of Tabernacles.

But, as previously stated, there is yet another question of somewhat greater difficulty which claims our

attention. To judge by the arrangement of the narrative, the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings 8) might seem

to have taken place after the completion of Solomon's palace, the building of which, as we know, occupied

further thirteen years (1 Kings 7:1). Moreover, from the circumstance that the second vision of God was

vouchsafe d "when Solomon had finished the building of the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and

all Solomon's desire which he was pleased to do" (1 Kings 9:1), it has been argued, that the dedication of the

Temple must have taken place immediately before this vision, especially as what was said to him seems to

contain pointed reference to the consecration prayer of Solomon (1 Kings 9:3, 7, 8). But, even if that vision

took place at the time just indicated,122 the supposed inference from it cannot be maintained.

For, although part of the sacred vessels may have been made during the time that Hiram was engaged upon

Solomon's palace, it is not credible that the Temple should, after its completion, have stood deserted and

unused for thirteen years. Nor are the arguments in favor of this most improbable assumption valid. The

appeal to 1 Kings 9:1 would oblige us to date the dedication of the Temple even later than the completion of

Solomon's palace, viz., after he had finished all his other building operations. As for the words which the

LORD spake to Solomon in vision (2 Kings 9:3-9), although bearing reference to the Temple and the king's

dedication prayer, they are evidently intended rather as a general warning, than as an answer to his petition,

and are such as would befit the period of temptation, before Solomon, carried away by the splendor of his

success, yielded himself to the luxury, weakness, and sin of his older age. From all these considerations we

conclude that the Feast of the Dedication, which lasted seven days, took place in the seventh month, that of

Ethanim, or of "flowing brooks,"  123 (the later Tishri), of the year after the completion of the Temple (eleven

months after it), and immediately before the Feast of Tabernacles, which, with the concluding solemnity,

lasted eight days.

The account of the dedication of the Temple may be conveniently ranged under these three particulars, the

Consecration-Services, the Consecration-Prayer, and the Consecration-Thanksgiving and Festive Offerings.

But before des cribing them, it is necessary to call attention to the remarkable circumstance that the chief, if

not almost the sole prominent agent in these services, was the king, the high-priest not being even

mentioned. Not that Solomon in any way interfered with, or arrogated to himself the functions of the

priesthood, but that, in the part which he took, he fully acted up to the spirit of the monarchical institution

as founded in Israel. Solomon was not "king" according to the Saxon idea of cyning - cunning, mighty,

illustrious, the embodiment of strength. According to the terms of the Covenant, all Israel were God's

servants (Leviticus 25:42, 55; comp. Isaiah 41:8, 9; 44:1, 2, 21; 45:4; 49:3, 6; Jeremiah 30:10 and others). As

such they were to be "a kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6) "the priest," in the stricter sense of the term,

being only the representative of the people, with certain distinctive functions ad hoc. But what the nation

was, as a whole, that Israel's theocratic king was pre -eminently the servant of t he LORD (1 Kings 8:25, 28, 29,

52, 59). It was in this capacity that Solomon acted at the dedication of the Temple, as his own words

frequently indicate (see the passages just quoted). In this manner the innermost and deepest idea of the

character of Israel and of Israel's king as "the servant" of the LORD, became, so to speak, more and more

individualized during the progress of the Old Testament dispensation, until it stood out in all its fullness in

the Messiah - the climax of Israel and of Israelitish in stitutions - Who is the Servant of Jehovah. Thus we

perceive that the common underlying idea of the three great institutions in Israel, which connected them all,

was that of the Servant of Jehovah. The prophet who uttered the voice of heaven upon earth was the

servant of Jehovah (comp., for example, Numbers 12:7, 8; Joshua 1:2; Isaiah 20:3, etc.).124

So was the priest, who spake the voice of earth to heaven; and the king, who made heaven's voice to be

heard on earth. That which gave its real meaning equally to this threefold function; downwards, upwards,

outwards - was the grand fact that in each of them it was the Servant of Jehovah who was acting, or, in other

words, that God was all in all. With these general principles in view we shall be better able to understand

what follows.