Out of the city of David?

A verse that is often quoted by critics which they believe refutes the idea that Solomon’s temple was built in the city of David is 2 Chronicles 5:2 (Also 1 Kings 8:1):

Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, which is Zion.

The inference they make from this verse, (taken out of context by the way), is that it had to be taken out of the city of David in order to be brought into the newly built Solomon’s Temple in another location. However, I don’t think they fully realize the implications of this interpretation, because the Bible makes it very clear that the city of David and Jerusalem are two names for the same geographical location. [See: The Biblical Case for the Location of the Temple, Part 1] So, if it was taken out of the city of David, it was taken out of Jerusalem making the Temple to have been built OUTSIDE of Jerusalem which contradicts a multitude of Scriptures throughout the Bible which say that the temple was in Jerusalem.

How did the ark get in the city of David?

In 1 Samuel 4, the Elders of Israel had the ark brought from Shiloh to where they had set up camp to go against the Philistines in battle.  Since God had not instructed them to do that, the Philistines massacred the Israelite army and the Philistines captured the ark.

The Philistines put the Ark in the house of Dagon, the fish god, and some unpleasant events followed during the seven months they were in possession of it, so when they had enough, the Philistines put it on a cart and sent it off on its own.  It went to Beth-shemesh which then sent messengers to the inhabitant of Kirjath-jearim to tell them to come and get the ark. [1 Samuel 5 and 6]

The men of Kirjath-jearim then came and got the ark and brought it to the house of Abinadab and sanctified his son Eleazar to keep the ark.  It stayed there for twenty years, during which the house of Abinadab was greatly blessed.  [1 Samuel 7:2]

Hearing how well the house of Abinadab had done with the ark located there, David tried to move the Ark to the city of David, but he didn’t do it properly and Uzziah was killed when he touched the ark.  So David was afraid to bring it to the city.  It remained with the family of Obed-edom for three more months.  [2 Samuel 6 and 1 Chronicles 13]

After awhile David decided to try again, only this time he did it correctly.  He first prepared a place for the Ark and pitched a tent for it.  He gathered all Israel together to Jerusalem to bring up the Ark  unto the place that he had prepared for it.  He did it right this time and had the Levites bring it to the city of David.  [1 Chronicles 15 ]

They brought the Ark and set it in the midst of the tent that David had pitched for it, and they offered burnt-sacrifices and peace-offerings before God. [1 Chronicles 16:1.]

David assigned Asaph and his brethren to minister by the ark (1 Chronicles 16:37) and Zadok the priest and his brethren stayed at the Tabernacle of the Congregation (which Moses had made in the wilderness) in the high place that was at Gibeon which was approximately 6 miles away. (1 Chronicles 16:39)

Both accounts in 2 Samuel 6:12 and 1 Chronicles 15:29; 16:1 state that the Ark was brought into the city of David and set in its place in the tent that David had prepared for it.

This makes it very clear that the ark indeed was kept in the city of David.  2 Chronicles 1:4 summarizes the entire event but states that David pitched a tent for it AT JERUSALEM:

But the ark of God had David brought up from Kirjath-jearim to the place which David had prepared for it: for he had pitched a tent for it AT JERUSALEM.

Years later, when Solomon was king, he went to Gibeon to sacrifice there and gave a thousand burnt-offerings on the altar.  That night, while still at Gibeon, he had the famous dream where God told Solomon to ask him for anything, and Solomon asked for wisdom to rule the people of Israel.  When Solomon woke up “he came to JERUSALEM, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the LORD and offered up burnt-offerings, and offered peace-offerings, and made a feast to all his servants.” (1 Kings 3:15)

The above verses show that the city of David and Jerusalem were one in the same and that the Ark was located there.  [in Jerusalem / the city of David]

So, why did they have to take the ark out of the city of David / Jerusalem?

The answer is found by reading the verses that follow in 2 Chronicles 5:1-7 [also 1 Kings 8:1-6.]

Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of he tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel unto Jerusalem, to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion. [2 Chronicles 5:2]

First, all of the men of Israel and the elders of Israel assembled for the feast which was in the seventh month called Ethanim, now known as Tishri. [verses 3 & 4]  and once assembled the Levites picked up the Ark and took it out of the city of David / Jerusalem in the correct manner and walked approximately 6 miles to the high place at Gibeon where the Tabernacle of the Congregation that was made in the wilderness was located, and they gathered up the Tabernacle and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle [verse 5] and the whole processesion went to a location [not specified*] where there was room for the whole group including all of the sheep and oxen they sacrificed which could not be told nor numbered for the multitude. [verse 6]  They could not gather inside of the city of David / Jerusalem because it was only a 12-acre piece of land which would have houses and other buildings needed for a city.

Then, after all of the sacrifices were concluded, “the priest brought in the ark of the covenant of the LORD unto his place, to the oracle of the house into the most holy place, even under the wings of cherubim.” [verse 7]

Solomon’s Temple was built in the city of David / Jerusalem, over the threshing floor that David purchased from Ornan the Jebusite, which makes it impossible for it to have ever been on the “so-called” Temple Mount, because it would have been outside of the geographical location called Jerusalem.

_____________________
*As to the unspecified location of the sacrifices, I think it is natural to assume that since the Temple was completed, they would sacrifice on the altar provided in the Temple.  The people would all be gathered in the Kidron Valley, but since the Bible doesn’t specify, we can only make educated guesses.

Bob Cornuke refutes with evidence the criticism presented in a video of David Regan and Randall Price where they claim that:

1. The drawings shown in the book are not “to scale”
2. The size of the temple is wrong
3. The size of the Roman Fort is wrong
4. There IS water on the Temple Mount
5. You can’t see the city of David from the Mt. of Olives

And more…

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

Anyone who has seen the ancient, massive stone walls of the so-called “temple mount” will at some point think about what Jesus said regarding the destruction of the temple—that no stone would be left upon another as stated by Jesus in Matthew 24:2 and Mark 13:2.  If the walls were part of the temple compound, then why are there still all those stones left?

Did Jesus lie?  Was his statement just a hyperbole (an exaggeration to make a point)?  The excuse is usually given that in Mark 13:2, Jesus was speaking of the temple buildings only, not the outer walls, because Jesus states:  “Seest thou these great buildings?  There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

I would argue that anything that has been built is technically a “building.”  The stone walls consist of four walls.  You could say it is a building without a ceiling.  However, it really doesn’t matter, because in another passage, Jesus states very specifically that “not one stone would be left upon another” of the entire City of Jerusalem in Luke 19:42-44:

And when he was come near, he beheld the CITY [Jerusalem], and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.  For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee [Jerusalem], and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee [Jerusalem] one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

There is no indication in this passage (or the Matthew and Mark passages) that Jesus was employing hyperbole (exaggerating), so either he was mistaken or lying, (both impossible) OR those stone walls were never a part of Jerusalem nor a part of the temple complex in the first place.  As discussed in Part 1, the Bible makes it clear that the temple was in the City of David, not on the geographical area incorrectly called the temple mount.

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSaveSaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

The Bible describes exactly where Solomon’s temple was built in 2 Chronicles 3:1

Then Solomon began to build the house of the LORD at Jerusalem in mount Moriah, where the LORD appeared unto David his father, in the place that David had prepared in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

However, if you don’t know the Old Testament, this won’t mean anything to you. I’m sure you would know where Jerusalem is, but do you know where Mount Moriah is? Do you know the story about David and Ornan the Jebusite? Do you know the relevant history regarding Jebus/Jerusalem from the book of Joshua?

From 2 Chronicles 3:1 we know that Solomon’s Temple was located IN Jerusalem. The book of Ezra also states this plainly in Ezra 1:2,3,5; 2:68; 6:5 among others, and 7:27. Mount Moriah (which is only named in 2 Chronicles 3:1 and in Genesis 22:2) is likely a mountain range, but won’t be essential to this study.

Since 2 Chronicles 3:1 specifically states that Solomon’s Temple was located in Jerusalem, and the Temple was to be built upon the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, we know that the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite must be in a specific spot within the city of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem at the time of David covered a very small area so the threshingfloor must have been located within that specific geographical area. Currently, the city of Jerusalem covers a much larger area. It is important not to commit the fallacy of superimposing what you see today over what existed at the specific time we are looking at. Even the topography of the land was significantly different at that time.

The story of David and the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite is given in 1 Chronicles 21:18-30. Following the instructions that God commanded Gad to give him, David went to Ornan the Jebusite to build an altar to the LORD. Ornan wanted to give it to David, but David insisted on purchasing it. David built the altar there on the threshing floor. He could not offer sacrifices at the normal place, which was the altar of the burnt-offering in the tabernacle of the LORD located in “the high place at Gibeon” because he was afraid of the sword of the Angel of the Lord.

So three main facts have been established:

1. The Temple of Solomon was built within the geographical area covered by the city of Jerusalem at the time of David. It had to be within that area, or it would not have been in Jerusalem as is specifically stated.

2. The Temple was built on the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite

3. The threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite was within the geographical area covered by the city of Jerusalem at the time of David. It could not have been outside the city of Jerusalem.

This may seem elementary, but it is important to keep these facts in mind at all times because the geographical area covered by the city of Jerusalem is essential to pinpointing the location of Solomon’s temple, and those that were built thereafter.

Jerusalem is the City of David

Jerusalem was originally occupied by the Jebusites—it was sometimes called Jebus, but was called Jerusalem a number of times. This is made clear by several verses—Joshua 15:8,63; 18:28; Judges 1:21; 19:10 and also 2 Samuel 5:6 which states:

And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.

But David “took the strong hold of Zion” i.e. the fortress (v7) by going up a watershaft from the Gihon Spring. David then lived in the fortress and called it “The City of David.” (v9). The Israelites could not drive the Jebusites out, so they lived with them until at least the time of the writing of Joshua and Judges. [Joshua 15:63 and Judges 1:21].

This event occurred sometime before David purchased the threshingfield from Ornan the Jebusite which was discussed earlier. So the geographical parcel of land which was Jerusalem at that time was also the exact location of the city of David because they were synonymous.

According to most any reference material out there, the Jebusite city called Jerusalem and also called the City of David, was a relatively small parcel of land, and the borders seem to be agreed upon by most of them. You can see an example map here: Map of Jebus or Jerusalem.  [Look at the third image from the top]

[Warning: Do not take the labeling on any map of the Jerusalem area for granted. Many of the labels are wrong, which will be shown in a future post. However, the basic geographical borders of the Jebusite City/The City of David is virtually identical on most maps.]

So now we know that Solomon’s temple had to be built within the City of Jerusalem/City of David specifically in the spot where Ornan the Jebusite’s threshingfloor was at the time of David. Any area outside of that place cannot be the location of any future temple either. The temple cannot be outside of the geographical area occupied by Jerusalem/City of David at the time of David.

The current area called “The Temple Mount” is OUTSIDE of that geographical area, so the temple could not have been located anywhere on it, unless you go against scripture.

[As always, I welcome comments and questions on this topic. Please keep them short and concise.]

Next:  The Biblical Case for the Location of the Temple Part 2

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave

SaveSave