why did it take king solomon 7 years to build his temple?

Answer 1

Seven years was quite good going for something as perfect as that. There was a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing from Jerusalem to Lebanon; much quarrying of huge blocks of stone, much cutting of cedars, olive trees and pine trees, very careful measuring up and fitting of woodwork, elaborate craftsmanship of the fittings, a great deal of gold work. All this was done by hand and there were no mechanical means of conveying the raw materials or the workforce. Seven years, as I say, was very impressive for something as intricate as this and Solomon's own palace took thirteen years to build -- nearly twice as long!

Answer 2

It is difficult to answer this question with any degree of certainty, because there is so little left of the Temple of Solomon to consider. The temple itself was sacked (according to the Bible) at least a half-dozen times, and it was destroyed so thoroughly and so long ago that even its location is only a matter of speculation now.

How long it should take to produce a temple, though, depends to a large degree on its size, of course. Here we encounter one of our first problematic disparities. Some accounts hold the temple to have been as little as 20 cubits high, and some as much as 120 cubits high. This is the difference between a three-story building and a twenty-story one! Part of this discrapancy in accounts may be answered by possible locations - some of the possible sites for the temple are on hills which would require a fair amount of shoring up on one side an little on another.

The second major variable is labour. If you throw enough people at a project, you can get all kinds of things accomplished in a short amount of time. It is mentioned in some accounts the Solomon formed a slave force for the temple's construction that consisted of EVERY non-Israelite in his lands. To this force was undoubtedly added a number of paid Israelite workers. So how many does this add up to? It's hard to say. But the Great Pyramid at Giza required the labour of 300,000 men for 20 years. My most accounts, the Temple of Solomon was only a fraction of the size, but then it also was completed in a fraction of the time...

Accounts of the construction say that the first three years were passed in 'preparation'. This undoubtedly includes not only drawing up plans, but gathering people, quarrying and moving stone to the site, and so on. Much of the money used was left to him by his father, but there was probably cost overruns, as there often is with a project of this size. The actual erection of the building itself supposedly took only a little more than four years.

I don't think this seven-year plan was an accident, either. Numerology was very common during those times and is rampant throughout the bible. Seven is an auspicious number, and in the Bible is usually referred to as 'God's number'. It seems too much of a coincidence that the first temple would take exactly that number of years to build... so it was likely either a matter of foresight or propoganda. I tend to assume it's mostly the former, with a bit of the latter in overlooking that extra half-year. (I can only imagine how many double- and triple-shifts were called for as the project started going over the planned construction time!)

Hope all that helps. There's no lack of speculative information floating around, but without even a floor-plan to go from, it's hard to be truly concrete. Enjoy!

Answer 3

He had to get together the financing, buy the materials, hire the workers, hire the skilled laborers (stonemasons), and continue to raise money to complete the job. He was lucky he did it in the era he did. By the time the Middle Ages came around, it was taking 85 to 150 years to build a cathedral.

Answer 4

temples are generally large and complicated, and with only slave labor, the work tends to be on the slow side, and considering the time period, i am surprised that it did not take 30-40 years, which is the normal amount of time.