Tabernacle

VIEW:15 DATA:01-04-2020
TABERNACLE.—1. By ‘the tabernacle’ without further qualification, as by the more expressive designation ‘tabernacle of the congregation’ (RV [Note: Revised Version.] more correctly ‘tent of meeting,’ see below), is usually understood the elaborate portable sanctuary which Moses erected at Sinai, in accordance with Divine instructions, as the place of worship for the Hebrew tribes during and after the wilderness wanderings. But modern criticism has revealed the fact that this artistic and costly structure is confined to the Priestly sources of the Pentateuch, and is to be carefully distinguished from a much simpler tent bearing the same name and likewise associated with Moses. The relative historicity of the two ‘tents of meeting’ will be more fully examined at the close of this article (§ 9).
2. The sections of the Priests’ Code (P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ) devoted to the details of the fabric and furniture of the Tabernacle, and to the arrangements for its transport from station to station in the wilderness, fall into two groups, viz. (a) Exo_25:1-40; Exo_26:1-37; Exo_27:1-21; Exo_30:1-38; Exo_31:1-18, which are couched in the form of instructions from J″ [Note: Jahweh.] to Moses as to the erection of the Tabernacle and the making of its furniture according to the ‘pattern’ or model shown to the latter on the holy mount (Exo_25:9; Exo_25:40); (b) Exo_35:1-35; Exo_36:1-38; Exo_37:1-29; Exo_38:1-31; Exo_39:1-43; Exo_40:1-38, which tell inter alia of the carrying out of these instructions. Some additional details, particularly as to the arrangements on the march, are given in Num_3:25 ff; Num_4:4 ff; Num_7:1 ff..
In these and other OT passages the wilderness sanctuary is denoted by at least a dozen different designations (see the list in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 655). The most frequently employed is that also borne, as we have seen, by the sacred tent of the Elohistic source (E [Note: Elohist.] ), ‘the tent of meeting’ (so RV [Note: Revised Version.] throughout). That this is the more correct rendering of the original ’ôhel mô‘çd, as compared with AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ’s ‘tabernacle of the congregation,’ is now universally acknowledged. The sense in which the Priestly writers, at least, understood the second term is evident from such passages as Exo_25:22, where, with reference to the mercy-seat (see 7 (b)), J″ [Note: Jahweh.] is represented as saying: ‘there I will meet with thee and commune with thee’ (cf. Num_7:89). This, however, does not exclude a possible early connexion of the name with that of the Babylonian ‘mount of meeting’ (Isa_14:13, EV [Note: English Version.] ‘congregation’), the mô‘çd or assembly of the gods.
3. In order to do justice to the Priestly writers in their attempts to give literary shape to their ideas of Divine worship, it must be remembered that they were following in the footsteps of Ezekiel (chs. 40–48), whose conception of a sanctuary is that of a dwelling-place of the Deity (see Eze_37:27). Now the attribute of Israel’s God, which for these theologians of the Exile overshadowed all others, was His ineffable and almost unapproachable holiness, and the problem for Ezekiel and his priestly successors was how man in his creaturely weakness and sinfulness could with safety approach a perfectly holy God. The solution is found in the restored Temple in the one case (Eze_40:1-49 ff.), and in the Tabernacle in the other, together with the elaborate sacrificial and propitiatory system of which each is the centre. In the Tabernacle, in particular, we have an ideal of a Divine sanctuary, every detail of which is intended to symbolize the unity, majesty, and above all the holiness of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] , and to provide an earthly habitation in which a holy God may again dwell in the midst of a holy people. ‘Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them’ (Exo_25:8).
4. Taking this general idea of the Tabernacle with us, and leaving a fuller discussion of its religious significance and symbolism to a later section (§ 8), let us proceed to study the arrangement and component parts of P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ’s ideal sanctuary. Since the tents of the Hebrew tribes, those of the priests and Levites, and the three divisions of the sanctuary—court, holy place, and the holy of holies—represent ascending degrees of holiness in the scheme of the Priestly writer, the appropriate order of study will be from without inwards, from the perimeter of the sanctuary to its centre.
(a) We begin, therefore, with ‘the court of the dwelling’ (Exo_27:9). This is described as a rectangular enclosure in the centre of the camp, measuring 100 cubits from east to west and half that amount from south to north. If the shorter cubit of, say, 18 inches (for convenience of reckoning) be taken as the unit of measurement, this represents an area of approximately 50 yards by 25, a ratio of 2:1. The entrance, which is on the eastern side, is closed by a screen (Exo_27:16 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ) of embroidered work in colours. The rest of the area is screened off by plain white curtains (EV [Note: English Version.] ‘hangings’) of ‘fine twined linen’ 5 cubits in height, suspended, like the screen, at equal intervals of 5 cubits from pillars standing in sockets (EV [Note: English Version.] ) or bases of bronze. Since the perimeter of the court measured 300 cubits, 60 pillars in all were required for the curtains and the screen, and are reckoned in the text in groups of tens and twenties, 20 for each long side, and 10 for each short side. The pillars are evidently intended to be kept upright by means of cords or stays fastened to pins or pegs of bronze stuck in the ground.
(b) In the centre of the court is placed the altar of burnt-offering (Exo_27:1-8), called also ‘the brazen altar’ and ‘the altar’ par excellence. When one considers the purpose it was intended to serve, one is surprised to find this altar of burnt-offering consisting of a hollow chest of acacia wood (so RV [Note: Revised Version.] throughout, for AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘shittim’)—the only wood employed in the construction of the Tabernacle—5 cubits in length and breadth, and 3 in height, overlaid with what must, for reasons of transport, have been a comparatively thin sheathing of bronze. From the four corners spring the four horns of the altar, ‘of one piece’ with it, while half-way up the side there was fitted a projecting ledge, from which depended a network or grating (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘grate’) of bronze (Exo_27:5, Exo_38:4 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). The meshes of the latter must have been sufficiently wide to permit of the sacrificial blood being dashed against the sides and base of the altar (cf. the sketch in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 658). Like most of the other articles of the Tabernacle furniture, the altar was provided with rings and poles for convenience of transport.
(c) In proximity to the altar must be placed the bronze laver (Exo_30:17-21), containing water for the ablutions of the priests. According to Exo_38:8, it was made from the ‘mirrors of the women which served at the door of the tent of meeting’ (RV [Note: Revised Version.] )—a curious anachronism.
5. (a) It has already been emphasized that the dominant conception of the Tabernacle in these chapters is that of a portable sanctuary, which is to serve as the earthly dwelling-place of the heavenly King. In harmony therewith we find the essential part of the fabric of the Tabernacle, to which every other structural detail is subsidiary, described at the outset by the characteristic designation ‘dwelling.’ ‘Thou shalt make the dwelling (EV [Note: English Version.] ‘tabernacle’) of ten curtains’ (Exo_26:1). It is a fundamental mistake to regard the wooden part of the Tabernacle as of the essence of the structure, and to begin the study of the whole therefrom, as is still being done.
The ten curtains of the dwelling (mishkân), each 28 cubits by 4, are to be of the finest linen, adorned with inwoven tapestry figures of cherubim in violet, purple, and scarlet (see Colours). ‘the work of the cunning workman’ (Exo_26:1 ff. RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). They are to be sewed together to form two sets of five, which again are to be ‘coupled together’ by means of clasps (RV [Note: Revised Version.] ; AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘taches’) and loops, so as to form one large surface 40 (10×4) cubits by 28 (7×4), ‘for the dwelling shall be one’ (Exo_26:8). Together the curtains are designed to form the earthly, and, with the aid of the attendant cherubim, to symbolize the heavenly, dwelling-place of the God of Israel.
(b) The next section of the Divine directions (Exo_26:7-14) provides for the thorough protection of these delicate artistic curtains by means of three separate coverings. The first consists of eleven curtains of goats’ hair ‘for a tent over the dwelling,’ and therefore of somewhat larger dimensions than the curtains of the latter, namely 30 cubits by 4, covering, when joined together, a surface of 44 cubits by 30. The two remaining coverings are to be made respectively of rams’ skins dyed red and of the skins of a Red Sea mammal, which is probably the dugong (Exo_26:14, RV [Note: Revised Version.] ‘sealskins,’ Heb. tachash).
(c) At this point one would have expected to hear of the provision of a number of poles and stays by means of which the dwelling might be pitched like an ordinary tent. But the author of Exo_26:1-14 does not apply the term ‘tent’ to the curtains of the dwelling, but, as we have seen, to those of the goats’ hair covering, and instead of poles and stays we find a different and altogether unexpected arrangement in Exo_26:15-30. Unfortunately the crucial passage, Exo_26:15-17, contains several obscure technical terms, with regard to which, in the present writer’s opinion, the true exegetical tradition has been lost. The explanation usually given, which finds in the word rendered ‘boards’ huge wooden beams of impossible dimensions, has been shown in a former study to be exegetically and intrinsically inadmissible; see art. ‘Tabernacle’ in Hastings’ DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] , vol. iv. p. 563b ff. To § 7 (b) of that article, with which Haupt’s note on 1Ki_7:28 in SBOT [Note: BOT Sacred Books of Old Testament.] should now be compared, the student is referred for the grounds on which the following translation of the leading passage is based. ‘And thou shalt make the frames for the dwelling of acacia wood, two uprights for each frame joined together by cross rails.’ The result is, briefly, the substitution of 48 light open frames (see diagrams, op. cit.), each 10 cubits in height by 11/2 in width, for the traditional wooden beams of these dimensions, each, according to the usual theory, 1 cubit thick, equivalent to a weight of from 15 to 20 hundredweights!
The open frames—after being overlaid with gold according to our present but scarcely original text (1Ki_7:29)—are to be ‘reared up,’ side by side, along the south, west, and north sides of a rectangular enclosure measuring 30 cubits by 10 (1Ki_3:1), the east side or front being left open. Twenty frames go to form each long side of the enclosure (11/2x20 = 30 cubits); the western end requires only six frames (11/2x6 = 9 cubs.); the remaining cubit of the total width is made up by the thickness of the frames and bars of the two long sides. The two remaining frames are placed at the two western corners, where, so far as can be gathered from the obscure text of 1Ki_3:24, the framework is doubled for greater security. The lower ends of the two uprights of each frame are inserted into solid silver bases, which thus form a continuous foundation and give steadiness to the structure. This end is further attained by an arrangement of bars which together form three parallel sets running along all three sides, binding the whole framework together and giving it the necessary rigidity.
Over this rigid framework, and across the intervening space, are laid the tapestry curtains to form the dwelling, the symbolic figures of the cherubim now fully displayed on the sides as well as on the roof. Above these come the first of the protective coverings above described, the goats’ hair curtains of the ‘tent,’ as distinguished from the ‘dwelling.’ In virtue of their greater size, they overlap the curtains of the latter, their breadth of 30 cubits exactly sufficing for the height and width of the dwelling (10 + 10 + 10 cubits). As they thus reached to the base of the two long sides of the Tabernacle, they were probably fastened by pegs to the ground. At the eastern end the outermost curtain was probably folded in two so as to hang down for the space of two cubits over the entrance (26:9). In what manner the two remaining coverings are to be laid is not specified.
[This solution of the difficulties connected with the construction of the Tabernacle, first offered in DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv., has been adopted, since the above was written, by the two latest commentators on Exodus, M‘Neile and Bennett; see esp. the former’s Book of Exodus [1908], lxxiii–xcii.]
(d) The fabric of the Tabernacle, as described up to this point in Exo_26:1-30, has been found to consist of three parts, carefully distinguished from each other. These are (1) the artistic linen curtains of the dwelling, the really essential part; (2) their supporting framework, the two together enclosing, except at the still open eastern front, a space 30 cubits long and 10 cubits wide from curtain to curtain, and 10 cubits in height; and (3) the protecting tent (so called) of goats’ hair, with the two subsidiary coverings.
The next step is to provide for the division of the dwelling into two parts, in the proportion of 2 to 1, by means of a beautiful portiere, termed the veil (Exo_26:31 ff.), of the same material and artistic workmanship as the curtains of the dwelling. The veil is to be suspended from four gilded pillars, 20 cubits from the entrance and 10 from the western end of the structure. The larger of the two divisions of the dwelling is named the holy place, the smaller the holy of holies or most holy place. From the measurements given above, it will be seen that the most holy place—the true presence-chamber of the Most High, to which the holy place forms the antechamber—has the form of a perfect cube, 10 cubits (about 15 ft.) in length, breadth, and height, enclosed on all four sides and on the roof by the curtains and their cherubim.
(e) No provision has yet been made for closing the entrance to the Tabernacle. This is now done (Exo_26:36 f.) by means of a hanging, embroidered in colours—a less artistic fabric than the tapestry of the ‘cunning workman’—measuring 10 cubits by 10, and suspended from five pillars with bases of bronze. Its special designation, ‘a screen for the door of the Tent’ (Exo_26:36 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ), its inferior workmanship, and its bronze bases, all show that strangely enough it is not to be reckoned as a part of the dwelling, of which the woven fabric is tapestry, and the only metals silver and gold.
6. Coming now to the furniture of the dwelling, and proceeding as before from without inwards, we find the holy place provided with three articles of furniture: (a) the table of shewbread, or, more precisely, presence-bread (Exo_25:23-30, Exo_37:10-16); (b) the so-called golden candlestick, in reality a seven-branched lampstand (Exo_25:31-40, Exo_37:17-24) (c) the altar of incense (Exo_30:1-7, Exo_37:25-28). Many of the details of the construction and ornamentation of these are obscure, and reference is here made, once for all, to the fuller discussion of these difficulties in the article already cited (DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 662 ff.).
(a) The table of shewbread, or presence-table (Num_4:7), is a low table or wooden stand overlaid with pure gold, 11/2 cubits in height. Its top measures 2 cubits by 1. The legs are connected by a narrow binding-rail, one hand-breadth wide, the ‘border’ of Exo_25:25, to which are attached four golden rings to receive the staves by which the table is to be carried on the march. For the service of the table are provided ‘the dishes, the spoons, the flagons, and the bowls thereof to pour withal’ (Exo_25:29 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ), all of pure gold. Of these the golden ‘dishes’ are the salvers on which the loaves of the presence-bread (see Shewbread) were displayed; the ‘spoons’ are rather cups for frankincense (Lev_24:7); the flagons’ (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ‘covers’) are the larger, and the ‘bowls’ the smaller, vessels for the wine connected with this part of the ritual.
(b) The golden candlestick or lampstand is to be constructed of ‘beaten work’ (repoussé) of pure gold. Three pairs of arms branched off at different heights from the central shaft, and curved outwards and upwards until their extremities were on a level with the top of the shaft, the whole providing stands for seven golden lamps. Shaft and arms were alike adorned with ornamentation suggested by the flower of the almond tree (cf. diagram in DB [Note: Dictionary of the Bible.] iv. 663). The golden lampstand stood on the south side of the holy place, facing the table of shewbread on the north side. The ‘tongs’ of exo Exo_25:38 are really ‘snuffers’ (so AV [Note: Authorized Version.] Exo_37:23) for dressing the wicks of the lamps, the burnt portions being placed in the ‘snuff dishes.’ Both sets of articles were of gold.
(c) The passage containing the directions for the altar of incense (Exo_30:1-7) forms part of a section (chs. 30, 31) which, there is reason to believe is a later addition to the original contents of the Priests’ Code. The altar is described as square in section, one cubit each way, and two cubits in height, with projecting horns. Like the rest of the furniture, it was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, with the usual provision of rings and staves. Its place is in front of the veil separating the holy from the most holy place. Incense of sweet spices is to be offered upon it night and morning (Exo_30:7 ff.).
7. In the most holy place are placed two distinct yet connected sacred objects, the ark and the propitiatory or mercy-seat (Exo_25:10-22, Exo_37:1-9). (a) P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ’s characteristic name for the former is the ark of the testimony. The latter term is a synonym in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] for the Decalogue (Exo_25:16), which was written on ‘the tables of testimony’ (Exo_31:18), deposited, according to an early tradition, within the ark. The ark itself occasionally receives the simple title of ‘the testimony,’ whence the Tabernacle as sheltering the ark is named in P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] both ‘the dwelling (EV [Note: English Version.] ‘tabernacle’) of the testimony’ (Exo_38:21 etc.) and ‘the tent of the testimony’ (Num_9:15 etc.). The ark of the Priests’ Code is an oblong chest of acacia wood, 21/2 cubits in length and 11/2 in breadth and height (5×3×3 half-cubits), overlaid within and without with pure gold. The sides are decorated with an obscure form of ornamentation, the ‘crown’ of Exo_25:11, probably a moulding (RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ‘rim or moulding’). At the four corners (Exo_25:12 AV [Note: Authorized Version.] ; RV [Note: Revised Version.] , less accurately, ‘feet’) the usual rings were attached to receive the bearing-poles. The precise point of attachment is uncertain, whether at the ends of the two long sides or of the two short sides. Since it would be more seemly that the throne of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] , presently to be described, should face in the direction of the march, it is more probable that the poles were meant to pass through rings attached to the short sides, but whether these were to be attached at the lowest point of the sides, or higher up, cannot be determined. That the Decalogue or ‘testimony’ was to find a place in the ark (Exo_25:16) has already been stated.
(b) Distinct from the ark, but resting upon and of the same superficial dimensions as its top, viz. 21/2 by 11/2 cubits, we find a slab of solid gold to which is given the name kappôreth. The best English rendering is the propitiatory (Exo_25:17 ff.), of which the current mercy-seat, adopted by Tindale from Luther’s rendering, is a not inappropriate paraphrase. From opposite ends of the propitiatory, and ‘of one piece’ with it (Exo_25:19 RV [Note: Revised Version.] ), rose a pair of cherubim figures of beaten work of pure gold. The faces of the cherubim were bent downwards in the direction of the propitiatory, while the wings with which each was furnished met overhead, so as to cover the propitiatory (Exo_25:18-20).
We have now penetrated to the Innermost shrine of the priestly sanctuary. Its very position is significant. The surrounding court is made up of two squares, 50 cubits each way, placed side by side (see above). The eastern square, with its central altar, is the worshippers’ place of meeting. The entrance to the Tabernacle proper lies along the edge of the western square, the exact centre of which is occupied by the most holy place. In the centre of the latter, again, at the point of intersection of the diagonals of the square, we may be sure, is the place intended for the ark and the propitiatory. Here in the very centre of the camp is the earthly throne of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] . Here, ‘from above the propitiatory, from between the cherubim,’ the most holy of all earth’s holy places, will God henceforth meet and commune with His servant Moses (Exo_25:22). But with Moses only; for even the high priest is permitted to enter the most holy place but once a year, on the great Day of Atonement, when he comes to sprinkle the blood of the national sin-offering ‘with his finger upon the mercy-seat’ (Lev_16:14). The ordinary priests came only into the holy place, the lay worshipper only into ‘the court of the dwelling.’ In the course of the foregoing exposition, it will have been seen how these ascending degrees of sanctity are reflected in the materials employed in the construction of the court, holy place, most holy place, and propitiatory respectively. It is not without significance that the last named is the only article of solid gold in the whole sanctuary.
8. These observations lead naturally to a brief exposition of the religious symbolism which so evidently pervades every part of the wilderness sanctuary. Its position in the centre of the camp of the Hebrew tribes has already been more than once referred to. By this the Priestly writer would emphasize the central place which the rightly ordered worship of Israel’s covenant God must occupy in the theocratic community of the future.
The most assured fruit of the discipline of the Babylonian Exile was the final triumph of monotheism. This triumph we find reflected in the presuppositions of the Priests’ Code. One God, one sanctuary, is the idea implicit throughout. But not only is there no God but Jahweh; Jahweh, Israel’s God, ‘is one’ (Deu_6:4 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] ), and because He is one, His earthly ‘dwelling’ must be one (Exo_26:6 RV [Note: Revised Version.] , cf. § 5 (a)). The Tabernacle thus symbolizes both the oneness and the unity of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] .
Nor is the perpetual striving after proportion and symmetry which characterizes all the measurements of the Tabernacle and its furniture without a deeper significance. By this means the author undoubtedly seeks to symbolize the perfection and harmony of the Divine character. Thus, to take but a single illustration, the perfect cube of the most holy place, of which ‘the length and breadth and height,’ like those of the New Jerusalem of the Apocalypse (Rev_21:16), ‘are equal,’ is clearly intended to symbolize the perfection of the Divine character, the harmony and equipoise of the Divine attributes.
Above all, however, the Tabernacle in its relation to the camp embodies and symbolizes the almost unapproachable holiness of God. This fundamental conception has been repeatedly emphasized in the foregoing sections, and need be re-stated in this connexion only for the sake of completeness. The symbolism of the Tabernacle is a subject in which pious imaginations in the past have run riot, but with regard to which one must endeavour to be faithful to the ideas in the mind of the Priestly author. The threefold division of the sanctuary, for example, into court, holy place, and holy of holies, may have originally symbolized the earth, heaven, and the heaven of heavens, but for the author of Exo_25:1-40 ff. it was an essential part of the Temple tradition (cf. Temple, § 7). In this case, therefore, the division should rather be taken, as in § 7 above, as a reflexion of the three grades of the theocratic community, people, priests, and high priest.
9. Reluctantly, but unavoidably, we must return, in conclusion, to the question mooted in § 2 as to the relation of the gorgeous sanctuary above described to the simple ‘tent of meeting’ of the older Pentateuch sources. In other words, is P [Note: Priestly Narrative.] ’s Tabernacle historical? In the first place, there is no reason to question, but on the contrary every reason to accept, the data of the Elohistic source (E [Note: Elohist.] ) regarding the Mosaic ‘tent of meeting.’ This earlier ‘tabernacle’ is first met with in Exo_33:7-11; ‘Now Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it [the tenses are frequentative] without the camp, afar off from the camp … and it came to pass that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tent of meeting which was without the camp.’ To it, we are further Informed, Moses was wont to retire to commune with J″ [Note: Jahweh.] , who descended in the pillar of the cloud to talk with Moses at the door of the tent ‘as a man talketh with his friend’ (see also the references in Num_11:16-30; Num_12:1 ff; Num_14:10). Only a mind strangely insensible to the laws of evidence, or still in the fetters of an antiquated doctrine of inspiration, could reconcile the picture of this simple tent, ‘afar off from the camp,’ with Joshua as its single non-Levitical attendant (Exo_33:11), with that of the Tabernacle of the Priests’ Code, situated in the centre of the camp, with its attendant army of priests and Levites. Moreover, neither tent nor Tabernacle is rightly intelligible except as the resting-place of the ark, the symbol of J″ [Note: Jahweh.] ’s presence with His people. Now, the oldest of our extant historical sources have much to tell us of the fortunes of the ark from the time that it formed the glory of the Temple at Shiloh until it entered its final resting-place in that of Solomon (see Ark). But nowhere is there the slightest reference to anything in the least resembling the Tabernacle of §§ 4–8. It is only in the Books of Chronicles, in certain of the Psalms, and in passages of the pre-exilic writings which have passed through the hands of late post-exilic editors that such references are found. An illuminating example occurs in 2Ch_1:3 f. compared with 1Ki_3:2 ff..
Apart, therefore, from the numerous difficulties presented by the description of the Tabernacle and its furniture, such as the strangely inappropriate brazen altar (§ 4 (b)), or suggested by the unexpected wealth of material and artistic skill necessary for its construction, modern students of the Pentateuch find the picture of the desert sanctuary and its worship irreconcilable with the historical development of religion and the cultus in Israel. In Exo_25:1-40 and following chapters we are dealing not with historical fact, but with ‘the product of religious idealism’; and surely these devout idealists of the Exile should command our admiration as they deserve our gratitude. If the Tabernacle is an ideal, it is truly an ideal worthy of Him for whose worship it seeks to provide (see the exposition of the general idea of the Tabernacle in § 3, and now in full detail by M‘Neile as cited, § 5 above). Nor must it be forgotten, that in reproducing in portable form, as they unquestionably do, the several parts and appointments of the Temple of Solomon, including even its brazen altar, the author or authors of the Tabernacle believed, in all good faith, that they were reproducing the essential features of the Mosaic sanctuary, of which the Temple was supposed to be the replica and the legitimate successor.
A. R. S. Kennedy.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909


Hebrew mishkan, 'ohel; Greek skeenee. A miniature model of the earth, as Israel was a pattern to all nations. The earth shall at last be the tabernacle of God's glory, when He will tabernacle with men (Rev_21:3). Mishkan is from shakan "to dwell," a poetical word, from from whence comes shekinah. As ohel represents the outward tent of black goats' hair curtains, so mishkan is the inner covering, the curtain immediately on the boards; the two are combined, "the tabernacle of the tent" (Exo_39:32; Exo_40:2; Exo_40:6; Exo_40:29). "House" (bet) applies to the tabernacle when fixed in Canaan, Israel's inheritance; originally appearing in Beth-el; finally designating the church of the New Testament (1Ti_3:15.) Qodesh and miqdash, "sanctuary," are applied to
(1) the whole tabernacle (Exo_25:8),
(2) the court of the priests (Num_4:12), and
(3) in the narrowest sense to the holy of holies (Lev_4:6).
The same tabernacle was in the wilderness and in Shiloh; the external surroundings alone were changed (Psa_78:60; Jos_18:1; 1Sa_3:15). The inner mishkan (Greek naos) was the same, surrounded by an outer covered space into which "doors" led. Samuel slept, not in the inner mishkan, but in one of the outer chambers. The whole, including the outer chambers, was called heeykal (Greek hieron), "palace." The predominating color was sky blue (Exo_25:4; Exo_26:4; Exo_28:28; Exo_28:31; Exo_28:37); the curtain, loops, veil, high priest's lace of the breast-plate, ephod robe, mitre lace. The three colors employed, blue, scarlet, and purple, were the royal colors and so best suited to the tabernacle, the earthly palace of Jehovah. The three principal parts of the tabernacle were the mishkan, "the DWELLING PLACE"; the tent, 'ohel; the covering, mikseh.
The materials for the mishkan were a great cloth of woven work figured with cherubim, measuring 40 cubits by 28, and a quadrangular enclosure of wood, open at one end, 10 cubits high, 10 wide, and 30 long. The size of the cloth appears from the number and dimensions of the ten breadths ("curtains") of which it consisted (Exo_26:1-6; Exo_26:26-28; Exo_36:31-33). The VEIL was 10 cubits from the back, according to Philo and Josephus. (See VEIL.) THE TENT was the great cloth of goats' hair, 44 cubits by 30, and five pillars overlaid with gold, and furnished with golden hooks (waw), used as to the veil and the tent curtains; taches, "qeres," belong to the tabernacle cloth and the tent cloth of the sanctuary, Exo_26:6; Exo_26:33), from which hung the curtain that closed the entrance. The covering was of rams' and tachash (skins of marine animals, as seals; badger skins. (See BADGER) Fergusson ably shows that an ordinary tent sheltered the inner mishkan. The common arrangement makes
(1) the fabric unsightly in form and the beauty of its materials mainly concealed; also
(2) drapery could not be strained over a space of 15 feet without heavily sagging, and a flat roof could not keep out rain; also
(3) the pins and cords essential to a tent would hardly have place if the curtains were merely thrown over the woodwork and hung down on each side; also
(4) the name "tent" implies a structure in that shape, not flat roofed; also
(5) the five pillars in front of the mishkan would be out of symmetry with the four pillars of the veil, and the middle of the five pillars would stand needlessly and inconveniently in the way of the entrance.
The five are quite appropriate to the entrance to a tent; the middle one, the tallest, supporting one end of a ridge pole, 60 ft. long. The heads of the pillars were joined by connecting rods (KJV "fillets ") overlaid with gold (Exo_36:38). There were five bars for each side of the structure, and five for the back, the middle bar alone of the five on each wall reached from end to end (Exo_26:28), as here shown. The red rams' skins covering was over the goats' hair, and the tachash skins above this (Exo_26:14). The tent cloth was laid over the tabernacle cloth so as to allow a cubit of tent cloth extending on each side in excess of the tabernacle cloth; it extended two cubits at the back and front (Exo_26:13; Exo_36:9; Exo_36:13). The roof angle was probably a right angle; then every measurement is a multiple of five cubits, except the width of the tabernacle cloth, 21 cubits, and the length of the tent cloth, 44 cubits. Each side of the slope would be about 14 cubits, half the width of the tabernacle cloth. The slope extends five feet beyond the wooden walls, and five from the ground.
The tent cloth would hang down one cubit on each side. The tent area (judging from the tabernacle cloth) thus is 10 ft. by 21 ft.; the tent cloth overhanging at the back and front by two cubits, i.e. half a breadth. The wooden structure within the tent would have a space all around it of five cubits in width; here probably were eaten the sacrificial portions of meat not to be taken outside, here too were spaces for the priests, like the small apartments round three sides of the temple. The five pillars must have stood five cubits apart. Each chief measurement of the temple was just twice that of the tabernacle. The holiest place, a square of ten cubits in the tabernacle (according to inference), was 20 cubits in the temple; the holy place in each case was a corresponding double square. The porch, five cubits deep in the tabernacle, was ten cubits in the temple; the side spaces, taking account of the thickness of the temple walls, were five cubits and ten cubits wide respectively; the tabernacle ridge pole was 15 cubits high, that of the temple roof (the holy place) was 30 cubits (1Ki_6:2).
In Eze_41:1 'ohel is "the tent." Josephus (Ant. 3:6, section 4) confirms the view, making the tabernacle consist of three parts: the holiest, the holy place, the entrance with its five pillars, the front being "like a gable and a porch." Fergusson observes, "the description (Exodus 26 and Exodus 36) must have been written by one who had seen the tabernacle standing; no one would have worked it out in such detail without ocular demonstration of the way in which the parts would fit together." The brazen altar and the tabernacle were the two grand objects within the court. The tabernacle was Jehovah's "dwelling place" where He was to "meet" His people or their representatives (Exo_25:8; Exo_29:42-43; Exo_27:21; Exo_28:12). "The tabernacle (tent) of the congregation" (rather "of meeting" without the article) is in the full designation "the tabernacle of the tent of meeting" (Exo_40:2; Exo_40:29), i.e. not of the people meeting one another, but of Jehovah meeting with Moses, the priest, or the "people": "'ohel moed" (Num_10:3). "The tabernacle (tent) of the testimony" (i.e. having within it the tables of the law) is another name (Act_7:44; Rev_15:5), Hebrew 'eduwth (Exo_38:21, where it ought to be "the testimony".)
The ark contained it; and the lid of the ark, the mercyseat, was the place where Jehovah met or communed with Israel. As the Israelite theocracy was God's kingdom, so the tabernacle was His palace, where the people had audience of God and whence He issued His commands, embodied in the testimony within the ark. The altar of burnt offering outside marks that only through shedding of blood can sinful man be admitted within His courts; and the mercy-seat within the veil, sprinkled with blood of the victim slain outside, typifies Christ, our propitiation or propitiatory within the heavenly holy of holies (Rom_3:25), who is the sinner's only meeting place with God. Once admitted within the courts by the propitiation of Christ, we as king priests can offer incense of prayer and praise, as the priests burnt incense with holy fire on the altar of incense within (Psa_141:2; Mal_1:11). The separation of the church from the world is marked by the exclusion of any but priests from the holy place, and of the people from the congregation while unclean; the need of holiness by the various purifications (compare Psalm 24).
The king-priestly functions belonging to Israel in relation to the world, but declined through slowness of faith (Exo_19:6; Exo_20:19; Deu_5:27-28), Jehovah keeps for them against Israel's restoration (Isa_61:6; Isa_66:21). The tabernacle represents God dwelling in the midst of Israel, and Israel drawing nigh to God through atonement and with offerings, prayers, and praises. Christ's body is "the antitypical tabernacle which the Lord pitched, not man" (Heb_8:2). Through His glorified body as the tabernacle Christ passes into the heavenly holy of holies, God's immediate presence, where He intercedes for us. His manhood is the "tabernacle of meeting" between us and God, for we are members of His body (Eph_5:30). Joh_1:14, "the Word was made flesh and tabernacled among us." The "veil's" antitype is His rent flesh, or suffering humanity, through which He passed in entering the heavenly holiest for us (Heb_5:7; Heb_10:19-20).
His body is the temple (Joh_2:19). The tabernacle or temple is also a type of the church founded on Christ, the meeting place between God and man (Eph_2:18-22). As 10 (= 1 + 2 + 3 + 4) the number for completeness predominates in the tabernacle itself, so five the half of ten, and the number for imperfection, predominates in the courts; four appearing in the perfect cube of the holiest expressed worldwide extension and divine order. The shittim or acacia, wood implied incorruption and imperishableness of divine truth. As the court represents the Jewish dispensation, so the holy place the Christian and the holiest place the glorified church. The church having passed through the outer court, where atonement has been once for all made, ministers in the holy place, as consisting of king priests (1Pe_2:5; 1Pe_2:9; Rev_1:6; Rev_5:10) without earthly mediator, with prayer, praise, and the light of good works; and has access in spirit already (Heb_10:19), and in body finally, into the heavenly holiest.
In another point of view the court is the body, the holy place the soul, the holiest the spirit. The tabernacle was fixed at Shiloh (Jos_18:1). Then the ark was taken by the Philistines, and returned to Baale or Kirjath Jearim; then the tabernacle was at Nob and Gibeon until the temple was built (1 Samuel 4; 1 Samuel 6; 1Sa_21:1; 1Ch_13:5; 1Ch_16:39; 2Sa_6:2; 2Sa_6:17). The tabernacle was made in strict accordance with the pattern God revealed to Moses' mind; nothing was left to the taste and judgment of artificers (Exo_25:9; Exo_25:40). It answered to the archetype in heaven, of which the type was showed by God to Moses (mentally it is probable) in the mountain (Heb_8:5). Bezaleel of Judah and Aholiab of Dan were divinely qualified for the work (Exo_31:3) by being "filled with the Spirit of God in wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and all workmanship." (See BEZALEEL; AHOLIAB.) The sin as to the golden calf delayed the execution of the design of the tabernacle.
Moses' own "tent" (not mishkam, "tabernacle") in this transition stage was pitched far off from the camp (to mark God's withdrawal from apostate Israel) as "the tent of meeting" provisionally, to which only Moses the mediator and his faithful minister Joshua were admitted (Exo_33:3-11). Another outline law was given, another withdrawal of Moses to an interview alone with God followed. The people gave more than enough materials (Exo_36:2; Exo_36:5-6), and their services as workmen and workwomen (Exo_35:25). The tabernacle was now erected on the first day of the second year from the Exodus, no longer "far off," but in the midst of the camp. Israel was grouped round the royal tabernacle of the unseen Captain of the host, in definite order, His bodyguards immediately around, the priests on the eastern side, the other three Levite families on the other three sides; Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, outside on the E.; Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin on the W.; Dan, Asher, Naphtali on the N.; Reuben, Simeon, Gad on the S.
The cloud, dark by day, fiery red by night, rested on the tabernacle so long as Israel was to stay in the same encampment; it moved when Israel must move (Exo_40:36-38; Num_9:15-23). Jehovah's name, the I AM, distinguishing the personal Creator from the creature, excludes pantheism and idolatry, as conversely the seemingly sublime inscription on Isis' shrine at Sais, identifying the world and God, involves both: "I am all that has been, and is, and shall be, and my veil no mortal has withdrawn" (Clemens Alex. de Isaiah et Osir., 394). Moses' authorship of the Pentateuch is marked by the fact that all his directions concerning impurity through a dead body relate to a tent such as was in the wilderness, nothing is said of a house; but in the case of leprosy a house is referred to (Num_19:11; Num_19:14; Num_19:21; Lev_13:47-59).
As to the Levites' service (Numbers 3-4) of the tabernacle, exact details as to the parts each family should carry on march are given, such as none but an eye-witness would detail. The tabernacle with the camp of the Levites was to set forward between the second and third camps (Num_2:17); but Numbers 10 says after the first camp had set forward the tabernacle was taken down, and the sons of Gershon and Merari set forward bearing the tabernacle, and afterward the second camp or standard of Reuben. This seeming discrepancy is reconciled a few verses after: the tabernacle's less sacred parts, the outside tent, etc., set out between the first and second camp; but the holy of holies, the ark and altar, did not set out until after the second camp. The reason was that those who bore the outside tabernacle might set it up ready for receiving the sanctuary against its coming (Num_10:14-21). No forger in an age long before modern criticism was thought of would invent such a coincidence under seeming discrepancy.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.


in Hebrew, אהל , in Greek, σκηνη, a word which properly signifies a tent, but is particularly applied by the Hebrews to a kind of building in the form of a tent, set up by the express command of God, for the performance of religious worship, sacrifices, &c, during the journeyings of the Israelites in the wilderness; and after their settlement in the land of Canaan made use of for the same purpose, till the temple was built in Jerusalem. The tabernacle was covered with curtains and skins. It was divided into two parts, the one covered, and properly called the tabernacle, and the other open, called the court. The covered part was again divided into two parts, the one called holy, and the other called the holy of holies. The curtains which covered it were made of linen of several colours embroidered. There were ten curtains, twenty-eight cubits long, and four in breadth. Five curtains together made two coverings, which, being made fast together, enveloped all the tabernacle. Over the rest there were two other coverings, the one of goat's hair, and the other of sheep skins. These rails or coverings were laid on a square frame of planks, resting on bases. There were forty-eight large planks, each a cubit and a half wide, and ten cubits high; twenty of them on each side, and six at one end to the westward; each plank was supported by two silver bases; they were let into one another, and held by bars running the length of the planks. The holy of holies was parted from the rest of the tabernacle by a curtain, made fast to four pillars standing ten cubits from the end. The whole length of the tabernacle was thirty-two cubits, that is, about fifty feet; and the breadth twelve cubits, or nineteen feet. The end was thirty cubits high; the upper curtain hung on the north and south sides eight cubits, and on the east and west four cubits. The court was a place a hundred cubits long, and fifty in breadth, inclosed by twenty columns, each of them twenty cubits high, and ten in breadth, covered with silver, and standing on copper bases, five cubits distant from each other, between which there were curtains drawn, and fastened with hooks. At the east end was an entrance twenty cubits wide, covered with a curtain hanging loose. In the tabernacle was the ark of the covenant, the table of shew bread, the golden candlestick, and the altar of incense; and in the court opposite to the entrance of the tabernacle, or holy place, stood the altar of burnt- offerings, and the laver or bason for the use of the priests.
The tabernacle was finished on the first day of the first month of the second year after the departure out of Egypt, A.M. 2514. When it was set up, a dark cloud covered it by day, and a fiery cloud by night. Moses went into the tabernacle to consult the Lord. It was placed in the midst of the camp, and the Hebrews were ranged in order about it, according to their several tribes. When the cloud arose from off the tabernacle, they decamped; the priests carried those things which were most sacred, and the Levites all the several parts of the tabernacle. Part of the tribes went before, and the rest followed after, and the baggage of the tabernacle marched in the centre.
The tabernacle was brought into the land of Canaan by Joshua, and set up at Gilgal. Here it rested till the land was conquered. Then it was removed to Shiloh, and afterward to Nob. Its next station was Gibeah, and here it continued till the ark was removed to the temple.
The word also means a frail dwelling, Job_11:14; and is put for our bodies, 2Co_5:1.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.


When Israel left Egypt to begin a new life as an independent nation, God gave detailed arrangements for its organized religious life. According to these arrangements, Israel’s place of worship was to be a tabernacle, or tent, set up in the centre of the camp. This tabernacle was the symbol of God’s presence, a sign that God dwelt among his people. He was part of them, the centre of their national life. It was known as the tent of meeting (Exo_39:32), for it was the place where God met with his people. It was also called the tent of the testimony (Exo_38:21), to remind the people that within it, in the ark, was the testimony of God, the law, which was to guide and control their lives.
The tabernacle was designed so that it could be easily put together, taken apart and transported. It was a prefabricated shrine that the people of Israel took with them on their journey to Canaan and set up at camps along the way. It consisted of a two-roomed timber structure inside a tent, which in turn was set in a large court surrounded by a fence. Within the rooms, and in the open court, were articles of sacred furniture.

Inside the tent
Probably the easiest way to picture the two-roomed structure under the tent is as a box-like frame with a cloth draped over it (as a tablecloth drapes over a table). The structure was 30 cubits long, 10 cubits wide and 10 cubits high (a cubit being about 44 centimetres or 18 inches). It was formed on the sides and rear by wooden frames that fitted vertically into metal bases and were joined horizontally with wooden bars. A row of timber columns formed the front, and another divided the structure into two rooms. All timber was overlaid with gold (Exo_26:15-37).
A multi-coloured embroidered linen covering was then draped over the entire structure, forming a ceiling overhead and walls on three sides. Curtains hung on columns formed the entrance and the internal partition (Exo_26:1-6; Exo_26:31-37). A covering of goats’ hair was placed over the linen covering to give added protection (Exo_26:7-13).
This covered structure was shielded from the weather by a two-layer tent of animal skins pitched over the whole (Exo_26:14). Though brilliantly coloured inside, outwardly the shrine appeared as simply a tent; hence the name, tabernacle.
The front room of the structure was called the Holy Place and contained three articles of furniture. Against one wall was a table made of wood overlaid with gold. On it were twelve cakes of ‘presence bread’, in symbolic acknowledgment that Israel lived constantly in the presence of God, its provider. The cakes were renewed each Sabbath (Exo_25:23-30; Lev_24:5-9). Against the opposite wall was a seven-headed ornamented lampstand made entirely of gold (Exo_25:31-40; Exo_26:35; see LAMP). Against the dividing curtain (or veil) was an altar used solely for burning incense. It was made of wood overlaid with gold. The daily offering of incense symbolized the continual offering of the people’s homage to God (Exo_30:1-10; see INCENSE).
The room behind the veil was called the Most Holy Place, or Holy of Holies, and was only half the size of the Holy Place. The only piece of furniture in this room was a wooden box, overlaid with gold, known as the ark of the covenant, or covenant box (Exo_25:10-16; Exo_26:34). Its richly ornamented lid, called the mercy seat, was the symbolic throne of the invisible God. The symbolic guardians of this throne were two golden cherubim (Exo_25:17-21; 1Sa_4:4; see CHERUBIM).
In giving this throne the name ‘mercy’, or ‘grace’, God reminded his people that in spite of all their religious exercises, they could be accepted into his presence and receive his forgiveness only by his mercy (Exo_25:22; cf. Heb_4:16). Inside the ark were placed the stone tablets of the law (Deu_10:1-5), and later, Aaron’s rod and the golden pot of manna (Heb_9:4).
Only priests could go into the Holy Place (Num_18:1-7;Heb_9:6). Only the high priest could go into the Most Holy Place, and then only once a year, on the Day of Atonement (Lev_16:11-15; Heb_9:7; see DAY OF ATONEMENT; PRIEST).
Courtyard and camp
This tabernacle-tent was set in a large court, 100 cubits long and 50 cubits wide, in which all the animal sacrifices were offered. Around the court was a fence of cloth attached to posts, with an entrance on the eastern side, opposite the entrance to the tent. The fence gave protection against desert winds and was high enough to prevent people outside from watching proceedings out of idle curiosity. It separated the tabernacle sufficiently from the camp to help create a feeling of reverence towards the tabernacle and its services (Exo_27:9-19).
All animal sacrifices were offered on a large altar that was made of wood overlaid with a metal variously described as bronze, copper or brass. The altar was a hollow box that was either filled with earth to form a mound on which the sacrifices were burnt, or had an internal grid for the same purpose. Halfway up the outside of the altar was a horizontal ledge supported by a grating. The priests may have stood on this ledge while offering the sacrifices (Exo_27:1-8).
Between the bronze altar and the entrance to the tent was a laver, or large basin, in which the priests washed before administering the sacrifices or entering the Holy Place. It also was made of bronze. The priests’ washings had both a practical purpose and a symbolic significance, to demonstrate that cleansing from all uncleanness was necessary in the worship and service of God (Exo_30:17-21; Exo_38:8; cf. 2Ch_4:6).
The people of Israel camped in an orderly arrangement on the four sides of the tabernacle. Nearest the tabernacle, on the eastern side, were the priests. The three family divisions of the Levites were on the other three sides (Num_3:23; Num_3:29; Num_3:35; Num_3:38). Further out were the common people according to their tribes, with three tribes on each of the four sides (Num_2:3; Num_2:10; Num_2:18; Num_2:25).
Construction and maintenance
Building materials for the tabernacle came from the voluntary offerings of the people. They gave so generously that Moses had to restrain them (Exo_25:2; Exo_36:5-7). In making the different parts of the tabernacle, the craftsmen had to conform to the overall pattern and dimensions that God gave (Exo_25:9; Exo_25:40), but they still had plenty of opportunity to use their skills in the structural and ornamental details (Exo_31:1-9). Moses inspected the separate parts of the tabernacle after they were finished (Exo_39:32-43), then supervised the erection of the whole (Exo_40:1-33).
Israelites no doubt saw symbolic significance in the differing values of materials outside and inside the tabernacle. As one moved from the outer court through the Holy Place into the Most Holy Place, the brilliance of the metals and the richness of the cloth hangings increased. It all helped to emphasize the majesty and holiness of Yahweh, the King of Israel who lived among his people, yet at the same time dwelt separately from them in unapproachable glory (Exo_40:34-35).
Apart from its symbolic significance to God’s people, the tabernacle was very practically suited to Israel’s circumstances. A tent over a prefabricated frame was most convenient for a travelling people. Cloth hangings were suitable for entrances and partitions. Timber was of a kind that was plentiful in the region, light to carry, and did not warp or rot easily. Metals were of a kind that would not rust. Some of the pieces of furniture were fitted at the corners with rings, through which carrying poles were placed to make transport easier (Exo_25:12-15; Exo_25:26-28; Exo_27:6-7; Exo_30:4-5).
Money for the maintenance of the tabernacle came from a special tax taken from the people whenever there was a national census. The tax was equal for all, but small enough for even the poorest to pay. The rich could gain no advantage. All God’s people had an equal share in maintaining the tabernacle and its services (Exo_30:11-16).
Only Levites, however, could carry out the work of cleaning, repairing, erecting, dismantling and transporting the tabernacle. They were to do so according to the specific allocation of duties that God set out (Num_3:21-39; Num_4:1-33; see LEVITE). (Concerning the sacrifices offered at the tabernacle see SACRIFICE.)
Purpose fulfilled
Throughout their journey from Sinai to Canaan, the people of Israel set up the tabernacle at their camping places (Num_10:33-36; Num_33:1-49). When they entered Canaan, they set it up in their main camp at Gilgal (Jos_4:19; Jos_10:6; Jos_10:15; Jos_10:43). After the conquest, they shifted the camp to a more central location at Shiloh, where again they set up the tabernacle (Jos_18:1; Jos_19:51). It remained there for most of the next two hundred years (Jdg_18:31; 1Sa_1:3), though there was a period when it was in the neighbouring town of Bethel (Jdg_20:26-27).
It seems that during Israel’s time of conflict with the Philistines, the tabernacle was destroyed in an enemy attack upon Shiloh (Psa_78:60-61; Jer_7:12-14; Jer_26:6; Jer_26:9). But the Israelites apparently rebuilt it, for later it was set up at Nob (1Sa_21:1; 1Sa_21:6; Mar_2:26), and then at Gibeon (1Ch_16:39; 1Ch_21:29; 2Ch_1:3; 2Ch_1:6).
For much of this time the ark of the covenant had become separated from the tabernacle (1Sa_4:4; 1Sa_4:11; 1Sa_7:2; 2Sa_6:1-2; 2Sa_6:10-17; 2Ch_1:3-4; see ARK). When Solomon built the temple in Jerusalem, he dismantled the tabernacle and stored it in the temple (1Ki_8:1-11).
With the replacement of the movable tent by a permanent building, misunderstandings soon arose. Instead of realizing that God was among his people wherever they were, people thought that the temple in Jerusalem was the only place where he dwelt. When the early Christian preacher Stephen attacked this mistaken attitude, the Jews responded by killing him (Act_7:44-50).
The New Testament book of Hebrews points out that the tabernacle had a purpose in demonstrating important truths concerning sinners’ approach to a holy God. The tabernacle system was a help to people in the era before Christ, but it also pointed to something far better. The truths that the tabernacle demonstrated reached their full expression in the new era that came with Jesus Christ (Heb_6:19-20; Heb_8:1-5).
Although the tabernacle system was imperfect, it was not wrong in principle. It was imperfect only because it suffered those limitations of the pre-Christian era that Christ, and Christ alone, could overcome (Heb_9:1-14; Heb_9:24; Heb_10:19-20).
Bridgeway Bible Dictionary by Don Fleming
PRINTER 1990.


tab?ẽr-na-k'l (מועד אהל, 'ōhel mō‛ēdh ?tent of meeting,? משׁכּן, mishkān, ?dwelling?; σκηνή, skēnḗ):

A. Structure and History
I. INTRODUCTORY
1. Earlier ?Tent of Meeting?
2. A Stage in Revelation
3. The Tabernacle Proper
II. STRUCTURE
1. The Enclosure or Court
2. Structure, Divisions and Furniture of the Tabernacle
(1) Coverings of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:1-14; 36:8-19)
(a) Tabernacle Covering Proper
(b) Tent Covering
(c) Protective Covering
(2) Framework and Divisions of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:15-37; 36:20-38)
Arrangement of Coverings
(3) Furniture of the Sanctuary
(a) The Table of Shewbread
(b) The Candlestick (Lampstand)
(c) The Altar of Incense
III. HISTORY
1. Removal from Sinai
2. Sojourn at Kadesh
3. Settlement in Canaan
4. Destruction of Shiloh
5. Delocalization of Worship
6. Nob and Gibeon
7. Restoration of the Ark
8. The Two Tabernacles
IV. SYMBOLISM
1. New Testament References
2. God's Dwelling with Man
3. Symbolism of Furniture
LITERATURE

I. Introductory.
Altars sacred to Yahweh were earlier than sacred buildings. Abraham built such detached altars at the Terebinth of Moreh (Gen_12:6, Gen_12:7), and again between Beth-el and Ai (Gen_12:8). Though he built altars in more places than one, his conception of God was already monotheistic. The ?Judge of all the earth? (Gen_18:25) was no tribal deity. This monotheistic ideal was embodied and proclaimed in the tabernacle and in the subsequent temples of which the tabernacle was the prototype.

1. Earlier ?Tent of Meeting?:
The first step toward a habitation for the Deity worshipped at the altar was taken at Sinai, when Moses builded not only ?an altar under the mount,? but ?12 pillars, according to the 12 tribes of Israel? (Exo_24:4). There is no recorded command to this effect, and there was as yet no separated priesthood, and sacrifices were offered by ?young men of the children of Israel? (Exo_24:5); but already the need of a separated structure was becoming evident. Later, but still at Sinai, after the sin of the golden calf, Moses is stated to have pitched ?the tent? (as if well known: the tense is frequentative, ?used to take the tent and to pitch it?) ?without the camp, afar off,? and to have called it, ?the tent of meeting,? a term often met with afterward (Exo_33:7 ff). This ?tent? was not yet the tabernacle proper, but served an interim purpose. The ark was not yet made; a priesthood was not yet appointed; it was ?without the camp?; Joshua was the sole minister (Exo_33:11). It was a simple place of revelation and of the meeting of the people with Yahweh (Exo_33:7, Exo_33:9-11). Critics, on the other hand, identifying this ?tent? with that in Num_11:16 ff; Num_12:4 ff; Deu_31:14, Deu_31:15 (ascribed to the Elohist source), regard it as the primitive tent of the wanderings, and on the ground of these differences from the tabernacle, described later (in the Priestly Code), deny the historicity of the latter. On this see below under B, 4, (5).

2. A Stage in Revelation:
No doubt this localization of the shrine of Yahweh afforded occasion for a possible misconception of Yahweh as a tribal Deity. We must remember that here and throughout we have to do with the education of a people whose instincts and surroundings were by no means monotheistic. It was necessary that their education should begin with some sort of concession to existing ideas. They were not yet, nor for long afterward, capable of the conception of a God who dwelleth not in temples made with hands. So an altar and a tent were given them; but in the fact that this habitation of God was not fixed to one spot, but was removed from place to place in the nomad life of the Israelites, they had a persistent education leading them away from the idea of local and tribal deities.

3. The Tabernacle Proper:
The tabernacle proper is that of which the account is given in Ex 25 through 27; 30 through 31; 35 through 40, with additional details in Num_3:25 ff; Num_4:4 ff; Num_7:1 ff. The central idea of the structure is given in the words, ?Make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them? (Exo_25:8). It was the dwelling-place of the holy Yahweh in the midst of His people; also the place of His ?meeting? with them (Exo_25:22). The first of these ideas is expressed in the name mishkān; the second in the name 'ōhel mō‛ēdh (it is a puzzling fact for the critics that in Ex 25 through 27:19 only mishkān is used; in Exodus 28 through 31 only 'ōhel mō‛ēdh; in other sections the names intermingle). The tabernacle was built as became such a structure, according to the ?pattern? shown to Moses in the mount (Num_25:9, 40; Num_26:30; compare Act_7:44; Heb_8:2, Heb_8:5). The modern critical school regards this whole description of the tabernacle as an ?ideal? construction - a projection backward by post-exilian imagination of the ideas and dimensions of the Temple of Solomon, the measurements of the latter being throughout halved. Against this violent assumption, however, many things speak. See below under B.

II. Structure.
The ground plan of the Mosaic tabernacle (with its divisions, courts, furniture, etc.) can be made out with reasonable certainty. As respects the actual construction, knotty problems remain, in regard to which the most diverse opinions prevail. Doubt rests also on the precise measurement by cubits (see CUBIT; for a special theory, see W. S. Caldecott, The Tabernacle; Its History and Structure). For simplification the cubit is taken in this article as roughly equivalent to 18 inches.
A first weighty question relates to the shape of the tabernacle. The conventional and still customary conception (Keil, Bahr, A. R. S. Kennedy in HDB, etc.) represents it as an oblong, flat-roofed structure, the rich coverings, over the top, hanging down on either side and at the back - not unlike, to use a figure sometimes employed, a huge coffin with a pall thrown over it. Nothing could be less like a ?tent,? and the difficulty at once presents itself of how, in such a structure, ?sagging? of the roof was to be prevented. Mr. J. Fergusson, in his article ?Temple? in Smith's DB, accordingly, advanced the other conception that the structure was essentially that of a tent, with ridge-pole, sloping roof, and other appurtenances of such an erection. He plausibly, though not with entire success, sought to show how this construction answered accurately to the measurements and other requirements of the text (e.g. the mention of ?pins of the tabernacle,? Exo_35:18). With slight modification this view here commends itself as having most in its favor.
To avoid the difficulty of the ordinary view, that the coverings, hanging down outside the framework, are unseen from within, except on the roof, it has sometimes been argued that the tapestry covering hung down, not outside, but inside the tabernacle (Keil, Bahr, etc.). It is generally felt that this arrangement is inadmissible. A newer and more ingenious theory is that propounded by A. R. S. Kennedy in his article ?Tabernacle? in HDB. It is that the ?boards? constituting the framework of the tabernacle were, not solid planks, but really open ?frames,? through which the finely wrought covering could be seen from within. There is much that is fascinating in this theory, if the initial assumption of the flat roof is granted, but it cannot be regarded as being yet satisfactorily made out. Professor Kennedy argues from the excessive weight of the solid ?boards.? It might be replied: In a purely ?ideal? structure such as he supposes this to be, what does the weight matter? The ?boards,? however, need not have been so thick or heavy as he represents.
In the more minute details of construction yet greater diversity of opinion obtains, and imagination is often allowed a freedom of exercise incompatible with the sober descriptions of the text.

1. The Enclosure or Court:
The attempt at reconstruction of the tabernacle begins naturally with the ?court? (ḥācēr) or outer enclosure in which the tabernacle stood (see COURT OF THE SANCTUARY). The description is given in Exo_27:9-18; Exo_38:9-20. The court is to be conceived of as an enclosed space of 100 cubits (150 ft.) in length, and 50 cubits (75 ft.) in breadth, its sides formed (with special arrangement for the entrance) by ?hangings? or curtains (ḳelā‛ı̄m) of ?fine twined linen,? 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) in height, supported by pillars of brass (bronze) 5 cubits apart, to which the hangings were attached by ?hooks? and ?fillets? of silver. It thus censisted of two squares of 50 cubits each, in the anterior of which (the easterly) stood the ?altar of burnt-offering? (see ALTAR), and the ?layer? (see LAVER), and in the posterior (the westerly) the tabernacle itself. From Exo_30:17-21 we learn that the laver - a large (bronze) vessel for the ablutions of the priests - stood between the altar and the tabernacle (Exo_30:18) The pillars were 60 in number, 20 being reckoned to the longer sides (North and South), and 10 each to the shorter (East and West). The pillars were set in ?sockets? or bases ('edhen) of brass (bronze), and had ?capitals? (the King James Version and the English Revised Version ?chapiters?) overlaid with silver (Exo_38:17). The ?fillets? are here, as usually, regarded as silver rods connecting the pillars; some, however, as Ewald, Dillmann, Kennedy, take the ?fillet? to be an ornamental band round the base of the capital. On the eastern side was the ?gate? or entrance. This was formed by a ?screen? (māṣākh) 20 cubits (30 ft.) in breadth, likewise of fine twined linen, but distinguished from the other (white) hangings by being embroidered in blue, and purple, and scarlet (see EAST GATE). The hangings on either side of the ?gate? were 15 cubits in breadth. The 10 pillars of the east side are distributed - 4 to the entrance screen, 3 on either side to the hangings. The enumeration creates some difficulty till it is remembered that in the reckoning round the court no pillar is counted twice, and that the corner pillars and those on either side of the entrance had each to do a double duty. The reckoning is really by the 5-cubit spaces between the pillars. Mention is made (Exo_27:19; Exo_38:20) of the ?pins? of the court, as well as of the tabernacle, by means of which, in the former case, the pillars were held in place. These also were of brass (bronze).

2. Structure, Divisions and Furniture of the Tabernacle:
In the inner of the two squares of the court was reared the tabernacle - a rectangular oblong structure, 30 cubits (45 ft.) long and 10 cubits (15 ft.) broad, divided into two parts, a holy and a most holy (Exo_26:33). Attention has to be given here (1) to the coverings of the tabernacle, (2) to its framework and divisions, and (3) to its furniture.

(1) Coverings of the Tabernacle (Exo_26:1-14; Exo_36:8-19).
The wooden framework of the tabernacle to be afterward described had 3 coverings - one, the immediate covering of the tabernacle or ?dwelling,? called by the same name, mishkān (Exo_26:1, Exo_26:6); a second, the tent? covering of goats' hair; and a third, a protective covering of rams' and seal- (or porpoise-) skins, cast over the whole.

(a) Tabernacle Covering Proper:
The covering of the tabernacle proper (Exo_26:1-6) consisted of 10 curtains (yerı̄‛ōth, literally, ?breadth?) of fine twined linen, beautifully-woven with blue, and purple, and scarlet, and with figures of cherubim. The 10 curtains, each 28 cubits long and 4 cubits broad, were joined together in sets of 5 to form 2 large curtains, which again were fastened by 50 loops and clasps (the King James Version ?taches?) of gold, so as to make a single great curtain 40 cubits (60 ft.) long, and 28 cubits (42 ft.) broad.

(b) Tent Covering:
The ?tent? covering (Exo_26:7-13) was formed by 11 curtains of goats hair, the length in this case being 30 cubits, and the breadth 4 cubits. These were joined in sets of 5 and 6 curtains, and as before the two divisions were coupled by 50 loops and clasps (this time of bronze), into one great curtain of 44 cubits (66 ft.) in length and 30 cubits (45 ft.) in breadth - an excess of 4 cubits in length and 2 in breadth over the fine tabernacle curtain.

(c) Protective Covering:
Finally, for purposes of protection, coverings were ordered to be made (Exo_26:14) for the ?tent? of rams' skins dyed red, and of seal-skins or porpoise-skins (English Versions of the Bible, ?badgers' skins?). The arrangement of the coverings is considered below.

(2) Framework and Division of the Tabernacle (Exodus 26:15-37; 36:20-38)
The framework of the tabernacle was, as ordinarily understood, composed of upright ?boards? of acacia wood, forming 3 sides of the oblong structure, the front being closed by an embroidered screen,? depending from 5 pillars (Exo_26:36, Exo_26:37; see below). These boards, 48 in number (20 each for the north and south sides, and 8 for the west side), were 10 cubits (15 ft.) in height, and 1 1/2 cubits (2 ft. 3 in.) in breadth (the thickness is not given), and were overlaid with gold. They were set by means of ?tenons? (literally, ?hands?), or projections at the foot, 2 for each board, in 96 silver ?sockets,? or bases (?a talent for a socket,? Exo_38:27). In the boards were ?rings? of gold, through which were passed 3 horizontal ?bars,? to hold the parts together - the middle bar, apparently, on the long sides, extending from end to end (Exo_26:28), the upper and lower bars being divided in the center (5 bars in all on each side). The bars, like the boards, were overlaid with gold. Some obscurity rests on the arrangement at the back: 6 of the boards were of the usual breadth (= 9 cubits), but the 2 corner boards appear to have made up only a cubit between them (Exo_26:22-24). Notice has already been taken of theory (Kennedy, article ?Tabernacle,? HDB) that the so-called ?boards? were not really such, but were open ?frames,? the 2 uprights of which, joined by crosspieces, are the ?tenons? of the text. It seems unlikely, if this was meant, that it should not be more distinctly explained. The enclosure thus constructed was next divided into 2 apartments, separated by a ?veil,? which hung from 4 pillars overlaid with gold and resting in silver sockets. Like the tabernacle-covering, the veil was beautifully woven with blue, purple, and scarlet, and with figures of cherubim (Exo_26:31, Exo_26:32; see VEIL). The outer of these chambers, or holy place? was as usually computed, 20 cubits long by 10 broad; the inner, or most holy place, was 10 cubits square. The ?door of the tent? (Exo_26:36) was formed, as already stated, by a ?screen,? embroidered with the above colors, and depending from 5 pillars in bronze sockets. Here also the hooks were of gold, and the pillars and their capitals overlaid with gold (Exo_36:38).

Arrangement of Coverings:
Preference has already been expressed for Mr. Fergusson's idea that the tabernacle was not flat-roofed, the curtains being cast over it like drapery, but was tentlike in shape, with ridge-pole, and a sloping roof, raising the total height to 15 cubits. Passing over the ridge pole, and descending at an angle, 14 cubits on either side, the inner curtain would extend 5 cubits beyond the walls of the tabernacle, making an awning of that width North and South, while the goats'-hair covering above it, 2 cubits wider, would hang below it a cubit on either side. The whole would be held in position by ropes secured by bronze tent-pins to the ground (Exo_27:19; Exo_38:31). The scheme has obvious advantages in that it preserves the idea of a ?tent,? conforms to the principal measurements, removes the difficulty of ?sagging? on the (flat) roof, and permits of the golden boards, bars and rings, on the outside, and of the finely wrought tapestry, on the inside, being seen (Professor Kennedy provides for the latter by his ?frames,? through which the curtain would be visible). On the other hand, it is not to be concealed that the construction proposed presents several serious difficulties. The silence of the text about a ridge-pole, supporting pillars, and other requisites of Mr. Fergusson's scheme (his suggestion that ?the middle bar? of Exo_26:28 may be the ridge-pole is quite untenable), may be got over by assuming that these parts are taken for granted as understood in tent-construction. But this does not apply to other adjustments, especially those connected with the back and front of the tabernacle. It was seen above that the inner covering was 40 cubits in length, while the tabernacle-structure was 30 cubits. How is this excess of 10 cubits in the tapestry-covering dealt with? Mr. Fergusson, dividing equally, supposes a porch of 5 cubits at the front, and a space of 5 cubits also behind, with hypothetical pillars. The text, however, is explicit that the veil dividing the holy from the most holy place was hung ?under the clasps? (Exo_26:33), i.e. on this hypothesis, midway in the structure, or 15 cubits from either end. Either, then, (1) the idea must be abandoned that the holy place was twice the length of the Holy of Holies (20 X 10; it is to be observed that the text does not state the proportions, which are inferred from those of Solomon's Temple), or (2) Mr. Fergusson's arrangement must be given up, and the division of the curtain be moved back 5 cubits, depriving him of his curtain for the porch, and leaving 10 cubits to be disposed of in the rear. Another difficulty is connected with the porch itself. No clear indication of such a porch is given in the text, while the 5 pillars ?for the screen? (Exo_26:37) are most naturally taken to be, like the latter, at the immediate entrance of the tabernacle. Mr. Fergusson, on the other hand, finds it necessary to separate pillars and screen, and to place the pillars 5 cubits farther in front. He is right, however, in saying that the 5th pillar naturally suggests a ridge-pole; in his favor also is the fact that the extra breadth of the overlying tentcovering was to hang down, 2 cubits at the front, and 2 cubits at the back of the tabernacle (Exo_26:9, Exo_26:12). It is possible that there was a special disposition of the inner curtain - that belonging peculiarly to the ?dwelling? - ?according to which its ?clasps? lay above the ?veil? of the Holy of Holies (20 cubits from the entrance), and its hinder folds closed the aperture at the rear which otherwise would have admitted light into the secrecy of the shrine. But constructions of this kind must ever remain more or less conjectural.
The measurements in the above reckoning are internal. Dr. Kennedy disputes this, but the analogy of the temple is against his view.

(3) Furniture of the Sanctuary
The furniture of the sanctuary is described in Ex 25:10-40 (ark, table of shewbread, candlestick); Exo_30:1-10 (altar of incense); compare Exodus 37 for making. In the innermost shrine, the Holy of Holies, the sole object was the ark of the covenant, overlaid within and without with pure gold, with its molding and rings of gold, its staves overlaid with gold passed through the rings, and its lid or covering of solid gold - the propitiatory or mercy-seat - at either end of which, of one piece with it. (Exo_25:19; Exo_37:8), stood cherubim, with wings outstretched over the mercy-seat and with faces turned toward it (for details see ARK OF THE COVENANT; MERCY-SEAT; CHERUBIM). This was the meeting-place of Yahweh and His people through Moses (Exo_25:22). The ark contained only the two tables of stone, hence its name ?the ark of the testimony? (Exo_25:16, Exo_25:22). It is not always realized how small an object the ark was - only 2 1/2 cubits (3 ft. 9 in.) long, 1 1/2 cubits (2 ft. 3 in.) broad, and the same (1 1/2 cubits) high.
The furniture of the outer chamber of the tabernacle consisted of (a) the table of shewbread; (b) the golden candlestick: (c) the altar of incense, or golden altar. These were placed, the table of shewbread on the north side (Exo_40:22), the candlestick on the south side (Exo_40:24), and the altar of incense in front of the veil, in the holy place.

(a) The Table of Shewbread:
The table of shewbread was a small table of acacia wood, overlaid with gold, with a golden rim round the top, gold rings at the corners of its 4 feet, staves for the rings, and a ?border? (at middle?) joining the legs, holding them together. Its dimensions were 2 cubits (3 ft.) long, 1 cubit (18 inches) broad, and 1 1/2 cubits (2 ft. 3 inches) high. On it were placed 12 cakes, renewed each week, in 2 piles (compare Lev_24:5-9), together with dishes (for the bread), spoons (incense cups), flagons and bowls (for drink offerings), all of pure gold. See SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF.

(b) The Candlestick:
The candlestick or lampstand was the article on which most adornment was lavished. It was of pure gold, and consisted of a central stem (in Exo_25:32-35 this specially receives the name ?candlestick?), with 3 curved branches on either side, all elegantly wrought with cups of almond blossom, knops, and flowers (lilies?) - 3 of this series to each branch and 4 to the central stem. Upon the 6 branches and the central stem were 7 lamps from which the light issued. Connected with the candlestick were snuffers and snuff-dishes for the wicks - all of gold. The candlestick was formed from a talent of pure gold (Exo_25:38). See CANDLESTICK.

(c) The Altar of Incense:
The description of the altar of incense occurs (Exo_30:1-10) for some unexplained reason or displacement out of the place where it might be expected, but this is no reason for throwing doubt (with some) upon its existence. It was a small altar, overlaid with gold, a cubit (18 in.) square, and 2 cubits (3 ft.) high, with 4 horns. On it was burned sweet-smelling incense. It had the usual golden rim, golden rings, and gold-covered staves. See ALTAR OF INCENSE.

III. History.
1. Removal from Sinai:
We may fix 1220 BC as the approximate date of the introduction of the tabernacle. It was set up at Sinai on the 1st day of the 1st month of the 2nd year (Exo_40:2, Exo_40:17), i.e. 14 days before the celebration of the Passover on the first anniversary of the exodus (see CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, VII., VIII.). When the people resumed their journey, the ark was wrapped in the veil which had served to isolate the most holy place (Num_4:5). This and the two altars were carried upon the shoulders of the children of Kohath, a descendant of Levi, and were removed under the personal supervision of the high priest (Num_3:31, Num_3:32; Num_4:15). The rest of the dismembered structure was carried in six covered wagons, offered by the prince, each drawn by two oxen (Nu 7). Doubtless others were provided for the heavier materials (compare Keil). Before leaving Sinai the brazen altar had been dedicated, and utensils of gold and silver had been presented for use at the services. The tabernacle had been standing at Sinai during 50 days (Num_10:11).

2. Sojourn at Kadesh:
The journey lay along the ?great and terrible wilderness? between Horeb in the heart of Arabia and Kadesh-barnea in the Negeb of Judah; of the 40 years occupied in the journey to Canaan, nearly 38 were spent at Kadesh, a fact not always clearly recognized. The tabernacle stood here during 37 years (one year being occupied in a punitive journey southward to the shore of the Red Sea). During this whole time the ordinary sacrifices were not offered (Amo_5:25), though it is possible that the appropriate seasons were nevertheless marked in more than merely chronological fashion. Few incidents are recorded as to these years, and little mention is made of the tabernacle throughout the whole journey except that the ark of the covenant preceded the host when on the march (Num_10:33-36). It is the unusual that is recorded; the daily aspect of the tabernacle and the part it played in the life of the people were among the things recurrent and familiar.

3. Settlement in Canaan:
When, at last, the Jordan was crossed, the first consideration, presumably, was to find a place on which to pitch the sacred tent, a place hitherto uninhabited and free from possible defilement by human graves. Such a place was found in the neighborhood of Jericho, and came to be known as Gilgal (Jos_4:19; Jos_5:10; Jos_9:6; Jos_10:6, Jos_10:43). Gilgal, however, was always regarded as a temporary site. The tabernacle is not directly mentioned in connection with it. The question of a permanent location was the occasion of mutual jealousy among the tribes, and was at last settled by the removal of the tabernacle to Shiloh, in the territory of Ephraim, a place conveniently central for attendance of all adult males at the three yearly festivals, without the zone of war, and also of some strategic importance. During the lifetime of Joshua, therefore, the tabernacle was removed over the 20 miles, or less, which separated Shiloh among the hills from Gilgal in the lowlands (Jos_18:1; Jos_19:51). While at Shiloh it seems to have acquired some accessories of a more permanent kind (1Sa_1:9, etc.), which obtained for it the name ?temple? (1Sa_1:9; 1Sa_3:3).

4. Destruction of Shiloh:
During the period of the Judges the nation lost the fervor of its earlier years and was in imminent danger of apostasy. The daily services of the tabernacle were doubtless observed after a perfunctory manner, but they seem to have had little effect upon the people, either to soften their manners or raise their morals. In the early days of Samuel war broke out afresh with the Philistines. At a council of war the unprecedented proposal was made to fetch the ark of the covenant from Shiloh (1Sa_4:1 ff). Accompanied by the two sons of Eli - Hophni and Phinehas - it arrived in the camp and was welcomed by a shout which was heard in the hostile camp. It was no longer Yahweh but the material ark that was the hope of Israel, so low had the people fallen. Eli himself, at that time high priest, must at least have acquiesced in this superstition. It ended in disaster. The ark was taken by the Philistines, its two guardians were slain, and Israel was helpless before its enemies. Though the Hebrew historians are silent about what followed, it is certain that Shiloh itself fell into the hands of the Philistines. The very destruction of it accounts for the silence of the historians, for it would have been at the central sanctuary there, the center and home of what literary culture there was in Israel during this stormy period, that chronicles of events would be kept. Psa_78:60 ff no doubt has reference to this overthrow, and it is referred to in Jer_7:12. The tabernacle itself does not seem to have been taken by the Philistines, as it is met with later at Nob.

5. Delocalization of Worship:
For lack of a high priest of character, Samuel himself seems now to have become the head of religious worship. It is possible that the tabernacle may have been again removed to Gilgal, as it was there that Samuel appointed Saul to meet him in order to offer burnt offerings and peace offerings. The ark, however, restored by the Philistines, remained at Kiriath-jearim (1Sa_7:1, 1Sa_7:2), while courts for ceremonial, civil, and criminal administration were held, not only at Gilgal, but at other places, as Beth-el, Mizpah and Ramah (1Sa_7:15-17), places which acquired a quasi-ecclesiastical sanctity. This delocalization of the sanctuary was no doubt revolutionary, but it is partly explained by the fact that even in the tabernacle there was now no ark before which to burn incense. Of the half-dozen places bearing the name of Ramah, this, which was Samuel's home, was the one near to Hebron, where to this day the foundations of what may have been Samuel's sacred enclosure may be seen at the modern Râmet-el-Khălı̂l.

6. Nob and Gibeon:
We next hear of the tabernacle at Nob, with Ahimelech, a tool of Saul (probably the Ahijah of 1Sa_14:3), as high priest (1Sa_21:1 ff). This Nob was 4 miles to the North of Jerusalem and was more-over a high place, 30 ft. higher than Zion. It does not follow that the tabernacle was placed at the top of the hill. Here it remained a few years, till after the massacre by Saul of all the priests at Nob save one, Abiathar (1Sa_22:11 ff). Subsequently, possibly by Saul himself, it was removed to Gibeon (1Ch_16:39; 1Ch_21:29). Gibeon was 6 miles from Jerusalem, and 7 from Beth-el, and may have been chosen for its strategic advantage as well as for the fact that it was already inhabited by priests, and was Saul's ancestral city.

7. Restoration of the Ark:
This removal by Saul, if he was the author of it, was recognized afterward by David as a thing done, with which he did not think it wise to interfere (of 1Ch_16:40). On his capturing the fortress of Jebus (later Jerusalem), and building himself a ?house? there, David prepared a place for the ark of God, and pitched a tent on Zion in imitation of the tabernacle at Gibeon (2Sa_6:17 ff; 1Ch_16:1). He must also have provided an altar, for we read of burnt offerings and peace offerings being made there. Meanwhile the ark had been brought from Kiriath-jearim, where it had lain so long; it was restored in the presence of a concourse of people representing the whole nation, the soldiery and civilians delivering it to the priests (2Sa_6:1 ff). On this journey Uzzah was smitten for touching the ark. Arrived near Jerusalem, the ark was carried into the house of Obed-edom, a Levite, and remained there for 3 months. At the end of this time it was carried into David's tabernacle with all fitting solemnity and honor.

8. The Two Tabernacles:
Hence, it was that there were now two tabernacles, the original one with its altar at Gibeon, and the new one with the original ark in Jerusalem, both under the protection of the king. Both, however, were soon to be superseded by the building of a temple. The altar at Gibeon continued in use till the time of Solomon. Of all the actual material of the tabernacle, the ark alone remained unchanged in the temple. The tabernacle itself, with its sacred vessels, was brought up to Jerusalem, and was preserved, apparently, as a sacred relic in the temple (1Ki_8:4). Thus, after a history of more than 200 years, the tabernacle ceases to appear in history.

IV. Symbolism.
Though the tabernacle was historically the predecessor of the later temples, as a matter of fact, the veil was the only item actually retained throughout the series of temples. Nevertheless it is the tabernacle rather than the temple which has provided a substructure for much New Testament teaching. All the well-known allusions of the writer to the Hebrews, e.g. in chapters 9 and 10, are to the tabernacle, rather than to any later temple.

1. New Testament References:
In general the tabernacle is the symbol of God's dwelling with His people (Exo_25:8; compare 1Ki_8:27), an idea in process of realization in more and more perfect forms till it reaches its completion in the carnation of the Word (?The Word became flesh, and dwelt (Greek ?tabernacled?) among us,? Joh_1:14; compare 2Co_5:1), in the church collectively (2Co_6:16) and in the individual believer (1Co_6:19) and finally in the eternal glory (Rev_2:13 ff). In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the locus classicus of the tabernacle in Christian thought, the idea is more cosmical - the tabernacle in its holy and most holy divisions representing the earthly and the heavenly spheres of Christ's activity. The Old Testament was but a shadow of the eternal substance, an indication of the true ideal (Heb_8:5; Heb_10:1). The tabernacle in which Christ ministered was a tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man (Heb_8:2). He is the high priest of ?the greater and more perfect tabernacle? (Heb_9:11). ?Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us? (Heb_9:24). The symbolical significance of the tabernacle and its worship is not, however, confined to the Epistle to the Hebrews. It must be admitted that Paul. does not give prominence to the tabernacle symbolism, and further, that his references are to things common to the tabernacle and the temple. But Paul speaks of ?the layer of regeneration? (Tit_3:5 the Revised Version margin), and of Christ, who ?gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God, for an odor of a sweet smell? (Eph_5:2). The significance which the synoptic writers give to the rending of the veil of the temple (Mat_27:51; Mar_15:38; Luk_23:45) shows how this symbolism entered deeply into their thought and was felt by them to have divine attestation in this supernatural fact. The way into the holiest of all, as the writer to the Hebrews says, was now made manifest (Heb_9:8; Heb_10:19, Heb_10:20).

2. God's Dwelling with Man:
The suggestion which underlies all such New Testament references is not only that Christ, in His human manifestation, was both tabernacle and priest, altar and sacrifice, but also, and still more, that God ever has His dwelling among men, veiled no doubt from the unbelieving and insincere, but always manifest and accessible to the faithful and devout. As we have a great high priest who is now passed into the heavens, there to appear in our behalf in the true tabernacle, so we ourselves have permission and encouragement to enter into the holiest place of all on earth by the blood of the everlasting covenant. Of the hopes embodied in these two planes of thought, the earthly tabernacle was the symbol, and contained the prospect and foretaste of the higher communion. It is this which has given the tabernacle such an abiding hold on the imagination and veneration of the Christian church in all lands and languages.

3. Symbolism of Furniture:
The symbolism of the various parts of the tabernacle furniture is tolerably obvious, and is considered under the different headings. The ark of the covenant with its propitiatory was the symbol of God's gracious meeting with His people on the ground of atonement (compare Rom_3:25; see ARK OF THE COVENANT). The twelve cakes of shewbread denote the twelve tribes of Israel, and their presentation is at once an act of gratitude for that which is the support of life, and, symbolically, a dedication of the life thus supported; the candlestick speaks to the calling of Israel to be a people of light (compare Jesus in Mat_5:14-16); the rising incense symbolizes the act of prayer (compare Rev_5:8; Rev_8:3).

Literature.
See the articles on ?Tabernacle? and ?Temple? in Smith's DB, HDB, EB, The Temple BD, etc.; also the commentaries. on Exodus (the Speaker's Pulpit Commentary, Keil's, Lange's, etc.); Bahr, Symbolik d. Mosaischen Cult; Keil, Archaeology, I, 98 ff (English translation); Westcott, essay on ?The General Significance of the Tabernacle,? in his Hebrews; Brown, The Tabernacle (1899); W. S. Caldecott, The Tabernacle: Its History and Structure. See the articles in this Encyclopedia on the special parts of the tabernacle. See also TEMPLE.



B. In Criticism
I. CONSERVATIVE AND CRITICAL VIEWS
II. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CRITICAL THEORY EXAMINED
1. Not Stated, That the Temple Was Constructed after the Pattern of the Tabernacle
2. No Trace of the Tabernacle in Pre-Solomonic Times
3. The Tabernacle Could Not Have Been Built as Exodus Describes
4. Biblical Account Contains Marks of Its Unhistorical Character
5. Pre-exilic Prophets Knew Nothing of Levitical System of Which the Tabernacle Was Said to Be the Center.
LITERATURE

I. Conservative and Critical Views.
The conservative view of Scripture finds: (1) that the tabernacle was constructed by Moses in the wilderness of Sinai; (2) that it was fashioned according to a pattern shown to him in the Mount; (3) that it was designed to be and was the center of sacrificial worship for the tribes in the wilderness; and (4) that centuries later the Solomonic Temple was constructed after it as a model.
However, the critical (higher) view of Scripture says: (1) that the tabernacle never existed except on paper; (2) that it was a pure creation of priestly imagination sketched after or during the exile; (3) that it was meant to be a miniature sanctuary on the model of Solomon's Temple; (4) that it was represented as having been built in the wilderness for the purpose of legitimizing the newly-published Priestly Code (P) or Levitical ritual still preserved in the middle books of the Pentateuch; and (5) that the description of the tabernacle furnished in the Priestly Code (P) (Ex 25 through 31; 36 through 40; Num_2:2, Num_2:17; Num_5:1-4; Num_14:44) conflicts with that given in the Elohist (E) (Exo_33:7-11), both as to its character and its location.
The principal grounds on which it is proposed to set aside the conservative viewpoint and put in its place the critical theory are these:

II. Arguments in Support of the Critical Theory Examined.
(1) It is nowhere stated that Solomon's Temple was constructed after the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle; hence, it is reasonable to infer that the Mosaic tabernacle had no existence when or before the Solomonic Temple was built.
(2) No trace of the Mosaic tabernacle can be found in the pre-Solomonic period, from which it is clear that no such tabernacle existed.
(3) The Mosaic tabernacle could not have been produced as Exodus describes, and, accordingly, the story must be relegated to the limbo of romance.
(4) The Biblical account of the Mosaic tabernacle bears internal marks of its completely unhistorical character.
(5) The pre-exilic prophets knew nothing of the Levitical system of which the Mosaic tabernacle was the center, and hence, the whole story must be set down as a sacred legend.
These assertions demand examination.

1. Not Stated, That the Temple Was Constructed After the Pattern of the Tabernacle:
It is urged that nowhere is it stated that Solomon's Temple was fashioned after the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle. Wellhausen thinks (GI, chapter i, 3, p. 44) that, had it been so, the narrators in Kings and Chronicles would have said so. ?At least,? he writes, ?one would have expected that in the report concerning the building of the new sanctuary, casual mention would have been made of the old.? And so there was - in 1Ki_8:4 and 2Ch_5:5. Of course, it is contended that ?the tent of meeting? referred to in these passages was not the Mosaic tabernacle of Ex 25, but simply a provisional shelter for the ark - though in P the Mosaic tabernacle bears the same designation (Exo_27:21). Conceding, however, for the sake of argument, that the tent of the historical books was not the Mosaic tabernacle of Exodus, and that this is nowhere spoken of as the model on which Solomon's Temple was constructed, does it necessarily follow that because the narrators in Kings and Chronicles did not expressly state that Solomon's Temple was built after the pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle, therefore the Mosaic tabernacle had no existence when the narrators wrote? If it does, then the same logic will demonstrate the non-existence of Solomon's Temple before the exile, because when the writer of P was describing the Mosaic tabernacle he made no mention whatever about its being a miniature copy of Solomon's Temple. A reductio ad absurdum like this disposes of the first of the five pillars upon which the new theory rests.

2. No Trace of the Tabernacle in Pre-Solomonic Times
It is alleged that no trace of the Mosaic tabernacle can be found in pre-Solomonic times. On the principle that silence about a person, thing or event does not prove the non-existence of the person or thing or the non-occurrence of the event, this 2nd argument might fairly be laid aside as irrelevant. Yet it will be more satisfactory to ask, if the assertion be true, why no trace of the tabernacle can be detected in the historical books in pre-Solomonic times. The answer is, that of course it is true, if the historical books be first ?doctored,? i.e. gone over and dressed to suit theory, by removing from them every passage, sentence, clause and word that seems to indicate, presuppose or imply the existence of the tabernacle, and such passage, sentence, clause and word assigned to a late R who inserted it into the original text to give color to his theory, and support to his fiction that the Mosaic tabernacle and its services originated in the wilderness. Could this theory be established on independent grounds, i.e. by evidence derived from other historical documents, without tampering with the sacred narrative, something might be said for its plausibility. But every scholar knows that not a particle of evidence has ever been, or is likely ever to be, adduced in its support beyond what critics themselves manufacture in the way described. That they do find traces of the Mosaic tabernacle in the historical books, they unconsciously and unintentionally allow by their efforts to explain such traces away, which moreover they can only do by denouncing these traces as spurious and subjecting them to a sort of surgical operation in order to excise them from the body of the text. But these so-called spurious traces are either true or they are not true. If they are true, whoever inserted them, then they attest the existence of the tabernacle, first at Shiloh, and afterward at Nob, later at Gibeon, and finally at Jerusalem; if they are not true, then some other things in the narrative must be written down as imagination, as, e.g. the conquest of the land, and its division among the tribes, the story of the altar on the East of Jordan, the ministry of the youthful Samuel at Shiloh, and of Ahimelech at Nob.

(1) The Mosaic Tabernacle at Shiloh.
That the structure at Shiloh (1Sa_1:3, 1Sa_1:9, 1Sa_1:19, 1Sa_1:24; 1Sa_2:11, 1Sa_2:12; 1Sa_3:3) was the Mosaic tabernacle everything recorded about it shows. It contained the ark of God, called also the ark of the covenant of God and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, or more fully the ark of the covenant of Yahweh of Hosts, names, especially the last, which for the ark associated with the tabernacle were not unknown in the period of the wandering. It had likewise a priesthood and a sacrificial worship of three parts - offering sacrifice (in the forecourt), burning incense (in the holy place), and wearing an ephod (in the Holy of Holies) - which at least bore a close resemblance to the cult of the tabernacle, and in point of fact claimed to have been handed down from Aaron. Then Elkanah's pious custom of going up yearly from Ramathaim-zophim to Shiloh to worship and to sacrifice unto Yahweh of Hosts suggests that in his day Shiloh was regarded as the central high place and that the law of the three yearly feasts (Exo_23:14; Lev 23:1-18; Deu_16:16) was not unknown, though perhaps only partially observed; while the statement about ?the women who did service at the door of the tent of meeting? as clearly points back to the similar female institution in connection with the tabernacle (Exo_38:8). To these considerations it is objected (a) that the Shiloh sanctuary was not the Mosaic tabernacle, which was a portable tent, but a solid structure with posts and doors, and (b) that even if it was not a solid structure but a tent, it could be left at any moment without the ark, in which case it could not have been the Mosaic tabernacle of which the ark was an ?inseparable companion?; while (c) if it was the ancient ?dwelling? of Yahweh, it could not have been made the dormitory of Samuel. But (a) while it need not be denied that the Shiloh sanctuary possessed posts and doors - Jer_7:12 seems to admit that it was a structure which might be laid in ruins - yet this does not warrant the conclusion that the Mosaic tabernacle had no existence in Shiloh. It is surely not impossible or even improbable that, when the tabernacle had obtained a permanent location at Shiloh, and that for nearly 400 years (compare above under A., III., 1., 8. and see CHRONOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, VII., VIII.), during the course of these centuries a porch with posts and doors may have been erected before the curtain that formed the entrance to the holy place, or that strong buildings may have been put up around it as houses for the priests and Levites, as treasure-chambers, and such like - thus causing it to present the appearance of a palace or house with the tabernacle proper in its interior. Then (b) as to the impossibility of the ark being taken from the tabernacle, as was done when it was captured by the Philistines, there is no doubt that there were occasions when it was not only legitimate, but expressly commanded to separate the ark from the tabernacle, though the war with the Philistines was not one. In Num_10:33, it is distinctly stated that the ark, by itself, went before the people when they marched through the wilderness; and there is ground for thinking that during the Benjamite war the ark was with divine sanction temporarily removed from Shiloh to Beth-el (Jdg_20:26, Jdg_20:27) and, when the campaign closed, brought back again to Shiloh (Jdg_21:12). (c) As for the notion that the Shiloh sanctuary could not have been the Mosaic tabernacle because Samuel is said to have slept in it beside the ark of God, it should be enough to reply that the narrative does not say or imply that Samuel had converted either the holy place or the most holy into a private bedchamber, but merely that he lay down to sleep ?in the temple of the Lord where the ark of God was,? doubtless ?in the court where cells were built for the priests and Levites to live in when serving at the sanctuary? (Keil). But even if it did mean that the youthful Samuel actually slept in the Holy of Holies, one fails to see how an abuse like that may not have occurred in a time so degenerate as that of Eli, or how, if it did, it would necessarily prove that the Shiloh shrine was not the Mosaic tabernacle.

(2) The Mosaic Tabernacle at Nob.
That the sanctuary at Nob (1Sa_21:1-6) was the Mosaic tabernacle may be inferred from the following circumstances: (a) that it had a high priest with 85 ordinary priests, a priest's ephod, and a table of shewbread; (b) that the eating of the shewbread was conditioned by the same law of ceremonial purity as prevailed in connection with the Mosaic tabernacle (Lev_15:18); and (c) that the Urim was employed there by the priest to ascertain the divine will - all of which circumstances pertained to the Mosaic tabernacle and to no other institution known among the Hebrews. If the statement (1Ch_13:3) that the ark was not inquired at in the days of Saul calls for explanation, that explanation is obviously this, that during Saul's reign the ark was dissociated from the tabernacle, being lodged in the house of Abinadab at Kiriath-jearim, and was accordingly in large measure forgotten. The statement (1Sa_14:18) that Saul in his war with the Philistines commanded Ahijah, Eli's great-grandson, who was ?the priest of the Lord in Shiloh, wearing an ephod? (1Sa_14:3) to fetch up the ark - if 1Sa_14:18 should not rather be read according to the Septuagint, ?Bring hither the ephod? - can only signify that on this particular occasion it was fetched from Kiriath-jearim at the end of 20 years and afterward returned thither. This, however, is not a likely supposition; and for the Septuagint reading it can be said that the phrase ?Bring hither? was never used in connection with the ark; that the ark was never employed for ascertaining the Divine Will, but the ephod was; and that the Hebrew text in 1Sa_14:18 seems corrupt, the last clause reading ?for the ark of God was at that day and the sons of Israel,? which is not extremely intelligible.

(3) The Mosaic Tabernacle at Gibeon.
The last mention of the Mosaic tabernacle occurs in connection with the building of Solomon's Temple (1Ki_8:4; 2Ch_1:3; 2Ch_5:3), when it is stated that the ark of the covenant and the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels that were in the tent were solemnly fetched up into the house which Solomon had built. That what is here called the tabernacle of the congregation, or the tent of meeting, was not the Mosaic tabernacle has been maintained on the following grounds: (a) that had it been so, David, when he fetched up the ark from Obed-edom's house, would not have pitched for it a tent in the city of David, but would have lodged it in Gibeon; (b) that had the Gibeon shrine been the Mosaic tabernacle it would not have been called as it is in Kings, ?a great high place?; (c) that had the Gibeon shrine been the Mosaic tabernacle, Solomon would not have required to cast new vessels for his Temple, as he is reported to have done; and (d) that had the Gibeon shrine been the Mosaic tabernacle the brazen altar would not have been left behind at Gibeon but would also have been conveyed to Mt. Moriah.
But (a) if it was foolish and wrong for David not to lodge the ark in Gibeon, that would not make it certain that the Mosaic tabernacle was not at Gibeon. That it was either foolish or wrong, however, is not clear. David may have reckoned that if the house of Obed-edom had derived special blessing from the presence of the ark in it for three months, possibly it would be for the benefit of his (David's) house and kingdom to have the ark permanently in his capital. And in addition, David may have remembered that God had determined to choose out a place for His ark, and in answer to prayer David may have been directed to fetch the ark to Jerusalem. As good a supposition this, at any rate, as that of the critics.
(b) That the Gibeon shrine should have been styled ?the great high place? (1Ki_3:4) is hardly astonishing, when one calls to mind that it was the central sanctuary, as being the seat of the Mosaic tabernacle with its brazen altar. And may not the designation ?high place,? or bāmāh, have been affixed to it just because, through want of its altar, it had dwindled down into a mere shadow of the true sanctuary and become similar to the other ?high places? or bāmōth?
(c) The casting of new vessels for Solomon's Temple needs no other explanation than this, that the new house was at least twice as spacious as the old, and that in any case it was fitting that the new house should have new furniture.
(d) That the brazen altar would not have been left behind at Gibeon when the Mosaic tabernacle was removed, may be met by the demand for proof that it was actually left behind. That it was left behind is a pure conjecture. That it was transplanted to Jerusalem and along with the other tabernacle utensils laid up in a side chamber of the temple is as likely an assumption as any other (see 1Ki_8:4).

3. The Tabernacle Could Not Have Been Built as Exodus Describes
It is maintained that the Mosaic tabernacle could not have been produced as Exodus describes: (1) that the time was too short, (2) that the Israelites were too little qualified, and (3) that the materials at their disposal were too scanty for the construction of so splendid a building as the Mosaic tabernacle. But (1) does any intelligent person believe that 9 months was too short a time for 600,000 able-bodied men, to say nothing of their women and children, to build a wooden house 30 cubits long, 10 high and 10 broad, with not as many articles in it as a well-to-do artisan's kitchen oftentimes contains? (2) Is it at all likely that they were so ill-qualified for the work as the objection asserts? The notion that the Israelites were a horde of savages or simply a tribe of wandering nomads does not accord with fact. They had been bond-men, it is true, in the land of Ham; but they and their fathers had lived there for 400 years; and it is simply incredible, as even Knobel puts it, that they should not have learnt something of the mechanical articles One would rather be disposed to hold that they must have had among them at the date of the Exodus a considerable number of skilled artisans. At least, archaeology has shown that if the escaped bondsmen knew nothing of the arts and sciences, it was not because their quondam masters had not been able to instruct them. The monuments offer silent witness that every art required by the manufacturers existed at the moment in Egypt, as e.g. the arts of metal-working, wood-carving, leather-making, weaving and spinning. And surely no one will contend that the magnificent works of art, the temples and tombs, palaces and pyramids, that are the world's wonder today, were the production always and exclusively of native Egyptian and never of Hebrew thought and labor! Nor (3) is the reasoning good, that whatever the Israelites might have been able to do in Egypt where abundant materials lay to hand, they were little likely to excel in handicrafts of any sort in a wilderness where such materials were wanting. Even Knobel could reply to this, that as the Israelites when they escaped from Egypt were not a horde of savages, so neither were they a tribe of beggars; that they had not entered on their expedition in the wilderness without preparation, or without taking with them their most valuable articles; that the quantities of gold, silver and precious stones employed in the building of the tabernacle were but trifles in comparison with other quantities of the same that have been found in possession of ancient oriental peoples; that a large portion of what was contributed had probably been obtained by despoiling the Egyptians before escaping from their toils and plundering the Amalekites whom they soon after defeated at Rephidim, and who, in all likelihood, at least if one may judge from the subsequent example of the Midianites, had come to the field of war bedecked with jewels and gold; and that the acacia wood, the linen, the blue, the purple and the scarlet, with the goats' skins, rams' skins, and seal skins might all have been found and prepared in the wilderness (compare Kurtz, Geschichte des alten Bundes, II, section 53). In short, so decisively has this argument, derived from the supposed deficiency of culture and resources on the part of the Israelites, been disposed of by writers of by no means too conservative pro-clivities, that one feels surprised to find it called up again by Benzinger in Encyclopedia Biblica to do duty in support of the unhistorical character of the tabernacle narrative in Exodus.

4. Biblical Account Contains Marks of Its Unhistorical Character
The Biblical account of the Mosaic tabernacle, it is further contended, bears internal marks of its completely unhistorical character, as e.g. (1) that it represents the tabernacle as having been constructed on a model which had been supernaturally shown to Moses; (2) that it habitually speaks of the south, north, and west sides of the tabernacle although no preceding order had been issued that the tent should be so placed; (3) that the brazen altar is described as made of timber overlaid with brass, upon which a huge fire constantly burned; (4) that, the tabernacle is depicted, not as a mere provisional shelter for the ark upon the march, but ?as the only legitimate sanctuary for the church of the twelve tribes before Solomon?; and (5) that the description of the tabernacle furnished in P (Ex 25 through 31; 36 through 40; Num_2:2, Num_2:17; Num_5:1-4; Num_14:44) conflicts with that given in E (Exo_33:7-11), both as to its character and its location.
But (1) why should the story of the tabernacle be a fiction, because Moses is reported to have made it according to a pattern showed to him in the Mount (Exo_25:40 (Hebrew 8:5))? No person says that the Temple of Solomon was a fiction, because David claimed that the pattern of it given to Solomon had been communicated to him (David) by divine inspiration (1Ch_28:19). Every critic also knows that Ezekiel wrote the book that goes by his name. Yet Ezekiel asserts that the temple described by him was beheld by him in a vision. Unless therefore the supernatural is ruled out of history altogether, it is open to reply that God could just as easily have revealed to Moses the pattern of the tabernacle as He afterward exhibited to Ezekiel the model of his temple. And even if God showed nothing to either one prophet or the other, the fact that Moses says he saw the pattern of the tabernacle no more proves that he did not write the account of it, than Ezekiel's stating that he beheld the model of his temple attests that Ezekiel never penned the description of it. The same argument that proves Moses did not write about the tabernacle also proves that Ezekiel could not have written about the vision-temple. Should it be urged that as Ezekiel's temple was purely visionary so also was Moses' tabernacle, the argument comes with small consistency and less force from those who say that Ezekiel's vision-temple was the model of a real temple that should afterward be built; since if Ezekiel's vision-temple was (or should have been, according to the critics) converted into a material sanctuary, no valid reason can be adduced why Moses' vision-tabernacle should not also have been translated into an actual building.
(2) How the fact that the tabernacle had three sides, south, north and west, shows it could not have been fashioned by Moses, is one of those mysteries which takes a critical mind to understand. One naturally presumes that the tabernacle must have been located somewhere and oriented somehow; and, if it had four sides, would assuredly suit as well to set them toward the four quarters of heaven as in any other way. But in so depicting the tabernacle, say the critics, the fiction writers who invented the story were actuated by a deep-laid design to make the Mosaic tabernacle look like the Temple of Solomon. Quite a harmless design, if it was really entertained! But the Books of Kings and Chronicles will be searched in vain for any indication that the Temple foundations were set to the four quarters of heaven. It is true that the 12 oxen who supported the molten sea in Solomon's Temple were so placed - 4 looking to the North, 4 to the South, 4 to the East, and 4 to the West (1Ki_7:25); but this does not necessarily warrant the inference that the sides of the Temple were so placed. Hence, on the well-known principle of modern criticism, that when a thing is not mentioned by a writer the thing does not exist, seeing that nothing is recorded about how the temple was placed, ought it not to be concluded that the whole story about the Temple is a myth?
(3) As to the absurdity of representing a large fire as constantly burning upon a wooden altar overlaid with a thin plate of brass, this would certainly have been all that the critics say - a fatal objection to receiving the story of the tabernacle as true. But if the story was invented, surely the inventor might have given Moses and his two skilled artisans, Bezalel and Oholiab, some credit for common sense, and not have made them do, or propose to do, anything so stupid as to try to keep a large fire burning upon an altar of wood. This certainly they did not do. An examination of Exo_27:1-8; Exo_38:1-7 makes it clear that the altar proper upon which ?the strong fire? burned was the earth or stone-filled (Exo_20:24 f) hollow which the wooden and brass frame enclosed.
(4) The fourth note of fancy - what Wellhausen calls ?the chief matter? - that the tabernacle was designed for a central sanctuary to the church of the Twelve Tribes before the days of Solomon, but never really served in this capacity - is partly true and partly untrue. That it was meant to be a central sanctuary, until Yahweh should select for Himself a place of permanent habitation, which He did in the days of Solomon, is exactly the impression a candid reader derives from Exodus, and it is gratifying to learn from so competent a critic as Wellhausen that this impression is correct. But that it really never served as a central sanctuary, it is impossible to admit, after having traced its existence from the days of Joshua onward to those of Solomon. That occasionally altars were erected and sacrifices offered at other places than the tabernacle - as by Gideon at Ophrah (Jdg_6:24-27) and by Samuel at Ramah (1Sa_7:17) - is no proof that the tabernacle was not the central sanctuary. If it is, then by parity of reasoning the altar in Mt. Ebal (Deu_27:5) should prove that Jerusalem was not intended as a central sanctuary. But, if alongside of the Temple in Jerusalem, an altar in Ebal could be commanded, then also alongside of the tabernacle it might be legitimate to erect an altar and offer sacrifice for special needs. And exactly this is what was done. While the tabernacle was appointed for a central sanctuary the earlier legislation was not revoked: ?An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in every place where I record my name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee? (Exo_20:24). It was still legitimate to offer sacrifice in any spot where Yahweh was pleased to manifest Himself to His people. And even though it had not been, the existence of local shrines alongside of the tabernacle would no more warrant the conclusion that the tabernacle was never built than the failure of the Christian church to keep the Golden Rule would certify that the Sermon on the Mount was never preached.
(5) With regard to the supposed want of harmony between the two descriptions of the tabernacle in P and E, much depends on whether the structures referred to in these documents were the same or different. (a) If different, i.e. if the tent in E (Exo_33:7-11) was Moses' tent (Kurtz, Keil, Kalisch, Ewald and others), or a preliminary tent erected by Moses (Havernick, Lange; Kennedy, and section A (I, 1), above), or possessed by the people from their forefathers (von Gerlach, Benzinger in EB), no reason can be found why the two descriptions should not have varied as to both the character of the tent and its location. The tent in E, which according to the supposition was purely provisional, a temporary sanctuary, may well have been a simple structure and pitched outside the camp; while the tent in P could just as easily have been an elaborate fabric with an ark, a priesthood and a complex sacrificial ritual and located in the midst of the camp. In this case no ground can arise for suggesting that they were contradictory of one another, or that P's tent was a fiction, a paper-tabernacle, while E's tent was a reality and the only tabernacle that ever existed in Israel. But (b) if on the other hand the tent in E was the same as the tent in P (Calvin, Mead in Lange, Konig, Eerdmans, Valeton and others), then the question may arise whether or not any contradiction existed between them, and, if such contradiction did exist, whether this justifies the inference that P's tent was unhistorical, i.e. never took shape except in the writer's imagination.
That the tent in E was not P's Mosaic tabernacle has been argued on the following grounds: (a) that the Mosaic tabernacle (assuming it to have been a reality and not a fiction) was not yet made; so that E's tent must have been either the tent of Moses or a provisional tent; (b) that nothing is said about a body of priests and Levites with an ark and a sacrificial ritual in connection with E's tent, but only of a non-Levitical attendant Joshua, and (c) that it was situated outside the camp, whereas P's tabernacle is always represented as in the midst of the camp.
The first of these grounds largely disappears when Exo_33:7 is read as in the Revised Version: ?Now Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it without the camp.? The verbs, being in the imperfect, point to Moses' practice (Driver, Introduction and Hebrew Tenses; compare Ewald, Syntax, 348), which again may refer either to the past or to the future, either to what Moses was in the habit of doing with his own or the preliminary tent, or what he was to do with the tent about to be constructed. Which interpretation is the right one must be determined by the prior question which tent is intended. Against the idea of E's tent being Moses' private domicile stands the difficulty of seeing why it was not called his tent instead of the tent, and why Moses should be represented as never going into it except to hold communion with Yahweh. If it was a provisional tent, struck up by Moses, why was no mention of its construction made? And if it was a sort of national heirloom come down from the forefathers of Israel, why does the narrative contain not the slightest intimation of any such thing?
On the other hand if E's tent was the same as P's, the narrative does not require to be broken up; and Exo_33:7-11 qu
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.


Tabernacle (tent of assembly). We may distinguish in the Old Testament three sacred tabernacles:
I. The Ante-Sinaitic, which was probably the dwelling of Moses, and was placed by the camp of the Israelites in the desert, for the transaction of public business (Exo_33:7).
II. The Ante-Sinaitic tabernacle, which had served for the transaction of public business probably from the beginning of the exodus, was superseded by the Sinaitic; this was constructed by Bezaleel and Aholiab as a portable mansion-house, guildhall, and cathedral, and set up on the first day of the first month in the second year after leaving Egypt. Of this alone we have accurate descriptions.
III. The Davidic tabernacle was erected by David in Jerusalem for the reception of the ark (2Sa_6:12), while the old tabernacle remained to the days of Solomon at Gibeon, together with the brazen altar, as the place where sacrifices were offered (1Ch_16:39, and 2Ch_1:3).
The second of these sacred tents is, as the most important, called the tabernacle par excellence. Moses was commanded by Jehovah to have it erected in the Arabian Desert, by the voluntary contributions of the Israelites, who carried it about with them in their migrations until after the conquest of Canaan, when it remained stationary for longer periods in various towns of Palestine.
The materials of which this tent was composed were so costly, that skeptics have questioned whether they could be furnished by a nomadic race. The tabernacle exceeded in costliness and splendor, in proportion to the slender means of a nomadic people, the magnificence of any cathedral of the present day, compared with the wealth of the surrounding population. The mode of collecting the voluntary offerings for this great work, and the design of the structure, are fully described in Exodus 25-27, and in 35-37.




The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.


Psa_19:4 (a) The great expanse of the heavens is described as a tent in which the sun rules and reigns. It is quite a few million miles wide and high, and is not subject to the whims of men, nor the storms of life.

Psa_27:5 (a) His presence is described as a tabernacle or tent. As we retire into His presence from the storms of life, we find His preserving care and quietness of spirit. (See also Psa_61:4; Isa_4:6; Jer_10:20).

Psa_84:1 (b) In this way the Lord describes the holiness and the blessedness of the gatherings of the people of GOD for worship, praise and service.

Pro_14:11 (c) Probably this refers to the manner of life of the Christian. Because he walks with GOD, and seeks to serve his Lord, he is assured of the presence of the Holy Spirit, and this probably is called a "Tabernacle."

Isa_33:20 (a) Probably the entire city of Jerusalem is called by this name. (See also Lam_2:4).

2Co_5:1 (a) The human body is called by this name because the spirit dwells in this body in order to serve the Lord, and be a blessing to others. At death the spirit leaves the tabernacle, so that GOD may repair the building and fix it up new for the return of the spirit in the day of the resurrection. (See also 2Pe_1:13).

Heb_8:2 (b) Probably this is a type of the church of GOD in which the Spirit of GOD now dwells, and where the glory of GOD is revealed.
Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types
press 1957.



is the rendering, in the A. V., of the following Heb. and Gr. words;
1. אֹהֶל, ohel, the most frequent term, but often signifying and rendered a common “tent;”
2. משְֹׁכָּן, mishken, the distinctive term, always so rendered, except (“dwelling”) in 1Ch_6:32; Job_18:21; Job_21:28; Job_39:6; Psa_26:8; Psa_49:11; Psa_74:7; Psa_87:2; Isa_32:18; Jer_9:19; Jer_30:8; Jer_51:30; Eze_25:4; Heb_1:6; (“habitation”) 2Ch_29:6; Psa_78:28; Psa_132:5; Isa_22:16; Isa_54:2; (“tent”) Son_1:8;
3. סֹךְ [once שׂךְ, Lam_2:6], suk (Psa_76:2), סֻכָּה, sukkah (Lev_23:34; Deu_16:13; Deu_16:16; Deu_31:10; 2Ch_8:13; Ezr_3:4; Job_36:29; Isa_4:6; Amo_9:11; Zec_14:16; Zec_14:18-19), or סַכּוּת, sikkuth (Amo_5:26), all meaning a booth, as often rendered;
4. σκηνή, σκῆνος (2Co_5:1; 2Co_5:4) or σκήνωμα (Act_7:46 [rather habitation]; 2Pe_1:13-14), a tent. Besides occasional use for an ordinary dwelling, the term is specially employed to designate the first sacred edifice of the Hebrews prior to the time of Solomon; fully called אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, the tent of meeting, or (especially in Numbers) מַשְׁכִּן הָעֵדוּת, tabernacle of the congregation (Sept. σκηνὴ) [1Ki_8:4; 1Ki_8:6, σκήνωμα] τοῦ μαρτυρίου; Philo, ἱερὸν φορητόν, Opp. 2 146; Josephus, μεταφερόμενος καὶ συμπερινοστῶν ναός, Ant. 3, 6, 1). (In the discussion of this interesting subject we have availed ourselves of MS. contributions from Prof. T Paine, LL.D., author of Solomon's Temple, etc., in addition to the suggestions in the book itself. For an exhaustive treatment we refer to the most recent Volume and charts, entitled The Tabernacle of Israel in the Desert, by Prof. James Strong, Providence, 1888.)
I. Terms and Synonyms. —
1. The first word thus used (Exo_25:9) is מַשְׁכָּן, mishkan, from
שָׁכִן, to lie down or dwell, and thus itself equivalent to dwelling. It connects itself with the Jewish, though not scriptural, word Shechinah (q.v.), as describing the dwelling place of the divine glory. It is noticeable, however, that it is not applied in prose to the common dwellings of men, the tents of the patriarchs in Genesis, or those of Israel in the wilderness. It seems to belong rather to the speech of poetry (Psa_87:2; Son_1:8). The loftier character of the word may obviously have helped to determine its religious use, and justifies translators who have the choice of synonyms like “tabernacle” and “tent” in a like preference. In its application to the sacred building, it denotes (a) the ten tri-colored curtains; (b) the forty-eight planks supporting them; (c) the whole building, including the roof. SEE DWELLING.
2. Another word, however, is also used, more connected with the common life of men; אֹהֶל, ohel, the tent of the patriarchal age, of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob (Gen_9:21, etc.). For the most part, as needing something to raise it, it is used, when applied to the sacred tent, with some distinguishing epithet. In one passage only (1Ki_1:39) does it appear with this meaning by itself. The Sept., not distinguishing between the two words, gives σκηνή for both. The original difference appears to have been that אֹהֶל represented the uppermost covering, the black goats-hair roof, which was strictly a tent, in distinction from the lower upright house-like part built of boards. The two words are accordingly sometimes joined, as in Exo_39:32; Exo_40:2; Exo_6:29 (A.V. “the tabernacle of the tent”). Even here, however, the Sept. gives σκηνή only, with the exception of the var. lect. of ἡ σκηνὴ τῆς σκεπῆς in Exo_40:29. In its application to the tabernacle, the term ohel means (a) the tent-roof of goats-hair; (b) the whole building. SEE TENT.
3. בִּיַת, bayith, house (οικος, domus), is applied to the tabernacle in Exo_23:19; Exo_34:26; Jos_6:24; Jos_9:23; Jdg_18:31; Jdg_20:18, as it had been, apparently, to the tents of the patriarchs (Gen_33:17).
So far as it differs from the two preceding words, it expresses more definitely the idea of a fixed settled habitation. It was therefore fitter for the sanctuary of Israel after the people were settled in Canaan than during their wanderings. For us the chief interest of the word lies in its having descended from a yet older order, the first word ever applied in the Old Test. to a local sanctuary, Bethel, “the house of God” (Gen_28:17; Gen_28:22), keeping its place, side by side, with other words — tent, tabernacle, palace, temple, synagogue-and at last outliving all of them; rising, in the Christian Ecclesia, to yet higher uses (1Ti_3:15). SEE HOUSE.
4. קֹדֶשׁ, kódesh, or מַקְדָּשׁ. mikdash (ἁγίασμα, ἁγιαστήριον, τὸ ἃγιον, τὰ ἃγια, sanctuarium'), the holy, consecrated place, and therefore applied, according to the graduated scale of holiness of which the tabernacle bore witness, sometimes to the whole structure (Exo_25:8; Lev_12:4), sometimes to the court into which none but the priests might enter (Lev_4:6; Num_3:38; Num_4:12), sometimes to the innermost sanctuary of ail, the Holy of Hohes. (Lev_16:2). Here also the word had an earlier starting-point and a far-reaching history. En-Mishpat, the city of judgment, the seat of some old oracle, had been also Kadesh, the sanctuary (Gen_14:7; Ewald, Gesch. Isr. 2, 307). The name El-Kuds still clings to the walls of Jerusalem. SEE SANCTUARY.
5. הֵיכָל, heykal, temple (ναός, templum), as meaning the stately building, or palace of Jehovah (1Ch_29:1; 1Ch_29:19), is applied more commonly to the Temple (2Ki_24:13, etc.), but was used also (probably at the period when the thought of the Temple had affected the religious nomenclature of the time) of the tabernacle at Shiloh. (1Sa_1:9; 1Sa_3:3) and Jerusalem (Psa_5:7). In either case the thought which the word embodies is that the “tent,” the “house,” is royal, the dwelling-place of the great king. SEE TEMPLE.
The first two of the above words receive a new meaning in combination with מוֹעֵד(moed), and with הָעֵדוּת(ha-eduth). To understand the full meaning of the distinctive titles thus formed is to possess the key to the significance of the whole tabernacle.
(a.) The primary force of יָעִדis “to meet by appointment,” and the phrase אֹהֶל מוֹעֵדhas therefore the meaning of “a place of or for a fixed meeting.” Acting on the belief that the meeting in this case was that of the worshippers, the A.V. has uniformly rendered it by “tabernacle of the congregation” (so Seb. Schmidt, “tentorium convents;” and Luther, “Stiftshutte” in which Stift = Pfarrkirche) while the Sept. and Vulg., confounding it with the other epithet, have rendered both by ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, and “tabernaculum testimonii.” None of these renderings, however, bring out the real meaning of the word. This is to be found in what may be called the locus classicus, ῥas the interpretation of all words connected with the tabernacle. “This shall be a continual burnt-offering at the door of the tabernacle of meeting (מוֹעֵד) where I will meet you (אַוָּעֵד, γνωσθήσομαι) to speak there unto thee. And there will I meet (נֹעִדנְתּי, τάξομαι) with the children of Israel. And I will sanctify (קַדִּשְׁתַּי) the tabernacle of meeting... and I will dwell (שָׁכִנְתַּי) among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God” (Exo_29:42-46). The same central thought occurs in Exo_25:22, “There I will meet with thee” (comp. also 30:6, 36; Num_17:4). It is clear, therefore, that “congregation” is inadequate. Not the gathering of the worshippers, but the meeting of God with his people, to commune with them, to make himself known to them, was what the name embodied. Ewald has accordingly suggested Offenbarungszelt= tent of revelation, as the best equivalent (Alterthümer, p. 130). This made the place a sanctuary. Thus it was that the tent was the dwelling, the house of God (Bahr, Symb. 1, 81). SEE CONGREGATION.
(b.) The other compound phrase, אֹהֶל הָעֵדנְת, as connected with עוּד(= to bear witness), is rightly rendered by ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, tabernaculum testimonii, die Wohnung des Zeugnisses, “the tent of the testimony” (Num_9:15) “the tabernacle of witness” (Num_17:7; Num_18:2). In this case the tent derives its name from that which is the center of its holiness. The two tables of stone within the ark are emphatically the testimony (Exo_25:16; Exo_25:21; Exo_31:18). They were to all Israel the abiding witness of the nature and will of God. The tent, by virtue of its relation to them, became the witness of its own significance as the meeting-place of God and man. The probable connection of the two distinct names, in sense as well as in sound (Bahr, Synb. 1, 83; Ewald, Alt. p. 230), gave, of course, a force to each which no translation can represent. SEE TESTIMONY.
II. History. —
1. We may distinguish in the Old Test. three sacred tabernacles:
(1.) The Ante-Sinaitic, which was probably the dwelling of Moses, and was placed by the camp of the Israelites in the desert, for the transaction of public business. Exo_33:7-10, “Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the Congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp. And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent- door, and looked after Moses until he was gone into the tabernacle. And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle-door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every one in his tent-door.” This was neither the sanctuary of the tabernacle described in ch. 25 sq., which was not made till after the perfect restoration of the covenant (ch. 35 sq.), nor another sanctuary that had come down from their forefathers and was used before the tabernacle proper was built (as Le Clerc, J. D. Michaelis, and Rosenmüller supposed); but an ordinary tent used for the occasion and purpose (Keil, Comment. ad loc.).
(2.) The Sinaitic tabernacle superseded the tent which had served for the transaction of public business probably from the beginning of the Exode. This was constructed by Bezaleel and Aholiab as a portable mansion- house, guildhall, and cathedral, and set up on the first day of the first month in the second year after leaving Egypt. Of this alone we have accurate descriptions. It was the second of these sacred tents, which, as the most important, is called the tabernacle par excellence. Moses was commanded by Jehovah to have it erected in the Arabian desert, by voluntary contributions of the Israelites, who carried it about with them in their migrations until after the conquest of Canaan, when it remained stationary for longer periods in various towns of Palestine (as below).
(3.) The Davidic tabernacle was erected by David, in Jerusalem, for the reception of the ark (2Sa_6:12); while the old tabernacle remained to the days of Solomon at Gibeon, together with the brazen altar, as the place where sacrifices were offered (1Ch_16:39; 2Ch_1:3).
2. Varied Fortunes of the Sinaitic Tabernacle.
(1.) In the Wilderness. —The outward history of the tabernacle begins with Exodus 25. It comes after the first great group of laws (ch. 19-23), after the covenant with the people, after the vision of the divine glory (ch. 24). For forty days and nights Moses is in the mount. Before him there lay a problem, as measured by human judgment, of gigantic difficulty. In what fit symbols was he to embody the great truths without which the nation would sink into brutality? In what way could those symbols be guarded against the evil which he had seen in Egypt, of idolatry the most degrading? He was not left to solve the problem for himself. There rose before him, not without points of contact with previous associations, yet in no degree formed out of them, the “pattern” of the tabernacle. The lower analogies of the painter and the architect seeing, with their inward eye, their completed work before the work itself begins, may help us to understand how it was that the vision on the mount included all details of form, measurement, materials, the order of the ritual, the apparel of the priests. lie is directed in his choice of the two chief artists, Bezaleel of the tribe of Judah, Aholiab of the tribe of Daniel (Exodus 31). The sin, of the golden calf apparently postpones the execution. For a moment it seems as if the people were to be left without the Divine Presence itself without any recognized symbol of it (Exo_33:3). As in a transition period, the whole future depending on the patience of the people, on the intercession of their leader, a tent is pitched (probably that of Moses himself, which had hitherto been the headquarters of consultation), outside the camp, to be provisionally the tabernacle of meeting. There the mind of the lawgiver enters into ever-closer fellowship with the mind of God (Exo_33:11), learns to think of him as “merciful and gracious” (Exo_34:6); in the strength of that thought is led back to the fulfillment of the plan which had seemed likely to end, as it began, in vision. Of this provisional tabernacle it has to be noticed that there was as yet no ritual and no priesthood. The people went out to it as to an oracle (Exo_33:7). Joshua, though of the tribe of Ephraim, had free access to it (Exo_33:11).
Another outline law was, however, given; another period of solitude, like the first; followed. The work could now be resumed. The people offered the necessary materials in excess of what was wanted (Exo_36:5-6). Other workmen (Exo_36:2) and workwomen (Exo_35:25) placed themselves under the direction of Bezaleel and Aholiab. The parts were completed separately, and then, on the first day of the second year from the Exode, the tabernacle itself was erected and the ritual appointed for it begun (Exo_40:2).
The position of the new tent was itself significant. It stood, not, like the provisional tabernacle, at a distance from the camp, but in its very center. The multitude of Israel, hitherto scattered with no fixed order, were now, within a month of its erection (Num_2:2), grouped round it, as around the dwelling of the unseen Captain of the Host, in a fixed order, according to their tribal rank. The priests on the east, the other three families of the Levites on the other sides, were closest in attendance, the “body-guard” of the Great King. SEE LEVITE. In the wider square, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, were on the east; Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, on the west; the less conspicuous tribes, Dan, Asher, Naphtali, on the north; Reuben, Simeon, Gad, on the south side. When the army put itself in order of march, the position of the tabernacle, carried by the Levites, was still central, the tribes of the east and south in front, those of the north and west in the rear (ch. 2). Upon it there rested the symbolic cloud, dark by day and fiery-red by night (Exo_40:38). When the cloud removed, the host knew that it was the signal for them to go forward (Exo_40:36-37; Num_9:17). As long as it remained — whether for a day, or month, or year they continued where they were (Exo_40:15-23). Each march, it must be remembered, involved the breaking up of the whole structure, all the parts being carried on wagons by the three Levitical families of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari, while the “sons of Aaron” prepared for the removal by covering everything in the Holy of Holies with a purple cloth (Exo_4:6-15). SEE ENCAMPMENT.
In all special facts connected with the tabernacle, the original thought reappears. It is the place where man meets with God. There the Spirit “comes upon” the seventy elders, and they prophesy (Num_11:24-25). Thither Aaron and Miriam are called out when they rebel against the servant of the Lord (Num_12:4). There the “glory of the Lord” appears after the unfaithfulness of the twelve spies (Num_14:10) and the rebellion of Korah and his company (Num_16:19; Num_16:42) and the sin of Meribah (Num_20:6). Thither, when there is no sin to punish, but a difficulty to be met, do the daughters of Zelophe had come to bring their cause “before the Lord” (Num_27:2). There, when the death of Moses draws near, is the solemn “charge” given to his successor (Deu_31:14).
(2.) In Palestine. — As long as Canaan remained unconquered and the people were still therefore an army, the tabernacle was probably moved from place to place, wherever the host of Israel was for the time encampedat Gilgal (Jos_4:19), in the valley between Ebal and Gerizim (Jos_8:30-35), again, at the headquarters of Gilgaal (Jos_9:6; Jos_10:15; Jos_10:43); and, finally, as at “the place which the Lord had chosen,” at Shiloh (Jos_9:27; Jos_18:1). The reasons of this last choice are not given. Partly, perhaps, its central position, partly its belonging to the powerful tribe of Ephraim, the tribe of the great captain of the host, may have determined the preference. There it continued during the whole period of the judges, the gathering-point for “the heads of the fathers” of the tribes (Jos_19:51), for councils of peace or war (Jos_22:12; Jdg_21:12), for annual solemn dances, in which the women of Shiloh were conspicuous (Jdg_21:21). There, too, as the religion of Israel sank towards the level of an orgiastic heathenism, troops of women assembled, shameless as those of Midian, worshippers of Jehovah, and, like the ἱερόδουλοι of heathen temples, concubines of his priests (1Sa_2:22). It was far, however, from being what it was intended to be, the one national sanctuary, the witness against a localized and divided worship. The old religion of the high places kept its ground. Altars were erected, at first under protest, and with reserve, as being not for sacrifice (Jos_22:26), afterwards freely and without scruple (Jdg_6:24; Jdg_13:19). Of the names by which the one special sanctuary was known at this period, those of the “house” and the “temple” of Jehovah (1Sa_1:9; 1Sa_1:24; 1Sa_3:3; 1Sa_3:15) are most prominent.
A state of things which was rapidly assimilating the worship of Jehovah to that of Ashtaroth or Mylitta needed to be broken up. The ark of God was taken, and the sanctuary lost its glory; and the tabernacle, though it did not perish, never again recovered it (1Sa_4:22). Samuel, at once the Luther and the Alfred of Israel, who had grown up within its precincts, treats it as an abandoned shrine (so Psa_78:60), and sacrifices elsewhere-at Mizpeh (1Sa_7:9), at Ramah (1Sa_9:12; 1Sa_10:3), at Gilgal (1Sa_10:8; 1Sa_11:15). It probably became once again a movable sanctuary; less honored, as no longer possessing the symbol of the Divine Presence, yet cherished by the priesthood, and some portions at least of its ritual kept up. For a time it seems, under Saul, to have been settled at Nob (1Sa_21:1-6)., which thus became what it had not been before — a priestly city. The massacre of the priests and the flight of Abiathar must, however, have robbed it yet further of its glory. It had before lost the ark. It now lost the presence of the high-priest, and with it the oracular ephod, the Urim and Thummim (1Sa_22:20; 1Sa_23:6). What change of fortune then followed we do not know.
The fact that all Israel was encamped, in the last days of Saul, at Gilboa, and that there Saul, though without success, inquired of the Lord by Urim (1Sa_28:4-6), makes it probable that the tabernacle, as of old, was in the encampment, and that Abiathar had returned to it. In some way or other it found its way to Gibeon (1Ch_16:39). The anomalous separation of the two things which, in the original order, had been joined brought about yet greater anomalies, and while the ark remained at Kirjath-jearim, the tabernacle at Gibeon connected itself with the worship of the high-places (1Ki_3:2). The capture of Jerusalem, and the erection there of a new tabernacle, with the ark, of which the old had been deprived (2Sa_6:17; 1Ch_15:1), left it little more than a traditional, historical sanctity. It retained only the old altar of burnt-offerings (1Ch_21:29). Such as it was, however, neither king nor people could bring themselves to sweep it away. The double service went on; Zadok, as high- priest, officiated at Gibeon (1Ch_16:39); the more recent, more prophetic service of psalms and hymns and music, under Asaph, gathered round the tabernacle at Jerusalem (1Ch_16:4; 1Ch_16:37). The divided worship continued all the days of David. The sanctity of both places was recognized by Solomon on his accession (1 Kings 3, 15; 2Ch_1:3). But it was time that the anomaly should cease. As long as it was simply tent against tent, it was difficult to decide between them. The purpose of David, fulfilled by Solomon, was that the claims of both should merge in the higher glory of the Temple. Some, Abiathar probably among them, clung to the old order, in this as in other things; but the final day at last came, and the tabernacle of meeting was either taken down or left to perish and-be forgotten. So a page in the religious history of Israel was closed. Thus the disaster of Shiloh led to its natural consummation.
III. Description. — The written authorities four the restoration of the tabernacle are, first, the detailed account to be found in Exodus 26 and repeated in Exo_36:8-38, without any variation beyond the slightest possible abridgment; secondly, the account given of the building by Josephus (Ant. 3, 6), which is so nearly a repetition of the account found in the Bible, that we may feel assured that he had no really important authority before him except the one which is equally accessible to us. Indeed, we might almost put his account on one side if it were not that, being a Jew, and so much nearer the time, he may have had access to some traditional accounts which may have enabled him to realize its appearance more readily than we can do, and his knowledge of Hebrew technical terms may have assisted him to understand what we might otherwise be unable to explain. The additional indications contained in the Talmud and in Philo are so few and indistinct, and are, besides, of such doubtful authenticity, that they practically add nothing to our knowledge, and may safely be disregarded.
For a complicated architectural building, these written authorities probably would not suffice without some remains or other indications to supplement them; but the arrangements of the tabernacle were so simple that they are really all that are required. Every important dimension was either five cubits or a multiple of five cubits, and all the arrangements in plan were either squares or double squares, so that there is, in fact, no difficulty in putting the whole together, and none would ever have occurred, were it not that the dimensions of the sanctuary, as obtained from the “boards” that formed its walls, appear at first sight to be one thing, while those obtained from the dimensions of the curtains Which covered it appear to give another. The apparent discrepancy is, however, easily explained, as we shall presently see, and never would have occurred to any one who had lived long under canvas or was familiar with the exigencies of tent architecture.
The following close translation of Exodus 26 will set the subject generally before the reader. We have indicated, by the use of italics, marked variations from the A.V.
1. And the tabernacle (מַשְׁכָּן) thou shalt make ten curtains; twisted linen, and violet and purple and crimson of cochineal: cherubs, work of (an) artificer, thou shalt
2. make them. (The) length of the one curtain (shall be) eight and twenty by the cubit, and (the breadth) four by the cubit, the one curtain: one measure (shall be)
3. to all the curtains. Five of the curtains shall be joining each to its fellow, and five of the curtains joining
4. each to its fellow. And thou shalt make loops (לוּל) of violet upon (the) edge of the one curtain from (the) end in the joining, and so shall thou make in (the) edge
5. of the endmost curtain in the second joining: fifty loops shalt thou. make in the one curtain, and fifty loops shalt thou make in (the) end of the curtain which is in the second joining, the loops standing opposite (מִקְבַּלוֹת)
6. the one to its fellow. And thou shalt make fifty taches I (קֵרֶס) of gold, and thou shalt join the curtains one to its fellow with the taches, and the tabernacle shall be one.
7. And thou shalt make curtains of goats (hair) for a tent (אֹהֶל) upon the tabernacle, eleven curtains shalt
8. thou make them. (The) length of the one curtain (shall be) thirty by the cubit, and (the) breadth four by the cubit, the one curtain: one measure (shall be) to
9. (the) eleven curtains. And thou shalt join five of the curtains separately, and six of the curtains separately; and thou shalt double the sixth curtain towards (the)
10. fore front of the tent. And thou shalt make fifty loops upon (the) edge of the one curtain-the endmost in the joining, and fifty loops upon (the) edge of the cur-
11. tain — the second joining. And thou shalt make taches of copper-fifty; and shalt bring the taches in the loops, and thou shalt join the tent, and (it) shall be
12. one. And (the) overplus hang in (the) curtains of the tent- half of the overplus curtain shall hang upon
13. the back of the tabernacle; and the cubit from this (side) and the cubit from that (side) in the overplus in (the) length of (the) curtains of the tent shall be hung, upon (the) sides of the tabernacle from this (side) and from that (side), to cover it.
14. And thou shalt make (a) covering to the tent, skins of rams reddened, and (a) covering of skins of tach-ashes from above.
15. And thou shalt make the planks (קֶרֶשׁ) for the tabernacle, trees [wood] of acacias (שַׁטַים), standing.
16. Ten cubits (shall he the) length of the plank; and (a) cubit and (the) half of the cubit (the) breadth of the
17. one plank. Two hands [teons] (shall there be) to the one plank, joined (מְשְׁלָּבוֹת, others corresponding) [comp. Exo_36:22] each to its fellow: so shalt thou
18. make [or do] for all (the) planks of the tabernacle. And thou shalt make the planks for the tabernacle, twenty planks for (the) Nogeb [south] quarter towards Tey-
19. man [the south]. And forty bases (אֶדֶן) of silver shalt thou make under the twenty planks, two bases under the one plank four its two hands, and two bases under
20. the one [next] plank for its two hands., And for the second rib [flank] of the tabernacle to (the) Tsaphrnm
21. [north] quarter (there shall be) twenty planks; and their forty bases of silver, two bases under the one plank, and two bases under the one [next] plank.
22. And for (the) thighs [rear] of the tabernacle seaward
23. [west] thou shalt make six planks. And two planks shalt thou make for (the) angles (מַקְצוֹע, cutting off)
24. of the tabernacle in the thighs [rear]: and (they) shall be twinned (תֹּאֲמַים, perhaps jointed, hinged, or bolted) from below together, and shall be twins upon its head [top] towards the one ring: so shall (it) be too both of them; for the two angles shall (they) be.
25. And (there) shall be eight planks, and their bases of silver-sixteen bases, two bases under the one plank, and two bases under the one [next] plank.
26. And thou shalt make bars (בְּרַיחִ) of trees [wood] of acacias [Shittim]; five for (the) planks of the one rib
27. [flank] of the tabernacle, and five bars for (the) planks of the second rib [flank] of the tabernacle, and five bars for (the) planks of (the) rib [flank] of the taber-
28. nacle for the thighs [rear] seaward [west]. And the middle bar, in (the) middle of the planks (shall) bar (מִבְרַיחִ, be bolting through) from the end to the end.
29. And the planks thou shalt overlay (with) gold, and the rings then shalt make (of) gold, (as) houses [places] for the bars; and thou shalt overlay the bars (with) gold.
30. And thou shalt rear the tabernacle like it — judgment [style] which I made thee see in the mountain.
1. The court (חָצֵר) was a large rectangular enclosure, open to the sky, and with its entrance at the east end. Its dimensions are given more than once, being 100 cubits long and 50' broad. Its construction was very simple, being composed of a frame of four sides of distinct pillars, with curtains hung upon them. In other words, it was surrounded by canvas screens-in the East called kannats, and still universally used to enclose the private apartments of important personages. The pillars were probably of shittim- wood (that is, the desert acacia), a light, close-grained, imperishable wood, easily taking on a fine natural polish, though it is nowhere directly intimated of what material they were; they were five cubits in height (sufficient to prevent a person from looking over them into the enclosure), but their other dimensions are not given, so that we cannot be sure whether they were round (Ewald) or four-cornered (Bähr), probably the latter. At the bottom these pillars were protected or shod by sockets of brass (copper). It is not quite easy to say whether these sockets were merely for protection, and perhaps ornament, or if they also helped to give stability to the pillar. In the latter case, we may conceive the socket to have been of the shape of a hollow wedge or pointed funnel driven into the ground, and then the end of the pillar pushed down into its cavity; or they may have been simply plate laid on the ground, with a hole for the reception of the tenoned foot of the pillar, as in the case of the “boards” noticed below.
Other appliances were used to give the structure firmness, viz. the common articles of tent architecture, ropes and pins (Exo_35:18). At the top these pillars had a capital or head (Exo_38:17, chapter), which was overlaid with silver; but whether the body of the pillar was plated with any metal is not said. Connected with the head of the pillar were two other articles, hooks, and things called חֲשֻׁקַים, chashukim, rendered “fillets,” i.e. ornamental chaplets in relief round the pillar (so Ewald, Alterthümer, p. 335, note 5), but most probably meaning rods (so Gesenius, Fürst, and others), joining one pillar to another. These rods were laid upon the hooks, and served to attach the hangings to and suspend them from. The hooks and rods were silver, though Knobel conjectures the latter must have been merely plated (Exodus p. 278). The mode of adjusting these hangings was similar to that of the doorway screens and “vail” described below. The circumference of the enclosure thus formed was 300 cubits, and the number of pillars is said to have been 20 + 20 + 10 + 10 = 60, which would give between every two pillars a space of 3-0 =5 cubits. There has been considerable difficulty in accurately conceiving the method adopted by the writer in calculating these pillars. This difficulty arises from the corner pillars, each of which, of course, belongs both to the side and to the end. It has been supposed by many, that the author calculated each one corner pillar twice; that is, considered it, though one in itself, as a pillar of the side and also as a pillar of the end. This would make in all 56 actual pillars, and, of course, as many spaces (Biahr, Knobel, etc.); that is, nineteen spaces on each side, and nine on the end. Now since the side was 100 cubits and the end 50, this would give for each side space 10'=5 and for each end space 54=5 cubits, spaces artificial in themselves and unlike each other. It is certainly most probable that the spaces of side and end were of exactly the same size, and that each of them was some exact, and no fractional, number of cubits. The difficulty may be completely removed by assuming the distance of 5 cubits to each space, and counting as in the accompanying ground-plan. Thus, since each side was 100 cubits, this needs twenty spaces. But twenty spaces need twenty-one pillars.
So that, supposing us to start from the south-east corner and go along the south side, we should have for 100 cubits twenty-one pillars and twenty spaces; but of these we should count twenty spaces and pillars for the south side, and call the south-west corner pillar, not the twenty-first pillar of the side, but the first of the end. Then going up the end, we should count ten pillars and spaces as end, but consider the north-west corner pillar not as eleventh of the end, but first of the north side; and so on. In this way we gain sixty pillars and as many spaces, and have each space exactly 5 cubits. The hangings- (קַלָעַים, kelaim') of the court were of twined shesh; that is, a fabric woven out of twisted yarn of the material called shesh. This word, which properly means white, is rendered by our version “fine linen,'” a rendering with which most concur, while some decide for cotton. At all events, the curtains were a strong fabric of this glancing white material, and were hung upon the pillars, most likely outside, though that is not known, being attached to the pillar sat the top by the hooks and rods already described, while the whole was stayed by pins and cords, like a tent. The entrance, which was situated in the center of the east end and was twenty cubits in extent, was formed also of a hanging (technically מָסָךְ, masak) of “blue, purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, work of the רוֹקֵ, roken” (A.V. “needle-work”). The last word has usually been considered to mean embroiderer with the needle, and the curtain fancied to have had figures, flowers, etc., of the mentioned colors wrought into it. But such kinds of work have always a “wrong” side, and, most probably taking into account the meaning of the word in Arabic, and the fondness of the Arabs at this day for striped blankets, the word means “weaver of striped cloth,” and the hanging is to be conceived as woven with lines or stripes of blue, purple, and scarlet an the white ground of shesh (Knobel, Keil, etc.). In other words, the warp, or longitudinal threads, was of white linen, while the woof made cross-bars (which would hang vertically) of brilliantly dyed wool in a treble thread. They were merely spun and woven, without gold or embroidered figures. The furniture of the court consisted of the altar of burnt-offering and the laver. These are sufficiently described under their appropriate headings. SEE ALTAR; SEE LAVER. What concerns us is the position of them. In all probability, the tabernacle proper stood with its entrance exactly in the middle of the court, that is, fifty cubits from the entrance of the court; and very possibly the altar of burnt-offering stood, again, midway between the door of the court and that of the tabernacle, i.e. twenty-five cubits from each, and somewhere in the twenty-five cubits between the altar and the tabernacle stood the laver (Josephus, Ant. 3, 6, 2).
2. The Tabernacle itself – Following the method pursued with the outer court, we begin with the walls. These were built of boards, or, rather, planks (קְרָשַׁים, kerashim), in close contact with each other. They were of shittim-wood, overlaid with gold on both sides, ten cubits high and one and a half cubit broad, their thickness being nowhere given. From the foot of each plank came out two “tenons” (יָדוֹת, yadoth-hands), which must not be conceived as connecting the planks with each other laterally, as if there corresponded to a tenon in one plank a mortise in another; they were for connecting each particular plank with the ground, and must be conceived as two wedge-shaped or pointed pieces (probably of copper, or perhaps of silver); projecting from the lower end of the plank. These tenons were thrust into silver sockets, of which two were prepared for each plank, each socket being the weight of a talent of silver. Whether these sockets were wedge shaped or pointed, and themselves went into the ground, or whether they were mere foot-plates for the plank, with holes for the tenons to pass through into the ground (the last more probable), is not intimated. Prof. Paine has ingeniously suggested the thickness of these sockets as one sixth of a cubit, SEE METROLOGY, and likewise their form (half a cubit square), as in the adjoining cut. He also calculates from this size of the sockets, or foot-plates, that the planks should be (as Josephus says) one third of a span, i.e. one sixth of a cubit thick (which is quite sufficient for strength), in order to turn the corners neatly as illustrated in the subjoined cut. This might indeed have been effected on the supposition that the planks were one cubit thick as the accompanying cut will show; but we can hardly suppose that the planks overhung the bases which supported them. These bases did not require to enter deeply into the ground, as there was no lateral strain upon them, and the whole weight of the building kept them firmly in their place. Their only object was to keep the bottom of the planks level and even. The upper ends of the planks, however, needed to be kept from separating, as they would certainly do under the traction of the stay- cords fore and aft. Hence the tenons mentioned in Exo_26:17 are carefully distinguished from those (already described) referred to in Exo_26:19; and they are designated (without any sockets assigned to them) by a peculiar term, מַשֻׁלָּבוֹת, meshullaboth, which occurs here only. It is regarded by Gesenius as radically signifying notched, but he understands it here as meaning joined, a sense in which Furst and Milhlau emphatically concur, to the exclusion of that adopted by the Sept. (ἀντιπίπτοντες) and the A.V. (“set in order”). Prof. Paine refers the term to the top of the planks, and renders it clasped, understanding a separate plate with holes corresponding to pins or tenons (probably all of copper) in the upper end of the planks likewise, as in the annexed cut. This is an essential provision for the stability of the structure, of which no one else seems to have thought. Nevertheless, as he privately informs us, he has since abandoned this distinction between the top and bottom tenons, and in his forthcoming second edition he will dispense with the clasps. The long middle bar, if pinned to each end plank, would subserve a similar purpose. Something of this sort is perhaps intimated by the bolting (מִבְרַיחִ, לַבְרֹחִ) of Exo_26:28; Exo_36:33. The roof-curtains would likewise assist in holding the planks together.
Of these boards, which, being one and a half cubit, i.e. about two and a half feet broad, must have been formed of several smaller ones jointed together, there were twenty on the north and twenty on the south side, thus making each side the length of thirty cubits. For the west end were made six boards, yielding nine cubits, and in addition two boards for the corners (Exo_26:22 sq.), making in all eight boards and twelve cubits; and as the end is thought (so Josephus, Ant. 3, 6, 3) to have been ten cubits (proportionate to that in Solomon's Temple, 1Ki_6:2; 1Ki_6:20), this would imply that each corner plank added half a cubit to the width, but nothing to the length, the measurements being taken inside. Were the planks supposed a cubit thick, which is the usual calculation (but an extravagant one on account of the weight), the remaining cubit of the corner plank would exactly cover the thickness of the side plank. The description given of the corners is exceedingly perplexing, and the diversity of opinion is naturally great. The difficulties all lie in Exo_26:24. It goes on, “they shall be coupled together;” rather, they shall be “twins,” or “twinned” (תֹּאֲמַם, toamim). “They” evidently refers to the corner planks; and, setting aside the idea that they make twins together, which cannot be, since they are at opposite corners, the expression may mean that each corner plank of itself makes twins, which it would do if it had two legs containing the angle between them. If the corner plank be two-legged, it adds necessarily something to the length, and thus destroys the measurement.
One explanation is therefore to regard the end of the corner plank, e, as twin, i.e. corresponding to the side plank a. Further, each corner plank must be “entire (תִּמַּים, tammim) at or on its head (A. V., with many others, considers tammim the same as todnim). Now if the “head” be not the top of the plank, but the edge or point of the corner; then the statement implies that the corner plank of the end wall, though prolonging the side wall outside, must not be cut away or sloped, for example, in the fashion indicated by the dotted lines c d. Once more, the words are added “unto one ring,” accurately “unto the first ring.” Keil (Comment. ad loc.) understands that “the two corner boards at the back were to consist of two pieces joined together at a right angle, so as to form, as double boards, one single whole from the top to the bottom,” and that “one ring was placed half-way up the upright board in the corner or angle, in such a manner that the central bolt, which stretched along the entire length of the walls, might fasten into it from both the side and back.” Murphy (Comment. ad loc.) suggests a form which we represent by the annexed figure. But Paine's arrangement, as in the cut below, seems to us to meet all the requirements of the case in the simplest and most effectual manner. The ring and staples at the top and bottom of the corner planks formed a hinge, so that the adjoining planks were twinned, or carried together as one. That the end planks went in between the last side planks (as neatness and usage in such structures dictated), making the interior width of the tabernacle the full twelve cubits, is probable from the length of the roof-curtains presently described, if they were longitudinally arranged.
The walls or planks, in addition to the stability they may have derived from the sockets at the bottom (and perhaps the clasps at the top), were bound together by five bars or bolts, thrust into rings attached to each plank. These bars, in all probability, ran along the outside, though that is not intimated, and Ewald thinks otherwise. One bar is said to have gone in the middle (בְּתוֹךְ): this is usually taken to mean half-way up the plank, and with two bars on each side of it, above and below; but some interpret “through the heart of the boards” (Riggenbach), and others understand it of the rear bar alone. Thus there seem to have been three rows of bars, the top and bottom one on each of the sides being in two pieces. Josephus's account is somewhat different: “Every one,” he says (Ant. 3, 6, 3), “of the pillars or boards had a ring of gold affixed to its front outwards, into which were inserted bars gilt with gold, each of them five cubits long, and these bound together the boards; the head of one bar running into another after the manner of one tenon inserted into another. But for the wall behind there was only one bar that went through all the boards, into which one of the ends of the bars on both sides was inserted.” The whole edifice was doubtless further stayed by ropes attached to tent-pins in the ground from knobs on the outside of the planks. (See below.)
3. Drapery of the Tabernacle. —The wooden structure was completed as well as adorned by four kinds of hangings, each of which served a useful and even needful purpose.
(1.) The Roof. — The first question that arises here is whether the roof was flat, like that of Oriental houses, or peaked and slanting, as in Occidental buildings. The old representations, such as Calmet's, take the former view; but to this it may be forcibly objected that it would in that case be impossible to stretch the roof covering sufficiently tight to prevent the rain and-snow from collecting in the middle, and either crushing the whole by its weight or flooding the apartments. Hence most later writers assume a peaked roof, although there is no mention of a ridge-pole, nor of supports to it; but the name “tent” given to the upper part of the edifice is itself conclusive of this form, and then these accessories would necessarily follow.
The roofing material was a canvas of goats hair, the article still employed by the Bedawin for their tents. It consisted of eleven “curtains” (יַרַיעות), i.e. breadths or pieces of (this camlet) cloth, each thirty cubits long and four cubits wide, which is as large, probably, as could well be woven in the loom at once. Ten of these were to-be “coupled” (חַבֵּר), i.e. sewed together, five in one sheet, and five in another, evidently by the selvage; thus making two large canvases of thirty cubits by twenty each. But as the building was only twelve cubits wide, one of them alone would more than suffice for a roof, even with a peak. Hence most interpreters understand that the surplus width was allowed to hang down the sides. But what is to be done with the other sheet? Fergusso (in Smith's Dict. of the Bible, s.v. “Temple”) supposes (with interpreters in general) that the two sheets were thrown side by side across the ridgepole, the extra length (some fifteen cubits) being extended at the eaves into a kind of wings, and the surplus width (ten cubits) furled along the slope of the gable, or perhaps stretched out as a porch. But there is no authority whatever for this disposal; and if the two pieces of canvas were intended to be thus adjoined, there appears no good reason why they should not have been sewed together at the first, like the individual breadths. Hence, Paine suggests that they were designed as a double roof, so as to more effectually to shed rain somewhat in the manner of a “fly” or extra roof to a modern tent. For this the size is exactly adequate.
If the angle at the peak were a right angle, as it naturally would be, the gable, of course, being an isosceles triangle, eight and a half cubits would be required for each slope of the roof (these being the two legs of which twelve is the hypotenuse); thus leaving one cubit to cover each of the eaves (as specified in Exo_24:13), and lone cubit for seams, and perhaps hems. The seams, in order to be water-tight (especially since they ran parallel with the ridge and eaves) as well as smooth, would best be formed by overlapping the edges, in shingle style. The sixth “curtain,” or extra single piece, was to be “doubled in the fore-front of the tabernacle” (Exo_26:9, וְכָפִלְתָּ אֶלאּמוּל פְּנֵי הָאֹהֶל), which interpreters generally have understood as meant to close the gable. This, as Paine suggests, it would neatly do if folded in two thicknesses (like the rest of the goat's hair cloth) across the lower part of the rear open space above the “boards,” as it is just long enough (twice fifteen cubits; the surplus three cubits being employed exactly as in the case of the other sheets), and sufficiently wide (four cubits up the six of the perpendicular; leaving only a small triangle at the peak for ventilation); the gores or corners probably being tucked in between the two thicknesses of the roof-sheets. This sixth curtain, of course, was sewed endwise to one of the outer pieces of the under canvas. These roof-curtains were joined by means of fifty “loops” (לֻלָאֹת, luslsth) of unspecified (probably the same strong) material, and as many taches (קְרָסַים, keraszin) of “brass.” With most interpreters, Fergisson understands these to be intended for connecting the edges of the two sheets together so as to form one roof canvas. But besides the uselessness of this (as above pointed out), on this plan the rain would find an easy inlet at this imperfect suture. Hence Paine more reasonably concludes that they were designed for buttoning down the double canvas at the eaves so as to form “one tent” (Exo_26:11, אֹהֶל אֶחָד, i.e. the upper or tent part of the building). The taches, accordingly, were not hooks (as most understand: Fergusson thinks “S hooks”), but knobs in the planks on the outside, placed one cubit below the top (Exo_26:12). The number of the taches would thus exactly correspond to the requirements of the “boards,” i.e. twenty for each side and eight for the end, with one additional for each rear corner (where a tache would be needed for both edges of the board. the others being in the front edge, as the first board would necessarily have it there; in the rear boards the knob would be in the middle). SEE TACHE.
(2.) Another set of curtains was provided, consisting of ten pieces of stuff, each twenty-eight cubits long and four cubits wide, to be sewed into two large cloths of five “curtains” or breadths each. From the general similarity of the description, interpreters have naturally inferred that they were to be joined and used in like manner; but the necessity or. practicability of employing them over head is far from obvious. Nor does the size in that case suit; for besides the difficulty of disposing of the surplusage in breadth (in length they would be scant if double), we naturally ask, Why were they different in number and size from the other roofing material? Prof. Paine therefore thinks that they were sewed end to end (the original is
אַשָּׁה אֶלאּאֲחֹתָהּ, one to the other, exo Exo_26:3; different from לְבָד, separately, Exo_26:9, of the roof-curtains) in two long pieces (they: would probably have been woven thus had it been possible), and' then hung double in loose drapery around the interior of the tabernacle, being just high enough (four cubits) to cover the joints of the boards and prevent any one from looking through the cracks from without. These curtains were suspended on fifty knobs or taches of gold by means of fifty loops of the same material as the curtains themselves; these fastenings may be arranged as in the case of the roof canvas. It thus became “one tabernacle (Exo_26:6, אֶהָד מַשְׁכָּן, i.e. these curtains belonged to the upright [wooden] part of the structure, in distinction from the sloping [canvas] or “tent” part above it)., The material of these inner curtains was similar to that of the door of the outer court (Exo_27:16), but it was also to be embroidered with cherubim, like the interior “vail” (Exo_26:31), which will be considered below.
(3.) A coat of “rams skins dyed red and tachash (A. V. “badgers',” probably seal or some other fur) skins” was furnished as an additional covering (Exo_26:14, מַלְמִעְלָה, millenalah, from upward). This is usually regarded as a part of the roof; but to pile them there would have been sure to catch, the rain, and so prove worse than useless. Paine places them on the outside of the “boards” to hide the cracks and prevent the wind nd d rain from driving in. Hence the number of skins is not specified; they were to form a blanket sufficiently large to cover the walls, and run up under the edge of the roof-canvas so as to catch the drip from the eaves. Doubtless the tachash fur was placed next the smooth gilding, and in its natural state, because hidden; and the rougher but more durable ram's-wool was exposed, the hair shingling downward to the weather, but dyed a brilliant color for effect. They would naturally be hung upon the copper taches, which served so many useful purposes in the “boards.” They are called in Exo_26:14 “a covering (מַכְסֶה, mikseh, not necessarily a roof, for it is used only of this fur robe [or some similar one, Num_4:8-12] and of the screen [whatever that may have been] of Noah's ark [Gen_42:13]) for the tent” (לָאֹהֶל), apparently as completing the canvas or tent-like part of the structure.
Saalschiitz (Archiol. der Hebraer, 2, 321 sq.) represents the hangings of the tabernacle as suspended in the form of a tent, but in a peculiar form. He thinks the מַשְׁכָּןwas properly the space enclosed by the boards of acacia- wood; and that these formed the outer wall, so to speak, within which the tabernacle, the אֹהֶל properly so called, was reared in the form of a peaked tent. Of this the byssus curtains, he supposes, formed the internal drapery, while the goats'-hair curtains, covered with leather and tachash skins, formed the outer covering. The whole structure would thus present the appearance externally of a peaked tent, reared within a high palisade of wood, and open at the front. This representation has the advantage of allowing the ornamental curtain, and also the gilded boards with their golden rings and silver sockets, to be fully visible. There seems, however, at least one fatal objection to it, viz. that it does not fulfill the condition that the joining of the curtains shall be over the pillars that separate the holy from the most holy place-a condition of essential significance, as we shall see.
(4.) The doorways of the tabernacle were formed or rather closed in a manner altogether analogous to the entrance of the exterior court, namely, by a vertical screen or sheet of cloth made of heavy material, and (in one case) still further stiffened by embroidery, similar to the piece of tapestry that hangs at the portal of modern cathedrals in Italy, or (to speak more Orientally) like the flap at the opening of a modern tent and the carpet or camlet partition between the male and female apartments of a Bedawin abode. Of these there were two, each of which is denoted by a distinctive term rarely varied.
(a.) The front opening (פֶּתִח, pethach; A.V. “door”) was closed sufficiently high to prevent a passer-by from looking in, by a “hanging” (מָכָךְ, masak, a screen, or covering from the sun [Psa_105:39] or from observation [2Sa_7:19; Isa_22:8]) of materials exactly like that of the entrance to the court already described, suspended upon five copper-socketed and gilded pillars (עִמוּדַים) of acacia-wood by means of golden hooks (וָוַים, pegs, spoken only of these and those at the outer entrance), the whole being probably of the same height, proportions, and style in other respects as the exterior one just referred to. The number of these pillars is significant: as there were five of them, one must necessarily stand in the center, and this one was probably carried up, so as to support one end of the ridge-pole, which we have above seen is presumable. A corresponding pillar in the rear of the tent may be inferred to sustain the other end, and possibly one or more in the middle of the building. (b.) A “vail” (פָּרֹכֶת, paroiketh, separatrix, used only of this particular thing, sometimes [Exo_35:12; Exo_39:34; Exo_40:21] with the addition of the previous term for emphasis) divided the interior into two apartments, called respectively the “holy place” and the “most holy.” This partition-cloth differed only from the exterior ones in being ornamented (perhaps on both sides; comp. 1Ki_6:29) with figures of cherubim stitched (probably with gold thread, i.e. strips of goldleaf rolled and twisted) upon it, apparently with the art of the embroiderer (מִעֲשֵׂה חשֵׁב, the work of an arficer; A.V. “cunning work”). It was suspended upon four pillars precisely like those of the door “hanging,” except that their sockets were of silver. A special statement of the text (Exo_26:33), “And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches” (תִּחִת הִקְּרָסַי וְנָתִתָּה אֵתאּהִפְּרֹכֶת), evidently meaning that the pillars to which its ends were to be attached were to be placed directly beneath the golden knobs opposite in the walls, on which-likewise hung the side-curtains, shows both that these latter were thus completed by a drapery on the remaining side of each room (it will be remembered that the front knobs likewise correspond in position to that of the doorway screen), and likewise proves the character and situation of the taches themselves (not hooks in the roof, which at the eaves was at least five cubits above the top of the “vail”). As the vail,” like the two outer screens, was stretched tight across the space it occupied, it was of course made exactly long enough for that purpose; thus, too, the embroidered figures (which, if of life-size, were of just the height to extend upright across the stuff-about four cubits) would show to the finest effect, not being it folds like the interior side-curtains.
It is not a little singular that the exact position of the “vail” is not otherwise prescribed than by the above requirement; nor is the length of either of the apartments which it separated given, although together they amounted ) to thirty cubits. On the supposition (sustained by the analogy in the Temple) that the Most Holy was an exact square, i.e. (according to our determination above) twelve cubits each way, the knob or tache opposite which it would hang must have been that which stood in the forward edge of the eighth plank from the rear of the building. Whether it was in front of or behind the pillars is not certain; but the former is probable, as it would thus seem a more effectual barrier from without. The end pillars apparently stood in immediate contact with the side walls, both in order to sustain the ends of the vail, and to leave a wider space between them for ingress and egress. The vail was suspended directly upon golden pins (A.V. “hooks'”) inserted in the face of the pillars near their summit; and thus differed (as did likewise the screen of the door of the tabernacle) from the hangings of the outer court, which hung upon silver rods (A. V. “fillets”) (doubtless by loops running on the rods) resting on similar pins or “hooks.” The reason of this difference seems to have been that the greater space between the court pillars (so as to admit animals as well as men) would have caused too much sag in the hanging without intermediate support, which could only be furnished by the rods and attachments along the upper edge.
4. Supplementary Note. — Since the above was in type we have reconsidered a few points concerning the structure of this edifice which admit of further elucidation.
(1.) The “Corner-boards.” — The fact that the dimensions of the courts and the building itself were in decimal proportions, and that in the temple subsequently erected for the same purpose, which maintained multiples of these dimensions, the holy and most holy were exactly twenty cubits wide (1Ki_6:2), leads so strongly to the presumption that in the tabernacle these rooms were ten cubits wide, that we are disposed to recall the arrangement adopted in the foregoing discussion, which gives these apartments a width of twelve cubits, leaving for the holy place the irregular dimensions of eighteen by twelve cubits. Adopting the suggestion of Keil (Commentary, ad loc.) that the corner-boards were constructed of two- parts, forming a right angle with each other, we have only to take a plank one and a half cubits wide, like all the others, divide it lengthwise into two portions, one four sixths and the other five sixths of a cubit wide, and fasten these together in that manner, in order to obtain the needed half cubit necessary at each end of the rear, and allow one wing of the corner- board to lap around the end of the last side-board, and cover the joint neatly and symmetrically, as in the following figure. This last is the adjustment adopted by Brown (The Tabernacle, etc. [Lond. 1872], p. 23), who reviews and justly rejects the conjectures of Josephus (Ant. 3, 6, 3), Kalisck (Commentary, ad loc.), and Von Gerlach (ibid.). His complicated arrangement of the sockets, however, is unnecessary, as may be seen from the following diagram.
The statement respecting these corner -planks in Exo_26:24, “And they shall be twinned (תֹּאֲמַים) from below, and together they shall be complete (תִּמַּים) upon its top to the first (or same) ring,” we may then understand to mean that they were to be in that, manner jointed throughout their length, and were to use the first or end ring of the side-plank in common for the topmost bar, thus holding the corner firm in both directions, as seen in the accompanying figure. The topmost rear bar may have been dowelled into the end of the side-bar for further security.
(2.) Position of the Curtains. The use of these pieces of drapery will not be materially affected by this change in the width of the structure. We need only raise the peak into an acute instead of a right angle in order to dispose of the roof-canvas. The
CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.





Norway

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments   2

BUSCADAVERDADE

Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!


Saiba Mais

  • Image Nutrição
    Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
  • Image Receita
    Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
  • Image Arqueologia
    Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
  • Image Profecia
    O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?

Tags