A member of the Errancy list recently posted a reply to Robert Turkel's "solution" to a biblical discrepancy in passages saying that God both does and does not dwell in temples. Errors in grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation are commonplace in Turkel's article, but even though he is far from expert in his own native language, he will often try to resolve discrepancies by appealing to the biblical languages, as if he expects readers to think that he can make biblical problems go away by just saying, "The word in Hebrew was..." or, "The word in Greek was...." In the matter of whether the Hebrew god Yahweh dwelt in the temple that Solomon built, Turkel appealed to both Hebrew and Greek to "resolve" the discrepancy. His article is short but does a fairly good job of presenting the discrepancy. I will later quote the article in its entirely, but in order to head off inevitable metaphorical or figurative "explanations" of this discrepancy, I need first to show that ancient societies superstitiously believed that gods literally lived in temples. A speech attributed to the apostle Paul while he was in Athens can be understood only if readers recognize that the Grecians thought that their gods lived in the temples that had been built for them.
Acts 17:16 While Paul was waiting for them [Silas and Timothy] in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18 A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. 19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.) 22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. 24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
Unless this passage is interpreted to mean that Paul was addressing a popular Grecian belief that their gods lived in temples, verse 24 makes no sense, because if Paul was not speaking to this superstitious belief, his audience could have simply said, "You don't need to tell us this, because we don't think that the gods live in temples." The last verse quoted above was probably aimed at the cleansing of idols in the temples and putting food before them, practices that were commonplace at that time.
In "Our Origins in Iraq?" Kathleen Mary Andersen traced this belief back to the Sumerians.
According to what the Sumerians left us, the world consisted of three places, heaven, the netherworld, and earth. Earth or 'ki'. The universe was populated by gods and demons. Gods lived in temples or "houses". Some gods were represented on a celestial sphere by a constellation or a star named after them. They had bodies, they needed food and wine, wanted to be dressed and washed, traveled, carried weapons and had sex. Their characters had well defined personalities on the scale of human characteristics: ill-tempered, aggressive, cheerful, clever, just, ambitious, skillful, merciful and graceful. Some liked mankind better than others. And they sought to end their disagreements with war. They created man, or "us", to work in their quest for indulgence. The servant race was needed to cater to their whims. I guess you can look at man as being sort of a pet to the Gods (emphasis added; British punctuation retained).
In other words, Andersen was pointing out what has long been recognized by those who can read the Bible critically: The gods of ancient times were anthropomorphically perceived, because humans created the gods in their image rather than the other way around. "The Old Gods" explains that an anthropomorphic god-concept was also prevalent in ancient Egypt.
Many of the gods were anthropomorphic images, statues in the form of a man or a woman but usually of superhuman size and always made from the finest materials. In Egypt some of the gods had animal shapes and are therefore called “theriomorphic,” and they too were images. The Greek word for “image” is eikon, and we may therefore refer to the cult of the image gods as “iconic.” The image gods lived in temples, some large and some small but all as splendid as the community could afford to build.
Concepts like these were apparently widespread in ancient times. This description of the Hittite religion referred to the common practice of attending to gods who lived in their temples.
The people of Hatti believed that the gods lived in temples. The people would place necessities such as food and water in the temple for the gods. When a person of important status would die they would burn the body. They would burn the body inside the temple, so that person could be with the gods in afterlife.
Since the nations around ancient Israel had this anthropomorphic view of gods who lived in temples, we should not be surprised to find indications in the Bible that some Israelites shared the same beliefs. A Levitical law that prohibited people with physical handicaps from serving in the tabernacle revealed that the Israelites at that time thought that sacrifices were food devoted to their god.
Leviticus 21:21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the Lord's offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God. 22 He may eat the food of his God, of the most holy as well as of the holy. 23 But he shall not come near the curtain or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries; for I am Yahweh; I sanctify them.
Besides biblical texts that indicate that the ancient Jews believed that their god lived in the temple, Josephus indicated in Antiquities of the Jews, 20:8.5 a clear belief that God had lived in the temple until it became defiled with profane activities.
Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. Yet did Felix catch and put to death many of those impostors every day, together with the robbers. He also caught Eleazar, the son of Dineas, who had gotten together a company of robbers; and this he did by treachery; for he gave him assurance that he should suffer no harm, and thereby persuaded him to come to him; but when he came, he bound him, and sent him to Rome. Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest he should himself have complaints made of him by the multitude, since he it was who had desired Caesar to send him as procurator of Judea. So Felix contrived a method whereby he might get rid of him, now he was become so continually troublesome to him; for such continual admonitions are grievous to those who are disposed to act unjustly. Wherefore Felix persuaded one of Jonathan's most faithful friends, a citizen of Jerusalem, whose name was Doras, to bring the robbers upon Jonathan, in order to kill him; and this he did by promising to give him a great deal of money for so doing. Doras complied with the proposal, and contrived matters so, that the robbers might murder him after the following manner: Certain of those robbers went up to the city, as if they were going to worship God, while they had daggers under their garments, and by thus mingling themselves among the multitude they slew Jonathan--and as this murder was never avenged, the robbers went up with the greatest security at the festivals after this time; and having weapons concealed in like manner as before, and mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew certain of their own enemies, and were subservient to other men for money; and slew others, not only in remote parts of the city, but in the temple itself also; for they had the boldness to murder men there, without thinking of the impiety of which they were guilty. And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men's wickedness, rejected our city; and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein, but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it; and brought upon us, our wives, and children, slavery, as desirous to make us wiser by our calamities.
After I have quoted Turkel's article, I will discuss more in detail the Israelite belief that their god lived in the tabernacle, a portable temple that they transported with them through the wilderness, but I will introduce here one passage that rather clearly indicates that the ancient Israelites did think that Yahweh lived in their tabernacle. After instructing Moses to order the Israelites to bring to him offerings of precious metals (gold, silver, and bronze), precious stones (onyx and gems), fine yarns and linen, goat hair, animal skins (rams and sea cows), acacia wood, olive oil, and spices, Yahweh told Moses [snicker, snicker] to use them to "make a sanctuary" for him so that he could "dwell among them" (Ex. 25:1-8), as if the god described by the apostle Paul in the passage quoted above could not have dwelt among the Israelites unless they squandered precious possessions to build him an elaborate tabernacle.
When we see Turkel's article below, we will find him appealing to the Hebrew text to try to make a word that meant dwell not mean dwell, so I will mention here that the word for dwell used in Exodus 25:8 was shâkan, one of the very words used in 1 Kings 8:13, where Solomon spoke of building a house [temple] for Yahweh to dwell in, but I will save further comment about this word until we have seen Turkel's article, which I will now quote in its entirety (in green text). After Turkel has been given his say in this matter, I will show that his "solution" to a rather obvious biblical discrepancy falls short of its intended mark.
1 Kings 8:13 I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever. (cf. 2 Chr. 6:2)
Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands...
Technically there is no formal contradiction here of the sort that could worry an inerrantist, since 1 Kings just reports what Solomon said, and he obviously need not have been perfect. But as it happens it may not be necessary to lay a bone at Sol's door. The word for "dwell" is very rare in the OT, used only five time -- twice in the passages noted above, and elsewhere:
Ps. 49:14 Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.
Is. 63:15 Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where is thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels and of thy mercies toward me? are they restrained?
Hab. 3:11 The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.
The last cite [sic] tells us that the word here simply means "a place where they are" with no connotations of setting up housekeeping (versus the NT word katoikeo, which is used in verses like this: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth". [sic] There is another Hebrew word for this, yashab.) Correspondingly this would simply refer to a place where a deity could make contact and communicate its will; for the pagans that would have been an image of some sort, but for Yahweh that would be the Temple in Jerusalem.
There are obvious flaws in Turkel's linguistic solution. Let's notice, first of all, that the words dwell and abide are used synonymously in the first text quoted by Turkel: I have surely built thee an house to dwell [zebûl] in, a settled place for thee to abide [yâshab] in for ever. Regardless, then, of how infrequently zebûl may have been used in the Old Testament, whatever it meant would be what yâshab meant; otherwise, there is no sensible explanation for why zebûl and yâshab were used synonymously in the Hebraic parallelism in this verse. This interpretation is consistent with Strong—whom Turkel often cites—who defined zebûl [#2073] as "a residence—to dwell in, dwelling, habitation" and yâshab [#3427] as "to dwell, to remain, to settle, to abide, to continue, habitation." Right away, then, we can see that Turkel's attempt to find Hebraic "nuances" to explain away the problem is in trouble, because if zebûl [dwell] conveyed the nuance of "a place where they are," as Turkel claimed above, the writer of 1 Kings surely would not have used this word synonymously with yâshab. Turkel even cut his own throat in the last paragraph of his article (quoted above) when he said that katoikeo in Greek conveyed the sense of permanent residence, as when it was used to say that Joseph took his family "and dwelt [katoikeo] in a city called Nazareth." Turkel then added that the corresponding word in Hebrew for this [katoikeo] was yâshab, so if katoikeo meant permanent residence and if yâshab was its equivalent in Hebrew, when Solomon used yâshab synonymously with zebûl in 1 Kings 8:13 in reference to Yahweh's dwelling in the temple, then he was saying that the temple was Yahweh's permanent residence. If not, why not?
The problems for Turkel multiply when we look at the broader context of 1 Kings 8:13, which used yet a third word to convey the sense of Yahweh's dwelling place. I will quote from Turkel's beloved KJV with Yahweh substituted for "the LORD."
1 Kings 8:12 Then spake Solomon, Yahweh said that he would dwell [shâkan] in the thick darkness. 13 I have surely built thee an house to dwell [zebûl] in, a settled place for thee to abide [yâshab] in for ever.
This third word that the text used in reference to the dwelling place of Yahweh was, as noted above, shâkan, which Strong [#7931] defined as "the idea of lodging, to reside or permanently stay, abide, continue, dwell, have habitation, inhabit, etc," so the idea [nuance?] of a permanent residence or habitation seemed to be in this word. That the "nuance" of permanence was intended in the three words for dwelling or habitation used in this text is evident from that fact that Solomon described the house that he had built for Yahweh to dwell in as "a settled place for thee to abide in forever." Surely, even Turkel will have to agree that forever certainly conveys a "nuance" of permanence, but if that isn't enough to convince him, he should take note of Solomon's description of this house or habitation as a "settled place." To borrow a phrase from Turkel, the Hebrew word here was mâkôwn [#4349], which meant "a fixture, a place, an abode, foundation, habitation." Maybe Turkel knows of some "nuance" in the word that would make it convey some sense other than "settled place," but it looks suspiciously like a concept of permanence was inherent in this word. Consider, for example, how Solomon used this same word in his dedicatory prayer to describe Yahweh's "dwelling place."
1 Kings 8:39 Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place [mâkôwn], and forgive, and do, and give to every man according to his ways, whose heart thou knowest; (for thou, even thou only, knowest the hearts of all the children of men).... 43 Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place [mâkôwn], and do according to all that the stranger calleth to thee for: that all people of the earth may know thy name, to fear thee, as do thy people Israel; and that they may know that this house, which I have builded, is called by thy name.... 49 Then hear thou their prayer and their supplication in heaven thy dwelling place [mâkôwn], and maintain their cause, 50 And forgive thy people that have sinned against thee....
So three times in this prayer spoken at the dedication of the temple, Solomon said that heaven was Yahweh's "dwelling [settled] place." Turkel quibbled above that the text in 1 Kings 8:13 presented "no formal contradiction here of the sort that could worry an inerrantist," because the text "just reports what Solomon said, and he obviously need not have been perfect." That is a legitimate hermeneutic principle, but I wonder if Turkel will say that Solomon wasn't necessarily right when he spoke of heaven as Yahweh's "settled dwelling place."
But wait a minute, some will no doubt say, how could Yahweh's settled dwelling place have been both in heaven and in the temple Solomon was building? Well, Solomon clearly thought that he was building a "settled place" for Yahweh to dwell, so until the completion of the temple, Solomon apparently thought that Yahweh's "settled place" was in heaven but would thereafter be in the temple. Either that or else Solomon was just inconsistent. The latter would certainly not be anything new to the Bible.
At this point, we need to go back to the passage that I introduced much earlier to point out that Yahweh told Moses to collect precious metals, stones, and other materials from the Israelites and then use them to build him a sanctuary so that he could "dwell among them" (Ex. 25:8). The word used for dwell here was shâkan, which, as noted above, was used synonymously in 1 Kings 8:13 to convey the sense of permanance, so it is entirely possible that the command given in Exodus to make Yahweh a sanctuary was given with the understanding that it would become his permanent dwelling place. The way that this same word was used elsewhere in Exodus certainly indicates that it was used to mean permanent dwelling.
Exodus 29:42 This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before Yahweh: where I will meet you, to speak there unto thee. 43 And there I will meet with the children of Israel, and the tabernacle shall be sanctified by my glory. 44 And I will sanctify the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar: I will sanctify also both Aaron and his sons, to minister to me in the priest's office. 45 And I will dwell [shâkan] among the children of Israel, and will be their God. 46 And they shall know that I am Yahweh their God, that brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell [shâkan] among them: I am Yahweh their God.
It hardly makes sense to think that this text was saying only that Yahweh would dwell temporarily among the Israelites.
As Turkel noted at the beginning of his article, 2 Chronicles 6:2 is parallel to 1 Kings 8:13. He simply cited it without quoting it, and a look at the parallel will show why he did't want his readers to see it.
6:1 Then said Solomon, Yahweh hath said that he would dwell [shâkan] in the thick darkness. 2 But I have built an house of habitation [zebûl] for thee, and a place for thy dwelling [mâkôwn] for ever.
As the writer of 1 Kings did, the chronicler used the same three words in reference to the dwelling place of Yahweh, and mâkôwn was used to denote the place that would be Yahweh's "dwelling forever." Hence, the "nuance" of permanence certainly seemed imbedded in this word. As I noted above, however, the problem thickens for Turkel, because he really put his foot into his mouth when he said that there was another Hebrew word that conveyed the sense of permanent dwelling, which was not inherent in the word shâkan, which Solomon had used to describe the house he had built for Yahweh.
The last cite [sic] tells us that the word here simply means "a place where they are" with no connotations of setting up housekeeping (versus the NT word katoikeo, which is used in verses like this: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth". [sic] There is another Hebrew word for this, yashab.
If Turkel had looked a little closer at the Hebrew biblical text, which he talks about so much, he would have seen that yashab was used in reference to the dwelling place or house that David proposed to build for Yahweh. In this case, Turkel can't quibble that this was just something that David said and that David wasn't perfect, because the text clearly attributes some of the dwelling [yashab] references to Yahweh.
2 Samuel 7:1 And it came to pass, when the king [David] sat in his house, and Yahweh had given him rest round about from all his enemies; 2 That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell [yashab] in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth [yashab] within curtains. 3 And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for Yahweh is with thee. 4 And it came to pass that night, that the word of Yahweh came unto Nathan, saying, 5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith Yahweh, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell [yashab] in? 6 Whereas I have not dwelt [yashab] in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. 7 In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar? 8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith Yahweh of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel: 9 And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth. 10 Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime, 11 And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also Yahweh telleth thee that he will make thee an house. 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
The parallel text (1 Chron. 17:1-5) also used yashab in reference to the house that David wanted to build for Yahweh to dwell in. Yahweh, however, put these plans on hold and told David that Solomon would be the one to build this house. In referring to this house or dwelling place, however, both texts used the very word that Turkel said would have been used if 1 Kings 18:13 had meant that the temple was a permanent dwelling place for Yahweh.
When Solomon was ready to build this house or dwelling place for Yahweh, he also used yashab in reference to it.
2 Chronicles 2:1 And Solomon determined to build an house for the name of Yahweh, and an house for his kingdom. 2 And Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred to oversee them. 3 And Solomon sent to Huram the king of Tyre, saying, As thou didst deal with David my father, and didst send him cedars to build him an house to dwell [yashab] therein, even so deal with me. 4 Behold, I build an house to the name of Yahweh my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn before him sweet incense, and for the continual showbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts of Yahweh our God.
Yashab was used only once in this text, but after it was used in reference to the house that David had build for him to dwell [yashab] in, the same word was present by implication when Solomon asked Huram [Hiram] to deal so with him as he too undertook to build a house, which would be a house for Yahweh. If David's house was built to dwell [yashab] in, then the house that Solomon was planning to build would also be built [for Yahweh] to dwell [yashab] in. If not, why not?
Knowing Turkel, I don't doubt that he will dream up some why not, so I will head him off at the pass before he has a chance to make up some how-it-could-have-been. If we go back to the text quoted above from 2 Samuel 7, we see that Yahweh said in verse 6 that he had "not dwelt [yashab] in any house since the time that [he] brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle." Before Turkel quibbles that this text merely says that Yahweh had "walked in a tent and in a tabernace," I will head that cavil off at the pass too by quoting passages that plainly said that Yahweh had dwelt [yashab] in the tabernacle.
1 Samuel 4:3 And when the people were come into the camp, the elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath Yahweh smitten us to day before the Philistines? Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of Shiloh unto us, that, when it cometh among us, it may save us out of the hand of our enemies. 4 So the people sent to Shiloh, that they might bring from thence the ark of the covenant of Yahweh of hosts, which dwelleth [yashab] between the cherubims.
2 Samuel 6:2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of Yahweh of hosts that dwelleth [yashab] between the cherubims....
1 Chronicles 13:6 And David went up, and all Israel, to Baalah, that is, to Kirjathjearim, which belonged to Judah, to bring up thence the ark of God Yahweh, that dwelleth [yashab] between the cherubims, whose name is called on it.
2 Kings 19:15 And Hezekiah prayed before Yahweh, and said, O Yahweh God of Israel, which dwellest [yashab] between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.
Isaiah 37:16 O Yahweh of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest [yashab] between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth.
Psalm 99:1 Yahweh reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth [yashab] between the cherubims; let the earth be moved.
Turkel's yashab quibble has backfired on him--a failure that he should be used to by now--but the problems will multiply even more when we look at the reply to his "solution," which someone mentioned earlier posted on the Errancy list. Turkel presented two "solutions" to the problem of whether Yahweh dwelt in the temple: (1) The reference in 1 Kings 8:13 to the temple as a place for Yahweh to dwell forever was said by Solomon and Solomon wasn't perfect. (2) The Hebrew word for dwelling [zebûl] used in 1 Kings 8:13 meant "the place where they are" and carried no connotations of permanence, as opposed to the Greek word katoikeo, which did convey permanence as when used in "he came and dwelt [katoikeo] in a city called Nazareth" (Matt. 2:23). I said earlier that there is some hermeneutical merit to Turkel's first "solution," i. e., the alleged discrepancy is based on something that Solomon said, and he wasn't "perfect," but I am going to reserve further comment about this until I have dismantled Turkel's second "solution." To put his second "solution" into perspective, I will requote the concluding paragraph of his article in which he presented it.
The last cite [sic] tells us that the word here simply means "a place where they are" with no connotations of setting up housekeeping (versus the NT word katoikeo, which is used in verses like this: "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth" [sic]. There is another Hebrew word for this, yashab.) Correspondingly this would simply refer to a place where a deity could make contact and communicate its will; for the pagans that would have been an image of some sort, but for Yahweh that would be the Temple in Jerusalem.
I showed earlier that pagans didn't just believe that they could "make contact" with deities through "image[s] of some sort" but believed that their gods lived in temples, and I have also shown that Turkel's definition of zebûl won't fly, because it was used interchangeably in the passage in question with the words shâkan and mâkôwn, both of which were frequently used in the Old Testament to denote permanence, and was also even used interchangeably with yâshab, the very word that Turkel was claiming Solomon would have used if he had meant to say that he was building a permanent residence or dwelling place for Yahweh. This brings us, then, to Turkel's katoikeo "solution," which he clarified with the reference above to Joseph's taking his family to dwell [katoikeo] in Nazareth after he had heard that Herod was dead. I have no disagreement with Turkel at all over the meaning of katoikeo, because there are numerous places in the New Testament where it was used in obvious reference to permanent residency. I assume that Turkel took his katoikeo track because a derivative of this word was used in the speech attributed to Stephen in Acts 7:48: Howbeit the most High dwelleth [katoikei] not in temples made with hands...." In a similar statement, noted earlier, the apostle Paul used the same word: God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth [katoikei] not in temples made with hands" (Acts 17:24). An examination of the broader context of Stephen's statement will show that he, like Paul, seemed to be challenging the view that gods lived in temples. To show this, I will quote from the modern language of the NIV rather than the KJV.
Acts 7:41 That was the time they [the Israelites] made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and held a celebration in honor of what their hands had made. 42 But God turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: "'Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? 43 You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile' beyond Babylon. 44 "Our forefathers had the tabernacle of the Testimony with them in the desert. It had been made as God directed Moses, according to the pattern he had seen. 45 Having received the tabernacle, our fathers under Joshua brought it with them when they took the land from the nations God drove out before them. It remained in the land until the time of David, 46 who enjoyed God's favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built the house for him. 48 "However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men. As the prophet says: 49 "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. What kind of house will you build for me? says the Lord. Or where will my resting place be? 50 Has not my hand made all these things?"
In this speech attributed to the martyr Stephen, he seemed to imply that the tabernacle was acceptable to God, because he had "directed" Moses to make it and that it had been made "according to the pattern [Moses] had seen" but that the tabernacle had been supplanted by David's desire to build a temple as a dwelling place for "the God of Jacob." Stephen seemed to be implying that God directed the building of the tabernacle but that the temple was David's idea, and so it wasn't an acceptable dwelling place for God. If this was what he meant, Stephen was a little rusty in his understanding of the Old Testament, because a passage quoted earlier certainly indicated that Yahweh wanted a house to be built for him. For reader convenience I will requote that passage here. Notice the parts emphasized in bold print.
2 Samuel 7:1 And it came to pass, when the king [David] sat in his house, and Yahweh had given him rest round about from all his enemies; 2 That the king said unto Nathan the prophet, See now, I dwell [yashab] in an house of cedar, but the ark of God dwelleth [yashab] within curtains. 3 And Nathan said to the king, Go, do all that is in thine heart; for Yahweh is with thee. 4 And it came to pass that night, that the word of Yaheh came unto Nathan, saying, 5 Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith Yahweh, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell [yashab] in? 6 Whereas I have not dwelt [yashab] in any house since the time that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle.
The verse in bold print certainly indicates that Yahweh wanted a house to be built for him as a welcomed change from the tent [tabernacle] that he had previously had to live in. The continuation of the text shows further evidence that Yahweh wanted the house [temple] to be built for him to dwell in.
7 In all the places wherein I have walked with all the children of Israel spake I a word with any of the tribes of Israel, whom I commanded to feed my people Israel, saying, Why build ye not me an house of cedar? 8 Now therefore so shalt thou say unto my servant David, Thus saith Yahweh of hosts, I took thee from the sheepcote, from following the sheep, to be ruler over my people, over Israel: 9 And I was with thee whithersoever thou wentest, and have cut off all thine enemies out of thy sight, and have made thee a great name, like unto the name of the great men that are in the earth. 10 Moreover I will appoint a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime, 11 And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also Yahweh telleth thee that he will make thee an house. 12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
Why did Yahweh say that he would have Solomon build him a house if he didn't want it to be done? If it was true, as Stephen said, that "the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands," this would have been a good chance for him to set David and Solomon straight by saying, "Hey, don't build me a house, because I don't live in houses made by men." Stephen's view of the construction of the temple would have this text saying that Yahweh didn't want Solomon to build him a temple but Solomon did it anyway, after which Yahweh rewarded him by promising to establish the throne of his kingdom forever for having done something that Yahweh didn't want him to do. How much sense does that make?
Anyway, the temple wasn't built until Solomon's time, and Stephen obviously thought that it was not an acceptable substitute for the tabernacle, because "the Most High does not live in houses made by men." Here Stephen quoted Isaiah 66:1, which a scholarly consensus attributes to Second Isaiah, thought to be a postexilic addition to an earlier work by the 8th-century prophet. We have noted that both David and Solomon, as well as other preexilic biblical characters, obviously thought that Yahweh would dwell in a temple, so the passage that Stephen quoted in his speech possibly indicates that a less anthropomorphic, more spiritual view of God had evolved by exilic times. Stephen and the apostle Paul were adherents of the latter view, but as we will soon seen, a very important New Testament character still retained the former view.
In Turkel's concluding comments above, I can see an implication that he was thinking, "See, how simple it is? The word that imperfect Solomon used didn't convey a sense of permanent residence, so when the New Testament said that God doesn't dwell [katoikeo] in temples, that settled the matter. Solomon was not saying that God would dwell permanently in the temple. Case closed!"
Turkel, however, made the mistake of overlooking a New Testament passage that says that God does dwell [katoikeo] in the temple.
Matthew 23:21 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth [katoikonti] therein.
The word for dwelleth in this passage was a derivative of katoikeo, which Turkel claims meant permanent residence, so if he is right, this text was saying that God dwells permanently in the temple. Well, who said this? None other than Jesus himself, and I assume that Turkel won't quibble that Jesus wasn't perfect. This leaves Turkel, Stephen, and the apostle Paul to argue with Jesus. They claim that God didn't dwell in the temple, but Jesus said that he did... and, according to Turkel, dwelt there permanently.
Another quibble has backfired in Turkel's face, so I offer him a bit of advice. The Bible is errant. Get over it!
After all, the word in Greek was....
I have frequently pointed out Turkel's inconsistency by showing where he takes one postion and then later another position that contradicts the other one as he did here in the matter of whether the purpose of the gospels was evangelistic. A check of his website will show that he once offered a different explanation of the discrepancy between Exodus 25:8 and Acts 7:48. This occurred in "Continued Mishaps from the Creator of EBE," an article in which Turkel offered his readers typical sound-bite replies to various discrepancies claimed by Dennis McKinsey in his paper Biblical Errancy.
Exodus 25:8 ("And let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them") is set against Acts 7:48 ("Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands...."); the latter is a quote of Stephen who, in polemical and rhetorical context, is countering Jewish rejection of Christ by offering a midrashic statement in 7:49. Since it is a quote at any rate, there is no relevance for inerrancy.
This nonanswer was all that Turkel said to "explain"
this discrepancy. What did he mean by
saying that Stephen was "offering a midrashic statement" in a
"polemical and rhetorical
context"? It no doubt sounds impressive to his PayPals, who probably
trot to church three
times per week but never open the Bible to read it themselves, but it
is entirely too
abstract to explain the problem. Those who do much reading on Turkel's
Whether Stephen was using Midrashic procedures or not in Acts 7, an analysis of his entire speech will show that in defending himself before the Sanhedrin for having preached the gospel, he used a strategy of recapping Jewish history in order to show his accusers that they, like their ancestors, were rebellious and disobedient to the will of God. This strategy was made evident by the final comment in Stephen's speech.
Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. 52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Tact was apparently not one of Stephen's strong points, because this remark so enraged the Jewish court that he was immediately cast out of the city and stoned to death (Acts 7:54-58). Stephen's reference to the temple toward the end of his speech was no doubt planned as a conclusion to part of the charges against him, which was that he had spoken "blasphemous words against this holy place [temple]" and had said that "this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place" (Acts 6:13-14), so it made good sense for him to try to convince his accusers that, contrary to what had been popularly believed, God did not dwell in temples.
Turkel's reply to McKinsey (quoted) above was typically ambiguous, but he seemed not to be denying that Exodus 25:8 was saying that Yahweh would dwell in the tabernacle but that Stephen's comment in Acts 7:48 can't be seen as a contradictory statement, because Stephen was just "countering Jewish rejection of Christ by offering a midrashic statement in 7:49." As I said above, however, Jewish exegetical and Midrashic procedures must be literarily sound, so if Turkel, at the time that he wrote this, thought that Exodus 25:8 did teach that Yahweh dwelt in the tabernacle, he was obligated to show that Stephen's comment didn't contradict the statement in Exodus. Just saying that Stephen had offered "a midrashic statement" hardly shows that there was no contradiction.
To further dismiss Stephen's statement, Turkel went on to say, "Since it [Stephen's comment] is a quote at any rate, there is no relevance for inerrancy," but why isn't it relevant to inerrancy? The account of Stephen's activities said that the Libertines, who later accused him before the Sanhedrin, "were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake" (Acts 6:10), an implication that Stephen was speaking by divine inspiration. A statement made after his speech had enraged his accusers further implied that Stephen was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Acts 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. 57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, 58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him....
Turkel needs to explain to us just why a statement made by someone who was "full of the Holy Ghost" would not be relevant to biblical inerrancy. I didn't use "Jewish exegetical procedures," but I did analyze here Stephen's claim that the Most High did not dwell in temples made with hands. I pointed out that Stephen had quoted Isaiah 66:1, which is generally recognized as a part of a postexilic addition to Isaiah's earlier work. By that time, a less anthropomorphic view of Yahweh had evolved, and so the writer(s) of Second Isaiah were rejecting the preexilic view reflected in Exodus 25:8; 1 Kings 8:13; 2 Samuel 7:1-13, and other texts quoted above. Rather than being irrelevant to biblical inerrancy, then, Stephen's quotation of Isaiah 66:1 is directly relevant to it, because it shows that even the Old Testament presented different views about a contemporary belief that gods lived in temples.
Regardless of whether what Solomon and Stephen said on this subject is relevant to biblical inerrancy, Turkel surely won't claim that what Jesus said about it is not relevant, and I showed above that Jesus said that God dwelt in the temple. In saying this, he used the very word that Turkel claims meant permanent residency.
The word in Greek was... well, katoikeo. If we can't believe Turkel when he says that this word meant permanent residency, whom can we believe?
Is Turkel listening, or is he, like the mob that
rushed to stone Stephen to death, stopping
his ears?
