© Mark K.

George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from

author
Tabernacle and Temple Spaces
Mark K. George
Assistant Professor of Hebrew Bible
Iliff School of Theology
2000 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting

Introduction

To claim that space is a prominent, if not a dominant, concept in the Hebrew Bible is perhaps to
claim the obvious. There are a great number of spatial concepts and concerns in the Hebrew
Bible. At the same time, to claim space is an important concept in the Hebrew Bible is not to
claim that conceptions of space in the Hebrew Bible are the same. Indeed, there are a great
variety of ideas about space in the text, for conceptions of space range from creation, to
terrestrial interpretations of space (land, geographic regions, national boundaries, tribal and clan
spaces), to human interpretations of space (cities, buildings, houses), to religious interpretations
of space (temples, shrines), to relational interpretations of space (genealogies, kinship
relationships, tribal and national lands), to say nothing of the ways in which these interpretations
intertwine and overlap one another. The diversity of concepts about space in the Hebrew Bible
is not surprising, since it is widely accepted that there are sources in these texts that come from a
variety of historical and cultural contexts, and that these sources were reused by later authors,
editors, and redactors to create the texts that eventually became canonized in the Hebrew Bible.1
The diversity of spatial concepts results in both implicit and explicit challenges and competition
between concepts, and for years biblical scholars have used these challenges to identify and label
the sources in the text and then to write a history of Israel or Israel’s religion based on their
conclusions about those sources and texts. But what about the reality of the space being
described in the text (to say nothing of the text’s own space)? Consideration of the space
described by the text often has been paid less scholarly attention in favor of temporal, historical
concerns in the text. What happens, however, when the challenges and competition between
different concepts of space are considered in and of themselves, as competing claims about
space, about the production of space and the presuppositions that underlie and produce that
space? This challenge and competition between concepts of space reflects different
interpretations of space, that is, different interpretations about what it means to live in and to
produce that space.2

In this paper I want to consider three particular structures from the Hebrew Bible, as part of a
preliminary attempt at addressing issues of space that are represented by these structures: the
tabernacle, the Solomonic temple, and the Second temple. These three structures come from
distinct periods in Israel’s history (at least as that “history” is presented in the biblical text). The
tabernacle was constructed by the Israelites at Mt. Sinai after the people had left Egypt and
entered into a covenant with YHWH. Solomon built a temple in Jerusalem during the United
Monarchy as part of his larger building program, a program that resulted in both a palace for
Solomon and a temple for YHWH. The Second temple, built as part of the return of the people to
Jerusalem after the exile, was encouraged by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah and sponsored
by Kings Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes of Persia.

1
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author

Scholars have studied these structures and their descriptions in the biblical text for such reasons
as their historical value, their comparative value with their ancient Near eastern counterparts
(both temples and tent shrines), and for their theological and political importance. The question
of the Second temple continues to have enormous political, theological, and social impact as the
question of political control of Jerusalem is debated even today, between Jews, Christians,
Muslims, and Palestinians. Scholars also have interpreted these structures in explicit symbolic
terms (for example, the tabernacle texts have been interpreted as symbolizing creation [Philo,
Bähr] and later as the Church [Origen]). Each of these structures is of particular religious
significance. The tabernacle is the place where YHWH dwells among the people and is the
movable shrine of YHWH. It is the structure for which YHWH expresses a preference in 2 Samuel
7, the text in which David expresses his desire to build a temple for YHWH, a building that will
stabilize and “fix” YHWH to a particular space. The Solomonic temple is the realization of
David’s desires and serves, among other things, to make Jerusalem both the political and
theological capital of the nation. The (re-)building of the Second temple in Jerusalem signifies,
again among other things, the return of the people to Judah and Jerusalem and the reestablishing
of the cult in Jerusalem. With the completion of this temple, Ezra reads to the people from the
book of the law of Moses (Neh. 8) and, according to tradition, initiates Judaism.

That these three structures should be able to produce so many different interpretations is not
surprising. Structures such as the tabernacle and temples are caught up in a web of meanings and
possible meanings in which the dominant meanings shift depending on what actions are being
performed on them, by whom, when, and from where. Thus a consideration and comparison of
these structures could be a large undertaking. For this paper, however, I want to be more
modest, and therefore I will look only at the accounts of the construction of these structures and
consider the different ways in which space is described in these accounts. These differences
reflect and express, I propose, what H. Lefebvre calls a “logic of visualization,” that is, they
describe a social space that both produces and is produced by multiple, complex social
relationships. Each account reflects particular social and cultural conditions, certain
presuppositions about the world and social space, and those presuppositions and conditions
resulted in these particular structures. What I will seek to accomplish in this article is to begin to
elucidate those conditions and presuppositions, so as to open up the interpretations of these
structures in new ways.

Descriptions of the Structures

The texts describing the tabernacle (both its plan and construction) are found in Exodus 25-31
and 35-40. Solomon’s temple is described in 1 Kings 5:1-6:37; 7:13-51 (cf. 2 Chronicles 3-5),
and the Second temple is described as being (re-)built in Ezra 3:6-13; 4:1-5, 24; 5:1-17; 6:3-12,
14-15.3

The Tabernacle
The order of construction of the tabernacle is described quite clearly. The construction begins
with the building of the tabernacle out of ten curtains of fine, twisted linen (Ex. 36:8-13). This is
followed by a tent made from 11 curtains of goats’ hair (Ex. 36:14-18) and then two coverings
for the tent, one made of tanned rams’ skin (Ex. 36:19) and the other of fine leather (Ex. 36:19).

2
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
Wooden frames (that are overlaid with gold) with silver bases and pegs, along with wooden bars
overlaid with gold that pass through the frames, are constructed to support the curtains of the
tabernacle (Ex. 36:20-36). These are followed by the construction of a curtain of yarns and fine
twisted linen, with its pillars of wood overlaid with gold and its silver hooks and bases, to
separate the space of the most holy place (Ex. 36:35-37; cf 26:33) and a screen of yarns, fine
twisted needlework, and embroidery, with pillars and bronze bases, for the entrance of the tent
(Ex. 36:37-38). With the completion of the tabernacle and tent, a court is constructed out of
twisted linen, bronze pillars and bases, and silver hooks and bands (Ex. 38:9-13), and a gate of
fine twisted linen, with pillars, bases, bands and hooks (of silver and bronze; Ex. 38:14-17).
Like the tent, the court is provided with a screen of yarns, fine twisted needlework, and
embroidery, with bases, bands, hooks, and pegs of silver and bronze (Ex. 38:18-21). Dimensions
for each of these spaces is also provided (Ex. 36:9, 15, 19, 21; 38:9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18). It
also is important to note that, while there is a particular orientation to the tabernacle (its opening
faces East; cf. Ex. 38:13), there is no particular location for the tabernacle, since it is a portable
tent shrine.

Solomon’s Temple
The construction of Solomon’s temple is less detailed and clear than that of the tabernacle.
Solomon prepares to build the temple by paying Hiram of Tyre for the cedar and cypress
Solomon needs (1 Kgs 5:6, 8, -11), and by raising a corvée both to supply the lumber (1 Kgs
5:13-14), and to provide the stone (1 Kgs 6:15-18). Solomon built the temple in a rectangular
shape (according to the dimensions provided in 1 Kgs 6:2, 3, 6, 10, 16, 17, 20), with a vestibule
in the front of the temple (1 Kgs 6:3) and a structure around the temple (of three stories; 1 Kgs
6:5-6). The walls were made of cedar that was carved and overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:15, 18,
20, 29), and a floor of cypress overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:15, 30). Solomon made an inner
sanctuary or most holy place of cedar that was overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:16, 21) and that had a
golden chain in front of it to separate it from the nave (1 Kgs 6:21). Carved wooden doors
overlaid with gold stood at the entrance to the most holy place (1 Kgs 6:31-32), as did carved
wooden doors and door-posts overlaid with gold, which stand at the entrance to the nave of the
temple (1 Kgs 6:33-35). The precise orientation and location of the temple are not specified in
the text, although scholars assume the temple is constructed in Jerusalem, an inference
presumably based on 1 Kgs 8:1, in which Solomon gathers “the elders of Israel and all the heads
of the tribes, the leaders of the ancestral houses of the Israelites, before King Solomon in
Jerusalem” to dedicate the temple.4

The Second Temple

The construction of the Second temple is something altogether different from either the
tabernacle or Solomon’s temple, because unlike those structures the description of the Second
temple’s construction is almost completely unconcerned with describing the construction process
itself. Only two parts of the building are described as being constructed, namely the foundations
of the altar (Ezra 3:2-3) and the temple (Ezra 3:10). The dimensions of the building are
provided, but only in an indirect fashion (they are recounted as part of the reading of King
Cyrus’ edict; Ezra 6:3). It is notable that these dimensions (sixty cubits high by sixty cubits
wide) do not match those of Solomon’s temple (sixty cubits long by twenty cubits wide by thirty
cubits high; 1 Kgs 6:2), which indicates the Second temple is a different space than that of
Solomon’s temple (even if the text insists the Second temple is built on the site of the first

3
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
temple). The materials used to build the Second temple also are described in an indirect fashion:
the opponents to the project describe the materials being used in a letter of protest to King Darius
(Ezra 5:7-17). It is through this report that one learns hewn stone is being used for the building
and timber is being used for the walls (Ezra 5:8). Nothing is said, however, about how the space
is being divided, as it was for the tabernacle and Solomon’s temple, nor is the temple’s
orientation specified. The location of this temple, however, is made clear: it rests on the
foundations of the former temple (Ezra 2:65; 5:15; 6:7). Location is very important for this
temple.

There are several aspects of the descriptions of these three structures that need to be mentioned
here, because these descriptions are not the same, whether in terms of the length of the
descriptions, the list of items to be produced for each structure, or the details provided in each
description. The texts describing the tabernacle comprise some thirteen chapters (457 verses) in
the Book of Exodus. This textual space stands in sharp contrast with the almost three chapters
(94 verses) devoted to describing the construction of Solomon’s temple, and the one chapter and
parts of three others, a total of 43 verses, that describes the construction of the Second temple.
The textual space devoted to describing each of these structures is itself an indication of the webs
of meaning that surround and are inscribed on these structures and the different ways space is
produced by these structures.

The lists of items provided about each structure also vary between accounts. The tabernacle
description includes both instructions from YHWH on what to build and who is to build it
(Exodus 25-31) as well as an account of the actual construction and carrying out of those
instructions (Exodus 35-40).5 Furthermore, the list of things built (as per YHWH’s instructions)
includes not only the structure but also the furniture for the structure, the garments to be worn by
the priests, how the priests are to be ordained, and instructions on sabbath observance. No
building plans are recorded for either Solomon’s temple (but compare 1 Chr. 22:2-5, which
describes David’s “preparations” for the temple Solomon will build; do these preparations
include building plans for Solomon to follow?) or the Second temple. Solomon’s temple is
described in terms of the structure and some of the furniture for the building, while the Second
temple is described only in terms of the construction process and opposition to that process, not
in terms of the furniture for the building (although items used in the first temple and carried
away to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar are said to be returned to Jerusalem for use in the rebuilt
temple).

Finally, the level of detail about the structures is quite different. The tabernacle description
includes such details as the number and color of loops sewn onto the edge of the curtains of the
tabernacle, the colors and types of yarns used to make the curtains and screens of the tabernacle,
the materials out of which the hooks for the curtain and screen were made, and the number of
pillars constructed to support these items. Solomon’s temple is described with some similar
details—for example, there are carvings in the walls and doors—but the level of detail is not as
high as the tabernacle texts. Details in the description of the Second temple are almost
completely lacking, apart from catalogues of what was returned to the temple from the treasuries
of King Cyrus or how much materiel was collected for the rebuilding project.

4
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
Space and Social Practice

Particular social practices are associated with and evidenced in the descriptions of these three
structures, but they are not all the same practices, because these structures are different.
Lefebvre argues that social practice involves those human behaviors that are produced and
reproduced in a particular space, and each of these particular spaces produces particular types of
social practices and behaviors.6

The Tabernacle
For the tabernacle, ritual behaviors are produced and reproduced in this space. There are special
clothes worn by the priests when they officiate in the tabernacle (Ex. 28:1-43; 39:1-31). There
are distinctions between the priests, for Aaron has duties and responsibilities that differ from
those of the other priests, and Aaron is singled out by name from his sons (Ex. 27:21; 28:1-4, 12,
29, 30, 35, 38, 40-43; 29:4-11, 15, 19-21, 24, 26-28, 29-30, 32-33, 35, 44; 30:7-8, 19-21, 30;
31:10; 39:1, 27, 41; 40:12-15, 30-32). The people may enter the court before the tent of meeting,
but may not enter the tent. Moses, as the one who meets and speaks with YHWH and who
conveys the words of YHWH to the people, officiates at the ordination of Aaron and his sons as
priests, but then takes a more subordinate role within the tabernacle structure once Aaron and his
sons are ordained.

Solomon’s Temple
Similar social practices are implied for Solomon’s temple, but are not explicitly spelled out in
those texts. A “most holy place” is constructed in the temple (1 Kgs 6:16, 19, 20, 23-28, 31; 8:6-
10), thereby implying a similar ritual practice as the one that regulates, controls, and produces
social relations in the tabernacle, but this is not made clear in the text. Likewise, when Solomon
dedicates the temple, he and “all the people of Israel” (1 Kgs 8:2) assemble in Jerusalem,
presumably in the courtyard of the temple, indicating the space for the king and people is outside
the temple. The existence of the court, however, must be implied by the report that, after many
sacrifices, the priests take the ark of YHWH into the most holy place in the temple (1 Kgs 8:6).
The lack of explicit mention of the court may mean that space was not as important as other
spaces. The carrying of the ark into the most holy place by the priests indicates another social
practice, namely, that the king and people sacrifice, but do so outside the most holy place; only
the priests are to handle the ark and move it into the most holy place (and after the glory of
YHWH fills the most holy place, even the priests cannot enter that space; 1 Kgs 8:11). This
action indicates Solomon as king has taken over Moses’ role in the ritual process, for it is now
Solomon who assembles the people and arranges for the sacrifices, Solomon who has the ark of
David brought up from the city of David (is this meant to indicate a location for the temple?),
and makes the dedication speech for the temple (1 Kings 8).

The Second Temple

The social practices of the Second temple differ somewhat from those of the tabernacle and
Solomon’s temple. The priests and Levites lead the worship (not a government official; Ezra
3:10), and the people respond to the leadership of the priests and Levites (Ezra 3:11). Unlike the
other two structures, there is no mention of the most holy place in the Second temple, and
therefore no mention of particular person(s) who may enter that space.

5
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
Constructing Space as Social Practice

Another aspect of social practice relating to all three structures is the question of who gives
materials or permission for the structures to be built. The construction or production of these
spaces also has a social practice associated with it, and this practice is different for each
structure.

The Tabernacle
The tabernacle is constructed because YHWH commands it and provides the plans for it.7 YHWH
is, therefore, the one who gives permission for this building. Specific persons, Bezalel and
Oholiab, are inspired by YHWH to oversee the construction of the tabernacle (Ex. 35:30-35), and
other skilled individuals, both men and women, also work on it under their supervision (Ex.
35:25; 36:1, 2, 8). These people are not the only ones, however, with a role to play in the
construction of the tabernacle, for in response to YHWH’s command and plan, Moses asks for an
offering from the entire community (Ex. 35:4-29), and “everyone whose heart was stirred, and
everyone whose spirit was willing” (Ex. 35:20; cf. also 35:22, 26, , 29; 36:2) responded, as did
the leaders (Ex. 35:27). Thus all the people have a role to play in the construction of the
tabernacle.

Solomon’s Temple
The notion of a freewill offering is absent from Solomon’s temple, although the people do
participate in its construction, as corvée workers (1 Kgs 5:13-18). Solomon’s participation in
constructing the temple, however, is the crucial act that enables the temple to be built (1 Kgs 6:1,
2, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28-30, 32-33, 35, 36, 38), for the text makes clear it is
Solomon who gives the materials, even if Hiram of Tyre agrees to let Solomon purchase trees
from Lebanon (1 Kgs 5:1-12). YHWH comments on the work that is being done (1 Kgs 6:11-14),
but this is not permission to build the temple. Rather, YHWH’s words are conditional words
concerning Solomon’s future. YHWH plays a much different role in the building of the temple
than in the building of the tabernacle.

The Second Temple

Many people are involved in the building of the Second temple, either by giving permission for
the Second temple to be rebuilt, and/or by providing the materials necessary for its rebuilding.
Three Persian kings play a central role in the rebuilding effort. Cyrus’ edict makes the return and
rebuilding of the temple possible, and Cyrus further enables its rebuilding by returning the
temple wares to the returnees to put in the rebuilt temple (Ezra 1:1-4, 7-8; 3:7; 5:13, 14, 17; 6:3,
22). Darius and Artaxerxes also are described as supporting the rebuilding efforts, with both
permission and funds (Ezra 6:6-12, 14, 15, 22). In addition to these kings, a whole host of
people are named as participants in the rebuilding effort: Jeshua and the priests (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2),
Zerubbabel and his kin (Ezra 3:2, 8; 5:2), the Sidonians and Tyreans (Ezra 3:7), the Levites (Ezra
3:8, 9), Kadmiel and his sons (Ezra 3:8), Binnui and Hodaviah (Ezra 3:9), the builders (Ezra
3:10), Sheshbazzar (Ezra 5:16), the elders of the Jews (Ezra 5:5, 9; 6:7, 8, 14), Tattenai,
Shetharbozenai, and their associates (Ezra 6:13), and the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra
5:1; 6:14). Part of the social practice implied by this list of individuals who participated in
providing materials and permission for the rebuilding of the temple appears to be being named,
and therefore recognized, as a participant.

6
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author

Logics of Visualization

By taking account of the descriptions of each of these structures, the ways in which the spaces
described in these texts simultaneously describe social behaviors within those spaces, and how
the process of constructing each structure also reveals a social practice in terms of who provides
permission and/or materials for these buildings, the logics of visualization, that is, the
ideological, conceptual, and political notions that underlie and support these buildings in
multiple, complex webs, come more clearly into focus.

The Tabernacle
For the tabernacle, there are overlapping hierarchies of power in the tabernacle space that are
conveyed through ritual.8 First, there is a hierarchy of space. This space consists of, in order of
importance, the most holy place, which is screened off from the rest of the tabernacle, followed
by the tabernacle, the tent that covers the tabernacle, the court surrounding the tabernacle, and
space outside the court. This hierarchy lies along a spatial axis from West to East, with the
opening to the court on the East side of the building, followed by the opening to the tent and then
the screen placed before the most holy place. This suggests there is a larger conception or
awareness, even a larger producing and ordering, of space with the tabernacle, for the space of
the tabernacle is related to that of creation and the cosmos.9 The hierarchy of space, therefore,
from West to East, is most holy place—tabernacle—tent—court—outside.10

There also is a hierarchy of power that is displayed by the spheres of action of various persons as
part of the ritual practice in the tabernacle. YHWH dwells in the most holy place, and this is a
space into which Aaron alone, as high priest, may go (Ex. 28:29, 30, 35; 40:13).11 The tent is a
space into which Aaron and his sons may go, because they are priests (Ex. 28:1, 40-43; 40:14-
15). The court outside the tent is the space into which Moses and the people of Israel are
permitted, but they may go no further (Ex. 29:4, 10-11, 42-43). Of course, while only certain
persons may enter certain spaces in the structure, those persons can enter the other places of the
structure (i.e., Aaron can inhabit all the spaces of the structure). Also, although nothing is said
about what takes place outside the court, it is implied that non-Israelites occupy those places.
The social hierarchy conveyed by this structure, therefore, is YHWH—Aaron—Aaron’s sons (as
priests)—Moses—people—foreigners. This hierarchy reveals a social hierarchy, both within
Israel and in terms of Israel and the nations. Aaron and the priests are positioned higher than is
Moses, who has led the people out of Egypt and given them the torah, while Moses is higher than
the people. All of the Israelites, however, are positioned higher than non-Israelites.

A hierarchy of power also is displayed by the accounts of who participates in the construction of
the tabernacle. The text states that this is a structure ordered by YHWH. YHWH’s instructions are
conveyed to the people by Moses, and the actual construction of the tabernacle is directed by the
YHWH-inspired Bezalel and Oholiab, who supervise the skilled workers and create the structure
from the freewill offerings of the people and leaders. Thus there is a social hierarchy in the
building process that is ordered YHWH—Moses—Bezalel and Oholiab—skilled workers—people
and leaders. The priests are, of course, absent from this hierarchy, because in the construction
process they are not yet an ordained, recognized class. The ordination of the priests, however,
will initiate the social hierarchy described above.

7
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author

One other aspect of this hierarchy that remains implicit within it is that power and social control
are being subtly effected through all the people participating in the building in some way, either
by their donations for the building or their work constructing it.12 This is not simply a building
project that is imposed on the people, but it is something in which the people (and the text is
clear here that it is all the people) gratefully participate through their freewill offerings. What is
so effective about this arrangement of power, therefore, is that, while a social hierarchy clearly
emerges with the ordination of the priests, all of the people willingly, through their freewill
offerings, participate in creating and producing this hierarchy and social structure. As Foucault
argues, power (and therefore social control) is most effective when it is most open and obvious.
The fact that all the people are described as willingly and enthusiastically participating in this
building project, to the point that Moses must instruct the people to stop contributing to it (Ex.
36:3-7), implies this social arrangement is “bought into” by all the people, without hesitation. It
is a very effective, because very popular and openly acknowledged, social arrangement.

The hierarchies of power in the tabernacle spaces are part of a larger hierarchy of power
displayed in the placement of these texts within the Book of Exodus. Moses receives the
command to build the tabernacle while speaking with YHWH on Mt. Sinai, after the covenant
between the people and YHWH has been ratified in Exodus 24. The command and building of the
tabernacle thus are part of the covenant being established between YHWH and the people. This
suggests that the social structures displayed in the hierarchies of power in the tabernacle are
constitutive for the identity of the people as the people of YHWH. In other words, the Book of
Exodus describes not only the construction of the tabernacle, but the construction of the people
as a people, namely, as the people of YHWH. This suggests further that the tabernacle texts
should not be considered as constructing only a physical space, with all the various social
hierarchies that are constitutive of that space, but also “identity” space, the cognitive space by
which people understand themselves. Lefebvre suggests that individuals both produce space and
are produced by space. Thus there is a reciprocal action that takes place with people in space,
since they create that space and also are created by it.13 For the tabernacle texts, therefore, the
space described by these texts (and thus produced by the texts and the text’s readers) also
produces individuals, that is, produces a self-understanding within those individuals that is a
result of being in the tabernacle and participating in producing that space. One might call them
“tabernacle people.”14

Solomon’s temple
Solomon’s temple is both similar to, and quite different from, the tabernacle. There is a similar
hierarchy of space exhibited in the temple. This space consists of the most holy place, which is
separated from the rest of the temple by the description of the dimensions of this space, the
preparations and decorations of this space, and by the gold chain Solomon constructs and draws
across this temple in front of this space. The most holy place is followed in importance by the
nave, the vestibule, the three story structure around the temple, and the winding stairs on the
south side of the house up to the middle story. Implied by the objects Hiram of Tyre fashions is
a court surrounding the temple and vestibule, for these objects are placed in front of the temple
and vestibule. There is, of course, space outside the temple complex, but this space is not
described in the text.

8
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
Unlike the tabernacle, however, it is not clear how this hierarchy of space is oriented, for
nowhere in the description of the temple’s construction are East-West directions provided.
Based on the placement of the two bronze pillars Hiram constructs and places to the north and
south of the vestibule (1 Kgs 7:15-22), one can infer that the spatial axis lies on an East-West
orientation, but does the temple open to the East or to the West? The text itself is silent on this
point, and scholars therefore are left to their assumptions about the orientation of the temple.15
The silence of the text on this point may imply that spatial orientation was not important for this
text, that the temple was not conceived of as being part of or related to the space of creation. The
hierarchy of space for the temple, therefore, is most holy place—nave—vestibule—court—
outside, but if there is a spatial orientation for this hierarchy, it is unclear from the text.

The hierarchy of power displayed through the spheres of action of various persons in the temple
is revealed only in the dedication of the temple, not as part of the construction process, as was
the case in the tabernacle texts. Solomon is the one who assembles the elders of Israel, the heads
of the tribes, the leaders of the ancestral houses, the priests and Levites, and all the people, but
these actions are not integral to the temple space in the same way that ritual and spheres of action
within the ritual process are integral to the tabernacle’s construction. In the ritual of dedication,
Solomon leads the events, but it is the priests who take up the ark and place it in the most holy
place.

What seems to be of more importance to the construction of the temple is the hierarchy of power
displayed by who participates in the construction of the temple. As noted above, the text is clear
that Solomon is the one who undertakes this building project, of his own initiative. Hiram and
the people (as corvée labor) help, but their roles are secondary to that of Solomon. Even
YHWH’s appearance in the text is not associated with participation in the building process, but
with Solomon’s future. Thus the social hierarchy displayed in the construction of the temple is
Solomon—Hiram—the people. Furthermore, the social control being effected through these
texts is a centralized control, with Solomon at the center of power, not YHWH. This portrayal of
Solomon is part of the textual space of the temple construction texts, which follow Solomon’s
redistricting of the land (1 Kgs 4:7-19), the borders of Solomon’s realm (1 Kgs 4:20-28), and the
renown of his wisdom (1 Kgs 4:29-34). This portrayal can be interpreted in positive or negative
ways by scholars, but the axis of power is centered on Solomon and radiates out from him,
reflecting in part a production of space and social relations particular to the monarchy. In this
space it is Solomon as king, not Moses as the leader of the people out of Egypt and spokesperson
with YHWH, who is in charge of the building and dedication of the temple.

The Second Temple

The logics of visualization for the Second temple have similarities with the tabernacle and
Solomon’s temple while also introducing new elements. The hierarchy of space, at least in terms
of the layout of the building, is completely lacking here. No most holy place is described, no
court is described or implied, and such concerns are absent from the text. In this regard the
Second temple is nothing like the other two structures.

What is important in the hierarchy of space displayed in the Second temple is location. One
aspect of the Second temple’s construction that clearly distinguishes this building project from
the other two is the importance of place for the building. By way of comparison, the tabernacle

9
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
can be moved anywhere, as long as its orientation when it is set up is along the East-West axis.
Solomon’s temple is in a fixed location (that is, it cannot be moved), but the texts describing its
construction do not mention a specific location for that temple; it is as if the temple could be
placed anywhere, even if it is assumed by scholars (and perhaps in the text) that it is placed in
Jerusalem. If Solomon’s temple is in Jerusalem (and again, this is not something the texts of 1
Kgs 5-7 explicitly state), there is no particular location within the city where the temple must be
built. Such is not the case with the Second temple. The Second temple must be built on the site
of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem in Judah (a fact that implies Solomon’s temple is built in
Jerusalem), for if it were not built on that site, then it would be a different temple altogether and
it would produce a different type of space, with different spatial and social practices and thus a
different meaning. Indeed, the location of the temple is more important than the building itself,
since the dimensions recorded for it, sixty cubits high by sixty cubits wide, do not correspond to
those of Solomon’s temple. This hierarchy of location for the Second temple, therefore, is the
temple site—Jerusalem—Judah.

The importance of place for the Second temple displays the intersection of location with the
hierarchy of power, for there is power, prestige, and authority inherent in this particular location.
The importance of power is demonstrated several ways in the texts describing the construction of
the Second temple, most clearly in terms of who participates in its construction, either by
contributing materials or granting permission for its rebuilding. As described above, a whole
host of people are named as participants in the rebuilding of the Second temple, from YHWH to
three Persian kings to a range of other people. The naming of individuals who participated in the
building project suggests it was important, socially and politically, to be recognized by name as
someone who participated, rather than being lumped together as part of a group and therefore
having one’s identity defined only in terms of the group. It also is important to recognize that
divine power and authority in the rebuilding process is less significant and direct than in the
tabernacle construction process. For the tabernacle, YHWH speaks with Moses and gives the
building plans, in detail, to Moses, and the people are said to carry out those plans just as YHWH
commanded. For the Second temple, YHWH’s actions are only reported actions, whether that be
in the stirring up of Cyrus’ spirit (Ezra 1:1-2) or in other actions YHWH performs in the text (cf.
Ezra 7:28; 9:8). While there is a recognition that YHWH is involved in the rebuilding process,
that involvement is somewhat removed when compared to that action in the tabernacle texts.
The Persian kings, however, figure much more prominently and actively in the rebuilding
process, whether that activity be the authorizing and supporting of the rebuilding in the first
place by Cyrus, or the re-authorizing and continued support of the building by Cyrus and
Artaxerxes. Once it is clear the Persian kings are behind this rebuilding process (it is important
to remember that the Book of Ezra begins with Cyrus’ edict permitting the return and rebuilding
of the Second temple), the naming of others involved in the rebuilding process can follow,
indicating they participate as a result of the actions of the Persian kings.

That the naming of those who participate in the rebuilding of the temple is an important aspect of
the hierarchy of power is suggested when these contributions are compared to the contributions
made to the tabernacle. In those texts, all the people are described as donating to the
construction of the building, and only two people, Bezalel and Oholiab, are singled out by name
for their work on the structure. The people are mentioned in the Second temple texts as
contributing to the project, but only after others are named for their participation in the project.

10
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
To be named in the Second temple texts, therefore, plays a different role than in the tabernacle
texts, and may reflect the fact that the rebuilding of the Second temple is a Persian sponsored
project, and one can be recognized by the Persian authorities only if one is specifically named
and identified as having participated. The rebuilding of the Second temple on the site of the
Solomonic temple also indicates that the returnees are carrying out the edict of Cyrus, and is
another reason why the specific location is important for the Second temple. Thus I would argue
that the hierarchy of power for the Second temple is Cyrus—Darius and Artaxerxes—YHWH—
Sheshbazzar—Zerubbabel and Jeshua—Zerubbabel’s kin and the priests associated with
Jeshua—the Sidonians and Tyreans—the Levites, Kadmiel and his sons, Binnui, and
Hodaviah—the builders—the elders of the Jews—Haggai and Zechariah—Tattenai,
Shetharbozenai, and their associates. On these grounds I also would argue YHWH is not
portrayed in these texts as having primary responsibility for the rebuilding of the Second temple,
as others have argued.16

The importance of location of the Second temple, and the hierarchy of power that depends on
that location, also changes the way in which the hierarchy of power is displayed through spheres
of activity. Like the tabernacle and Solomonic temple, which related this hierarchy to spheres of
activity within those structures, the Second temple displays this hierarchy when the priests and
Levites lead the worship, and when the priests take the temple vessels into the rebuilt temple.
But these spheres of activity are less important in the text than the spheres of activity in Persia
and Jerusalem. For the Second temple, power and authority for the rebuilding lie in Persia:
Cyrus issues his edict in Persia, it is to Artaxerxes in Persia that those who oppose the rebuilding
program write to stop the project (Ezra 4:7), it is from Persia that Artaxerxes writes a letter
commanding the cessation of activity on the building (Ezra 4:17), it is to Darius in Persia that
Tattenai writes inquiring about authorization for the project, and it is from Darius that he
receives word the building is to continue (Ezra 5:3-6:12). Those in Jerusalem act in accordance
with what is decided and decreed in Persia. The hierarchy of power as displayed by location is
Persia—Jerusalem.

The various hierarchies produced by the Second temple space are part of one additional
hierarchy of power that is displayed, as was the case with the tabernacle texts, by the placement
of this space within the larger literary space of the Book of Ezra (and Nehemiah). These Books
describe the return of the people to Judah and Jerusalem, and thus play an important role in
shaping the identity of these returnees. It is not insignificant that the Book of Ezra begins with
Cyrus’ edict to return and rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This edict places a theological self-
understanding (the rebuilding of the Second temple) as the originating motive for their existence
in Judah and Jerusalem. It also, however, orders this self-understanding in terms of Persian
political power, for it is only because of the edict that the people are able to return. Furthermore,
it is the lasting effect of that edict, which has been recorded and stored in the Persian royal
archives in Ecbatana (Ezra 6:2), which makes possible this rebuilding project and the existence
of the returned community. As I argued earlier (following Lefebvre) with the tabernacle texts,
that there is a reciprocal relationship between those who produce a particular space and the way
in which that space produces the individuals who inhabit such space, the Second temple space is
both produced by particular people and produces particular people.

11
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
Conclusion

To say that the tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, and the Second temple are different spaces is,
perhaps, to state the obvious. By critically examining the ways in which those spaces are
produced in the text, however, brings into much sharper focus how those spaces are different,
beyond merely saying they are different physical structures. These three structures are different
because space, as the medium that refracts social, political, and theological meanings, is
produced differently within them and therefore produces different people within those spaces.
The tabernacle is not simply a reproduction of Solomon’s temple, nor is the Second temple
simply a reproduction of Solomon’s temple, for the spatial practices associated with each
structure as described in the text are quite different. There is a clear hierarchy of space in the
tabernacle that is lacking in clarity for both temples; only the tabernacle texts are concerned with
carefully describing in detail all the spaces of this structure. The tabernacle space is
conceptualized in terms of creation, as evidenced by its East-West orientation, whereas the other
buildings are not. The hierarchy of space displayed in the Second temple, by contrast, is based
on location, for it is important for this building’s authority and signifying power that it be built
on the site of the former temple. In fact, the importance of location even over reproducing the
building is demonstrated by the reference to the Second temple's dimensions, which do not
reproduce those of the Solomonic temple.

Similarly, the hierarchies of power are quite different for the three structures. The tabernacle’s
hierarchy of power places YHWH at the top, with the priests below him and Moses below the
priests. By contrast, Solomon is at the top of the hierarchy of power in the Solomonic temple,
and the Persian kings are at the top in the Second temple, with YHWH following them. Thus not
only are the spaces and the practices within those spaces different, but the theological
perspectives also are different within them. If YHWH is at the top of the hierarchy of power only
in the tabernacle texts, then this has important implications for scholarly reconstructions of the
religion of ancient Israel.

There also are differences in these texts due to the different ways in which individuals are said to
participate in the construction process for each building. By stressing that all the people
participate in the construction of the tabernacle, yet not naming those people (as is done in the
Second temple texts), the Exodus texts create an identity for the people as a people. Everyone
participated in the tabernacle’s construction, therefore if an individual understands herself or
himself to be a member of these people, then that individual participated in the tabernacle’s
construction. Lefebvre’s arguments about the reciprocal relationship at work in the production
of space is displayed in the tabernacle texts: the people produce the space, and the space in turn
produces “the people.” This is not the same way in which the production of space works in the
Second temple texts, despite the participation of all the people, because particular individuals are
named and therefore singled out in the building process. In the Second temple texts, the
“people” are present, but of greater importance on the hierarchy of power are those who are
named as contributing to the rebuilding of the temple. The production of the Second temple
space, therefore, does not produce “the people,” it produces particular people, each of whom has
a name and can be singled out and recognized. This is a very different social reality than that of
the tabernacle. These differences reveal another aspect of the hierarchy of power, namely that
the ways in which identity is being produced and constructed for the people in Exodus and Ezra-

12
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
Nehemiah are quite different. Each text concerns itself with addressing, implicitly if not
explicitly, the larger question of who are these people, what does it mean to be a reader of these
texts, and what does it mean to be a member of “Israel” or “the people of God”? In Exodus, it
means to be someone, one of the nameless group, produced by the tabernacle space; for Ezra, it
means being a particular, named person, someone who can be recognized for participating in the
Second temple’s rebuilding.

A critical examination of the spatial practices of the tabernacle, Solomon’s temple, and the
Second temple provides a sort of map, a space, of reading Israel’s history and self-
understandings. These three structures are not simply copies of one another, all reducible to one
basic model, as is often done by scholars. Foucault argues that history is not simply one of
relentless teleological development, but rather occurs through the accidents of history.17 Such is
the case with these three structures, each of which is a unique structure and space and therefore
produced from scratch, and each of which produces its own space and spatial practices. Each
structure is an accident of history, constructed in different ways and signifying different things
(in short, producing its own space). Further work remains to be done in considering and
unpacking the complex social relationships and the social (and political) histories that are
revealed through the spatial practices of these structures. Further consideration also needs to be
made of ritual in these spaces, including the ritual of reading and following or carrying out the
word of those at the top of the hierarchies of power, whether that be YHWH or the Persian king.

13
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
Works consulted

Blenkinsopp, J. “The Structure of P.” CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 275-92.

Brinkman, J. The perception of space in the Old Testament. Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok
Pharos, 1992.

Brueggemann, W. “The Book of Exodus.” Pp. 675-981. NIB vol. 1. Nashville: Abingdon,
1994.

Childs, B. S. The Book of Exodus. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.

Friedman, R. E. “Tabernacle.” pp. 292-300. ABD vol. 6. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Foucault, M. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. by A. Sheridan. New York:
Vintage, 1979.

________. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” pp. 139-64 in Language, counter-memory,

practice: Selected Essays and Interviews. Ed. by D. Bouchard. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1977.

________. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. Ed. by C.

Gordon. New York: Pantheon, 1980.

Fretheim, T. E. Exodus. Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1991.

Kearney, J. P. “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25-40.” ZAW 89 (1977), pp. 375-
87.

Klein, R. W. “The Books of Ezra & Nehemiah.” Pp. 661-851. NIB vol. 3. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1999.

Lefebvre, H. The Production of Space. Trans. by D. Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Blackwell,

1991.

Meyers, C. “Temple, Jerusalem.” Pp. 350-369. ABD vol. 6. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Myers, J. M. Ezra, Nehemiah. OTL. Garden City: Doubleday, 1964.

Seow, C. L. “The First and Second Books of Kings.” Pp. 1-295. NIB vol. 3. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1999.

Smith, J. Z. To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1987.

14
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author
Endnotes
1
The question of the canon, both the texts that came to be included in the Hebrew canon, as well
as which translational tradition of the Hebrew Bible (along with the textual variations within
each tradition) has been used by religious communities and scholars of the text, is itself a
question of space, but is not a question I will deal with in this essay.
2
Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, trans. by D. Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell,
1991).
3
Ezekiel also describes a new temple (Ezekiel 40-42), but I will not discuss this description of
the temple because it is part of Ezekiel’s vision of the New Jerusalem and because Ezekiel does
not describe a construction process for this temple.
4
All biblical quotations are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted.
5
Scholars have noted the change in construction order between Exodus 26-27 and Exodus 36,
38, 40 (for example, B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974],
pp. 533-37) . While the order of construction does differ between these two sections, this change
does not affect the spatial issues I am discussing.
6
Lefebvre, Production of Space, pp. 32-33.
7
Scholars have noted the different ways in which YHWH is said to be involved in these texts,
with Moses being given a pattern to follow in Exodus 25-31, while Exodus 35-40 refers to the
people doing all that YHWH commanded them (see, for example, Childs, Exodus, pp. 535-36).
This distinction, however, does not affect my argument.
8
I will draw on J. Z. Smith’s To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1987) in this section, although adapting his insights to the particularities of the
tabernacle.
9
Several scholars have argued the tabernacle texts are related to creation, among them J.
Blenkinsopp, “The Structure of P,” CBQ 38 (1976), pp. 275-92; W. Brueggemann, “Exodus,”
NIB vol. 1 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), pp. 925-26; T. E. Fretheim, Exodus, Interpretation
(Louisville: John Knox, 1991); P. J. Kearney, “Creation and Liturgy: The P Redaction of Ex 25-
40,” ZAW 89 (1977), pp. 375-87.
10
Brueggemann (“Exodus,” p. 897) notes that the designation of the most holy place implies
“gradations of holiness that inevitably lead to elitism and special priestly privilege,” although, he
argues, “none of that danger is noted here.” The “danger” may not be noted here (I wonder
whether Brueggemann’s sentiments would have been shared by the ancient producers of this
text?), but the elitism is implicit, as I argue below.
11
Interestingly, although Moses appears to stand in a higher social position than Aaron, because
Moses speaks with YHWH on Sinai and is the one who anoints Aaron and his sons, once the glory
of YHWH fills the tabernacle, the text is explicit in stating that Moses cannot enter the tent of
meeting (Ex. 40:35).
12
M. Foucault’s work on power helps elucidate this aspect of the hierarchy; cf. M. Foucault,
Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977, ed. by C. Gordon (New
York: Pantheon, 1980), and Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. by A. Sheridan
(New York: Vintage, 1979).
13
Lefebvre, Production of Space, p. 170.
14
Lefebvre argues that “monumental space,” massive space that “always embodies and imposes
a clearly intelligible message” (Production of Space, p. 143), “offer[s] each member of a society

15
 © Mark K. George 2000; Not to be reproduced without express written permission from
author

an image of that membership, an image of his or her social visage” (p. 220). The tabernacle
space does something similar for those who participate in and produce that space.
15
As is, for example, C. Meyers in her comments about the temple’s orientation; see C. Meyers,
“Temple, Jerusalem,” ABD vol. 6, p. 358.
16
Such arguments, and variations on this argument, are pervasive in the scholarly literature. For
example, R. W. Klein (“The Books of Ezra & Nehemiah,” NIB vol. 3 [Nashville: Abingdon,
1999], p. 677), in explaining the edict of Cyrus, argues that “the king became part of a larger
plan that fulfilled a prophetic word of Jeremiah.” I would argue the logic of this statement is
backwards, and that the prophecies of Jeremiah became part of a larger textual plan that fulfilled
the word of Cyrus.
17
M. Foucault, “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History,” in Language, counter-memory, practice:
Selected essays and interviews, ed. by D. Bouchard (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), pp.
139-64.

16