicles 

 iv, 7, 8) nothing is said of them. The obvious explanation 

 is that, as these were fashioned after the model of the same 

 objects in the tabernacle, further particulars regarding them 

 were not needed. So, as utensils familiar to the reader, only 

 allusion is made to the pots, shovels, basins and fieshhooks, 

 connected with the altar (i Kinos vii, 40, 45 ; ii Chronicles iv, 

 11, 15). 



To a certain extent, therefore, the tabernacle appears as the 

 postulate of the temple, not vice versa ; and this relation is 

 confirmed when, moving backwards, we glance at the history. 

 The testimony of Chronicles (i Chronicles xvi, 39, 40 ; ir Chroni- 

 cles i, 3) to the fact that in David's time the "Tent of Meeting" 

 was set up at G-iheon, is discredited by the critics, the ark 

 being at the time lodged in a new tent made for it by David on 



