by Tony Badillo

For certain Solomon’s Temple displays sexual symbolism in quite specific ways, but not in the manner bible scholars imagine. According to them, the twelve oxen that supported Solomon’s enormous Sea of Bronze were fertility bulls, and the two bronze pillars named Jachin and Boaz were twin phalli (male sex organs), something they have been alleging for decades in their ponderous biblical commentaries. And while they are partially correct – there is sexual symbolism – they are also amiss in key ways.

It might be asked: Why would the Temple involve sex? – and the short answer is 1) because it displays a definite Edenic theme in its decorations and architecture and 2)  Eden itself was a place of fertility, displaying the Creator’s powers to produce all manner of life in abundance and 3) the land of Israel, the Promised Land, is biblically presented as the new Eden. And finally and more importantly, 4) the Divine plan for mankind’s spiritual redemp-tion is portrayed through the human birthing process, and since this process involves sex, the Temple portrays spiritual redemption in human sexual terms.

There is no need to explain each point. Let us, instead, see how sexual symbolism appears in the Temple’s design. Forget notions about pagan fertility rites and sacred prostitutes associated with pagan temples. The Temple design includes human procreation, true, but pagan rituals have little to do with it. Instead, the symbolism appears as an ingenious, covert architectural diagram whose demystification was possibly reserved for us and our time.

An Architectural Puzzle

Bible students have long known that there are some features of the Temple’s description that appear contradictory or at least puzzling, and perhaps the most well known concerns the  true height of the Temple’s porch (Heb., ulam, also rendered as hall, portico or vestibule). Was it 30 cubits high or 120, as recorded in II Chronicles 3:4?  To appreciate this puzzle and how  it relates to the Temple’s sexual symbolism, compare the two temples at right. The First is  King Solomon’s (circa 950-586 BC), and the Second (circa 20 BC – AD 70) is King Herod’s. The porch of Herod’s Temple was 100 cubits high – much higher than Solomon’s – in an attempt at reaching the soaring 120 cubit height recorded II Chronicles 3:4. But was Herod’s design a wise move or a colossal error? See First Temple vs. Second Temple on this website.

II Chronicles 3:4 has given scholars headaches for centuries because it cannot be easily reconciled with First Kings 6:2 where the interior height of the holy house (Holy place and Holy of Holies combined ) is recorded as 30 cubits. Only II Chronicles gives us the specific height of the porch, First Kings never does. Why is this important? Because II Chronicles 3:4 is the master key to understanding the Temple’s hidden sexual symbolism, as I will  demonstrate shortly. Here is how bible commentators deal with this odd verse:

1) The verse is simply ignored. This is a wonderful way of  “solving”  bible difficulties!
2) The chronicler was exaggerating the porch’s height to inflate the Jewish national ego, some say.
3) A scribal error occurred. A scribe intended writing 20 cubits but wrote 120 instead.
4) Or maybe the porch truly was 120 cubits high, after all.

The first two points merit no comment. As for point three, most bibles, whether distributed by Jewish or Christian publishing houses, retain the Masoretic text with its 120 cubit height for the porch. However, not too long ago the New International Version (NIV) broke with this tradition and now gives the height as 20 cubits. Its footnote informs us that some Syriac and Septuagint manuscripts contain this smaller measure. This, of course, would make the porch 10 cubits shorter than the remainder of the Temple building. Pertaining to the last point (4), various scholars dismiss an 120 cubit porch saying that a) the porch is nowhere called a tower, but ulam, which signifies a porch, portico, hall, or vestibule; and b) an 120 cubit porch would probably be unsafe in a strong wind because of its narrow base. Is point three adopted by the NIV bible the most logical, therefore? I think not.

Fertility and the Architectural Puzzle

The drawing below: This shows what Solomon’s Temple would look like with a building height of 30 cubits (I Kings 6:2)  and a porch of 120 (II Chronicles, 3:4). Not very appealing . No ancient or modern architect would want to lay claim to this miscreation, the porch is 90 cubits higher than the 30 cubit main structure (30 + 90 =120)!


The solution lies in the Temple’s symbolism of fertility. To portray this it was created as a miniature Garden of Eden, while simultaneously depicting key events in Israel’s history. In this way Solomon’s Temple had a universal aspect (Eden) and a particular one (Israel). It was built on Jewish soil, yet was meant as  a “house of prayer for all peoples” (Isaiah 56:7). Even Jesus recognizes this universal aspect in Mark 11:17; and in Isaiah 2:2 - 4 the prophet links the house of God (the Temple) with the name Jacob, Jerusalem, and a reference to all nations

Therefore, it should be no surprise that  Adam’s ‘deep sleep’ while Eve was being created (Genesis 2:21, 22) corresponds to Jacob’s sleep at Bethel (Solomon's Astonishing Temple Secrets). Jacob is the ‘Adam’ of the Jews. Adam was a father of the world, Jacob the father of the Israelites. Jacob was fleeing his brother’s wrath when he left for Mesopotamia, but he also had a second motive: to find a wife and start a family; and in the dream, the Lord assures him that he will have descendants whose number will be like the ‘dust of the earth,’ (28:14). Similarly, Adam is cast into a deep sleep,  presented with Eve and told to “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth,” (1:28). Consequently, for both men – one  in the Garden and the other at Bethel –  their sleep is linked with their wives and raising a family, i.e., ‘building a house’. Adam builds the world, Jacob builds national Israel, both of which involve sex and fertility and make both men super-fathers.


Yet there is a spiritual aspect which is this: They were to produce children in  God’s “image and likeness,” which means God’s inward character,  otherwise Israel and/or the world becomes corrupt and irredeemable, as portrayed by Noah’s flood.
The Sexual Solution and its Meaning


The 120 cubit porch is the male genital organ, symbolizing  Jacob fathering national Israel, and its entrance – likely  without doors – is the woman’s vaginal opening, because Temple Man’s genitalia is androgynous, depicting both genders. The 120 cubits, therefore, signifies national Israel’s birth and also a ten-fold increase (10 x 12 tribes = 120). 

The Temple is also about the human birth process as an analogy to spiritual redemption, which itself   signifies being renewed or reborn. But here the emphasis is on the fulfillment of the promise made earlier to Abraham that his offspring would multiply as the stars of heaven, Genesis 15:5 – a promise that was passed unto Isaac, his only son by Sarah, and from Isaac to Jacob, who then left for Paddam - Aram to obtain that promise by becoming an assembly of peoples, 28:1-5.

This is what is being depicted here, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise – but through the Temple as Jacob’s body at Bethel where the pledge is repeated, but this time in a marvelous dream. 

Therefore, the 120 cubits are only  figurative, symbolizing begetting and increasing; but the 30 cubits are literal and apply to height of the entire building,, porch included. For more on the spiritual rebirthing being portrayed above, see the Portrayal and Ascension of the Immortal Soul or Spirit.

The Sexual Symbolism of  the Jachin and Boaz Pillars

While the twin bronze pillars named Jachin and Boaz are not phallic symbols as some bible scholars have claimed for decades, they do play a sexual role according to the symbolism of the Temple. But given their description in I Kings. 7:15-22, they were not “fire altars,”
as claimed in some Christian sources. Therefore, we may set aside this age-old notions made popular by Robert Smith and W.F. Albright. Maybe the pillars’ glossy capitals did catch the “first glint of the Jerusalem sunrise” but they still were not flaming cressets, fire altars, or giant torches lighting up the night, nor were their bowl shaped capitals ever filled with burning oil. The pillars, rather, portrayed two hybrid trees or plants.

The drawing at left: Jachin and Boaz depict two identical large plants. The plant was a hybrid  creation whose
capital symbolized a giant water lily and its stem the trunk of a palm tree. The lily had a metallic netting or network upon which were suspended decorative pomegranates (7:20, 42). Some sources say that the Hebrew wording implies two bowls for each pillar (Tanach, Stone Edition, p.818). If so, the lower bowl  was inverted, representing the drooping leaves of a palm tree, but the top bowl depict- ing a budding lily cup was upright, as shown at left. The lily was the love flower of the Ancient Near East, and in this instance symbolizes God’s love for David and Solomon, the two Jewish kings who had the most to do with founding and establishing Israel as a kingdom and planning for and constructing the Temple. David means “beloved” and Solomon’s second name Jedidiah  (II Sam. 12:24, 25) ‘beloved of God’. Palm trees depict peace and prosperity, the mark of King Solomon’s reign. For a very different but complementary view see: Secrets of the Jachin-Boaz Pillars (explains why the pillars were given these particular personal names). This is new  information, well illustrated.

If the lily cup (the top bowl of the capital) symbolizes love, exactly how does this make Jachin and Boaz sex symbols? Observe Temple Manas Jacobsleeping at Bethel (large drawing above) that the capitals (red arrow) seem attached to the porch (the male genital organ); and further, they are high up on his legs. What else can they be except his testes?  Above right: TheTemple measurements and Temple Man show again why the capitals of the pillars are his testes; and this is also why the capitals had a netting or network with 200 pomegranates attached to them (I Kings 7:41, 42). The netting depicts the rough, textured skinof the scrotum, whilethe pomegranates’ copious seeds relate to male sperm . The pillars which are his legs, were only 18 cubits high with 5 cubit capitals*, 23 cubits total. (I Kings 7:15, Jeremiah 52:21). However, II Chronicles 3:15 records a height of 35 cubits for each pillar and 5 cubits for each capital for a total of 40 cubits. But again the Chronicler is writing symbolically, as should be obvious by now. At 23 cubits, the legs would be too short in proportion to the rest of Temple Man’s body.

The Measure of Temple Man – Standing straight as the Metallic Messiah, Temple Man is 130 cubits tall (above right) from head to foot. But as Jacob at Bethel, the image shows us something different: all Israel being reborn spiritually(Ezekiel.11:19, 20; 36:25-28) through the Porch as“a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation,” in accord with Exodus 19:6. However, this verse was never fulfilled in its entirety because of Israel’s unbelief and disobedience. Instead, only the Levite tribe was awarded the priestly duties of the Tabernacle and later the Temple’s, 32:26-29. Exodus 19:6 will yet be fulfilled, but only in the Messianic Age when all Israel shines as a light to the nations (Isaiah 42:6) . 

What is meant by the subheading The Virgin Mary of  the Tanach’s Lord God? Look where the 120-cubit porch is explained as the male genitalorgan and notice that Temple Man is said to be androgynous, depicting both genders. How? The Porch had no doors at the entrance, or if so they typically remained open (compare II Chronicles 29:3 with vv. 5-7) symbolizing the female vulva, the vaginal opening . But the double doors at its second wall - at the entrance to the Holy Place - relate to the hymen (golden lines), the seal or membrane that only virgins have. sRegarding Temple Woman, the golden doors symbolize abetrothed or smarried woman who keeps her virginity, in accord with Joel 1:8, 9 which mentions a woman (national Israel ) who mourns like a “virgin”(Heb. bethula,The Jerusalem Bible, Koren Publishers, Jerusalem),yet has or once had a“husband”.National Israel as a virgin appears elsewhere. Two other verses, for example, are Jeremiah 31:3, 4 and 31:21.However, some other bible versions translate bethula as maiden. But notice, she is called a virgin long after her marriage to the Lord at Mount Sinai. She is a virgin, apparently, in an idealistic spiritual sense – meaning as long as she refrains from idolatry – and also possibly, because of her destiny, to be a light to the nations (Isaiah 42:6, 60:1-3). Finally, Temple Woman’s double doors were actually gold-plated, I Kings 6:33-35, as shown above at left. Related articles on this site: Secrets of the Holy Place.

Is Temple Man a Jewish Idea?

Yes!  – but it should be called the Mishkan Man  or Tabernacle Man idea, because it was proposed perhaps about 150 years ago by Rabbi Meir Leibush (see text within the graphic below). Since then various Jewish writers have referred to it, some without giving Leibush any credit. One clear and concise Jewish explanation with a simple graphic is: Thinking Outside the Box - : . Another, though not so concise, is Introduction to the Concept of the Temple by the Cohen-Levi Family Heritage at:  On this one, scroll far down until you see The Importance of the Temple. A third source is a book titled, The Holy Temple Revisited by Rabbi Leibel Reznick, Jason Aronson, publishers. For more Internet sources use search terms: Mishkan+ eyes, nose, mouth.

Whether the above Jewish writers are referring to the Mishkan or Solomon’s Temple, their explanations are nearly identical: The Ark is the mind, the Menorah is one eye and the Shulcan (Showbread Table) is the other, and the Golden Altar of Incense is the nose, while the entrance to either structure is the mouth, they assert. But is this arrangement logical? Compare below. 

Problems and Solutions

Mishkan refers to the structure’s interior form made of fine linen curtains, whereas tent (ohel) seems a referenceto its outward surface, Exodus 26:1, 7; II Samuel 6:7. On the diagram above at left, the Mishkan (Tabernacle, ref. Exodus 25:8; 9.) is one huge human head. The Holy of Holies is the forehead (the mind), while the Holy Place is the face. And as may be readily seen, Mishkan Man has no arms, no hands, no legs, no feet and no torso! and therefore, the stomach – the Sacrificial Altar outside– has no link to the head.  Moreover, the Menorah (lamp stand) and Showbread Table depicting the eyes have very different shapes. But is your left eye radically than your right one? Is this logical?. Or again, does the pink area (sanctuary or courtyard) remotely resemble a human body? But contrarily, the Temple Floor Plan clearly reveals a Temple Man figure through its design and furnishings. For the meaning of the Menorah and the Showbread Table within Solomon’s Temple see Secrets of the Holy Place.
It is also claimed that the Golden Altar of Incense is the nose. But is it? The small Golden Altar was not for smelling aromas, but for producing them! This is exactly why sweet smelling incense was burned upon it. It is, rather, the Ark with its extended poles (nostrils) that depicts the nose (see More Ark Secrets); while the Golden Altar symbolizes the heart, heart, heart! – and its sweet incense smoke depicts ideal Israel’s spiritual life and prayers ascending to Paradise, the head of  Temple Man, which symbolizes heaven, God’s abode. Temple Man’s eyes are the twin large cherubim of I Kings. 6:23-28. Moreover, the Gold Incense Altar was much closer to the Dividing Curtain (blue line) than indicated by the Mishkan Man diagram whose furniture layout is clearly amiss, because Moses wrote that it was to be: “in front of the curtain” Exodus 30:6, 40:26; and “before the Ark.” Hence, contrary to the Miskan diagram, the Gold Altar was much closer to the Dividing Curtain than either the Menorah or the Showbread Table.

We may say, therefore, that Mishkan Man is an incomplete or embryonic figure (i.e., too many body parts missing) in the Tabernacle, but becomes a whole and sharply-defined adult human being in Solomon’s Temple.

Thanks for your interest!

Many people do not know the most basic things about the Temple, such as its  location on Mt. Moriah , II Chronicles 3:1, or that Moriah was the place where Abraham bound Isaac for sacrifice (Genesis 22:2), or even that this very place is occupied today by sparkling Muslim gold-domed mosque in Jerusalem as shown at right.

The place is holy to Muslims because from here Mohammed ascended to heaven on a white stallion, it is said; and it has the respect of Christianity because of Jesus’ visits there,  And finally, both Jews and Christians believe King Messiah will rule from here in a newly rebuilt future temple. My purpose is to raise the awareness level of the Temple beyond the scant information provided by the general news media, and one way of achieving this is to write about its symbolism and meaning plainly, without theological double-talk or pedantic phraseology. If this message has interested you it may also interest your friends and relatives. Tell them about it! Also, while no part this web site may not be copied at all, anyone may link to it without asking permission.

* II Kings 25:17 records a height of only three cubits for the capitals; but it seems the capitals were divided into two bowls, an upper and lower one and, therefore, one of these bowls was likely three cubits, the other two; or four cubits and the other one cubit. Also see annotations in the Stone Edition, TANACH  in I Kings 7:16; 20

What Others are Saying about this Website

Below are reactions to TEMPLE SECRETS. I get very few negative ones, such as one person saying I was a ‘fool’ for thinking Solomon and his temple ever existed, and another who said I was writing science fiction, 'that’s all.'

Actually temples similar but not identical to Solomon’s were well known in the ANE (Ancient Near East) and scholars refer to their style as long temples. While long temples had a similarity, no two were identical no matter who built them.

A kabbalah oriented Israeli rabbi remarks,

You have done a momentous discovery about the human form of the Temple of Solomon. The question is, how come it was not done before? All of what you brought and the many Kabbalah interpretations point to it ... I know of related works, Schwaller de Lubicz did it for the temple at Luxor Egypt, and On Zayit did it for the tabernacle. But (at least for me) you are the first to make this point cogently.
Y.H., Jerusalem

An Israeli Jewish film and video producer,

(After reviewing Temple Secrets he compares it to Ezekiel's temple and says...) Are you aware of the similarity between the human body and the Third Temple, that is Ezekiel's Temple? It is astounding!

A Jerusalem rabbi replies,

You will find it interesting that the Midrash says that God really should have taken His anger out on the Jewish people thus destroying them, but in His mercy, He chose to destroy the Temple, instead. As the place where God and man communicate, the Temple resembles the perfected man in more ways than one!

With blessings from Jerusalem,

An Israeli rabbi has questions ...

Dear Tony,

Your work is so special. Who are you? Where are you? Do you know any of the folks here in Israel that I might know? Have you seen the commentaries of the Gaon of Vilna and the Malbim on the Mishkan? Shalom.

A secular writer and editor remarks,

I have just checked your site out, and I am very impressed by its clear layout and correlation with de Lubicz' work ... Thanks for letting me know of your research.

'Wonderful research,' Christian says,

I think you have very interesting information on King Solomon's Temple and I would love to check out a copy of your complete research paper. If this is in any way possible, please respond at this address. Thank you, and again congratulations on a wonderful piece of research.

Christian wants more material,

I've just finished reading some of your work concerning the Metallic Messiah and I must say it was fascinating! I have believed and taught for some time that the Temple and Tabernacle were made after the model of the human body (or perhaps vice-versa), but your research make the picture crystal clear. Do you have more material available online?



  Visitors Since 11/8/99