62. the king, and all Israel . . .offered sacrifice before the Lord<\/B>This was a burnt offeringwith its accompaniments, and being the first laid on the altar of thetemple, was, as in the analogous case of the tabernacle, consumed bymiraculous fire from heaven (see 2Ch7:1<\/span>). On remarkable occasions, the heathens sacrificed hecatombs(a hundred animals), and even chiliombs (a thousand animals), but thepublic sacrifices offered by Solomon on this occasion surpassed allthe other oblations on record, without taking into account thosepresented by private individuals, which, doubtless, amounted to alarge additional number. The large proportion of the sacrifices werepeace offerings, which afforded the people an opportunity of festiveenjoyment.<\/P><\/p>\n And the king and all Israel with him offered sacrifice before the Lord.<\/strong> For burnt offerings, which having been laid upon the altar, as soon as the king had done praying to God, and blessing the people, and exhorting them, fire came down from heaven, and consumed them; which showed the Lord’s acceptance of the sacrifices, and was another confirmation, besides the cloud, of the Lord’s well pleasedness with the temple, and of his taking possession of it to reside in it; upon which the people bowed and worshipped, and praised the Lord for his goodness and mercy, 2Ch 7:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n Sacrifices and feast<\/em>. – 1Ki 8:62<\/span>, 1Ki 8:63<\/span>. The dedicatory prayer was followed by a magnificent sacrifice offered by the king and all Israel. The thank-offering ( ) consisted, in accordance with the magnitude of the manifestation of divine grace, of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. This enormous number of sacrificial animals, in which J. D. Michaelis found serious difficulties, Thenius endeavours to set aside as too large, by calculating that as these sacrifices were offered in seven days, reckoning the sacrificial day at twelve full hours, there must have been about five oxen and about twenty-five sheep slaughtered and offered in sacrifice every minute for the king alone. This calculation would be conclusive, if there were any foundation for the three assumptions upon which it rests: namely, (1) that the number of sacrifices mentioned was offered for the king alone; (2) that the slaughtering and preparation of the sacrificial animals could only be performed by the priests and Levites; and (3) that the whole of the flesh of these sacrificial animals was to be consumed upon the altar. But these three assumptions are all erroneous. There is nothing in the account about their being “for the king alone.” For it is obvious that the words “and Solomon offered a sacrifice” are not to be understood as signifying that the king had these sacrifices offered for himself alone, but that the words refer to the sacrifices offered by the king and all Israel for the consecration of the temple, from the simple fact that in 1Ki 8:62<\/span> “Solomon and all Israel” are expressly mentioned as offering sacrifice, and that after the statement of the number of the sacrifices we find these words in 1Ki 8:63<\/span>: “so the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of Jehovah.” Moreover it is very evident from the law in Lev 1 and 3 that at the offering of sacrifice the slaughtering, flaying, and preparation of the sacrificial animals were performed by any Israelite, and that it was only the sprinkling of the blood against the altar and the burning of the sacrificial portions upon the altar which were the exclusive province of the priests. In order to form a correct idea of the enormous number of sacrifices which could be slaughtered on any one day we will refer again to the notice in Josephus ( Bell. Jud<\/em>. vi. 9, 3) already mentioned in the Comm. on the Pentateuch<\/em>, p. 683 (translation), that in the reign of the emperor Nero the procurator Cestius<\/em> directed the priests to count the number of the paschal lambs, and that they counted 250,000, which were slaughtered for the passover between the ninth and eleventh hours of the day, and of which the blood was sprinkled upon the altar. If then it was possible at that time to slaughter more than 250,000 lambs in three hours of the afternoon, and to sprinkle the blood upon the altar, there can have been no difficulty in slaughtering and sacrificing 3000 oxen and 18,000 sheep at the dedication of the temple on each of the seven days of the festival. As all Israel from Hamath to the brook of Egypt came to Jerusalem to this festival, we shall not be above the mark if we estimate the number of the heads of houses present at 100,000. And with very little trouble they could have slaughtered 3000 oxen and 18,000 sheep a day and prepared them for sacrificing. How many priests took an active part in this, we do not indeed know, in fact we have no information as to the number of the priests in Solomon’s time; but we know that in the time of David the number of Levites qualified for service, reckoning from their thirtieth year, was 38,000, so that we may certainly assume that there were two or three thousand priests. Now if only the half of these Levites and priests had come to Jerusalem to the dedication of the temple, they alone could have slaughtered 3000 oxen and 18,000 sheep every day. And would not a thousand priests have been sufficient to sprinkle the blood of so many animals upon the altar and to turn the fat between the morning and evening sacrifice? If we divided these sacrifices among a thousand priests, each one would only have had to attend to the sprinkling of the blood and burning of the fat of three oxen and eighteen sheep each day. – But the brazen altar of burnt-offering might not have been large enough for the burning of so many sacrifices, notwithstanding the fact that only the fat portions of the thank-offerings were consumed, and they did not require much room; since the morning and evening burnt-offerings were added daily, and as festal offerings they would certainly not consist of a lamb only, but at least of one bullock, and they were burned whole, although the altar of burnt-offering with a surface of 144 square yards (see my bibl. Archol<\/em>. i. p. 127) would hold a very large quantity of sacrificial flesh at once. In v. 64, however, it is expressly stated that Solomon sanctified the middle of the court, which was before the house of Jehovah, to burn the burnt-offering and meat-offering and the fat portions of the thank-offerings there, because the brazen altar was too small to hold these sacrifices. “The middle of the court” ( ) is the whole of the inner portion of the court of the priests, which was in front of the temple-house and formed the centre of the court surrounding the temple. Of course we have not to imagine that the sacrifices were offered upon the stone pavement of the court, but must assume that there were auxiliary altars erected in the inner court around the brazen altar. By the burnt-offering and the meat-offering (belonging to it: ) we are not to understand certain burnt-offerings, which were offered for a definite number of thank-offerings, as Thenius supposes. The singular and the definite article are both at variance with this. The reference is rather to the (well-known) daily morning and evening burnt-offerings with their meat-offering, and in this case, no doubt, to such a festal sacrifice as is prescribed in Num 28 for the great yearly feasts.<\/p>\n Solomon Holds a Great Feast.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> B. C.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN> 1003.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> 62 And the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before the LORD<\/B>. 63 And Solomon offered a sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered unto the LORD<\/B>, two and twenty thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of the LORD<\/B>. 64 The same day did the king hallow the middle of the court that was<\/I> before the house of the LORD<\/B>: for there he offered burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings: because the brasen altar that was<\/I> before the LORD<\/B> was<\/I> too little to receive the burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings. 65 And at that time Solomon held a feast, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entering in of Hamath unto the river of Egypt, before the LORD<\/B> our God, seven days and seven days, even<\/I> fourteen days. 66 On the eighth day he sent the people away: and they blessed the king, and went unto their tents joyful and glad of heart for all the goodness that the LORD<\/B> had done for David his servant, and for Israel his people.<\/P> We read before that Judah and Israel were eating and drinking, and very cheerful under their own vines and fig-trees; here we have them so in God’s courts. Now they found Solomon’s words true concerning Wisdom’s ways, that they are ways of pleasantness.<\/P> I. They had abundant joy and satisfaction while they attended at God’s house, for there, 1. Solomon offered a great sacrifice, 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep, enough to have drained the country of cattle if it had not been a very fruitful land. The heathen thought themselves very generous when they offered sacrifices by hundreds (hecatombs<\/I> they called them), but Solomon out-did them: he offered them by thousands.<\/I> When Moses dedicated his altar, the peace-offerings were twenty-four bullocks, and of rams, goats, and lambs,<\/I> 180 (Num. vii. 88<\/span>); then the people were poor, but now that they had increased in wealth more was expected from them. Where God sows plentifully he must reap accordingly. All these sacrifices could not be offered in one day, but in the several days of the feast. Thirty oxen a day served Solomon’s table, but thousands shall go to God’s altar. Few are thus minded, to spend more on their souls than on their bodies. The flesh of the peace-offerings, which belonged to the offerer, it is likely, Solomon treated the people with. Christ fed those who attended him. The brazen altar was not large enough to receive all these sacrifices, so that, to serve the present occasion, they were forced to offer many of them in the middle of the court,<\/I> (v.<\/I><\/span> 64<\/span>), some think on altars, altars of earth or stone, erected for the purpose and taken down when the solemnity was over, others think on the bare ground. Those that will be generous in serving God need not stint themselves for want of room and occasion to be so. 2. He kept a feast, the feast of tabernacles, as it should seem, after the feast of dedication, and both together lasted fourteen days (v.<\/I><\/span> 65<\/span>), yet they said not, Behold, what a weariness is this!<\/I><\/P> II. They carried this joy and satisfaction with them to their own houses. When they were dismissed they blessed the king (v.<\/I><\/span> 66<\/span>), applauded him, admired him, and returned him the thanks of the congregation, and then went to their tents joyful and glad of heart,<\/I> all easy and pleased. God’s goodness was the matter of their joy, so it should be of ours at all times. They rejoiced in God’s blessing both on the royal family and on the kingdom; thus should we go home rejoicing from holy ordinances, and go on our way rejoicing for God’s goodness to our Lord Jesus (of whom David his servant was a type, in the advancement and establishment of his throne, pursuant to the covenant of redemption), and to all believers, his spiritual Israel, in their sanctification and consolation, pursuant to the covenant of grace. If we rejoice not herein always it is our own fault.<\/P><\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES.<\/strong><\/p>\n 1Ki. 8:65<\/span>. Hamath is the Grecian Epiphaneia<\/strong>, the principal city of Upper Syria, on the Orontes, the Northern frontier of Palestine (Num. 13:2<\/span>; Num. 34:8<\/span>). The river of Egypt<\/em> is here, not the Nile, but the el Arishthe Southern boundary of the land of Israel (Num. 34:5<\/span>; Jos. 15:4<\/span>; Jos. 15:47<\/span>).W. H. J.<\/p>\n HOMILETICS OF <\/em>1Ki. 8:62-66<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n SACRIFICE THE TEST OF GRATITUDE<\/p>\n The Temple, the dwelling-place of Jehovah, the pride of the Jews, the marvel of the ages, was now completed; and its solemn dedication was attended with overwhelming manifestations of the divine presence and glory. Its actual consecration is now crowned with an act of sacrifice on a scale of unexampled magnitude and grandeur. Monarch and people cheerfully unite in offering the vast holocaust. As the whole empire shared in the religious benefits of the occasion, so it was fitting it should share in its religious duties. Observe<\/p>\n I. That a grateful heart prompts to acts of sacrifice<\/strong>. Bowed under a sense of the Divine condescension and beneficence, the people burst forth in praising Jehovah, For He is good; for His mercy endureth for ever (2Ch. 7:3<\/span>). It is when the heart is touched and melted with gratitude that it is most prolific in generous sacrifices, in holy resolves, and in initiating noble enterprises. The origin of many a stately building, of many a princely charitable endowment, and of many a sacrifice which, though small as the widows two mites, has, like hers, been the most acceptable to heaven, may be traced to the tender impulse of a holy and grateful heart. While Jacob was impressed with the goodness of a manifested God, he vowed a vow and set up a pillar (Gen. 28:16-22<\/span>). When Isaiah felt the cleansing touch of the Seraphim, and saw the ineffable glory of Jehovah, the difficulties of his mission vanished, and his grateful and enraptured spirit eagerly cried, Here am I; send me! (Isa. 6:1-8<\/span>.) In a similar way, many a brave and successful missionary pioneer has offered his all upon the altar. The heart that is incapable of gratitude is incapable of anything truly great.<\/p>\n II. That sacrifice should be proportioned to the magnitude and character of the benefits conferred<\/strong> (1Ki. 8:62-64<\/span>). <\/p>\n 1. It should be equal to the occasion<\/em>. The opening of the temple was the greatest event in the history of the Israelitish nation. It was the fulfilment of a promise of many years standing; the crowning act of a graduated series of laborious preparations. The liberality with which the people offered their gifts, the enthusiasm with which they laboured in its erection, and the readiness with which they gathered to celebrate its dedication, indicate the supreme importance in which it stood in the national estimation. And now the sacrifices they are called to offer must bear some adequate proportion to the greatness of the occasion. Alas! how few gifts to the church of God, now-a-days, are worthy of the name of sacrifice?<\/em> MenChristian men so-calledwill spend hundreds of pounds in a pleasure trip, a fancy ball, a luxurious banquet, or a bit of jewellery, and yet insult the church of Christ by grudgingly offering a paltry piece of silver! There is neither poetical nor any other kind of justice in conduct like this. It is shockingly below the occasion. All sense of honour, of obligation, of gratitude, is utterly quenched. <\/p>\n 2. It should be proportioned to ability<\/em>. God had bestowed on Solomon great commercial prosperity, great wealth, great intellectual powers, great religious privileges, and he strives on this occasion to offer a becoming return to the Great Giver of all good. The Lord estimates the sacrifices of the rich, not by what is given, but by what is left. It was a frequent saying of Gonsalvo de Cordova, the great Spanish captain, Never stint your hand: there is no mode of enjoying ones property like giving it away. It is expected by every law of right and justice that the wealthy should offer to Gods cause in accordance with their means; that the intellectually gifted should devote their best powers to promote His glory; and that those who are specially endowed with spiritual influence should use it diligently for the good of humanity. God does not expect impossibilities. If there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not (2Co. 8:12<\/span>).<\/p>\n III. That sacrifice is a privilege to be enjoyed<\/strong> (1Ki. 8:65<\/span>). It was here accompanied with great festivities. The feast of the dedication of the altar lasted for a week, over which period, probably, the offering of the enormous mass of sacrificial victims was extended. This, again, was succeeded by the Feast of the Tabernacles (2Ch. 7:8-9<\/span>), now celebrated with more than the usual festivities. The mere feasting occasioned by the vast number of victims was sufficient to mark the grandeur of the festival. Whatever we do for God should be done cheerfully and willingly, with all the relish of an enjoyable feast: not as if performing some irksome and unpleasant task, but as if enjoying a distinguished privilege. It is a triumph of Divine grace in man, and an evidence of a high state of personal sanctity, when it becomes a joy to make sacrifices. It is then that man most closely imitates the example of the great Sacrificial Victim who said, Lo I come to do thy will, O God! and who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame.<\/p>\n IV. That sacrifice is often followed by the most joyous results<\/strong> (1Ki. 8:66<\/span>). The vast host of Israelites who had joined in the celebration was filled with joy and thankfulness. When the people were dismissed they blessed the king, and went away to their tents, glad and merry of heart, lightening the journey home with songs of joy, for all the goodness that the Lord had done for David His servant, and for Israel His people. Great sacrifices are often succeeded by great blessings. What we sow in tears, we reap in joy. The sacrifices of a few may contribute to the happiness of the many. The one sacrifice of the Son of God has filled earth and heaven with gladness.<\/p>\n LESSONS:<\/p>\n 1. We owe to God more than we can ever repay<\/em>. <\/p>\n 2. The most acceptable sacrifice to God is a grateful and obedient life<\/em>. <\/p>\n 3. We find our greatest happiness in our greatest sacrifices<\/em>.<\/p>\n GERM NOTES ON THE VERSES<\/em><\/p>\n 1Ki. 8:62-66<\/span>. The Temple Dedication<\/strong>. <\/p>\n 1. A thanksgiving feast (1Ki. 8:62-63<\/span>). <\/p>\n 2. A covenant feast (1Ki. 8:65<\/span>). <\/p>\n 3. A feast of great gladness.<\/p>\n For great benefits men should offer great thanksgivings, and indeed should prove their gratitude by promoting the true service of God, and by benevolence to the poor and needy.Lange<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1Ki. 8:62<\/span>. A sublime spectacle<\/strong>. <\/p>\n 1. A nation before the Lord consecrating a temple to His worship. 1Ki. 8:63<\/span>. Sacrifices<\/strong>. <\/p>\n 1. Were offered ever since the fall. 1Ki. 8:64<\/span>. The Burnt Offering<\/em> was so called because the victim was wholly consumed by fire upon the altar, and so, as it were, sent up to God on the wings of fire. This idea which is expressed in the account of Noahs sacrifice, and which constantly recurs both in the Scriptures and in profane authors, is implied in the Hebrew word, which signifies to ascend<\/em>. The sacrifice was a memorial of Gods covenant, and signified that the offerer belonged wholly to God, and that he dedicated himself soul and body to Him, and placed his life at His disposal. And every such sacrifice was a type of the perfect offering made by Christ, on behalf of the human race, of His human nature and will to the will of the Father. The Meat Offering<\/em> always accompanied the burnt offering, for which it might be substituted by the poor. As the burnt offering signified the consecration of life<\/em> to God, both that of the offerer himself and of his living property, so in the meat offering the produce of the land was presented before Jehovah, as being His gift. The Peace Offering<\/em> was not an atoning sacrifice to make peace with God, but a joyful celebration of peace made<\/em> through the covenant. In this part of the Mosaic ritual, more than in any other, we see Jehovah present in His house, inviting the worshipper to feast with Him. Peace offerings were presented either as a thanksgiving<\/em>, or in fulfilment of a vow<\/em>, or as a free-will offering<\/em> of love and joy.<\/p>\n 1Ki. 8:66<\/span>. When a man has rendered unto God what is of God, he can go forth to his daily labour with joy and gladness. To praise and thank God makes the heart glad and willing to work. A good king is the joy of his subjects. When we return to our eternal home, our joy shall never end; and our King Jesus will be the theme of everlasting praise.<\/p>\n As the King concluded, the cloud which had rested over the Holy of Holies grew brighter and more dazzling; fire broke out and consumed all the sacrifices (2Ch. 7:1<\/span>); the priests stood without, awestruck by the insupportable splendour; the whole people fell on their faces, and worshipped and praised the Lord, for He is good, for His mercy is for ever. Which was the greater, the external magnificence or the moral sublimity of this scene? Was it the Temple, situated on its commanding eminence, with all its courts, the dazzling splendour of its materials, the innumerable multitudes, the priests in their gorgeous attire, the king, with all the insignia of royalty on his throne of burnished brass, the music, the radiant cloud filling the Temple, the sudden fire flashing upon the altar, the whole nation upon their knees? Was it not rather the religious grandeur of the hymns and of the prayer; the exalted and rational views of the Divine Nature; the union of a whole people in the adoration of one Great, Incomprehensible, Almighty, Everlasting Creator?Dean Milman<\/em>.<\/p>\n For all the goodness that the Lord had done for David his servant. The heritage of the good. <\/p>\n 1. Is transmitted to succeeding generations. <\/p>\n 2. Bears constant testimony to the Divine faithfulness (comp. 1Ki. 8:15<\/span>). <\/p>\n 3. Demands continued obedience on the part of its possessor. D. THE DEDICATORY CELEBRATION 8:6266<\/p>\n TRANSLATION<\/strong><\/p>\n (62) And the king and all Israel with him offered sacrifice before the LORD. (63) And Solomon offered for a sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered unto the LORD, twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred twenty thousand sheep. So did the king and all the children of Israel dedicate the house of the LORD. (64) In that day the king sanctified the middle court which was before the house of the LORD, for there he made burnt offerings and meal offerings and the fat of peace offerings, because the bronze altar which was before the LORD was too small to contain the burnt offerings and the meal offerings and the fat of peace offerings. (65) And at that time Solomon made a great feast, and all Israel with him, a great congregation from the entrance of Hamath to the brook of Egypt, before the LORD our God, for seven days and seven days, fourteen days. (66) On the eighth day he sent the people away and they blessed the king. Then they went to their tents rejoicing and glad of heart because of all the goodness which the LORD had done for David His servant and for Israel His people.<\/strong><\/p>\n COMMENTS<\/strong><\/p>\n The dedication ceremonies were followed by a magnificent sacrifice offered by the king and people alike (1Ki. 8:62<\/span>). Apart from their religious use and significance, these sacrifices testified to the religious devotion of the worshiper. The sacrifices also provided meat for the prolonged feast by which this glorious day was celebrated. The peace offering alone consisted of twenty-two thousand oxen and a hundred thousand sheep.[239] Critics have attacked these figures as being an exaggeration, but the following considerations argue in favor of their credibility:<\/p>\n [239] Even Gray (OTL, p. 216) concedes that the numbers may be near the truth, though of course round numbers.<\/p>\n 1. Josephus relates that on one occasion during the reign of Nero the priests slaughtered two hundred fifty thousand paschal lambs between the ninth and eleventh hours.[240] If that many lambs could be slaughtered in three hours of the afternoon, there can be no difficulty in accepting the figures here.<\/p>\n [240] Wars VI, 9.3.<\/p>\n 2. The sacrifices were made over the course of at least seven days and more likely fourteen days. This would mean that only 1,565 oxen and 8,572 sheep would have been offered each day. 4. According to the law in Leviticus 1, 3<\/span>, the slaughtering, flaying and preparation of the sacrificial animal could be performed by any Israelite. Only the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar and the burning of the sacrificial piecesthe fat pieceson the altar were the exclusive prerogative of the priests.<\/p>\n 5. By the very lowest computations there could hardly be less than a hundred thousand heads of houses present at the feast, and the figures given in Davids census suggest that there may have been four or five times that number (2Sa. 24:9<\/span>). Every Israelite would doubtless offer his sacrifice of thanksgiving on such an occasion as this.<\/p>\n 6. In the peace offering only the fat was burned on the altar and the rest of the sacrificial animal was eaten. Thus enormous numbers of animals would have been required to feed the vast multitudes which gathered for the dedication. A great congregation had assembled from as far as the entrance (or district) of Hamath in the north on the Orontes river to the Wadi of Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) in the south, i.e., from one end of the land to the other. These worshipers joined Solomon in a seven day feast of dedication which was in turn followed by the seven day Feast of Tabernacles (1Ki. 8:65<\/span>; cf. 2Ch. 7:9-10<\/span>). On the eighth day of the second feast, the twenty-second day of the seventh month,[241] Solomon dismissed the multitude. The crowd reciprocated by blessing (i.e., saluting) their king, and on the morrow, departed for their tents (i.e., dwellings) full of joy and gladness because of what the Lord had done for His servant David and His people Israel (1Ki. 8:66<\/span>). David is mentioned in 1Ki. 8:66<\/span> because the Temple was part of the fulfillment of the divine promise given to him.<\/p>\n [241] The Feast of Tabernacles lasted from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of the seventh month. On the eighth day, that is the twenty-second of the month, Solomon dismissed the people, and on the next morning, the twenty-third of the month the people took their journey home (2Ch. 7:10<\/span>).<\/p>\n 62<\/strong>. <\/strong> The king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice <\/strong> They did it by the hand of their priests, whose sole prerogative it was to perform that sacred service. According to 2Ch 7:1<\/span>, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offerings.<\/p>\n “<\/strong> And the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before YHWH.’ <\/p>\n The blessing then resulted in a whole hearted response from Israel as the king and all the people ‘offered sacrifice’ before YHWH. This would be done by their laying their hands on and slaughtering the animals, with the priests acting on their behalf in the presentation of the blood. <\/p>\n (62) And the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before the LORD. (63) And Solomon offered a sacrifice of peace offerings, which he offered unto the LORD, two and twenty thousand oxen, and an hundred and twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of the LORD. (64) The same day did the king hallow the middle of the court that was before the house of the LORD: for there he offered burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings: because the brasen altar that was before the LORD was too little to receive the burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and the fat of the peace offerings.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Prayer, you observe, was followed with sacrifice. As if to show, that whether in one service or another; all is done with an eye to Christ, the Great Sacrifice, who by his one offering hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. Heb 10:14<\/span> . We read that the Lord answered by fire from heaven. See 2Ch 7:1<\/span> .<\/p>\n 1Ki 8:62 And the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before the LORD.<\/p>\n Ver. 62. Offered sacrifice before the Lord.<\/strong> ] Peace offerings especially; for these were never omitted. “In everything give thanks.”<\/p>\n offered sacrifice. Hebrew sacrificed a sacrifice. Figure of speech Polyptoton (App-6) = offered a great or abundant sacrifice. See App-43. Jehovah accepted them by fire from heaven, as recorded in 2Ch 7:1. See note on Gen 4:4. <\/p>\n 2Sa 6:17-19, 2Ch 7:4-7 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 3:7 – offer it 1Ki 8:5 – sacrificing sheep 1Ch 29:21 – sacrificed 2Ch 7:5 – a sacrifice<\/p>\n Solomon’s sacrifices 8:62-66<\/span><\/p>\n As a royal priest Solomon led the nation of priests in making an immense sacrifice to Yahweh. The sacrifices were all offerings of worship. The burnt offering represented the dedication of the worshipper’s person to God and secured forgiveness. The grain offering pictured the dedication of his work to God. The peace offering expressed the joy that resulted from the fellowship God had made possible with Himself and with the worshipper’s fellowman (Leviticus 1-3).<\/p>\n The number of offerings seems incredibly large, but contemporary extrabiblical records of other sacrifices that involved thousands of animals are extant. Perhaps the priests made sacrifices at other places outside the temple courtyard. People came from the far Northeast (Hamath) and the extreme Southwest (the Wadi el-Arish) to this feast. Solomon extended the celebration an extra week (1Ki 8:65).<\/p>\n 1Ki 8:66 is very significant because it shows that because of Israel’s rededication in this covenant renewal ceremony, King Solomon enjoyed blessing from his people on whom he had brought blessing. The result was joy and gladness of heart for everyone. These are what God had promised in the Mosaic Law as consequences of commitment to His will. God blessed Solomon personally, and he became a channel of blessing to the nation he served because he committed himself to obeying God’s Word.<\/p>\n This was the biggest event in Israel, in terms of its theological significance, since God gave Israel the Law at Mount Sinai. Israel was finally in the Promised Land with her God enthroned in a place of great honor. Now Israel was in position to fulfill her calling as a nation in the world as never before in her history (cf. Exo 19:5-6). The significance of this chapter becomes clearer when we read the Prophets section of the Old Testament. The writing prophets alluded to it often.<\/p>\n THE TEMPLE SACRIFICES<\/p>\n 1Ki 8:62-66; 1Ki 9:25<\/p>\n “I have chosen this house to Myself for a house of sacrifice.”<\/p>\n – 2Ch 7:12<\/p>\n “Gifts and sacrifices, that cannot, as touching the conscience make the worshipper perfect, being only carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation.”<\/p>\n – Heb 9:9-10<\/p>\n THE whole sacrificial system with which our thoughts of Judaism are perhaps erroneously, and much too exclusively identified, furnishes us with many problems.<\/p>\n 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,<\/p>\n (1) that they should be without blemish and without spot, as types of perfectness; and<\/p>\n (2) that every sacrifice should be salted with salt, as an antiseptic, and therefore a type of incorruption. {Mar 9:49}<\/p>\n 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<\/p>\n (1) into free, or obligatory;<\/p>\n (2) public, or private; and<\/p>\n (3) most holy or less holy,<\/p>\n 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}<\/p>\n The sacrifices commanded in the Pentateuch fall under four heads.<\/p>\n (1) The burnt offering (Olah, Kalil), which typified complete self-dedication, and which even the heathen might offer;<\/p>\n (2) the sin offering (Chattath), which made atonement for the offender;<\/p>\n (3) the trespass offering (Asham), which atones for some special offence, whether doubtful or certain, committed through ignorance; and<\/p>\n (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.<\/p>\n 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 Hos 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 Josiahs reformation, of which the Priestly Code is the matured result.<\/p>\n It is easy to see that sacrifices in general were eucharistic, dedicatory, and expiatory.<\/p>\n 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 mans 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.”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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 transgressors 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 Lords incorruption.”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The word Chattath, in the sense of sin offering, occurs in Exo 29:1-46; Exo 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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:-<\/p>\n “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}<\/p>\n “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}<\/p>\n “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}<\/p>\n 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}<\/p>\n The language of JEREMIAHS 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.”<\/p>\n “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}<\/p>\n And again:-<\/p>\n “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}<\/p>\n And again:-<\/p>\n “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}<\/p>\n And again:-<\/p>\n “To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.” {Pro 21:3}<\/p>\n And again:-<\/p>\n “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}<\/p>\n 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 Christs teaching, could give emphatic testimony to the immeasurable superiority of the moral to the ceremonial. The candid scribe, hearing from Christs 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.” <\/p>\n 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} <\/p>\n 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} <\/p>\n 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} <\/p>\n 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.”<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n “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 youths 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<\/p>\n “Doth prefer before all temples the upright heart and pure.”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.”<\/p>\n 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 usurers mart, and a robbers den.<\/p>\n 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.”<\/p>\n Even when it had been purified by Josiahs 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?”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n “As mid the cedar courts and gates of gold <\/p>\n The trampled ranks in miry carnage rolled <\/p>\n To save their Temple every hand essayed, <\/p>\n And with cold fingers graspd the feeble blade; <\/p>\n Through their torn veins reviving fury ran <\/p>\n And lifes last anger warmd the dying man.”<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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:-<\/p>\n “And I saw no temple therein.” {Rev 21:22}<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n And the king, and all Israel with him, offered sacrifice before the LORD. 62. the king, and all Israel . . .offered sacrifice before the LordThis was a burnt offeringwith its accompaniments, and being the first laid on the altar of thetemple, was, as in the analogous case of the tabernacle, consumed bymiraculous fire from … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Kings 8:62”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9059","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9059"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9059\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
2. King and people mutually acknowledging sin.
3. King and people uniting in highest acts of devotion.
4. King and people rejoicing together.<\/p>\n
2. Were a perpetual memorial of Jehovahs covenant with His people.
3. An acknowledgment of Divine mercies.
4. Necessary as an expiation for human sin.<\/p>\n
4. Is an unspeakable boon to any nation.
5. Should be earnestly coveted and faithfully preserved.<\/p>\nFuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
3. The number of Levites qualified for service in the days of David was thirty-eight thousand. A reasonable assumption is that there were at least two or three thousand priests. But if only five hundred priests officiated during the dedicatory services, each would only have had to attend to sacrifice of three oxen and eighteen sheep each of the fourteen days of celebration.<\/p>\n
Even though the bronze altar in the Temple courtyard had a top surface of one hundred square yards, it was not large enough to accommodate the offering at the Temple dedication. In addition to the enormous number of peace offerings just mentioned, burnt offerings and meal offerings appropriate to such an occasion were being made. The burnt offering was entirely consumed in the altar fire. The meal offering contained incense and oil in addition to meal. Because of all these sacrifices, Solomon sanctified the middle court, i.e., the entire area of the court of priests, which was before the house (1Ki. 8:64<\/span>). Probably the court and its objects were sprinkled with the holy anointing oil as Moses had done to the Tabernacle and the furnishings (Exo. 40:1-15<\/span>). The whole space may have been regarded as one huge altar (Rawlinson), or temporary altars may have been erected all over the courtyard (Keil).<\/p>\nFuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"