For some time past there has been a great need that theology should become more biblical, and that biblical studies should become more theological. To-day there are welcome signs that this is coming about, which is in effect a reviving sense of the authority of the Bible. There is a feeling that if criticism has not finished its task—which can hardly be the case—it is time that it was supplemented by something else; that it has too long dominated biblical studies as though it were the very building, whereas it is in fact a means of securing the foundations on which the main structure can be raised; that its necessary method of analysis, increasingly elaborated, has tended to destroy the recognition of the majestic structure of the biblical revelation and its unity. Thus Dr Vincent Taylor in the introduction to his Jesus and His Sacrifice confessed that after twenty-five years devoted to the minutiae of synoptic criticism, he had a great desire to consider what the Gospels really have to say for themselves. In the realm of Old Testament studies there has emerged a sense that, Israel's history being so remarkable, it is useless to brush aside all the later developments of, let us say, the Priestly Code as regrettable and retrograde; it is wiser and more helpful to ask what their significance really is, and whether they do not rather witness to the rich fulness of religion under the old covenant. The point to be driven home is just this: when the sources have been analysed and dated as far as may be, then begins the real task of considering what is the significance of the contents. That can and will only be found in our Lord Jesus Christ. But that in effect means allowing the Bible to be its own interpreter, explaining one part by another. Especially when seeking for the significance of the Old Testament must the search be carried over into the New Testament. It seems worth while to try and work this method out on the theme of the temple.