A Tale of Two Houses (I Kings 7:1)

How many years did it take Solomon to complete work on his palace? Thirteen years (I Kings 7:1)

King Solomon ushers in unprecedented opulence as he undertakes two monumental building projects, Yahweh’s temple and his palace. Conspicuously sandwiched between accounts of the building of the temple (I Kings 6:1-38) and its furnishings (I Kings 7:13-51) is a description of Solomon’s royal complex (I Kings 7:1-12).

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) connects:

The proximity of the temple and royal palace reflects the intimate association between the Davidic king and YHWH, who is consistently portrayed with royal imagery in the ideology of the Judean state. The Davidic king is authorized to rule by the creator G-d, YHWH (II Samuel 7; Psalm 89, 110, 132, cf. Psalm 2), and the worship of YHWH is authorized by the Davidic king, who erects the sanctuary for YHWH’s honor. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

The palace’s propinquity to the temple seems to be as close geographically as it is literarily. Philip J. King (b. 1925) and Lawrence E. Stager (b. 1943) note:

The palace appears to have been built alongside the Temple, to its south, on the acropolis. The juxtaposing of palace and temple was established by the Canaanites early in the second millennium B.C.E., probably by 2000 in North Syria (e.g., Alalakh, a Syrian city-state). (King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 203)

The discussion of Solomon’s palace begins with a notice of the project’s duration (I Kings 7:1).

Now Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house (I Kings 7:1 NASB)

Solomon’s “house” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, RSV) or “palace” (CEV, HCSB, MSG, NIV, NLT) is actually comprised of multiple buildings. Marvin A. Sweeney(b. 1953) outlines:

I Kings 7:1 discusses the time taken to build the temple complex. The complex includes five buildings: the house of the forest of Lebanon (I Kings 7:2-5), the hall of columns (I Kings 7:6), the hall of the throne or the hall of justice (I Kings 7:7), and the private quarters of Solomon and the daughter of Pharaoh (I Kings 7:8). I Kings 7:9-11 discusses construction details common to these buildings, and I Kings 7:12 discusses the surrounding courtyard. (Sweeney, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 116)

Burke O. Long (b. 1938) classifies I Kings 7:1-12:

The unit is a REPORT...made up of a series of brief reports dealing with specific details according to a clear schematic style. The form of the brief reports, and of the whole which is an aggregate of these parts, is clearly paralleled in priestly materials in the Old Testament. (Long, 1 Kings: With an Introduction to Historical Literature (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 89)

The palace’s architecture was typical of royals of the era. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (b. 1943) encapsulates:

Solomon’s “palace” was a complex of six structures just south of the Temple. Its layout followed the so-called bit-hilani plan, an architectural style typical of palace-complexes in northern Syria. Archaeologists have found two “palaces” of this type built by Solomon at biblical Megiddo. Basically, the design featured a series of buildings centered on a long, large assembly hall whose entry was in its broad side through a portico with pillars...I Kings 7:1-5 describe the main building, I Kings 7:6-9 the satellite structures. We cannot be certain whether all the buildings in Solomon’s palace structurally were joined to each other. In the ancient world, palace-complexes typically covered many acres, and this royal center was no exception. (Hubbard, First & Second Kings: Everyman’s Bible Commentary, 46)

Despite its grandeur no archaeological evidence of Solomon’s palace has been unearthed. August H. Konkel (b. 1948) documents:

No remains have been linked to the palace of Solomon at Jerusalem. Remains of palaces are evident in their size, layout, elaborate decorations, and contents, such as expensive furniture and state archives. The ground plans of buildings at Megiddo from Solomon’s time are similar to the palaces at Zinjirli (the ancient Aramean city of Sam’al), suggesting that this may have been the plan of the Jerusalem palace. Walls and towers surround the three palaces and storehouses; to enter the complex it was necessary to pass through two gates. Solomon develops a similar complex at Jerusalem, where the citadel encloses a number of buildings. (Konkel, 1 and 2 Kings (The NIV Application Commentary), 119)

No archaeological confirmation is needed to determine that Solomon resided in quarters fit for a king.

Why is the account of the palace inserted between details about the temple? What are the longest building projects of which you are aware? If you could build your dream house without financial restraints, what would it entail? Is the palace more a wise investment for the nation or a vanity project for its king? Is there any way in which Solomon’s palace glorifies God?

Strikingly, the note regarding the palace’s thirteen year construction (I Kings 7:1) immediately follows a formal summary statement of the building of temple which specifies that the temple took only seven years to complete (I Kings 6:38).

Alice L. Laffey (b. 1944) comments:

Whereas the final verse of chapter 6 [I Kings 6:38] functions as both a climax and a statement of completion, the narrator introduces chapter 7 with a seemingly deliberate literary contrast. Whereas it took seven years to build the house of the Lord, it takes thirteen years to build the house of a king. Although thirteen is not a number used frequently in the biblical texts, it too may be used symbolically to indicate completion (ten and three). The unusual character of the number may be a literary device that the authors use to subtly imply some inappropriateness related to the king’s palace. The fact that it takes almost twice as long to build the king’s house as it does to build the Lord’s house can imply that the king’s house was not worked on by as many builders, or with as much zeal as was the Lord’s house. Or, it could imply that the grandeur of the Lord’s house paled beside the grandeur of the king’s. If the latter is true, the text is hinting at future difficulties. (Laffey, First and Second Kings (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 33)

Gina Hens-Piazza (b. 1948) observes:

Chapter 7...turns attention away from the temple and unexpectedly fixes upon another of Solomon’s building projects, the palace complex. The introduction to this description, reporting that the palace complex took thirteen years to build, contrasts sharply with the conclusion to chapter 6 reporting that the temple was a seven-year project. Initial impressions might argue that the temple was this king’s priority. Thus it received most attention and was completed speedily and first. However, the brief sketch (I Kings 7:2-12) of the state buildings and the king’s own house challenges such easy assumptions. (Hens-Piazza, 1-2 Kings (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary), 68)

The contrast between the two projects is drawn intentionally. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) asserts:

The NIV suggests the nature of the connection between I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 and the force of the transition from one to the other, but it does not fully capture it. A translation that better brings out the relationship between them, and particularly the significance of the word order, runs as follows: “He completed (khl) the temple (bayit)...he spent seven years building it (bnh). But his own house (bêtô) Solomon spent thirteen years building (bnh) and he completed (klh) the whole of his house (kol-bêtô).” There are two “houses” in view, and an emphatic contrast is made between them. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69)

The Hebrew syntax further accentuates the disparity. John W. Olley (b. 1938) discerns:

The contrast is expressed intentionally by the chiastic Hebrew sentence structure of I Kings 6:38-7:1 (obscured by the much later chapter division and further in some Bibles by a heading; there is no paragraph division in the Masoretic Text). (Olley, The Message of Kings (Bible Speaks Today), 86)

It is possible that the two building projects were undertaken concurrently. Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) recognizes:

The statement in our verse [I Kings 7:1], when combined with the conclusion of the previous chapter, yields the number 20, which in I Kings 9:10 is in fact the time given for the construction of the 2 ‘houses.’ But the relation between the 2 verses is hard to determine. In our opinion, Martin Noth [1902-1968] is correct when he says that the sequence of the construction: first the temple and then the palace, is improbable and that it is better to picture the construction as simultaneous. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 286)

Richard Nelson (b.1945) resolves:

There is a chronological distortion in that Kings understands the thirteen years of I Kings 7:1 to have come after the seven years of temple construction (I Kings 9:10). But by moving these buildings forward in time, sandwiching them between material on the temple and integrating them architecturally with the temple (I Kings 7:12), the narrator firmly subordinates these secular buildings to the house of the Lord. Both the house of the forest of Lebanon and the complex described in I Kings 7:6-8 are substantially larger than the temple, but have been effectively relegated to the status of interesting footnotes. They highlight Solomon’s glory without diminishing the wonder of the temple. (Nelson, First and Second Kings (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 45)

Some have seen the relative lengths of the projects as an indictment against the king. Iain W. Provan (b. 1957) accuses:

Solomon spent much more time building his own house...than he did building God’s house. This is not surprising, because just the first of its several buildings was much bigger than the temple (I Kings 7:2; cf. I Kings 6:2). The temple had quite a bit of cedar of Lebanon in it (I Kings 6:9-10, 15-16, 18, 20, 36); this building, however, is packed with so many cedars (I Kings 7:2-3, 7, 11, 12) that it is called the Palace of the Forest of Lebanon—and this for a building apparently designed only as a treasury of armory (cf. I Kings 10:17, 21; Isaiah 22:8)! The suggestion is that the king was much more concerned about his palace than about the LORD’s temple. (Provan, 1 and 2 Kings (New International Biblical Commentary), 69-70)

Jerome T. Wash (b. 1942) elaborates:

Since the palace complex houses the central administration of the whole empire, the issue is not a simple contrast between Yahweh’s Temple and Solomon’s private residence, as if Solomon were being accused of spending all that time on his own luxury and glory. Nonetheless, the juxtaposition of I Kings 6:38 and I Kings 7:1 invites us to infer that the governmental buildings are far more important to Solomon than the religious one. In view of the ruinous annual tariff Solomon is paying Hiram [I Kings 5:11], it is quite clear which project brings Solomon to the brink of bankruptcy. (Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam: Studies In Hebrew Narrative And Poetry), 106)

Backlash against Solomon has persisted for centuries. Presumably in response, Josephus (37-100) skewed his account in favor of the king. Louis H. Feldman (b. 1926) relays:

By deferring the account of the building of the palace until after the completion of his description of the dedication of the Temple, Josephus stresses the importance of the Temple and diminishes that of the palace. In I Kings 9:10 it is simply stated that it took 20 years to build the two houses, 7 years for the Temple (I Kings 6:38) and 13 years for the palace (I Kings 7:1). Josephus (Antiquities 8.30), apparently aware of the objection that Solomon devoted almost twice as much time to building his palace for his own glory as to building the Temple for the greater glory of G-d, emphasizes Solomon’s piety by adding the significant comment that the palace was not built with the same industry (ἐσπουδάζετο) with which the Temple was built. Josephus (Antiquties 8.131) adds an extra-biblical remark that the palace was much inferior in dignity (ἀξίας) to the Temple since the building materials had been prepared not so long in advance, with less expense, and was intended as a dwelling place for a king and not for G-d. (Lowell K. Handy [b. 1949], “Josephus’ View of Solomon”. The Age of Solomon: Scholarship at the Turn of the Millennium, 365)

Martin J. Mulder (1923-1994) critiques:

Josephus and other Jewish commentators have attempted to explain the ‘offensiveness’ of this longer duration of palace construction. Among other things Josephus says (Antiquities VIII §§130ff.) that the palace was not built with the same zeal as the temple. The temple was even finished before the time appointed, since God so obviously cooperated with the builders. This was not the case with the construction of the palace, while also the material used was of an inferior quality, because the building was only intended for kings, not for God. This motive is further elaborated in later Jewish legends (cf. Louis Ginzberg [1873-1953], Legends of the Jews, IV, 155f.; VI, 294f.). The truth, of course, is that the complex of palaces was larger and more beautiful than the temple and therefore took more time. (Mulder, 1 Kings, Volume 1:1 Kings 1-11 (Historical Commentary on the Old Testament), 285-86)

Solomon also has contemporary apologists. Russell H. Dilday (b. 1930) exemplifies:

The conjunction “but” in I Kings 7:1 is intended to contrast the thirteen years required to build Solomon’s own house with the seven years required to build the temple (I Kings 6:38). However, what this difference implies is not clear. To some commentators it seems to condemn Solomon for spending twice as much time building his own house as he spent building the temple of God. Were worldly power and luxury already going to the young king’s head? Were secular ideals beginning to overshadow spiritual ideals in his court? It is true that in later years Solomon began to minimize the high priority he had given to serving the Lord, but that was not the case in these early years...A better interpretation of I Kings 7:1 is that Solomon purposely allowed the construction of his house to drag on for thirteen years, while he had accelerated the temple construction and finished it in seven years. Also, we must remember that many years of preparation, planning, and accumulation of materials had preceded the seven-year temple project, while the work on the palace apparently had no such head start. Furthermore, while the temple was more elaborate and intricate, the palace complex was more widespread, involving a number of separate buildings, and thereby more time-consuming. Considering these factors, Solomon probably gave priority to the temple and put more attention and time on its construction than on his palace. (Dilday, 1, 2 Kings (Mastering the Old Testament), 96-97)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) speculates:

Almost twice as much time is taken to build it as the temple, though that is probably not a negative judgment, given the buildings necessary for the state to function. The lack of clear detail may indicate a lack of interest (and/or knowledge) apart from highlighting Solomon as a wise builder. (Fretheim, First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion), 43)

Peter J. Leithart (b. 1959) theologizes:

Commentators sometimes suggest that the time Solomon spends on his own house, nearly double the time he spends on the temple, is an early sign of his later apostasy...Yet Solomon is nowhere criticized for this. Apparently the logic is similar to the logic of the tithe: once Solomon pays his firstfruits, his time is “desanctified” so that he can devote his attention to building his own house. The objection that Solomon’s glory challenges Yahweh’s assumes a false doctrine of God. God’s glory does not compete with human glory, nor does God glorify himself by siphoning glory from his people. He glorifies himself by freely and abundantly bestowing glory, just as the Father glorifies himself in the Son through the Spirit, and the Son in the Father through the same Spirit. Yahweh gives Solomon glory, but this makes the name of Yahweh glorious among the Gentiles, precisely because it makes the name of Solomon glorious. (Leithart, 1 & 2 Kings (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 60)

Regardless of what light is being cast upon Solomon, the comparative building durations of the temple and palace invite the reader to evaluate her own priorities and how those priorities are played out in her budget.

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) applies:

It would be better for us to put a lower priority on a comfortable living situation and a higher priority on the kingdom of God. First Kings takes this perspective in the way it tells the story of Solomon. The major emphasis in chapters 5 through 8 is the house that Solomon built for God [I Kings 5:1-8:66]. The Bible gives us the full details of the temple’s structure and furnishings, plus a lengthy account of its dedication. Solomon’s own house took longer to build, but receives much less attention–just twelve verses for five buildings. Even for all its splendor, Solomon’s palace receives only brief mention. As far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, this is all it deserves, because Solomon’s house was not nearly as important as the house he built for God. By de-emphasizing Solomon’s palace, the Bible is keeping things in their proper priority. (Ryken, 1 Kings (Reformed Expository Commentary), 165)

Why do you think it took longer to build the palace than the temple? Which building project do you think is more important to Solomon? What is meant by the intentional contrast between the time spent building God’s temple and the king’s palace? How does this incongruity reflect upon Solomon? Which building do you take more pride in maintaining, your church or your residence? Do you spend more time and energy devoted to God or yourself?

“Action expresses priorities.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Bezalel & Building (Exodus 31:2-6)

Name the two craftsmen who worked on the tabernacle. Bezalel and Oholiab (Exodus 31:2-6)

The Tabernacle served as the representation of the divine presence during Israel’s wilderness wandering. God goes to great lengths in planning this portable dwelling place, dictating six chapters of explicit instructions to Moses (Exodus 25:1-30:38). God not only cares about the design of the tabernacle but also who will implement the vision. Moses is not to construct the tabernacle nor would there be politicking to secure this government contract. Instead, God personally selects two master craftsmen: Bezalel and Oholiab (Exodus 31:2-6).

“See, I have called by name Bezalel, the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah. I have filled him with the Spirit of God in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship, to make artistic designs for work in gold, in silver, and in bronze, and in the cutting of stones for settings, and in the carving of wood, that he may work in all kinds of craftsmanship. And behold, I Myself have appointed with him Oholiab, the son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan; and in the hearts of all who are skillful I have put skill, that they may make all that I have commanded you: (Exodus 31:2-6 NASB)

From start to finish the tabernacle was a God given structure. Brevard S. Childs (1923-2007) observes:

For the Old Testament writer the concrete form of the tabernacle is inseparable from its spiritual meaning. Every detail of the structure reflects the one divine will and nothing rests on the ad hoc decision of human builders. There is no tension whatever between form and content, or symbol and reality throughout the tabernacle chapters. Moreover, the tabernacle is not conceived of as a temporary measure for a limited time, but one in which the permanent priesthood of Aaron serves throughout all their generation (Exodus 27:20ff). (Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library), 540)

F.B. Meyer (1847-1929) lauds:

The tabernacle with its contents was the subject of much divine thought and care. It was not a poor hut run up in an hour. It was not the creation of human fancy. Man was not the creator, but the executor of the divine program and plan. It was thus that God made the heavens and the earth. He was alone when the foundations of the heavens and earth were laid. To Him alone must be attributed, also, the pattern of the human life of our Lord, in which the tabernacle was duplicated in flesh and blood. In the minutest details, He is immediately interested; and in the most holy place of our nature, within the veil, there is a shrine, where angels might tread with reverence, because His holy presence is there.” (Meyer, Devotional Commentary on Exodus, 303)

The final instructions God gives regarding the tabernacle concern its artisans. The selection of craftsmen is a standard element in ancient building stories, especially in the region where the Bible was written (e.g., the Ugaritic Baal Cycle).

God hires local contractors for the job. Bezalel is “called by name” (Exodus 31:2), indicating a personal selection and perhaps an intimate acquaintance. Bezalel and Oholiab represent a balanced ticket as Bezalel hails from Judah in the south (Exodus 31:2), the largest tribe (Numbers 1:27), while Oholiab is from Dan (Exodus 31:6), one of the smallest tribes (Numbers 1:39), situated in the north.

God selects people who have already demonstrated talent with the requisite skill necessary to assemble the tabernacle. Some have even posed that Bezalel and Oholiab are representative of famous family guilds. It can be certain that they constitute highly skilled labor.

They likely acquired this skill set through slavery. Gene Edward Veith, Jr. (b. 1951) speculates:

Bezalel was probably already a skilled craftsman in the normal course of things before he received his divine commission...Ancient Egypt is renowned for its magnificent art, and although it glorified the Pharaohs, much of the actual labor was done by slaves. Perhaps Bezalel had been forced to adorn a pyramid. The Lord speaking to Moses indicated that He had given these gifts to Bezalel prior to the Sinai revelation. Furthermore, He states that He gave similar ability to others who would be helping Bezalel. (Veith, State of the Arts: From Bezalel to Mapplethorpe, 108)

Steven J. Binz (b. 1955) asserts:

There is a marked contrast between the dignity associated with work done in freedom and the brutal labor of slavery. God’s spirit is recognized as the source of the artisan’s skill, talent, and competence. There is pride and concern associated with mastery in the art of embroidery, metalwork, jewelry, and woodcarving. (Binz, The God of Freedom and Life: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 117)

Relatively little is known of Bezalel and Oholiab. Bezalel’s name appears nine times in Scripture; seven in Exodus (Exodus 31:2, 35:30, 36:1, 2, 8, 37:1, 38:22) and twice in Chronicles (I Chronicles 2:20; II Chronicles 1:5). Oholiab’s name is found only five times, all in conjunction with this building project (Exodus 31:6, 35:34, 36:1, 2, 38:23). There is some debate as to whether they worked in tandem or if Bezalel was the foreman. It appears that Bezalel holds a higher position as he is given preeminence.

Bezalel’s heritage is intriguing. His grandfather is named Hur (Exodus 31:2), a common name meaning “Whitey”. It is possible that this is the same Hur who famously propped up Moses’ hands during a victory over the Amalekites (Exodus 17:10-13).

The fact that Bezalel is from the tribe of Judah is noteworthy. Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) examines:

What is perhaps most significant about Bezalel’s family lineage is his being a Judahite. In all aspects of tabernacle service and maintenance, Levites were the only persons allowed responsibility. They alone could set up, take down, transport, maintain, or utilize anything pertaining to the tabernacle. But the original construction was another matter. The servants in God’s house were chosen for their duty by reason of birth lineage; but those who actually built it were chosen because of spiritual gifting. No Judahite would be able to touch anything in the tabernacle once it was constructed and sanctified, but until then the best craftsmen, regardless of tribe, would handle every part of it as they made it into a beautiful, portable divine dwelling for Israel’s God. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary), 649-50)

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1941) resolves:

Hur’s grandson, Bezalel, is the foreman overseeing the tabernacle’s construction (Exodus 31:2; I Chronicles 2:19-20). Postbiblical Jewish literature sometimes “found” a husband for female figures in Scripture to whose husbands Scripture never refers (e.g., Dinah marries Job, and Rahab marries Joshua). Josephus (37-100, Antiquities 3.2.4 §54) says that Miriam married Hur. This creates marital ties between the tribe of Levi (Miriam) and the tribe of Judah (Hur), as does the marriage of Levite Aaron to Judahite Elizabeth (Exodus 6:23). (Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary, 270)

Bezalel possesses the impressive set of skills necessary to complete the task at hand. A mythology has developed around Bezalel’s giftedness. One Jewish tradition asserts that Bezalel is only twelve years old at time of his commissioning (Sanhedrin 69b). Godfrey Ashby (b. 1930) has dubbed Bezalel “the Leonardo da Vinci of the Hebrews” (Exodus: Go Out and Meet God (International Theological Commentary), 142).

Scott M. Langston (b. 1960) chronicles:

The image of Bezalel...became the medieval prototype of the master jeweler, while also contributing to a Christian mystical understanding of the relationship with God. Richard of St. Victor (1123-1173), as well as the author of the fourteenth century work The Cloud of Unknowing, portrays Bezalel as “the prototype of the ideal Christian labouring, like the jeweler in Pearl, towards a vision of God by his own spiritual effort with the help of divine grace.” Casting him as the model of the “earth-bound artist, achieving a spiritual vision of grace, by sheer craftsmanship and the perfection of accomplished art.” (Langston, Exodus: Through The Centuries (Blackwell Bible Commentaries), 226)

Bezalel is not merely a jack of all trades but a master. Even so, Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) clarifies:

The two personalities are not architects. They possess the necessary skills to fashion the several individual items in accordance with the instructions that they receive from Moses. However, when it comes to assembling the parts into an integrated whole, it is Moses personally who performs the task, not they [Exodus 16:35; Numbers 11:6; Joshua 5:12; Nehemiah 9:20-21]. This really has to be so, within the framework of the narrative, since only Moses carries a mental picture of the Tabernacle in its completed, coherent form. No one else knows the disposition of the individual components and the harmonious interrelationships of the constituent elements. (Sarna, Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel, 200-1)

Bezalel’s companion is Oholiab. Though most commonly spelled “Oholiab” (ASV, CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), some translations render the name “Aholiab” (KJV, NKJV). Oholiab appears in the Bible only during his commissioning (Exodus 31:6) and the fulfillment passages of his task (Exodus 35:34, 36:1-2, 38:23). There is debate as to whether Oholiab serves as a co-leader or an assistant. At the very least, Bezalel is second in command on the project.

Oholiab’s name is ironic given his task. Randall C. Bailey (b. 1951) notes:

This name may reflect a wordplay since “Oholiab” can mean “father’s tent,” “father is my tent (= protection),” “the tent of the father,” “the father of the tent,” or the like. Further, names containing the word “tent” are prominent in the ancient Near East. (Bailey, Exodus (The College Press NIV Commentary), 330)

Having “tent” as part of one’s name is not irregular in the Bible. Oholibama (“A high place [is] my tent”), Oholah (“Her tent”) and Oholobah (“My tent [is] in her”) are other examples. Oholibama is one of Esau’s Canaanite wives (Genesis 36:2, 14, 18) while the last two names are metaphorical monikers that the prophet Ezekiel supplies to sinful Samaria and apostate Judah respectively (Ezekiel 23:4, 5, 11).

It is often said that “God does not call the equipped. He equips the called.” In this case God calls the equipped.

Bezael and Oholiab’s names suggest that they may have been born for a time such as this. Peter Enns (b. 1961) appraises:

If it is even valid to seek significance in the etymology of names (a last resort when other information is lacking), Bezalel probably means “in the shadow/protection of El [’el, a name of God].” Oholiab can mean either “father is my tent” or perhaps “father is a tent.” Thus, the names themselves may be an allusion to the tabernacle. (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 543)

Why does Moses not build the tabernacle himself? Why does God not simply speak the tabernacle into being? Who constructs and fixes churches today? Is the task of church maintenance deemed important in your church? What task have you been gifted to do? Have you ever felt as though you were enacting God’s vision? Is there anything you feel that you were born to do?

The construction of the tabernacle is not merely a human effort. As is often the case, God allows humanity to partner with the divine will. In addition to his innate talent, Bezalel and crew are given a significant performance enhancer: the Spirit of God (Exodus 31:3), more specifically, the Spirit of El (as opposed to the personal name Yahweh). Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, the phrase “the Spirit of God” occurs only five times (Genesis 1:2, 41:38; Exodus 31:3, 35:31; Numbers 24:2) twice in connection with the building of the tabernacle (Exodus 31:3, 35:31).

William T. Miller (b. 1941) comments:

The statement in Exodus 31:3, I have filled him with divine spirit (or with the spirit of God), is quite striking. The only other use of the phrase by P is found in Genesis 1:2, the spirit of God swept over the face of the waters. William H.C. Propp (b. 1957) speaks of Bezalel the artist as a “theologian, exampling divine activity and rendering it active and comprehensible.” (Miller, The Book of Exodus: Question by Question, 314)

Terence E. Fretheim (b. 1936) theologizes:

Bezalel executes in miniature the divine creative role of Genesis 1 in the building of the tabernacle. The spirit of God with which the craftsmen are filled is a sign of the living, breathing force that lies behind the completing of the project just as it lies behind the creation. Their intricate craftsmanship mirrors God’s own work. The precious metals with which they work take up the very products of God’s beautiful creation and give new shape to that beauty within creation. Just as God created such a world in which God himself would dwell (not explicit in Genesis, but see Psalm 104:1-4; Isaiah 40:22), so now these craftsmen re-create a world in the midst of chaos wherein God may dwell once again in a world suitable for the divine presence. (Fretheim, Exodus (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 269)

This incident makes Bezalel the first person explicitly said to be filled with the Spirit in Scripture. It is worth noting that the first person filled with the Spirit is not a patriarch, lawgiver, prophet or judge. It is rather Bezalel, an artist.

Waldemar Janzen (b. 1932) remarks:

It is remarkable that the special spirit-endowment of Bezalel—as well as Oholiab and the unnamed others (Exodus 31:6)—is given to devise artistic designs, to work in gold, silver, and bronze, in cutting stones for setting, and in carving wood, in every kind of craft (Exodus 31:4-5). In other words, “spiritual gifts” are not reserved here for the realm with which we often associate them (e.g., prayer, prophecy, etc.). Instead, they are applied to the work of artists and artisans working with tangible materials. Again, the term “incarnational” seems appropriate; God works through earthly, bodily, and material functions of human beings (cf. Exodus 25:3-7). (Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 368)

Jo Ann Davidson adds:

One does not normally link the ministry of the Holy Spirit to artistic talent. But in this verse [Exodus 35:31] it is shown to be the initial gift given to Bezalel. In fact, Bezalel is the very first person recorded in biblical history as inspired by the Holy Spirit, even though he is an artisan and not by vocation a priest or a prophet. God’s call of Bezalel mirrors language of the New Testament where God again speaks of "calling", "filling" (Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 4:8, 13:2, 16:10; Romans 1:1; I Corinthians 1:1). (Davidson, Toward a Theology of Beauty: A Biblical Perspective, 28-29)

In Bezalel, the filling of the Spirit manifests itself in three ways (Exodus 31:3). John I. Durham (b. 1933) delineates:

Bezalel...is described as specially endowed for his assignment by an infilling of the divine spirit, which adds to his native ability three qualities that suit him ideally for the task at hand: wisdom (חכמה), the gift to understand what is needed to fulfill Yahweh’s instructions; discernment (חבונה), the talent for solving the inevitable problems involved in the creation of so complex a series of objects and materials; and skill (דצת), the experienced hand needed to guide and accomplish the labor itself. Bezalel, so gifted, is the ideal combination of theoretical knowledge, problem-solving practicality, and planning capability who can bring artistic ideals to life with his own hands. That such a comprehensive equipping is intended here is suggested also by the summary listing of what Bezalel is to accomplish: he is to design intricate patterns in three metals, gold, silver and copper; to engrave gemstones; and to carve wood; all these talents are required for “workmanship of every kind.” In sum, Bezalel is made expert by Yahweh himself for every kind of work necessary for fulfilling the instructions given to Moses on Sinai. (Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary), 410)

Given how few details are provided regarding the tabernacle’s blueprints, perhaps such divine influence is necessary. The indwelling of the Spirit in this task certainly demonstrate’s the tabernacle’s significance.

Philip Graham Ryken (b. 1966) interprets:

This shows how important the tabernacle was. God wanted his house built in a special way. To that end, the same Holy Spirit who with the Father and Son created the world in six days (see Genesis 1:2) was poured out on the men who made the tabernacle...The outpouring of the Spirit teaches us something about the importance of spiritual gifts in the church. It takes the Holy Spirit to build God’s house. In the time of Moses, the Spirit came with special gifts for building the tabernacle. Now as the Holy Spirit dwells in our hearts through faith, he brings gifts such as teaching, evangelism, discernment, leadership, hospitality, and service. These spiritual gifts are for building God’s dwelling place on earth (see Ephesians 4:7-13), which today is the church of Jesus Christ. Whatever spiritual gifts we have come from God the Holy Spirit, who calls us to use them in God’s house. The Scripture urges us “to excel in gifts that build up the church” (I Corinthians 14:12). (Ryken, Exodus: Saved for God’s Glory (Preaching the Word), 1090)

The combination of the Spirit of God with Bezalel and Oholiab’s skills is effective. Exodus documents both the beginning of this work (Exodus 35:30-36:2) and its successful completion (Exodus 38:22-23).

Are Bezalel’s skills “spiritual gifts”? Is there a difference between a skill and a spiritual gift? Why do you think that an artisan is the first person said to be filled with the Spirit of God? If God’s Spirit was upon them, why did they need the skill set they had? Have you ever partnered with God? Have you ever felt filled with God’s Spirit? When? What are your spiritual gifts? How are you using them to build up the house of God?

“Where the spirit does not work with the hand there is no art.” - Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519)

Hammering Out Cherubim (Exodus 25:18)

What was on either end of the mercy seat above the Ark of the Covenant? A cherub (Exodus 25:18)

In the midst of the Israelites’ wilderness wandering, God lays out specific instructions regarding the tabernacle and its contents (Exodus 25-31). The first item detailed is the Ark of the Covenant, a chest that represents the Old Testament’s most holy article (Exodus 25:10-22).

Stephen J. Binz (b. 1955) acknowledges:

The ark takes first place among the elements of the Dwelling due to its central importance in the whole structure. It is the symbol and vehicle of God’s nearness with Israel, serving as both container for the symbols of the covenant and as throne for Yahweh’s presence. Its size was unimposing; a cubit [Exodus 25:10] represented the distance from one’s elbow to fingertips. The opulence of its gold plating and molding suggests its importance as the most sacred object in the Dwelling. (Binz, God of Freedom and Life: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 99)

The second half of the instructions describe the construction of the “atonement cover” (MSG, NIV, NLT) or “mercy seat” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NSRV, RSV), the box’s top (Exodus 25:17-22). Two golden cherubim (the plural of cherub) are ordered to flank the mercy seat (Exodus 25:18).

You shall make two cherubim of gold, make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. (Exodus 25:18 NASB)

It is between these cherubim that God promises to speak to the Israelites (Exodus 25:22).

Douglas K. Stuart (b. 1943) details:

The dimensions of the atonement cover are exactly those of the lid of the ark (see Exodus 25:10) it was designed to fit over precisely. It was to be made of pure gold, not a slab of wood overlaid with gold as the rest of the major surfaces of the ark were. At its ends were two pure “hammered gold” statues of uncertain height (but probably more than a cubit high at the very most and more likely only a few inches high in light of the overall proportions of the ark) that portrayed cherubim. (Stuart, Exodus (The New American Commentary, Vol. 2), 571)

Cherubim are supernatural beings often equated with angels. Aside from their name, Exodus provides no further description of the creatures.

Peter Enns (b. 1961) denotes:

The sudden reference to these creatures (in the Pentateuch cherubim also occur in Genesis 3:24 and Numbers 7:89) implies that they need no explanation for the Israelite readers. Cherubim appear not only over the cover but throughout the design of the tabernacle, a sign that the tabernacle is a symbolic representation of God’s heavenly dwelling...The presence of the cherubim also emphasizes the holiness of the ark...It is God’s location above the cover and between the cherubim that has led some scholars to regard the cover as God’s throne and the ark itself his footstool. This is not just a scholarly conjecture. A number of passages speak of God being enthroned between the cherubim (I Samuel 4:4; II Samuel 6:2; Psalm 80:1, 99:1). (Enns, Exodus (The NIV Application Commentary), 512)

Cherubim become the first angels to appear in the Bible when they guard the abandoned garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24). In Exodus, they reprise their role as bodyguards, symbolically guarding the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18).

Mark S. Smith (b. 1955) catalogs:

Cherubim guard the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24), and they mark the walls of the Jerusalem temple (I Kings 6:29-32; cf. Ezekiel 41:18-10). In II Samuel 22:11 (Psalm 18:11) the Lord rides his cherub on the wind. Two cherubs make up two sides of a royal throne on a piece of ivory from Megiddo; the comparison suggests that the ark had a propitiatory function as a throne, with the Lord serving as divine king. Adding the sizes of the ark and the propitiatory heights, the seat of the throne stands five feet in height and conjures a picture of a superman-size divine king. (Smith, Exodus (New Collegeville Bible Commentary), 97)

The cherubim are one of the most distinctive aspects of the Ark of the Covenant. Waldemar Janzen (b. 1932) lauds:

Its outstanding features are its two cherubim of gold...one mounted on each end of the cover and facing each other (Exodus 25:19-20). Neither their features nor their function are described, beyond the reference to faces and wings...Artists have depicted in diverse ways not only their appearance but also their position on the mercy seat and the way their wings touch each other. (Janzen, Exodus (Believers Church Bible Commentary), 340)

John I. Durham (b. 1933) describes:

These cherubs were to be made with their wings spread and stretched out over the Ark-Cover, their bodies turned toward each other, their faces bowed towards the Ark-Cover. The cherubs have usually been connected with Yahweh’s throne, both as guardians and bearers. (Durham, Exodus (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 3), 359)

Richard A. Gabriel (b. 1942) sees a strong parallel between the Ark’s winged cherubim and the Egyptian throne room:

The relief at Abu Simbel...shows Ramses’ cartouche, the Egyptian symbol of the presence of the god that Ramses was regarded to be, flanked on either side by a representation of the falcon god, Horus. The wings of Horus cover pharaoh’s garden throne in a symbol of divine protection. The relief is starkly similar to the description of the wings of the two cherubim that cover and protect Yahweh’s golden throne in the Tabernacle. (Gabriel, The Military History of Ancient Israel, 96)

J. Gerald Janzen (b. 1932) adds:

The cherubim resemble figures in Assyrian and Canaanite art that can flank a throne. In the tabernacle, they serve as the throne or throne-flank above which the LORD is invisibly seated. Their symbolism receives added dimension from the reference to cherubim in Genesis 3:24. There, the cherubim guard a sacred garden with its tree of life, intended for human habitation but now guarded from further profanation by those who have violated the life-serving law of that garden. (Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Companion), 195)

The ornamentation would have been quite expensive. Gayle A. McCoy estimates:

Made of hammered pure gold, these cherubim, according to Exodus 25:18...were “graven in gold.”...The Bible does not give us an exact size of the cherubim, but we can estimate the approximate size because the cherubim were large enough that their wings touched over the mercy seat (Exodus 25:20). The cherubim could have been cast or molded on an armature making the figures hollow. As we see in...Exodus 25:12, casting was a known Egyptian skill at this time. If sculpture-forming by use of an armature was knot known at that time, the molding could have been on average about half-inch thick...On the other hand, if they were solid gold figures, they would weigh much, much more than hollow figures. Let us assume that they used hollow figures and covered them with approximately 904 lbs. of gold. “Graven,” meaning to carve (Exodus 25:18), is as close as the Bible tells us how the cherubim were formed. Of course, carving is essentially what a sculptor does, whether in wood, stone or clay. (McCoy, God’s Golden Box: The Ark of the Covenant, 83)

Exactly what cherubim look like is subject to debate. H.L. Ellison (1903-1983) recognizes:

The cherubim are variously depicted. Here they are not described, but there are variants between Ezekiel 1:5-12, 41:18-10; Revelation 4:6-7. They are apparently the guardian spirits of this earthly creation: the description is symbolic, and so variation is unimportant. (Ellison, Exodus (Old Testament Daily Study Bible Series), 142)

James K. Bruckner (b. 1957) adds:

The text does not describe the features of the cherubim in further detail, but it is certain they were not the chubby winged boys of European art. Ezekiel pictures them with four faces each (man, lion, ox, eagle; Ezekiel 10:14) and also with two faces (man and lion; Ezekiel 41:18-19). Tradition describes them as having the face of a man and the body of a bill or lion (like a sphinx). Their functions are to guard holy things and attend the Lord. In Genesis 3:24, cherubim guarded the entrance to the garden of Eden, in order to protect the tree of life. The cherubim are the Lord’s chariot in Psalm 18:10, and also in Ezekiel 10. (Bruckner, Exodus (New International Biblical Commentary), 240-241)

Though most likely inaccurate, cherubim have long been associated with childish features. Joel M. Hoffman (b. 1968) traces this fallacy back to the great Jewish rabbi, Rashi (1040-1105):

Rashi [1040-1105] points out that the cherubs have “the image of a child’s face.” His reasoning? The Hebrew word for cherubs is kruvim, a word that happens to sound like the Aramaic word k’ravya. (The similarity is more pronounced in Hebrew than in English transliterations here, because in Hebrew vowels are generally less important than they are in English.) The Aramaic prefix k’ravya means “like child” in Aramaic. Rashi, basing his decision on the mid-first-millennium Babylonian Talmud, concludes that the kruvim must be k’ravya—that is, the cherubs must be “like a child.” (Hoffman, And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning, 29-30)

There is one constant in the depiction of cherubim. Jennie R. Ebeling (b. 1972) relays:

The only uniformity among the many examples known from ancient Near Eastern art is that cherubim were winged creatures. Statues and reliefs depicting various types of cherubim have been found at many Near Eastern sites, including Aleppo, Carchemish, and Byblos; carved ivory depictions of cherubim have been found at Samaria and Nimrud. Many examples of colossal winged bulls and other beasts are known from Babylonian and Assyrian palaces and temples. (David Noel Freedman [1922-2008], Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 233)

The reason for the winged creatures’ presence atop the mercy seat is not specified. Nahum M. Sarna (1923-2005) concludes:

Whatever the original inspiration, the cherubim of the Tabernacle certainly communicate some concepts of God that are fundamental to the religion of Israel. As bearers of the celestial throne, they evoke belief in divine, transcendent sovereignty. Their permanent place above the Ark expresses God’s immanence—His enduring presence in the covenanated community of Israel. Their outstretched wings represent the idea of consummate mobility, that is, of God’s omnipresence. (Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus, 161)

What sensation is the imagery of the Ark of the Covenant designed to evoke? What does the architecture of the Ark communicate about God? Why are cherubs perched atop Israel’s holiest artifact? How do you visualize cherubs? Do these cherubim violate the second commandment’s prohibition against graven images?

Some have seen a contradiction between the mandate to adorn the ark with golden cherubim (Exodus 25:18-20) and the disallowance of creating “graven images” issued just five chapters earlier (Exodus 20:4-5; Deuteronomy 4:15- 16). The forbidden graven images are those that would be worshiped as false gods. In contrast, others have used this passage to support the veneration of images, seeing the passage as irrefutable evidence that iconography has an approved place in authorized worship.

Sergius Bulgakov (1871-1944) deciphers:

In the Old Testament, alongside the prohibition of humanlike images, it was commanded that sculptural gold images of angels be made. What meaning can we attach to this apparent contradiction, which for some proves that human images were prohibited while for others is proves just the opposite? The portrayal of angels — and this is the crux of the matter — contained human images, in virtue of the cohumanity of angels. Of course they differed from human images in some of their particular traits, that expressed their specifically angelic nature (wings, the absence of gender, a youthful appearance), but these traits did not change the human character of the image itself (just as in general the Old Testament angelophanies were in the human image). Thus, even though the religious reproduction of the human image, the icon of humanity, was prohibited directly, it was prescribed indirectly, in the icons of angels. Why? The reason is obvious: in the portrayals of angels the human image was not darkened by sin. (Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God, 59-60)

Jon E. Roeckelein (b.1937) chronicles:

Curiously, F.L. Cross [1900-1968] and E.A. Livingstone...state that “there is no mention of imagery in the New Testament, as at least from the time of the Maccabees the Palestinian Jews had observed the second commandment religiously” (cf. W.E. Vine [1873-1949] [1981], and a literal distinction between the terms image and imagery; while the term image actually is used in the New Testament [e.g., II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3], the derivative term imagery as referring to idols, statues, and images–as objects of worship or veneration and as employed in the Old Testament—does not appear in the New Testament.) However, Cross and Livingstone..also state that “[i]t was only when the theological significance of the Incarnation came to be more fully grasped, and what was involved in the fact that God had become visible by making human nature better understood, that, to many, there seemed to be no further obstacle to the use of images and other products of artistic gifts of mankind in the service of the true religion.” (Roeckelein, Imagery in Psychology: A Reference Guide, 135)

How does your church visually promote worship? How important is aesthetics to a place of worship? Why? Do visual representations of spiritual ideas help your faith?

“The image is more than an idea. It is a vortex or cluster of fused ideas and is endowed with energy.” - Ezra Pound (1885-1972), “Affirmations IV: As for Imagisme”. New Age 16.13 (January 28, 1915), pages 349-350

God’s Architecture (Revelation 21:18)

Of what material is the wall constructed in the Holy City? Jasper (Revelation 21:18)

Near the conclusion of Revelation, John records a vision of the Holy City, the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-27). He paints a picture of an opulent metropolis. Among the vivid details he provides is a city wall made of jasper.

The material of the wall was jasper; and the city was pure gold, like clear glass. (Revelation 21:18 NASB)

Jasper is a compact translucent variety of quartz of the type called chalcedony. The name means “spotted (or speckled) stone”. Though commonly associated with shades of red, jasper is an opaque rock that can reflect virtually any color depending upon the mineral content of its original source. The ancient term “jasper” was not as precise as modern nomenclature. George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982) explains, “The word for ‘jasper’ in antiquity was not limited to the type of stone we call jasper, but could designate any transparent precious stone (Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, 281).”

There is some debate as to the extent that jasper was used in the composition of the Holy City’s wall. Leon Morris (1914-2006) analyzed a Greek word (used only in Revelation 21:18) and concluded that “the word endōmēsis is unusual, but apparently means that of which the wall was built. In that case, it did not simply have jasper built into it but was built of jasper (Morris, Revelation (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 244).”

Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) counters, writing that “because in the following verse the first of the city’s twelve foundations is made of jasper (Revelation 22:19), it would be well to understand this reference as indicating some sort of inlay of precious stone rather than solid jasper as a building material...In either case it is the splendor and worth of the wall that is so graphically reported (Mounce, The Book of Revelation (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) , 393).”

The building materials of the Holy city are like no human city. Human walls are not built with jasper. In addition to not being cost effective, the mineral breaks with a smooth surface, and as such is used for ornamentation or as a gemstone. Jasper is not used as a primary building material but rather to augment for aesthetic reasons. The wall is indicative of the Holy City’s other worldly quality.

Have you ever seen or heard of any edifice made of jasper? If you could construct your home from any material, what would it be? Why was the Holy City’s wall made of jasper?

This is not the first time that jasper is mentioned in Revelation. More than half of the Bible’s seven jasper references are in it’s final book (Exodus 28:20, 39:19; Ezekiel 28:13; Revelation 4:3, 21:11, 18, 19). The Holy City’s wall harkens back to the heavenly throne room where the One upon the throne appears like jasper (Revelation 4:3) and “before the throne there was something like a sea of glass, like crystal” (Revelation 4:6 NASB). As such, jasper is representative of God’s glory and the city exudes the glory of its maker and ruler.

The Holy City’s wall is of God and reveals God. Brian K. Blount (b. 1956) summarizes, “The same glory is symbolically embedded in the city’s very architectural essence (Blount, Revelation: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 390).”

As Satan has been vanquished (Revelation 20:10) and city walls were designed to protect, why does the Holy City need a wall? Why is jasper associated with God? Have you ever met anyone whose house suited them? In what ways does your home project your essence?

“Architecture is basically a container of something. I hope they will enjoy not so much the teacup, but the tea.” - renowned architect Yoshio Taniguchi (b. 1937)