- 58-
intended rather as a general warning, than as an answer to his petition, and are such as
would befit the period of temptation, before Solomon, carried away by the splendor of
his success, yielded himself to the luxury, weakness, and sin of his older age. From all
these considerations we conclude that the Feast of the Dedication, which lasted seven
days, took place in the seventh month, that of Ethanim, or of "flowing brooks,"^123 (the
later Tishri), of the year after the completion of the Temple (eleven months after it),
and immediately before the Feast of Tabernacles, which, with the concluding
solemnity, lasted eight days.
The account of the dedication of the Temple may be conveniently ranged under these
three particulars, the Consecration-Services, the Consecration-Prayer, and the
Consecration-Thanksgiving and Festive Offerings. But before describing them, it is
necessary to call attention to the remarkable circumstance that the chief, if not almost
the sole prominent agent in these services, was the king, the high-priest not being even
mentioned. Not that Solomon in any way interfered with, or arrogated to himself the
functions of the priesthood, but that, in the part which he took, he fully acted up to the
spirit of the monarchical institution as founded in Israel. Solomon was not "king"
according to the Saxon idea of cyning - cunning, mighty, illustrious, the embodiment
of strength. According to the terms of the Covenant, all Israel were God's servants
(Leviticus 25:42, 55; comp. Isaiah 41:8, 9; 44:1, 2, 21; 45:4; 49:3, 6; Jeremiah 30:10
and others). As such they were to be "a kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6) "the priest,"
in the stricter sense of the term, being only the representative of the people, with
certain distinctive functions ad hoc. But what the nation was, as a whole, that Israel's
theocratic king was pre-eminently the servant of the LORD (1 Kings 8:25, 28, 29, 52,
59). It was in this capacity that Solomon acted at the dedication of the Temple, as his
own words frequently indicate (see the passages just quoted). In this manner the
innermost and deepest idea of the character of Israel and of Israel's king as "the
servant" of the LORD, became, so to speak, more and more individualized during the
progress of the Old Testament dispensation, until it stood out in all its fullness in the
Messiah - the climax of Israel and of Israelitish institutions - Who is the Servant of
Jehovah. Thus we perceive that the common underlying idea of the three great
institutions in Israel, which connected them all, was that of the Servant of Jehovah. The
prophet who uttered the voice of heaven upon earth was the servant of Jehovah (comp.,
for example, Numbers 12:7, 8; Joshua 1:2; Isaiah 20:3, etc.).^124
So was the priest, who spake the voice of earth to heaven; and the king, who made
heaven's voice to be heard on earth. That which gave its real meaning equally to this
threefold function; downwards, upwards, outwards - was the grand fact that in each of
them it was the Servant of Jehovah who was acting, or, in other words, that God was
all in all. With these general principles in view we shall be better able to understand
what follows.
(^)