Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Tabernacle

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Tabernacle” utilice nuestra app.

TABERNACLE

A tent, booth, pavilion, or temporary dwelling. For its general meaning and uses, see TENT. In the Scriptures it is employed more particularly of the tent made by Moses at the command of God, for the place of religious worship of the Hebrews, before the building of the temple. The directions of God, and the account of the execution of them, are contained in Exo 25:1-40, and the following chapters. This is usually called the tabernacle of the congregation, or tent of assembly, and sometimes the tabernacle of the testimony.The tabernacle was of an oblong rectangular form, thirty cubits long, ten broad, and ten in height, Ex 26.15-30; 36.20-30; that is, about fifty-five feet long, eighteen broad, and eighteen high. The two sides and the western end were formed of boards of shittim wood, overlaid with thin plates of gold, and fixed in solid sockets or vases of silver. Above, they were secured by bars of the same wood overlaid with gold, passing through rings of gold which were fixed to the boards. On the east end, which was the entrance, there were no boards, but only five pillars of shittim wood, whose chapters and fillets were overlaid with gold and their hooks of gold, standing in five sockets of brass. The tabernacle thus erected was covered with four different kinds of curtains. The first and inner curtain was composed of fine linen, magnificently embroidered with figures of cherubim, in shades of blue, purple, and scarlet; this formed the beautiful ceiling. The next covering was made of fine goats’ hair; the third of rams’ skins or morocco dyed red; and the fourth and outward covering of a thicker leather. See BADGERS’ SKINS. We have already said that the east end of the tabernacle had no boards, but only five pillars of shittim wood; it was therefore closed with a richly embroidered curtain suspended from these pillars, Exo 27:16 .Such was the external appearance of the sacred tent, which was divided into two apartments by means of four pillars of shittim wood overlaid with gold, like the pillars before described, two cubits and a half distant from each other; only they stood in sockets of silver instead of brass, Exo 26:32 36:36; and on these pillars was hung a veil, formed of the same materials as the one placed at the east end, Exo 26:31-33 36:35 Heb 9:3 . The interior of the tabernacle was thus divided, it is generally supposed, in the same proportions as the temple afterwards built according to its model; two-thirds of the whole length being allotted to the first room, or the Holy Place, and one-third to the second, or Most Holy Place. Thus the former would be twenty cubits long, ten wide, and ten high, and the latter ten cubits every way. It is observable, that neither the Holy nor the Most Holy place had any window. Hence the need of the candlestick in the one, for the service that was performed therin.The tabernacle thus described stood in an open space or court of an oblong form, one hundred cubits in length, and fifty in breadth, situated due east and west, Exo 27:18 . This court was surrounded with pillars of brass, filleted with silver, and placed at the distance of five cubits from each other, twenty on each side and ten on each end. Their sockets were of brass, and were fastened to the earth with pins of the same metal, Exo 38:10,17,20 . Their height was probably five cubits, that being the length of the curtains that were suspended on them, Exo 28:18 . These curtains, which formed an enclosure round the court, were of fine twined white linen yarn, Exo 27:9 38:9,16, except that at the entrance on the east end, which was of blue and purple and scarlet and fine white twined linen, with cords to draw it either up or aside when the priests entered the court, Exo 27:16 38:18. Within this area stood the altar of burntofferings, and the laver with its foot or base. This altar was placed in a line between the door of the court and the door of the tabernacle, but nearer the former, Exo 40:6,29 ; the laver stood the altar of burnt-offering and the door of the tabernacle, Exo 38:8 . In this court all the Israelites presented their offerings, vows, and prayers.But although the tabernacle was surrounded by the court, there is no reason to think that it stood in the center of it. It is more probable that the area at the east end was fifty cubits square; and indeed a less space than that could hardly suffice for the work that was to be done there, and for the persons who were immediately to attend the service. We now proceed to notice the furniture which the tabernacle contained.In the Holy Place to which none but priests were admitted, Heb 9:6, were three objects worthy of notice: namely, the altar of incense, the table for the show-bread, and the candlestick for the showbread, and the candlestick for the lights, all of which have been described in their respective places. The altar of incense was placed in the middle of the sanctuary, before the veil, Exo 30:6-10 40:26-27; and on it the incense was burnt morning and evening, Exo 30:7,8 . On the north side of the altar of incense, that is, on the right hand of the priest as he entered, stood the table for the show-bread, Exo 26:35 40:22,23; and on the south side of the Holy Place, the golden candlestick, Exo 25:31-39 . In the Most Holy Place, into which only the high priest entered once a year, Heb 9:7, was the ark, covered by the mercy-seat and the cherubim.The gold and silver employed in decorating the tabernacle are estimated at not less than a million of dollars. The remarkable and costly structure thus described was erected in the wilderness of Sinai, on the first day of the first month of the second year, after the Israelites left Egypt, Ex 40.17; and when erected was anointed, together with its furniture, with holy oil, Exo 40:9-11, and sanctified by blood, Exo 24:6-8 Heb 9:21 . The altar of burnt offerings, especially, was sanctified by sacrifices during seven days, Exo 29:37 ; while rich donations were given by the princes of the tribes for the service of the sanctuary, Num 7:1 .We should not omit to observe, that the tabernacle was so constructed as to be taken to pieces and put together again, as occasion required. This was indispensable; it being designed to accompany the Israelites during their travels in the wilderness. With it moved and rested the pillar of fire and of cloud. As often as Israel removed, the tabernacle was taken to pieces by the priests, closely covered, and borne in regular order by the Levites, Num 4:1-49 . Wherever they encamped, it was pitched in the midst of their tents, which were set up in a quadrangular form, under their respective standards, at a distance from the tabernacle of two thousand cubits; while Moses and Aaron, with the priests and Levites, occupied a place between them.How long this tabernacle existed we do not know. During the conquest it remained at Gilgal, Jos 4:19 10:43. After the conquest it was stationed for many years at Shiloh, Jos 18:1 1Sa 1:3 . In 2Sa 6:17, and 1Ch 15:1, it is said that David had prepared and pitched a tabernacle in Jerusalem for the ark, which before had long been at Kirjath-jearim, and then in the house of Obed-edom, 1Ch 13:6,14 2Sa 6:11,12 . In 1Ch 21:29, it is said that the tabernacle of Moses was still at Gibeon at that time; and it would therefore seem that the ark had long been separated from it. The tabernacle still remained at Gibeon in the time of Solomon, who sacrificed before it, 2Ch 1:3,13 . This is the last mention made of it; for apparently the tabernacle brought with the ark into the temple, 2Ch 5:5, was the tent in which the ark had been kept on Zion, 2Ch 1:4 5:2.Feast of Tabernacles. This festival derives its name from the booths in which the people dwelt during its continuance, which were constructed of the branches and leaves of trees, on the roofs of their houses, in the courts, and also in the streets. Nehemiah describes the gathering of palm-branches, olive branches, myrtlebranches, etc., for this occasion, from the Mount of Olives. It was one of the three great festivals of the year, at which all the men of Israel were required to be present, Deu 16:16 . It was celebrated during eight days, commencing on the fifteenth day of the month Tishri, that is, fifteen days after the new moon in October; and the first and last days were particularly distinguished, Lev 23:34-43 Neh 8:14-18 . This festival was instituted in memory of the forty years’ wanderings of the Israelites in the desert, Lev 23:42,43, and also as a season of gratitude and thanksgiving for the gathering in of the harvest; whence it is also called the Feast of the Harvest, Exo 23:16 34:22. The season was an occasion of rejoicing and feasting. The public sacrifices consisted of two rams and fourteen lambs on each of the first seven days, together with thirteen bullocks on the first day, twelve on the second, eleven on the third, ten on the fourth, nine on the fifth, eight on the sixth, and seven on the seventh; while on the eighth day one bullock, one ram, and seven lambs were offered, Num 29:12-39 . On every seventh year, the law of Moses was also read in public, in the presence of all the people, Deu 31:10-13 Neh 8:18 .To these ceremonies the later Jews added a libation of water mingled with wine, which was poured upon the morning sacrifice of each day. The priests, having filled a vessel of water from the fountain of Siloam, bore it through the water gate to the temple, and there, while the trumpets and horns were sounding, poured it upon the sacrifice arranged upon the altar. This was probably done as a memorial of the abundant supply of water which God afforded to the Israelites during their wanderings in the desert; and perhaps with reference to purification from sin, 1Sa 7:6 . This was accompanied with the singing of Isa 12:1-6 : “With joy shall ye draw water from the wells of salvation;” and may naturally have suggested our Savior’s announcement while attending this festival, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink,” Joh 7:37,38 . The first and eighth days of the festival were Sabbaths to the Lord, in which there was a holy convocation, and in which all labor was prohibited, Lev 23:39 Num 29:12,35 ; and as the eighth was the last festival day celebrated in the course of each year, it appears to have been esteemed as peculiarly important and sacred.

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Tabernacle

(, tabernaculum)

Tabernacle is the name given in the English Bible, since the time of Wyclif, to the moving sanctuary which, according to the OT priestly writers, was prepared by Moses as the place of worship of the Israelites during their wanderings in the wilderness. This tabernacle, which is described with elaborate detail in Exodus 25-31, and which supplies the writer of Hebrews with the premisses of his great argument, is now almost universally regarded as a post-Exilic product of the Hebrew religious imagination, working upon a foundation of historical fact. Suggested by the Divine promise to Israel, My dwelling shall be with them (Eze 37:27)-where dwelling () gives the literal sense of the word usually rendered by tabernacle-it was an attempt to give ideal expression, by outward and visible symbols, to a peoples faith in the real presence of God. Realizing the double truth of the Divine nearness and mysterious unapproachableness, the priests in a manner materialized the conditions under which the right relation between God and His people could be renewed and maintained. Their sanctuary was evidently a development of the sketch of Ezekiel (40-48); but, whereas his ideal was a hope to be realized in the Messianic age, theirs was represented as a reminiscence of the Mosaic time. In some respects following, but in others widely diverging from, the arrangements of the first Temple, its ritual was in all essentials actualized in the second and third Temples. Various allusions to the tabernacle are found in the apostolic writings.

1. The writer of Hebrews delights, like Philo, in the typical and allegorical interpretation of the OT Scriptures, which seem to him pregnant with hidden spiritual meanings. His aim is to prove that the Christian has passed ex umbris et imaginibus in veritatem. Never referring to the Temple, always to the tabernacle, he lingers over the description of the vessels of the ministry (Heb 9:21), entering into details which would have been superfluous had he been writing merely to Jewish readers. While he recognizes the splendour of the old order, and reverently unfolds the significance of its ritual, he regards all the Levitical institutions as prophetic types which, having at length been fulfilled by Christ, may now be set aside without compunction or regret. His philosophical presupposition, or view of the world, is the Platonic and Philonic one, that heaven is the place of realities, while earth is the place of shadows; and his central doctrine is that Christ, having, as a minister of the true tabernacle ( ), which the Lord pitched, not man (Heb 8:2), entered within the veil, has won for every Christian the right of personal access to God. Holding, like the most enlightened Israelites before him, that the Mosaic ordinances were no more than Divinely appointed ceremonial forms, and asserting the spiritual ineffectiveness of the whole ritual, even of the supreme sacrifice of the Day of Atonement, he declares the first tabernacle (Heb 9:6; Heb 9:8), though made in all things according to a heavenly pattern (, Heb 8:5), to be superseded by a greater and more perfect tabernacle (Heb 9:11), and the Levitical priesthood by a more excellent ministry ( , Heb 8:6).

2. The writer of the Fourth Gospel illustrates the Incarnation by saying that the Logos tabernacled () among us (Joh 1:14). As God once dwelt, in visible cloud and flame, among His people, so Christ has sojourned among men, who have beheld His glory, which in this instance is the spiritual glory of a perfect manhood.

3. The author of the Revelation depicts the final state of Messianic happiness in the words: Behold, the tabernacle () of God is with men, and he shall dwell () with them (Joh 21:3). So closely does Shekinah resemble , that the former has even been thought of as a transliteration of the latter (C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers2, Cambridge, 1897, p. 44). That was no more than a linguistic fancy, Shekinah being really derived from the same verb as mishkan, tabernacle. But the Messianic promise is partially fulfilled in an intenser realization of the Divine Immanence in the world, where earths crammed with heaven, and every common bush afire with God (E. B. Browning, Aurora Leigh, bk. vii. line 844 f.), and a modern mystic declares that there is but one Temple in the world, and that is the Body of Man. Nothing is holier than this high form. Bending before men is a reverence done to this Revelation in the Flesh. We touch Heaven, when we lay our hand on a human body (Novalis, Carlyles Critical and Miscellaneous Essays, London, 1872, ii. 216). Cf. St. Pauls words, ye are a temple (, from , to dwell) of God the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are (1Co 3:16-17). But when a promise is to be fulfilled by Christ, the best is yet to be.

Literature.-W. Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebrischen Archologie, Freiburg i. B., 1894; I. Benzinger, Hebrische Archologie, do., 1894; R. L. Ottley, Aspects of the OT (BL [Note: L Bampton Lecture.] ), London, 1897, pp. 226ff., 261ff.; A. R. S. Kennedy, articles Tabernacle in Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible (5 vols) and Encyclopaedia Britannica 11.

James Strahan.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

TABERNACLE

Among the Hebrews, 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. Exo 26:27 : Feast of Tabernacles, a solemn festival of the Hebrews, observed after harvest, on the 15th day of the month Tisri, instituted to commemorate the goodness of God, who protected the Israelites in the wilderness, and made them dwell in booths when they came out of Egypt.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Tabernacle

(TABERNACULUM).

Tabernacle signified in the Middle Ages sometimes a ciborium-altar, a structure resting on pillars and covered with a baldachino that was set over an altar, sometimes an ostensory or monstrance, a tower-shaped vessel for preserving and exhibiting relics and the Blessed Sacrament, sometimes, lastly, like to-day, it was the name of the vessel holding the pyx. That is, at the present time in ecclesiastical usage it is only the name for the receptacle or case placed upon the table of the high altar or of another altar in which the vessels containing the Blessed Sacrament, as the ciborium, monstrance, custodia, are kept. As a rule, in cathedrals and monastic churches it is not set upon the high altar but upon a side altar, or the altar of a special sacramentary chapel; this is to be done both on account of the reverence due the Holy Sacrament and to avoid impeding the course of the ceremonies in solemn functions at the high altar. On the other hand it is generally to be placed upon the high altar in parish churches as the most befitting position (“Cærem. ep.”, I, xii, No. 8; “Rit. rom.”, tit. IV, i, no. 6; S.C. Episc., 10 February, 1579). A number of decisions have been given by the Sacred Congregation of Rites regarding the tabernacle. According to these, to mention the more important decisions, relics and pictures are not to be displayed for veneration either on or before the tabernacle (“Decreta auth.”, nos. 2613, 2906). Neither is it permissible to place a vase of flowers in such manner before the door of the tabernacle as to conceal it (no. 2067). The interior of the tabernacle must either be gilded or covered with white silk (no. 4035, ad 4); but the exterior is to be equipped with a mantle-like hanging, that must be either always white or is to be changed according to the colour of the day; this hanging is called the canopeum (no. 3520; cf. “Rit. rom., loc. cit.). A benediction of the tabernacle is customary but is not prescribed.

HISTORY

In the Middle Ages there was no uniform custom in regard to the place where the Blessed Sacrament was kept. The Fourth Lateran Council and many provincial and diocesan synods held in the Middle Ages require only that the Host be kept in a secure, well-fastened receptacle. At the most they demand that it be put in a clean, conspicuous place. Only a few synods designate the spot more closely, as the Synods of Cologne (1281) and of Münster (1279) which commanded that it was to be kept above the altar and protected by locking with a key. In general, four main methods of preserving the Blessed Sacrament may be distinguished in medieval times:

in a cabinet in the sacristy, a custom that is connected with early Christian usage; in a cupboard in the wall of the choir or in a projection from one of the walls which was constructed like a tower, was called Sacrament-House, and sometimes reached up to the vaulting; in a dove or pyx, surrounded by a cover or receptacle and generally surmounted by a small baldachino, which hung over the altar by a chain or cord; lastly, upon the altar table, either in the pyx alone or in a receptacle similar to a tabernacle, or in a small cupboard arranged in the reredos or predella of the altar.

This last method is mentioned in the “Admonitio synodalis” of the ninth century by Regino of Prüm (d. 915), later by Durandus, and in the regulations issued by the Synods of Trier and Münster already mentioned. Reredoses containing cupboards to hold the Blessed Sacrament can be proved to have existed as early as the fourteenth century, as, for instance, the altar of St. Clara in the Cologne cathedral, although they were not numerous until the end of the medieval period. The high altar dating from 1424 in the Church of St. Martin at Landshut, Bavaria, is an example of the combination of reredos and Sacrament-House. From the sixteenth century it became gradually, although slowly, more customary to preserve the Blessed Sacrament in a receptacle that rose above the altar table. This was the case above all at Rome, where the custom first came into use, and in Italy in general, influenced largely by the good example set by St. Charles Borromeo. The change came very slowly in France, where even in the eighteenth century it was still customary in many cathedrals to suspend the Blessed Sacrament over the altar, and also in Belgium and Germany, where the custom of using the Sacrament-House was maintained in many places until after the middle of the nineteenth century, when the decision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 21 August, 1863, put an end to the employment of such receptacles.

———————————–

THIERS, Traité de l’exposition du St-Sacrement de l’autel (Paris, 1673); CORBLET, Hist. du Sacrement de l’Eucharistie, I (Paris, 1885); ROHAULT DE FLEURY, La Messe, II (Paris, 1883); LAIB AND SCHWARZ, Studien über die Geschichte des christl. Altars (Stuttgart, 1857); SCHMID, Der christl. Altar (Ratisbon, 1871); RAIBLE, Tabernakel Einst u. Jetzt (Freiburg, 1908).

JOSEPH BRAUN Transcribed by Wm Stuart French, Jr. Dedicated to Rev. Robert E. O’Kane

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XIVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Tabernacle (1)

(Latin tabernaculum, tent).

Tabernacle in Biblical parlance usually designates the movable tent-like sanctuary of the Hebrews before the erection of Solomon’s Temple. The various expressions in the Hebrew text in reference to the Tabernacle (‘ohel, tent; ‘ohel mo’ed, tent of meeting; ‘ohel ha-‘eduth, tent of the testimony; mishkan, dwelling; mishkan ha- ‘eduth, dwelling of the testimony; mishkan ‘ohel, dwelling of the tent; beth Yahweh, house of Yahweh; godesh, holy; miqdash, sanctuary; hekal, temple),while enabling us to form a fair idea of this construction, raise, by the seeming consistency of the passages in which they severally occur, many problems with which all modern commentators of the Scriptures have to grapple. Thus, Exodus describes the ark as sheltered in a tent (xxxiii, 7; Hebr. ‘ohel mo’ed), whose position was “without the camp afar off” (Cf. Numbers 11:16 sqq.; 11:24-30; 12; Deuteronomy 31:14 sqq.), guarded by “Josue the son of Nun” (11), and at the door of which Yahweh was wont to manifest himself to Moses (9-11; cf. Numbers 12:5; Deuteronomy 31:15). That this “tent of tryst” (or better, perhaps, “tent of the oracle”) was not identical with the tabernacle modern independent critics urge from the fact that this ‘ohel mo’ed was in existence before Beseleel and Ooliab commenced the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus 35-36) and that the customary place of the latter was in the very midst of the encampment (Numbers 2:1 sqq.; 10:15 sqq.). Much stress is laid upon this and other seeming discrepancies to conclude that the description of the tabernacle found in Ex., xxv-xxxi, xxxix-xl, is the work of post-exilian authors of the Priestly Code.

Assuming, however, the historical accuracy of the Biblical narratives, we shall limit ourselves here to a brief description of that “portable sanctuary” of the Hebrews. In this sanctuary we should distinguish the tent or tabernacle proper from the sacred enclosure in which the tent stood. The “court of the tabernacle” (Exodus 27:9) was a rectangular space, measuring 100 by 50 cubits (probably the Egyptian cubit, 203/4 ins.), screened off by curtains of “fine twisted linen” (xxvii, 9), 5 cubits high, 100 cubits long on the north and south sides, 50 on the east and 15 on the west, and 20 cubits on either side of the entrance. The entrance was closed by a hanging of fine twisted linen , embroidered in violet, purple, and scarlet and “twice dyed” on a white ground (probable meaning of Exodus 27:16). All these curtains were suspended from sixty pillars, but not in a “loose and flowing manner”, as Josephus wrongly states, since the total length of the curtains is exactly the same as the perimeter of the court, one pillar being assigned to every five cubits of curtain. These pillars of setimwood, five cubits high, stood on bases (“sockets”, Exodus 39:39) of brass and were held in position by means of cords (ibid., xxxix, 40) fastened to brass pegs (“pins”, ibid., xxxv, 18) which were stuck in the ground; the pillars ended in a capital (“head”, Exodus 39:17, etc.; we must believe that the height given above includes both the base and capital of the pillar) with a band or necking (to hang the curtain) overlaid with silver. East of the entrance were found successively: the altar of holocausts (Exodus 27:1-8, etc.), the brazen layer (xxx, 18-21; xxxviii, 8, etc.),and the tabernacle proper. The latter was conceived to be the dwelling-tent of God; hence it consisted essentially of curtains, the wooden framework, though indispensable, being only of secondary importance. The whole structure measured 30 by 10 cubits, and was divided into two sections; the one to the west, the “Holy Place”, containing the altar of incense, the golden candlestick, and the table of shewbreads; and the other, the “Holy of Holies”, containing the Ark of the Covenant with the propitiatory and the cherubim. These sections were respectively 20 and 10 cubits long.

Jewish exegetical tradition, followed by almost every Christian exponent of the Bible, understood the wooden framework to be made up of 48 massive boards (rather beams) of setim wood, measuring 10 by 11/2 by 1 cubit, placed side by side. This means a weight (about fifty tons) out of proportion with what these beams would have to bear and very difficult of transportation. Some modern scholars having studied more closely the technical terms used in the original adopt another view. According to them the “boards” of the tabernacle must be understood as light frames consisting of two uprights joined (probably at the top, middle, and bottom) by ties or cross-rails (the “mortises” in Exodus 26:17). Of these frames, overlaid with gold (xxvi, 29), there were 20 on the north side of the tabernacle, 20 on the south, and 6 on the east. To provide solidity and rigidity, a slanting frame was put at the north-east and south-east corners to buttress the structure (xxvi, 23); the lower part of the uprights was sunk deep into silver sockets or bases, probably to be understood as square blocks (about 1 cubit high and 3/4 cubit square); finally, five wooden bars, passing through rings attached to the frames, ran along the sides (xxvi, 26-28). On the west the frames were to be replaced by five pillars of setimwood overlaid with gold, sunk in brass bases, and crowned with golden capitals (xxvi, 37). Four pillars of the same workmanship, with silver bases, separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.

A curtain, two pieces of fine tapestry joined by golden rings, was spread over the whole framework; each piece of tapestry consisted of five strips, 28 by 4 cubits, fitted together by loops. The total dimension of this being 20 by 40 cubits, it must have reached on the north and south the top of the bases, against which it was possibly fixed (there were loops at the top of the curtains likely for this purpose), whereas on the east it reached to the ground. Covering this curtain was another woven of goats’ hair (the ordinary tent material), fitted in somewhat similarly; its dimensions, 11 (6+5)x4=44 by 30 cubits, were so calculated as to cover entirely the inside curtain on the north, east, and south sides and to hang down doubled on the west side, thus covering the tops and capitals of the pillars (Exodus 26:7-13). Two outer coverings (no dimensions are given), one of dyed rams’ skin and one of dugongs’ skin, protected the whole structure. A hanging of apparently the same workmanship as that closing the entrance of the court, screened the entrance of the tabernacle (ibid., 36); finally, a veil of the same tapestry as the inner curtain, hooked from the four pillars mentioned above, completed the separation of the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place.

History

Delayed by the people’s outburst of idolatrous worship pending the long intercourse of Moses with God on Mount Sinai, the construction was achieved by the skilful workmen selected by God, and was dedicated on the first day of the second year after the flight from Egypt. Henceforth the tabernacle, under the special care of the Levites of the family of Gerson, accompanied the Israelites through their wanderings in the wilderness; during marches, it came after the first six tribes and before the other six (Numbers 2:3-34); in encampments, it occupied the middle of the camp, three tribes being on each side. After the crossing of the Jordan, it remained very likely at Galgala until its removal to Silo (Joshua 18:1), where it remained many years. In Saul’s time we hear of the tabernacle at Nobe (1 Samuel 21:1-6), and later at Gabaon (1 Chronicles 16:39), until Solomon had it removed to his new Temple (1 Kings 8:4; 2 Chronicles 5:5). It disappeared in the first years of the sixth century B.C., being either taken away by the Babylonian army in 588, or, if credence be given the letter prefacing II Mach., hidden by Jeremias in an unknown and secure place.

———————————–

JOSEPHUS, Jewish Antiquities, III, vi; PHILO, De Vita Moysis. Talmud Babyl.: Tract. Middoth, a baraitha gives the opinions of the ancient doctors on the subject. BROWN, The Tabernacle (6th ed., 1899); ORR, The Problem of the O.T. (New York, 1906); OTTLEY, Aspects of the O.T. (Oxford, 1897); WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena (Edinburgh, 1885); WESTCOTT, Essay on the General Significance of the Tabernacle in The Epistle to the Hebrews (New York, 1889), 233 sqq.; B HR, Symbolik des mosaisch. Kultus (1837-39); FRIEDRICH, Symbolik der mos. Stiftshütte (Leipzig, 1841); GRAF, Die geschichtl. Bücher des A. T. (Leipzig, 1866), 51 sqq.; NEUMANN, Die Stiftshütte (Gotha, 1861); POPPER, Der bibl. Bericht ber die Stiftshütte (Leipzig, 1862); RIGGENBACH, Die mosaisch. Stiftshütte (1861); SCHICK, Stiftshütte u. Tempel (1898).

CHARLES L. SOUVAY Reynir Gudmundsson

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Tabernacle

is the rendering, in the A. V., of the following Heb. and Gr. words;

1. , ohel, the most frequent term, but often signifying and rendered a common tent;

2. , 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. [once , Lam 2:6], suk (Psa 76:2), , 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 , sikkuth (Amo 5:26), all meaning a booth, as often rendered;

4. , (2Co 5:1; 2Co 5:4) or (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 , the tent of meeting, or (especially in Numbers) , tabernacle of the congregation (Sept. ) [1Ki 8:4; 1Ki 8:6, ] ; Philo, , Opp. 2 146; Josephus, , 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 , mishkan, from

, 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; , 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 for both. The original difference appears to have been that 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 only, with the exception of the var. lect. of 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. , bayith, house (, 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. , kdesh, or . mikdash (, , , , 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. , heykal, temple (, 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 (moed), and with (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 is to meet by appointment, and the phrase has 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 , 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, as the interpretation of all words connected with the tabernacle. This shall be a continual burnt-offering at the door of the tabernacle of meeting () where I will meet you (, ) to speak there unto thee. And there will I meet (, ) with the children of Israel. And I will sanctify () the tabernacle of meeting… and I will dwell () 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 (Alterthmer, 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, , as connected with (= to bear witness), is rightly rendered by , 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 Rosenmller 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 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 () 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 () 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 ()

6. the one to its fellow. And thou shalt make fifty taches I () 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 () 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 () for the tabernacle, trees [wood] of acacias (), 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 (, 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 () 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 (, cutting off)

24. of the tabernacle in the thighs [rear]: and (they) shall be twinned (, 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 () 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 (, 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 () 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 (Bhr), 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 , chashukim, rendered fillets, i.e. ornamental chaplets in relief round the pillar (so Ewald, Alterthmer, p. 335, note 5), but most probably meaning rods (so Gesenius, Frst, 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- (, 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 , masak) of blue, purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, work of the , 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 (, 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 (, 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, , 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. () 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 (, ) 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 (, 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 (, 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 (): 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 (), 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 (), 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, ), 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 (, luslsth) of unspecified (probably the same strong) material, and as many taches (, 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, , 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

, one to the other, exo Exo 26:3; different from , 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, , 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, , 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 (, 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 (), 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 was 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 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 (, pethach; A.V. door) was closed sufficiently high to prevent a passer-by from looking in, by a hanging (, 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 () of acacia-wood by means of golden hooks (, 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 (, 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 ( , 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 ( ), 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 () from below, and together they shall be complete () 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 curtain across the rear gable may be wrapped a little farther along the side at each end, and it will at the same time cover the tops of the rear planks, and close the joint where the ends of the roof- curtains fall short of doing so.

On the supposition of a flat roof stretched directly across the tops of the planks, the dimensions of both sets of curtains may readily be made to correspond with the requirements of the building. The embroidered curtains may either be used around the walls, as previously, or they may be joined together into one large sheet to cover the ceiling and walls on the inside. Their length (twenty-eight cubits) would in the latter case reach to within one cubit of the ground; and their combined breadth (forty cubits) would in like manner cover the end wall (ten cubits + thirty cubits of length of building). The suture, where the two canvases are ordinarily supposed to be joined by the loops, would thus also exactly fall over the vail, separating the holy from the most holy place.

The same would be true likewise of the goats’-hair curtains if similarly joined and spread over the roof and outside of the tabernacle, reaching to within one sixth cubit of the ground on each side and rear. The only difficulty would be as to the eleventh or extra goats hair curtain. If this were attached in the same manner as the other breadths, it would be wholly superfluous, unless used to close the entire front, as it might be if doubled (according to the usual interpretation of Exo 26:9). But it seems agreed upon by all critics that it must be employed upon the rear of the building (as explicitly stated in Exo 26:12). Keil understands that it was divided between the back and the front equally; but this answers to neither passage, makes part of the rear trebly covered in fact, and brings (by his own confession) the suture one cubit behind the vail (contrary to Exo 26:33). Brown reviews and confutes the explanations of other interpreters (Kalisch, Von Gerlach, and Fergusson), but frankly admits his own inability to solve the problem (p. 43). Paine’s interpretation is the only one that meets the case.

This last insuperable difficulty, together with the impossibility of shedding the rain and snow, seems to us a conclusive objection against the flat-roof theory of the building. Brown innocently remarks (p. 47), Admitting that snow sometimes falls on the mountains of Sinai, it seldom, if ever, falls in the wadies or plains; and if slight showers ever do occur, they must be like angels visits, few and far between. None of the many authors I have followed across the desert of wandering seem ever to have witnessed snow, and very rarely even rain. This last circumstance is probably owing to the fact that travelers almost invariably avoid the winter or rainy season. The writer of this article was overtaken, with his party, by a snow-storm in March, 1874, which covered the ground in the plains and bottoms of the wadies of Mount Sinai ankle-deep; and every traveler must have observed the unmistakable traces of terrific. floods or freshets along the valleys of the whole region. It often rains here in perfect torrents (see Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, p. 33,177). A single thunder-storm, with a heavy shower of rain, falling on the naked granite mountains, will be sufficient to convert a dry and level valley into a roaring river in a few short hours (ibid. p. 129). It is essential to any reconstruction of the tabernacle that the roof be made water-tight, and this can only be done effectually by the true tent- form, with ridge and peak. SEE TENT.

5. Furniture of the Tabernacle. The only piece of furniture within the inner or most holy place was the ark of the covenant; and the furniture of the outer room or holy place consisted of the altar of incense, the table of show-bread, and the golden candlestick, the position of each of which is given in Exo 26:34-35. They are all described in detail under their respective heads in this Cyclopaedia, but we subjoin the following particulars as supplementary to the article on the last-named piece. The candelabrum, as described in Exo 25:31-37 (of which 37:17-23 is almost verbatim a copy), differs considerably from that in the account of Josephus (Ant. 3, 6, 7), and from the sculptured figure still extant upon the Arch of Titus (Reland, De Spoliis Templi, p. 6; in which work other representations, all slightly varying, are given from Rabbinical sources and coins). Hence it is probable that the candlestick as constructed for the tabernacle by Moses was not exactly the same in form as in the later models of Solomon’s and Herod’s temples; it would naturally be simpler and less ornamental in the earliest case, and the Herodian fabrication (if, indeed, this were other than that of the restoration from Babylon), to which all the later Jewish and profane statements apply (Solomon does not appear to have furnished his Temple with any other than the original candelabrum of the tabernacle), would of course depart most widely from the severity of the primitive type.

(1.) In the original object, the following elements are clearly defined by the language (as above) employed: There was a main or central stem (, yarek, thigh, A.V. shaft), doubtless flaring or enlarged at the bottom, for a secure foot. From each side of this went off (apparently opposite each other, and at equal intervals), three arms (, kanimr, reeds, branches), having each along their course three almond-shaped calyces (, gebiim, cups, bowls), one crown (, kaphtor, circlet, knop), and one blossom (, perach, flower): the middle stem had four such calyces, and at least three crowns, placed each immediately beneath the several junctions of the arms with the main stem; also more than one blossom. Finally, there were seven burners (, nerzi, lights, lamps), evidently one for the extremity of each arm, and one for the top of the central stem.’ Every part of the candelabrum (including the burners, only so far as applicable to them) was a continuous rounded (hammered or turned) piece of refined gold ( , one beaten work of pure gold). It has usually been assumed that the arms were all in the same plane with the main stem, and their summits all of equal height, and equidistant from each other, as is the case with the representation on the Arch of Titus.

(2.) The following are the principal points that remain uncertain: The relative position of the calyces, crowns, and blossoms on the arms; for although they are always enumerated in this order, there is nothing to show absolutely whether the enumeration begins at the intersection with the shaft or with the extremities. The former view, which is countenanced by the rest of the description (since this proceeds upward from the base), is adopted by Dr. Conant (in the Amer. ed. of Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, s.v. Candlestick); the latter, which is favored by the difficulty (or rather impossibility) of assigning more than one blossom to the summit of the central stem (as the text would then seem to require), is adopted by Prof. Paine (Solomon’s Temple, etc., p. 10). The signification of the terms is not decisive; for the kaphtor, or knop, may quite as well signify a little ornamental ball or globular enlargement in the necks of the arms and in the stem at their points of departure, as a capital or surmounting decoration (the three ranged along the main stem certainly were not such in strictness). The perach, or flower, is regarded by both the above writers (who thus agree in making these, after all, the extreme points of the chandelier) as- the receptacles of the lamps themselves; these last being regarded by Paine as denoted by the gebiim, or bowls, having a trial form in the case of the side arms, and a quaternal in that of the main stem a view which leads to great complexity in their construction and in the form of their sockets, and which, moreover, is incongruent with the number (seven only) assigned to the lights. Furthermore, in the comparison of the ornament in question with the shape of almonds, it is not clear whether the flower or fruit of that tree is referred to; we prefer the latter as being more properly designated by the simple word, and because the former is denoted by a different term in the same connection, the blossom shaped ornament. It must also be noted that the arms had each three of the first-named ornament, and but one of the other two; whereas the main stem had four of’ the first, and at least three of the second and two of the third: the three kinds, therefore, did not invariably go together, although they may have done so in the case of the central stem. Perhaps the whole may be best adjusted by assigning such a group or combination of the three kinds to each summit and to each intersection of the arms with the main stem, and merely two others of one kind (the gebia, or bowl) to the side arms, probably at equidistant points; the group itself consisting simply of an ovate cup-like enlargement of the rod colstituting the shaft, with a raised band just above the bulb, and the rim opening into petal-like lips, forming a cavity or socket for the lamp. SEE LAMP.

IV. Relation of the Tabernacle to the Religious Life of Israel. 1. Whatever connection may be traced between other parts of the Mosaic ritual and that of the nations with which Israel had been brought into contact, the thought of the tabernacle meets us as entirely new. Spencer (De Leg. Hebraeor. 3, 3) labors hard, but not successfully, to prove that the tabernacles of Moloch of Amo 5:26 were the prototypes of the tent of meeting. It has to be remembered, however, (1) that the word used in Amos (sikkuth) is never used of the tabernacle, and means something very different; and (2) that the Moloch-worship represented a defection of the people subsequent to the erection of the tabernacle. The house of God SEE BETHEL of the patriarchs had been the large pillar of stone (Gen 28:18-19), bearing record of some high spiritual experience, and tending to lead men upward to it (Bahr, Symbol. 1, 93), or the grove which, with its dim, doubtful light, attuned the souls of men to a divine awe (Gen 21:33). The temples of Egypt were magnificent and colossal, hewn in the solid rock, or built of huge blocks of stone as unlike as possible to the sacred tent of Israel. The command was one in which we can trace a special fitness. The stately temples belonged to the house of bondage which they were leaving. The sacred places of their fathers were in the land towards which they were journeying. In the meanwhile, they were to be wanderers in the wilderness. To have set up a bethel after the old pattern would have been to make that a resting-place, the object then or afterwards of devout pilgrimage; and the multiplication of such places at the different stages of their march would have led inevitably to polytheism. It would have failed utterly to lead them to the thought which they needed most of a Divine Presence never absent from them, protecting, ruling, judging. A sacred tenat, a moving bethel, was the fit sanctuary for a people still nomadic. It was capable of being united afterwards, as it actually came to be, with the grove of the older cultus (Jos 24:26). Analogies of like wants, met in a like way, with no ascertainable historical connection, are to be found among the Gaetulians and other tribes of Northern Africa (Sil. Ital. 3, 289), and in the sacred tent of the Carthaginian encampments (Diod. Sic. 20:65).

2. The structure of the tabernacle was obviously determined by a complex and profound symbolism, but its meaning remains one of the things at which we can but dimly guess. No interpretation is given in the law itself. The explanations of Jewish writers long afterwards are manifestly wide of the mark. That which meets us in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the application of the types of the tabernacle to the mysteries of redemption, was latent till those mysteries were made known. Yet we cannot but believe that, as each portion of the wonderful order rose before the inward eye of the lawgiver, it must have embodied distinctly manifold truths which he apprehended himself and sought to communicate to others. It entered, indeed, into the order of a divine education for Moses and for Israel, and an education by means of symbols, no less than by means of words presupposes an existing language. So far from shrinking, therefore, as men have timidly and unwisely shrunk. (Witsius, Egyptiae, in Ugolijo, Thesaur. vol. 1), from asking what thoughts the Egyptian education of Moses would lead him to connect with the symbols he was now taught to use, we may see in it a legitimate method of inquiry almost the only method possible. Where that fails, the gap may be filled up (as in Bahr, Symbol. passim) from the analogies of other nations, indicating, where they agree, a widespread primeval symbolism. So far from laboring to prove, at the price of ignoring or distorting facts, that everything was till then unknown, we shall as little expect to find it so, as to see in Hebrew a new and heaven- born language, spoken for the first time on Sinai, written for the first time on the two tables of the covenant.

3. The thought of a graduated sanctity, like that of the outer court, the holy place, the holy of holies, had its counterpart, often the same number of stages, in the structure of Egyptian temples (Bahr, Symbol. 1, 216). SEE TEMPLE.

(1.) The interior adytum (to proceed from the innermost recess outward) was small in proportion to the rest of the building, and commonly, as in the tabernacle (Josephus, Ant. 2, 6. 3), was at the western end (Spencer, De Leg. Hebreor. 3, 2), and was but little lighted. In the adytum, often at least, was the sacred ark, the culminating point of holiness, containing the highest and most mysterious symbols-winged figures generally like those of the cherubim (Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. 5, 275; Kenrick, Egypt, 1, 460), the emblems of stability and life. Here were outward points of resemblance. Of all elements of Egyptian worship this was old which could be transferred with least hazard, with most gain. No one could think that the ark itself was the likeness of the God he worshipped. When we ask what gave the ark its holiness, we are led on at once to the infinite difference, the great gulf between the two systems. That of Egypt was predominantly cosmical, starting from the productive powers of nature. The symbols of those powers, though not originally involving what we know as impurity, tended to it fatally and rapidly (Spencer) Leg. Hebreor. 3, 1; Warburton, Divine Legation, 2, 4, note). That of Israel was predominantly ethical. The nation was taught to think of God, not chiefly as revealed in nature, but as manifesting himself in and to the spirits of men. In the ark of the covenant, as the highest revelation then possible of the Divine nature, were the two tables of stone, on which were graven, by the teaching of the Divine Spirit, and therefore by the finger of God (Mat 12:28; Luk 11:20; see also Clement of Alexandria [Strom. 6:133] and 1Ki 18:46; 2Ki 3:15; Eze 1:3; Eze 3:14; 1Ch 28:19), the great unchanging laws of human duty which had been proclaimed on Sinai. Here the lesson taught was plain enough. The highest knowledge was as the simplest, the esoteric as the exoteric. In the depths of the holy of holies, and for the high-priest as for all Israel, there was the revelation of a righteous Will requiring righteousness in man (Saalschtitz, Archal. c. 77). SEE ARK.

Over the ark was the kophereth (mercy-seat), so called with a twofold reference to the root-meaning of the word. It covered the ark. It was the witness of a mercy covering sins. As the footstool of God, the throne of the Divine glory, it declared that over the law which seemed so rigid and unbending there rested the compassion of one forgiving iniquity and transgression. Ewald, however, giving to , the root of kophereth, the meaning of to scrape, erase, derives from that meaning. the idea implied in the Sept. , and denies that the word ever signified (Alterth. p. 128, 129). SEE MERCY-SEAT.

Over the mercy-seat were the cherubim, reproducing, in part, at least, the symbolism of the great Harnitic races, forms familiar to Moses and to Israel, needing ri1o description for them, interpreted for us by the fuller vision of the later prophets (Eze 1:5-13; Eze 10:8-15; Eze 41:19), or by the winged forms of the imagery of Egypt. Representing as they did the manifold powers of nature, created life in its highest form (Bihr, De Leg. Hebreor. 1, 341), their overshadowing wings, meeting as in token of perfect harmony, declared that nature as well as man found its highest glory in subjection to a divine law, that men might take refuge in that order, as under the shadow of the wings of God (Stanley, Jewish Church, p. 98). Placed where those and other like figures were, in the temples of Egypt, they might be hindrances and not helps, might sensualize instead of purifying the worship of the people. But it was part of the wisdom which we may reverently trace in the order of the tabernacle that while Egyptian symbols are retained, as in the ark, the cherubim, the urim, and the thummim, their place is changed. They remind the high-priest, the representative of the whole nation, of the truths in which the order rests. The people cannot bow down and worship that which they never see. SEE CHERUBIM.

The material, not less than the forms, in the holy of holies was significant. The acacia or shittim-wood, least liable of woods then accessible to decay, might well represent the imperishableness of divine truth, of the laws of duty (Bahr, Symbol. 1, 286). Ark, mercy seat, cherubim, the very walls, were all overlaid with gold, the noblest of all metals, the symbol of light and purity-sunlight itself, as it were, fixed and embodied, the token of the incorruptible, of the glory of a great king (ibid. 1, 282). It was not without meaning that all this lavish expenditure of what was most costly was placed where none might gaze on it. The gold thus offered taught man that the noblest acts of beneficence and sacrifice are not those which are done that they may be seen of men, but those which are known only to him who seeth in secret (Mat 6:4).

Dimensions also had their meaning. Difficult as it may be to feel sure that we have the key to the enigma, there can be but little doubt that the older religious systems of the world did attach a mysterious significance to each separate number; that the training of Moses, as afterwards the far less complete initiation of Pythagoras in the symbolism of Egypt, must have made that transparently clear to him, which to us is almost impenetrably dark. A full discussion of the subject is obviously impossible here, but it may be useful to exhibit briefly the chief thoughts which have been connected with the numbers that are most prominent in the language of symbolism. Arbitrary as some of them may seem, a sufficient induction to establish each will be found in Bahr’s elaborate dissertation (Symbol. 1, 128-255) and other works (comp. Wilkinson, Anc. Egypt. 4:190-199; Leyrer, in Herzog’s Real-Encyklop. s.v. Stiftshte). ONE

The Godhead, eternity, life, creative force, the sun, man.

TWO

Matter, time, death, receptive capacity, the moon, woman.

THREE

(as a number or in the triangle) The universe in connection with God, the absolute in itself, the unconditioned, God.

FOUR

(the number, or in the square or cube)-Conditioned existence, the world as created, divine order, revelation.

SEVEN

(as 3 + 4)-The union of the world and God, rest (as in the Sabbath), peace, blessing, purification.

TEN

(as = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4) Completeness, moral sand physical, perfection.

FIVE

Perfection half attained, incompleteness.

TWELVE

The sign of the zodiac, the cycle of the seasons; in Israel the ideal number of the people, of the covenant of God with them. To those who think over the words of two great teachers, one heathen (Plutarch, De Is. et Os. p. 411) and one Christian (Clem. Al. Strom. 6:84-87), who had at least studied as far as they could the mysteries of the religion of Egypt, and had inherited part of the old system, the precision of the numbers in the plan of the tabernacle will no longer seem unaccountable. If, in a cosmical system, a right-angled triangle, with the sides three, four, five, represented the triad of Osiris, Isis, Orus, creative force, receptive matter, the universe of creation (Plutarch, loc. cit.), the perfect cube of the holy of holies, the constant recurrence of the Numbers 4, 10, may well be accepted as symbolizing order, stability, perfection (Bahr, Symbol. 1, 225). The symbol reappears in the most startling form in the closing visions of the Apocalypse. There the heavenly Jerusalem is described, in words which absolutely exclude the literalism that has sometimes been blindly applied to it, as a city four-square-12,000 furlongs in length and breadth and height (Rev 21:16). SEE NUMBER.

Into the inner sanctuary neither people nor the priests as a body ever entered. Strange as it may seem, that in which everything represented light and life was left in darkness and solitude. Once only in the year, on the day of atonement, might the high-priest enter. The strange contrast has, however, its parallel in the spiritual life. Death and life, light and darkness, are wonderfully united. Only through death can we truly live. Only by passing into the thick darkness where God is (Exo 20:21; 1Ki 8:12) can we enter at all into the light inaccessible in which he dwells everlastingly. The solemn annual entrance, like the withdrawal of symbolic forms from the gaze of the people, was itself part of a wise and divine order. Intercourse with Egypt had shown how easily the symbols of truth might become common and familiar things, yet without symbols the truths themselves might be forgotten. Both dangers were met. To enter once, and once only in the year, into the awful darkness-to stand before the law of duty, before the presence of the God who gave it, not in the stately robes that became the representative of God to man, but as representing man in his humiliation in the garb of the lowly priests, barefooted and in the linen ephod to confess his own sins and the sins of the people this was what connected the atonement-day (kippur) with the mercy-seat (kophereth). To come there with blood, the symbol of life, touching with that blood the mercy-seat-with incense, the symbol of adoration (Lev 16:12-14), what did that express but the truth (1) that man must draw near to the righteous God with no lower offering than the pure worship of the heart, with the living sacrifice of body, soul, and spirit; (2) that could such a perfect sacrifice be found, it would have a mysterious power working beyond itself, in proportion to its perfection, to cover the multitude of sins?

From all others, from the high-priest at all other times, the holy of holies was shrouded by the heavy vail, bright with many colors and strange forms, even as curtains of golden tissue were to be seen hanging before the adytum of an Egyptian temple, a strange contrast often to the bestial form behind them (Clem. Al. Peed. 3, 4). In one memorable instance, indeed, the vail was the witness of higher and deeper thoughts. On the shrine of Isis at Sais, there were to be read words which, though pointing to a pantheistic rather than an ethical religion, were yet wonderful in their loftiness, I am all that has been ( ), and is, and shall be, and my vail no mortal hath withdrawn () (Plutarch, De Is. et Osir. p. 394). Like, and yet more unlike, the truth, we feel that no such words could have appeared on the vail of the tabernacle. In that identification of the world and God all idolatry was latent, as, in the faith of Israel, in the I am all idolatry was excluded. In that despair of any withdrawal of the vail, of any revelation of the Divine will, there were latent’ all the arts of an unbelieving priestcraft, substituting symbols, pomp, ritual, for such a revelation. But what, then, was the meaning of the vail which met the gaze of the priests as they did service in the sanctuary? Colors, in the art of Egypt, were not less significant than number, and the four bright colors, probably, after the fashion of that art, in parallel bands-blue, symbol of heaven, and purple of kingly glory, and crimson of life and joy, and white of light and purity (Bahr, Symbol. 1, 305-330)-formed in their combination no remote similitude of the rainbow, which of old had been a symbol of the Divine covenant with man, the pledge of peace and hope, the sign of the Divine Presence (Eze 1:28; Ewald, Alterth. p. 333). SEE COLOR. Within the vail, light and truth were seen in their unity. The vail itself represented the infinite variety, the of the divine order in creation (Eph 3:10). There, again, were seen copied upon the vail the mysterious forms of the cherubim; how many, or in what attitude, or of what size, or in what material, we are not told. The words cunning work in Exo 36:35, applied elsewhere to combinations of embroidery and metal (Exo 28:15; Exo 31:4), seem to justify the conjecture that here also they were of gold. In the absence of any other evidence, it would have been perhaps natural to think that they reproduced on a larger scale the number and the position of those that were over the mercy-seat. The visions of Ezekiel, however, reproducing, as they obviously do, the forms with which his priestly life had made him familiar, indicate not less than four (Ezekiel ch. 1 and 10), and those not all alike, having severally the faces of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle strange symbolic words, which elsewhere we should have identified with idolatry, but which here were bearing witness against it, emblems of the manifold variety of creation as at once manifesting and concealing God.

(2.) The outer sanctuary was one degree less awful in its holiness than the inner. Silver, the type of human purity, took the place of gold, the type of the Divine glory (Bahr, Symbol. 1, 284). It was to be trodden daily by the priests as by men who lived in the perpetual consciousness of the nearness of God, of the mystery behind the vail. Barefooted and in garments of white linen, like the priests of Isis, SEE PRIEST, they accomplished their ministrations. Here, too, there were other emblems of divine realities. It was specially illumined by the golden lamp with its seven lights, never all extinguished together, the perpetual symbol of all derived gifts of wisdom and holiness in man, reaching their mystical perfection when they shine in God’s sanctuary to his glory (Exo 25:31; Exo 27:20; Zec 4:1-14). The shew-bread (the bread of faces) of the Divine Presence, not unlike in outward form to the sacred cakes which the Egyptians placed before the shrines of their gods, served as a token that, though there was no form or likeness of the Godhead, he was yet there, accepting all offerings, recognizing in particular that special offering which represented the life of the nation at once in the distinctness of its tribes and in its unity as a people (Ewald, Alterth. p. 120). The meaning of the altar of incense was not less obvious. The cloud of fragrant smoke was the natural, almost the universal, emblem of the heart’s adoration (Psa 141:2). The incense sprinkled on the shew-bread and the lamp taught men that all other offerings needed the intermingling of that adoration. Upon that altar no strange fire was to be kindled. When fresh fire was needed it was to be taken from the altar of burnt-offering in the outer court (Lev 9:24; Lev 10:1). (Very striking, as compared with what is to follow, are the sublimity and the purity of these symbols. It is as if the priestly order, already leading a consecrated life, were capable of understanding a higher language which had to be translated into a lower for those that were still without (Saalschtz. Archal. 77).

(3.) Outside the tent, but still within the consecrated precincts, was the court fenced in by an enclosure, yet open to all the congregation as well as to the Levites, those only excepted who were ceremonially unclean. No Gentile might pass beyond the curtains of the entrance, but every member of the priestly nation might thus far draw near to the presence of Jehovah. Here, therefore, stood the altar of burnt-offerings, at which sacrifices in all their varieties were offered by penitent or thankful worshippers (Exo 27:1-8; Exo 38:1), the brazen laver at which those worshippers purified themselves before they sacrificed, the priests before they entered into the sanctuary (Exo 30:17-21). Here the graduated scale of holiness ended. What Israel was to the world, fenced in and set apart, that the court of the tabernacle was to the surrounding wilderness, just as the distinction between it and the sanctuary answered to that between the sons of Aaron and other Israelites; just as the idea of holiness culminated personally in the high-priest, locally in the holy of holies.

V. Theories of Later Times.

1. It is not probable that the elaborate symbolism of such a structure was understood by the rude and sensual multitude that came out of Egypt. In its fullness, perhaps, no mind but that of the lawgiver himself ever entered into it, and even for him, one half, and that the highest, of its meaning must have been altogether latent. Yet it was not the less, was perhaps the more fitted, on that account, to be an instrument for the education of the people. To the most ignorant and debased it was at least a witness of the nearness of the Divine King. It met the craving of the human heart, which prompts to worship, with an order that was neither idolatrous nor impure. It taught men that their fleshly nature was the hindrance to worship; that it rendered them unclean; that only by subduing it, killing it, as they killed the bullock and the goat, could they offer up an acceptable sacrifice; that such a sacrifice was the condition of forgiveness, a higher sacrifice than any they could offer as the ground of that forgiveness. The sins of the past were considered as belonging to the fleshly nature, which was slain and offered, not to the true inner self of the worshipper. More thoughtful minds were led inevitably to higher truths. They were not slow to see in the tabernacle the parable of God’s presence manifested in creation. Darkness was as his pavilion (2Sa 22:12). He has made a tabernacle for the sun (Psa 19:4). The heavens were spread out like its curtains. The beams of his chambers were in the mighty waters (Psa 104:2-3 : Isaiah 40, 22; Lowth, De Sac. Poes. 8). The majesty of God seen in the storm and tempest was as of one who rides upon a cherub (2Sa 22:11). If the words He that dwelleth between the cherubim spoke on the one side of a special, localized manifestation of the Divine Presence, they spoke also on the other of that Presence as in the heaven of heavens, in. the light of setting suns, in the blackness and the flashes of the thunder-clouds.

2. The thought thus uttered, essentially poetical in its nature, had its fit place in the psalms and hymns of Israel. It lost its beauty, it led men on a false track, when it was formalized into a system. At a time when Judaism and Greek philosophy were alike effete, when a feeble physical science which could read nothing but its own thoughts in the symbols of an older and deeper system was after its own fashion rationalizing the mythology of heathenism, there were found Jewish writers willing to apply the same principle of interpretation to the tabernacle and its order. In that way, it seemed to them, they would secure the respect even of the men of letters who could not bring themselves to be proselytes. The result appears in Josephus and in Philo, in part also in Clement of Alexandria and Origen. Thus interpreted, the entire significance of the two tables of the covenant and their place within the ark disappeared, and the truths which the whole order represented became cosmical instead of ethical. If the special idiosyncrasy of one writer (Philo, De Profug.) led him to see in the holy of holies and the sanctuary that which answered to the Platonic distinction between the visible () and the spiritual (), the coarser, less intelligent Josephus goes still more completely into the new- system. The holy of holies is the visible firmament in which God dwells, the sanctuary is the earth and sea which men inhabit (Ant. 3, 6, 4, 7; 7, 7). The twelve loaves of the shew-bread represented the twelve months of the year, the twelve signs of the zodiac. The seven lamps were the seven planets. The four colors of the vail were the four elements (), air, fire, water, earth. Even the wings of the cherubim were, in the eyes of some, the two hemispheres of the universe, or the constellations of the greater and the lesser bears (Clem. Alex. Strom. 5, 35). The table of shew-bread and the altar of incense stood on the north, because north winds were most fruitful; the lamp on the south, because the motions of the planets were southward (ibid. 34, 35). We need not follow such a system of interpretation further. It was not unnatural that the authority with which it started should secure for it considerable respect. We find it reappearing in some Christian writers-Chrysostom (Hom. in Joann. Bampt.) and Theodoret (Quaest. in Exodus); in some Jewish-Ben-Uzziel, Kimchi, Abarbanel (Bahr, Symbol. 1, 103 sq.). It was well for Christian thought that the Church had in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse of St. John that which helped to save it from the pedantic puerilities of this physico-theology. It is curious to note how in Clement of Alexandria the two systems of interpretation cross each other, leading sometimes to extravagances like those in the text, sometimes to thoughts at once lofty and true. Some of these have already been noticed. Others, not to be passed over, are that the seven lamps set forth the varied degrees and forms ( ) of God’s revelation, the form and the attitude of the cherubim, the union of active ministry and grateful, ceaseless contemplation (Strom. 5, 36, 37).

3. It will have been clear from all that has been said that the Epistle to the Hebrews has not been looked on as designed to limit our inquiry into the meaning of the symbolism of the tabernacle, and that there is consequently no ground for adopting the system of interpreters who can see in it nothing but an aggregate of types of Christian mysteries. Such a system has, in fact, to choose between two alternatives. Either the meaning was made clear, at least to the devout worshippers of old, and then it is no longer true that the mystery was hid from ages and generations, or else the mystery was concealed and then the whole order was voiceless and unmeaning as long as it lasted, then only beginning to be instructive when it was ready to vanish away. Rightly viewed, there is, it is believed, no antagonism between the interpretation which starts from the idea of symbols of great eternal truths, and that, which rests on the idea of types foreshadowing Christ and his Work and his Church. If the latter were the highest manifestation of the former (and this is the keynote of the Epistle to the Hebrews), then the two systems run parallel with each other. The type may help us to understand the symbol. The symbol may guard us against: misinterpreting the type. That the same things were at once symbols and types may take its place among the proofs of an insight and a foresight more than human. Not the vail of nature only, but the vail of the flesh, the humanity of Christ, at once conceals and manifests the Eternals glory. The rending of that vail enabled all who had eves to see and hearts to believe to enter into the holy of holies, into the Divine Presence, and to see, not less clearly than the high-priest, as he looked on the ark and the mercy-seat, that righteousness and love, truth and mercy, were as one. Blood had been shed, a life had been offered which, through the infinite power of its love, was able to atone, to satisfy, to purify.

The allusions to the tabernacle in the Apocalypse are, as might be expected, full of interest. As in a vision, which loses sight of all time limits, the temple of the tabernacle is seen in heaven (Rev 15:5), and yet in the heavenly Jerusalem there is no temple seen (Rev 21:22). In the heavenly temple there is no longer any vail; it is open, and the ark of the covenant is clearly seen (Rev 11:19).

4. We cannot here follow out that strain of a higher mood, and it would not be profitable to enter into the speculations which later writers have engrafted on the first great thought. Those who wish to enter upon that line of inquiry may find materials enough in any of the greater commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Owen’s, Stuart’s, Bleek’s, Tholuck’s, Delitzsch’s, Alford’s), or in special treatises, such as those of Van Till (De Tabernac. in Ugolino, Thesaurus, 8), Bede (Expositio Mystica et Moralis Hosaici Tatbernaculi), Witsils (De Tabemn. Levit. Mysteriis, in the Miscell. Sacr.). Strange outlying hallucinations, like those of ancient rabbins, inferring from the pattern showed to Moses in the Mount the permanent existence of a heavenly tabernacle, like in form, structure, proportions to that which stood in the wilderness (Leyrer, loc. cit.), or of later writers who have seen in it (not in the spiritual, but the anatomical sense of the word) a type of humanity, representing the outer bodily framework, the inner vital organs (Friederich, Syinb. der M- os. Stiftshtte, in Leyrer, loc. cit., and Ewald, Alterth. p. 338), may be dismissed with a single glance. The Judaic and patristic opinion in the main, though not in the details, was advocated by Bahr in his Symbolik (1837), in which he considered the tabernacle a symbol of the universe, the court representing earth, and the tabernacle, strictly so named, heaven, though not in a material sense, but as the place and instruments of God’s revelation of himself. In his work on the temple, ten years later, Bihr retracted much of his former theory, and advocated the opinion that the tabernacle symbolized the idea of the dwelling of God in the midst of Israel. Another view, which seems an exaggeration into unwarrantable detail of the true idea that each Christian is a temple of God, proceeds to adapt to the elements of human nature the divisions and materials of the tabernacle. Thus the court is the body, the holy place the soul, the holiest the spirit-true dwelling place of God. This might do very well as a general illustration, and was so used by Luther; but the idea has been fully developed and defended against the attack of Bahr by Friederich in his Symb. der Mos. Stiftshtte (Leips. 1841).

5. Nevertheless, as the central point of a great symbolical and typical institute, the tabernacle necessarily possessed, both as a whole and in its contents, a symbolical and typical significance, which has been recognized by all orthodox interpreters. On this head, as we see above, much fanciful and unregulated ingenuity has been indulged; but this must not induce us to neglect those conclusions to which a just application of the principles of typological interpretation conducts.

(1.) Under the Old-Test. economy, the primary idea of the tabernacle was that of a dwelling for Jehovah in the midst of his people and this was prominently kept in view in all’ the arrangements concerning the construction and location of the structure. Let them, said God to Moses, make me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them (Exo 25:8; Exo 29:45); when the structure was completed it was set up in the midst of the congregation, and there it always remained, whether the people rested or were on their march (Numbers 2); on it rested the cloud which indicated the Divine Presence, and which by its quiescence or removal indicated the will of the Great Sovereign of Israel as to the resting or the removing of the camp (Exo 40:36-38); and to it the people repaired when they had sacrifice to offer to God, or counsel to ask of in (Lev 1:3; Num 27:2; Deu 31:14, etc.). As Judaism was strictly monotheistic, it knew but one sacred place where Jehovah was to be found. The holy of holies, which the apostle calls the second tabernacle (Heb 9:7), was the appropriate residence of Jehovah as the God of Israel. In this the principal thing was the ark, in which was placed the testimony (), and which was covered by the mercy-seat (). The testimony was the book of the law, and it was put into the ark as a witness against the people because of their sinfulness (Deu 31:26-27).. This symbolized the great truth that the first relation into which Jehovah comes with the sinner is that of a ruler whose law testifies against the transgressor. But this testimony was hid by the mercy-seat, on which the blood of atonement was sprinkled by the high-priest when he entered within the vail, and on which the visible emblem of Jehovah’s presence the shechinah between the cherubim of glory-was enthroned; and in this there was an emblem of the fact that the condemning and accusing power of the law was taken away by the propitiatory covering which God had appointed. By all this was indicated the grand truth that the character in which Jehovah dwelt among his people was that of a justly offended but merciful and propitiated sovereign, who, having received atonement for their sins, had put these out of his sight, and would remember them no more at all against them (comp. Philo, De Vit. Mosis, bk. 3).

In the first or outer tabernacle, were the altar of incense, the table with the shew-bread, and the golden candlestick. The first was symbolical of the necessity and the acceptableness of prayer, of which the smoke of sweet incense that was to ascend from it morning and evening appears to be the appointed Biblical symbol (comp. Psa 141:2; Luk 1:10; Rev 5:8; Rev 8:3-4). The second was emblematical of the necessity of good works to accompany our devotions, the bread being the offering of the children of Israel to their Divine King (Lev 24:8), and consecrated to him by the offering of incense along with it as emblematical of prayer. The third was the symbol of the Church, or people of’ God, the gold of which it was formed denoting the excellence of the Church, the seven lamps its completeness, and the oil by which they were fed being the appropriate symbol of the Divine Spirit dwelling in his people and causing them to shine (comp. Zec 4:2-3; Mat 5:14; Mat 5:16; Rev 1:12; Rev 1:20).

In the fore-court of the tabernacle stood the altar of burnt-offering, on which were offered the sacrifices of the people, and the laver, in which the priests cleansed their hands and feet before entering the holy place. The symbolical significance of these is too well known to need illustration. SEE OFFERING; SEE PURIFICATION.

(2.) Under the new dispensation, if we view the tabernacle as a general symbol of Jehovah’s dwelling in the midst of his people, then that to which it answers can be no other than the human nature of our Lord. He was God manifest in the flesh, Immanuel, God with us, and in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (1Ti 3:16; Mat 1:23; Col 2:9). Hence John (Joh 1:14), in speaking of his incarnation, says, The Word became flesh and tabernacled () among us, where the language evidently points to the ancient tabernacle as the symbolical residence of Jehovah; and in the book of Revelation (Rev 21:5) the same apostle, in announcing the final presence of Christ in his glorified humanity with his Church, uses the expression, The tabernacle of God is with men. From these statements of the New Test. we may hold ourselves justified in concluding that the ancient tabernacle, viewed in its general aspect as the dwelling of Jehovah, found its antitype in the human nature of Christ, in whom God really dwelt. Viewed more particularly in its two great divisions, the tabernacle symbolized in its inner department the reign of Jehovah in his own majesty and glory, and in its outer department the service of God by propitiation and prayer. In keeping, with this, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews teaches (as above seen) us to regard the outer part of the tabernacle as more strictly typical of the person of Jesus Christ, and the inner of heaven, into which he has now entered.

Thus he speaks of him (Heb 8:2) as now, in the heavenly state, a minister of the true [i.e. real, , as distinguished from symbolical] tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man, where the allusion seems to be partly to the fact that Christ is in heaven, and partly to the fact that he ministers there in human nature. Still more explicit is the language used in Heb 9:11, where the writer, after speaking of the sacerdotal services of the ancient economy as merely figurative and outward, adds, But Christ having appeared as high-priest of the good things to come, by means of the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands (that is, not of this creation), nor by means of blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, entered once (for all) into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. In interpreting this passage, we would follow those who take the whole as far as the words his own blood as the subject of the sentence, and consequently join the clauses depending from with , and not with ; for it seems to be more natural to suppose that the writer should say that it was by means of a more perfect tabernacle and a holier sacrifice that Christ became the high-priest of spiritual blessings than that it was by these means that he entered into the holy place. The objection to this construction which dean Alford urges, that in that case would be left without any preceding member of the negation to follow, is of no weight, for it burdens the construction he adopts as much as that he rejects, and is to be obviated in either case by resolving into (see Meyer’s note on Heb 8:12).

Assuming this to be the proper construction of the passage, it seems clearly to represent the human nature of our Lord that in which he made his soul an offering for sin as the antitype of the ancient tabernacle in which the high-priest offered sacrifice, while the heavenly world into which he had entered as a high-priest was typified by the holy place into which the Jewish high-priest entered to appear in the symbolical presence of Jehovah. For further confirmation of this may be adduced Heb 10:20, where the writer, speaking of the privilege enjoyed by believers under the new dispensation of approaching God through Christ, says we can do it by a new and living way which he hath inaugurated () for us through the vail (that is, his own flesh). The allusion here is undoubtedly to the ancient tabernacle service, and the truth set forth is that as the high-priest of old went with sacrificial blood through the vail into the holy of holies, so we, as made priests unto God by Jesus Christ, may approach the immediate presence of Jehovah through that path which the Savior has inaugurated for us by his death in human nature-that path by which he himself has preceded us as our great intercessor, and which is ever fresh and living for us. There may be some rhetorical confusion in this passage, but the general idea seems plainly this, that the body of Christ, slain for us, affords us a passage, by means of sacrifice, into the presence of God, just as the first tabernacle with its services afforded an entrance to the high-priest of old into the holy of holies (see Hofmann, Schrifibeweis, II, 1, 405 sq.; Weissag. u. Erfllung, 2, 189 sq.). For the symbolism, in a New Test. sense, of the various parts and uses of the tabernacle, such as the altar (, Heb 13:10), the vail (, 10:20), the mercy-seat (, Rom 3:25), etc., see each word in its place.

6. It is proper in this connection to refer to a speculative hypothesis which, though in itself unsubstantial enough, has been revived under circumstances that have given it prominence. It has been maintained by Von Bohlen and Vatke (Bhr, 1, 117,273) that the commands and the descriptions relating to the tabernacle in the books of Moses are altogether unhistorical, the result of the effort of some late compiler to ennoble the cradle of his people’s history by transferring to a remote antiquity what he found actually existing in the Temple, modified only so far as was necessary to fit it into the theory of a migration and a wandering. The structure did not belong to the time of the Exodus, if indeed there ever was an Exodus. The tabernacle thus becomes the mythical after growth of the Temple, riot the Temple the historical sequel to the tabernacle. It has lately been urged as tending to the same conclusion that the circumstances connected with the tabernacle in the Pentateuch are manifestly unhistorical. The whole congregation of Israel are said to meet in a court which could not have contained more than a few hundred men (Colenso, Pentateuch and Book of Joshua, pt. 1, ch. Jos 4:5). The number of priests was utterly inadequate for the services of the tabernacle (ibid. ch. 20). The narrative of the head-money collection, of the gifts of the people, is full of anachronisms (ibid. ch. 14).

Some of these objections those, e.g., as to the number of the first-born, and the disproportionate smallness of the priesthood, have been met by anticipation in remarks under PRIEST and LEVITE. Others bearing upon the general veracity of the Pentateuch history it is impossible to discuss here. SEE PENTATEUCH. It will be sufficient to notice such as bear immediately upon the subject of this article.

(1.) It may be said that this theory, like other similar theories as to the history of Christianity, adds to instead of diminishing difficulties and anomalies. It may be possible to make out plausibly that what purports to be the first period of an institution is, with all its documents, the creation of the second; but the question then comes, How are we to explain the existence of the second? The world rests upon an elephant, and the elephant on a tortoise, but the footing of the tortoise is at least somewhat insecure.

(2.) Whatever may be the weight of the argument drawn from the alleged presence of the whole congregation at the door of the tabernacle tells with equal force against the historical existence of the Temple and the narrative of its dedication. There also, when the population numbered some seven or eight millions (2Sa 24:9), all the men of Israel (1Ki 8:2), all the congregation (1Ki 8:5), all the children of Israel (1Ki 8:63) were assembled, and the king blessed all the congregation (1Ki 8:14; 1Ki 8:55).

(3.) There are, it is believed, undesigned touches indicating the nomadic life of the wilderness. The wood employed for the tabernacle is not the sycamore of the valleys nor the cedar of Lebanon, as afterwards in the Temple, but the shittim of the Sinaitic peninsula. SEE SHITTAH-TREE; SEE SHITTIM. The abundance of fine linen points to Egypt, the seal or dolphin skins (badgers in the A.V., but see Gesenius; s.v. ) to the shores of the Red Sea. SEE BADGER. The Levites are not to enter on their office till the age of thirty, as needing for their work as bearers a man’s full strength (Num 4:23; Num 4:30). Afterwards, when their duties are chiefly those of singers and gatekeepers, they were to begin at twenty (1Ch 23:2) 1. Would a later history, again, have excluded the priestly tribe from all share in the structure of the tabernacle, and left it in the hands of mythical persons belonging to Judah, and to a tribe then so little prominent as that of Dan?

(4.) There remains the strong Egyptian stamp impressed upon well-nigh every part of the tabernacle and its ritual, and implied in other incidents. SEE BRAZEN SERPENT; SEE LEVITE; SEE PRIEST; SEE URIM AND THUMMIM. Whatever bearing this may have on our views of the things themselves, it points, beyond all doubt to a time when the two nations had been brought into close contact, when not jewels of silver and gold only, but treasures of wisdom, art, knowledge, were borrowed by one people from the other. To what other period in the history before Samuel than that of the Exodus of the Pentateuch can we refer that intercourse?

When was it likely that a wild tribe, with difficulty keeping its ground against neighboring nations, would have adopted such a complicated ritual from a system so alien to its own? The facts which, when urged by Spencer, with or without a hostile purpose, were denounced as daring and dangerous and unsettling, are now seen to be witnesses to the antiquity of the religion of Israel, and so to the substantial truth of the Mosaic history. They are used as such by theologians who in various degrees enter their protest against the more destructive criticism of our own time (Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses; Stanley, Jewish Church, lect. 4).

(5.) We may, for a moment, put an imaginary case. Let us suppose that the records of the Old Test. had given us in 1 and 2 Samuel a history like that which men now seek to substitute for what is actually given, had represented Samuel as the first great preacher of the worship of Elohim, Gad, or some later prophet, as introducing for the first time the name and worship of Jehovah, and that the Old Test. began with this (Colenso, pt. 2, ch. 21). Let us then suppose that some old papyrus, freshly discovered, slowly deciphered, gave us the whole or the greater part of what we now find in Exodus and Numbers, that there was thus given an explanation both of the actual condition of the people and of the Egyptian element so largely intermingled with their ritual. Can we not imagine with what jubilant zeal the books of Samuel would then have been critically examined, what inconsistencies would have been detected in them, how eager men would have been to prove that Samuel had had credit given him for a work which was not his; that not he, but Moses, was the founder of the polity and creed of Israel; that the tabernacle on Zion, instead of coming fresh from David’s creative mind, had been preceded by the humbler tabernacle in the wilderness?

The objection raised against the truthfulness of the narrative (Colenso, ibid. ch. 7) on the ground that the entire congregation of 600,000 is said to have been convened at the door of this small structure (Leviticus 8) is readily obviated by the natural interpretation that only the principal persons stood immediately near, while the multitude easily viewed the ceremonies from a convenient distance (Birks, The Exodus of Israel, p. 111).

VI. Literature. Besides the commentaries on Exodus ad loc., see Babhr, Symbolik d. mos. (ult. 1, 56 sq.; Lund, Die jid. Heiligthmer dargestellt (Hamb. 1695, 1738); Van Til, Comment. de Tabernac. Mos. (Dord. 1714; also in Ugolino, Thesaur. vol. 8); Conrad, De Tabernaculi Mosis Structura et Figura (Offenbach, 1712); Lamy, De Tabernaculo Faederis (Paris, 1720); Tympe, Tabernaculi e Monumentis Descriptio (Jena, 1731); Carpzov, Appar. p. 248 sq.; Reland, Antiq. Sacr. 1, 3-5; Schacht, Animadv. ad Iken. Antiq. p. 267 sq.; D’Aquine [Phil.], Du Tabernacle (Paris, 1623-24); Benzelii Dissertationes, 2, 97 sq. Millii Miscellanea Sacra (Amit. 1754), p. 329 sq.; Ravius, De iis quace ex Arabia in usum Tabernaculi fuerant Petita (Ultraj. 1753, ed. J. M. Schrckh, Lips. 1755); Recchiti, ( (Mantua, 1776); Vriemoet, De Aulceo adyti Tabernaculi (Franec. 1745); Meyer, Bibeldeutung, p. 262 sq.; Lanzi [Michelangelo], La Sacra Scrittura Illustrata con Monum. Fenico A ssiri ed. Egiziani (Roma, 1827, fol.); Neumann, Die Stiftshtte (Gotha, 1861); Friederich, Symbol. d. mos. Stiftshtte (Leips. 1841); Kurtz, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1844, 2, 305 sq.; Riggenbach, Die mos. Stiftshtte (Basel, 1862, 1867); Soltau, Vessels of the Tabernacle (Lond. 1865); Paine, The Tabernacle, Temple, etc. (Bost, 1861); Kitto, The Tabernacle and its Furniture (Lond. 1849): Simpson, Typ. Character of the Tabernacle (Edinb. 1852); Brown, The Tabernacle, etc. (ibid. 1s71, 1872, 8vo).

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Tabernacle (2)

is a name given to certain chapels or meeting-houses in England erected by Mr. Whitefield, and to similar places of worship reared by Robert Haldane for the accommodation of a few large congregations in Scotland, out of which have chiefly been formed the present churches of Congregational dissenters in that country.

Tabernacle is also a term applied to certain interior portions of churches, etc.:

1. A niche or hovel for an image.

2. An ambry on the right side of the altar, or behind it, for the reservation of the host, chrism, and oil for the sick.

3. A throne carried like a litter on the shoulders of Spanish priests in the procession of Corpus Christi, and supporting the host.

4. A small temple over the central part of an altar for the reservation of the eucharist, contained in the pyx, and often decorated with a crown of three circlets. Its earliest form was a coffer of wood, or a little arched receptacle; then it became a tower of gold, or of circular shape, being a casket for the chalice and paten, in fact a ciborium. In the 15th century the tabernacle became a magnificent piece of furniture over or on the left side of the high-altar, with statues, towers, foliage, buttresses, and superb work, as at Grenoble, St. John Maurienne, Leau, Tournay, and Nuremberg, the latter sixty-four feet high, and of white stone. SEE CIBORIUM; SEE DOVE; SEE PYX.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Tabernacle

(1.) A house or dwelling-place (Job 5:24; 18:6, etc.).

(2.) A portable shrine (comp. Acts 19:24) containing the image of Moloch (Amos 5:26; marg. and R.V., “Siccuth”).

(3.) The human body (2 Cor. 5:1, 4); a tent, as opposed to a permanent dwelling.

(4.) The sacred tent (Heb. mishkan, “the dwelling-place”); the movable tent-temple which Moses erected for the service of God, according to the “pattern” which God himself showed to him on the mount (Ex. 25:9; Heb. 8:5). It is called “the tabernacle of the congregation,” rather “of meeting”, i.e., where God promised to meet with Israel (Ex. 29:42); the “tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex. 38:21; Num. 1:50), which does not, however, designate the whole structure, but only the enclosure which contained the “ark of the testimony” (Ex. 25:16, 22; Num. 9:15); the “tabernacle of witness” (Num. 17:8); the “house of the Lord” (Deut. 23:18); the “temple of the Lord” (Josh. 6:24); a “sanctuary” (Ex. 25:8).

A particular account of the materials which the people provided for the erection and of the building itself is recorded in Ex. 25-40. The execution of the plan mysteriously given to Moses was intrusted to Bezaleel and Aholiab, who were specially endowed with wisdom and artistic skill, probably gained in Egypt, for this purpose (Ex. 35:30-35). The people provided materials for the tabernacle so abundantly that Moses was under the necessity of restraining them (36:6). These stores, from which they so liberally contributed for this purpose, must have consisted in a great part of the gifts which the Egyptians so readily bestowed on them on the eve of the Exodus (12:35, 36).

The tabernacle was a rectangular enclosure, in length about 45 feet (i.e., reckoning a cubit at 18 inches) and in breadth and height about 15. Its two sides and its western end were made of boards of acacia wood, placed on end, resting in sockets of brass, the eastern end being left open (Ex. 26:22). This framework was covered with four coverings, the first of linen, in which figures of the symbolic cherubim were wrought with needlework in blue and purple and scarlet threads, and probably also with threads of gold (Ex. 26:1-6; 36:8-13). Above this was a second covering of twelve curtains of black goats’-hair cloth, reaching down on the outside almost to the ground (Ex. 26:7-11). The third covering was of rams’ skins dyed red, and the fourth was of badgers’ skins (Heb. tahash, i.e., the dugong, a species of seal), Ex. 25:5; 26:14; 35:7, 23; 36:19; 39:34.

Internally it was divided by a veil into two chambers, the exterior of which was called the holy place, also “the sanctuary” (Heb. 9:2) and the “first tabernacle” (6); and the interior, the holy of holies, “the holy place,” “the Holiest,” the “second tabernacle” (Ex. 28:29; Heb. 9:3, 7). The veil separating these two chambers was a double curtain of the finest workmanship, which was never passed except by the high priest once a year, on the great Day of Atonement. The holy place was separated from the outer court which enclosed the tabernacle by a curtain, which hung over the six pillars which stood at the east end of the tabernacle, and by which it was entered.

The order as well as the typical character of the services of the tabernacle are recorded in Heb. 9; 10:19-22.

The holy of holies, a cube of 10 cubits, contained the “ark of the testimony”, i.e., the oblong chest containing the two tables of stone, the pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded.

The holy place was the western and larger chamber of the tabernacle. Here were placed the table for the shewbread, the golden candlestick, and the golden altar of incense.

Round about the tabernacle was a court, enclosed by curtains hung upon sixty pillars (Ex. 27:9-18). This court was 150 feet long and 75 feet broad. Within it were placed the altar of burnt offering, which measured 7 1/2 feet in length and breadth and 4 1/2 feet high, with horns at the four corners, and the laver of brass (Ex. 30:18), which stood between the altar and the tabernacle.

The whole tabernacle was completed in seven months. On the first day of the first month of the second year after the Exodus, it was formally set up, and the cloud of the divine presence descended on it (Ex. 39:22-43; 40:1-38). It cost 29 talents 730 shekels of gold, 100 talents 1,775 shekels of silver, 70 talents 2,400 shekels of brass (Ex. 38:24-31).

The tabernacle was so constructed that it could easily be taken down and conveyed from place to place during the wanderings in the wilderness. The first encampment of the Israelites after crossing the Jordan was at Gilgal, and there the tabernacle remained for seven years (Josh. 4:19). It was afterwards removed to Shiloh (Josh. 18:1), where it remained during the time of the Judges, till the days of Eli, when the ark, having been carried out into the camp when the Israelites were at war with the Philistines, was taken by the enemy (1 Sam. 4), and was never afterwards restored to its place in the tabernacle. The old tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness was transferred to Nob (1 Sam. 21:1), and after the destruction of that city by Saul (22:9; 1 Chr. 16:39, 40), to Gibeon. It is mentioned for the last time in 1 Chr. 21:29. A new tabernacle was erected by David at Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:17; 1 Chr. 16:1), and the ark was brought from Perez-uzzah and deposited in it (2 Sam. 6:8-17; 2 Chr. 1:4).

The word thus rendered (‘ohel) in Ex. 33:7 denotes simply a tent, probably Moses’ own tent, for the tabernacle was not yet erected.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Tabernacle

The usual word for a tabernacle is Ohel (); which properly means a tent. Another word frequently rendered tent is Mishcan (, Ass. maskamu), the ordinary word for a dwelling-place, [These words are found together in Exo 26:7, the covering (Ohel) up on the tabernacle (Mishcan), and in other passages. The Mishcan is evidently the structure as a whole, regarded as the Shekinah or dwelling-place or God; whilst the Ohel was the awning of goat’s hair. The word which the A. V. and R. V. perversely render the do or of the tabernacle is not a do or at all, but an opening or entrance.] which is found in Son 1:8, ‘Besides the shepherds’ tents.’ Kubbah (, Ass. qubbu), a dome or vault (compare the modern Arabic kubbet), is found in Num 25:8, where we read, ‘He went after the man of Israel into the tent;’ Sucah (, Ass. sukku), a booth (whence the name Succoth), is used by David in 2Sa 11:11, where he says, ‘The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents.’ Machaneh () is a camp, or company, hence the name Mahanaim (two hosts). See Gen 32:2; Gen 32:7-8; Gen 32:10; Gen 32:21, and compare 1Ch 12:22, 2Ch 14:13; 2Ch 31:2, Son 6:13. It is translated ‘tent’ in Num 13:19; 1Sa 17:53; 2Ki 7:16; Zec 14:15; and also in 2Ch 31:2, where it is applied in the plural form to the temple of God.

The LXX has various renderings for Ohel, but the most general are , , and . Mishcan, a dwelling-place, which stands for the same Greek word, is rendered tabernacle in about a hundred and twenty passages in the A. V.

Where the Feast of Tabernacles is referred to, Sucah is used. It probably means a place of shade or shelter, hence a booth, tent, or pavilion. The rendering cottage in Isa 1:8 is hardly accurate in Job 36:29 we read, ‘Can any one understand the spreadings of the clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?’ Here reference is made to the heavens, either as God’s place of shelter–H is hiding-place place — or to the clouds as a shade for the earth. [Compare its use in 2Sa 22:12, ‘He made darkness pavilions round about him;’ al as Psa 18:11, ‘H is pavillion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies.’] The word is used again in Psa 76:2, ‘ in Salem is his tabernacle, and his dwelling-place in Zion.’ See also Isa 4:6.

In Amo 5:26, ‘Ye have borne the tabernacle of Moloch,’ there may be reference to a movable tent in which the images of false gods were placed. The marginal rendering, ‘Siccuth your king,’ is endorsed by the Masoretic punctuation, is accepted by Luther and by the R.V., and may be illustrated by the name of the Assyrian god Sakkut. But the quotation in St. Stephen’s speech (Act 7:43) follows the LXX, and is confirmed by the implied contrast with another tabernacle of which we read in Amo 9:11, where the same word is used, ‘I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen down, and will close up the breaches thereof’ With this passage may be compared the complaint of Jeremiah concerning the temple et Jerusalem: God ‘hath violently taken away his tabernacle () as if it were a garden: he hath destroyed his places of assembly; the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion.’ The word for ‘tabernacle’ here, Sak (), though spelt differently, is from a cognate root. Some render it hedge or fence, but perhaps it signifies shelter or covering, and so is applicable to the ‘tabernacle of David.’

Fuente: Synonyms of the Old Testament

Tabernacle

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.

Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary

TABERNACLE

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, Israels place of worship was to be a tabernacle, or tent, set up in the centre of the camp. This tabernacle was the symbol of Gods 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 peoples 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, Aarons 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 Gods people, the tabernacle was very practically suited to Israels 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 Gods 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 Israels 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).

Fuente: Bridgeway Bible Dictionary

Tabernacle

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 hel md, 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 md 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. 4048), whose conception of a sanctuary is that of a dwelling-place of the Deity (see Eze 37:27). Now the attribute of Israels 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 sanctuarycourt, holy place, and the holy of holiesrepresent 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 Tabernacle5 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 (mishkn), 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 (104) cubits by 28 (74), 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 writers 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 Haupts 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 framesafter 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 (11/2×20 = 30 cubits); the western end requires only six frames (11/2×6 = 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, MNeile and Bennett; see esp. the formers Book of Exodus [1908], lxxiiixcii.]

(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 placethe true presence-chamber of the Most High, to which the holy place forms the antechamberhas 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 coloursa less artistic fabric than the tapestry of the cunning workmanmeasuring 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 (repouss) 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 (533 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 kappreth. The best English rendering is the propitiatory (Exo 25:17 ff.), of which the current mercy-seat, adopted by Tindale from Luthers 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 earths 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 Israels 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, Israels 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 48. 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 MNeile 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.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Tabernacle

Various are the significations of this word in Scripture. Sometimes it is intended to mean the place of worship the Israelites had in the wilderness. At others, is meant no more than a common dwelling place. Thus, Eliphas adviseth Job to put away iniquity from his tabernacles. (Job 22:23) But in a much higher sense than every other, Christ’s human nature is said to be the true tabernacle which “the Lord pitched, and not man.” (Heb 8:2) And as this view of the word tabernacle throws aside the consideration of every other; so doth the contemplation of this furnish a subject of everlasting pleasure and delight.

The Holy Ghost by the apostle informs the church, that this tabernacle of the human nature of Christ was the dwelling place of JEHOVAH. “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” (Col 2:9) Not as the Holy Ghost dwelleth in the bodies of his people which are said to be his Temple, (1Co 6:19) but substantially, personally, permanently, and for ever. So the GODHEAD fills the human nature of Christ. For that nature being filled with the divine, receives the same effect as iron heated in the fire is made fiery, like the fire which is filled by it. So the GODHEAD dwells bodily in the manhood of Christ. What a blessed soul-refreshing view of the Lord Jesus as JEHOVAH’S Tabernacle, is this!

And what endears it yet more is, that the Holy Ghost immediately adds in the following Scripture, concerning the church’s interest and completeness in him, “And ye are complete in him.” (Col 2:10) Founded in his marvellous person, the church hath her Tabernacle in Christ Jesus, her resting place, her sure portion for grace here, and glory for ever.

Pause, I beseech you, reader, over the soul-transporting subject. Behold Jesus, (yea thy Jesus, if so be united to him by the Holy Ghost) in his mediatorial fulness as the Tabernacle of JEHOVAH. Here to this one glorious individual person, the Christ of God, JEHOVAH communicates his personality, his subsistence, or to use the words of Scripture: “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the GODHEAD bodily.” And by virtue of Christ’s human nature, to which his whole body, the church, is united; all, and every individual member, the weakest and humblest, as well as the strongest and the highest, have their completeness in the justifying righteousness of his person to bear them up, and bring them on before JEHOVAH, in grace here, and to bear them home, and bring them in before JEHOVAH in his three-fold character of person, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in glory for evermore. Oh, the blessedness of that tabernacle, “which the Lord pitched, and not man!”

Fuente: The Poor Mans Concordance and Dictionary to the Sacred Scriptures

Tabernacle

taber-na-k’l ( , ‘ohel moedh tent of meeting, , mishkan, dwelling; , skene):

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 mishkan; the second in the name ‘ohel moedh (it is a puzzling fact for the critics that in Ex 25 through 27:19 only mishkan is used; in Exodus 28 through 31 only ‘ohel moedh; 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 (hacer) 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 (kelam) 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 (masakh) 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, mishkan (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 (yeroth, 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.

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.

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 Ramet-el-Khall.

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 bamah, 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 bamoth?

(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 quite naturally falls into its place as an explanation of how the promises of Exo 33:3 and Exo 33:5 were carried out (see infra).

The second supposed proof that E’s tent was not P’s but an earlier one, namely, that P’s had a body of priests and Levites, an ark and a complex ritual, while E’s had only Joshua as attendant and made no mention of ark, priests or sacrifices, loses force, unless it can be shown that there was absolute necessity that in this paragraph a full description of the tabernacle should be given. But obviously no such necessity existed, the object of the writer having been as above explained. Driver, after Wellhausen (GJ, 387), conjectures that in E’s original document Exo 33:7-11 may have been preceded by an account of the construction of the Tent of Meeting and of the ark, and that when the narrative was combined with that of P this part of it (being superfluous by the side of Exodus 25 through 35) was probably omitted. As this however is only a conjecture, it is of no more (probably of less) value than the opinion that Exodus 25 through 35 including Exo 33:7-11 proceeded from the same pen. The important contribution to the interpretation of the passage is that the absence from the paragraph relating to E’s tent of the ark, priests and sacrifices is no valid proof that E’s tent was not the Mosaic tabernacle.

The third argument against their identity is their different location – E’s outside and P’s inside the camp. But it may be argued (a) that the translation in the Revised Version (British and American) distinctly relieves this difficulty. For if Moses used to take and pitch the tabernacle outside the camp, the natural implication is that the tabernacle was often, perhaps usually, inside the camp, as in the Priestly Code (P), and only from time to time pitched outside the camp, when Yahweh was displeased with the people (Eerdmans, Valeton). Or (2) that outside the camp may signify away, at an equal distance from all the four camps (over against the tent of meeting – in the King James Version far off, after Jos 3:4 – were the various tribes with their standards, i.e. the four camps, to be pitched; Num 2:2); so that the tabernacle might easily be in the midst of all the camps and yet outside and far off from each camp separately, thus requiring every individual who sought the Lord to go out from his camp unto the tabernacle. Num 11:26-30 may perhaps shed light upon the question. There it is stated that there remained two men in the camp (who) had not gone out with Moses unto the Tent, and that Moses and the elders after leaving the tent, gat (them) into the camp. Either the tent at this time was in the center of the square, around which the four camps were stationed, or it was outside. If it was outside, then the first of the foregoing explanations will hold good; if it was inside the camp, then the second suggestion must be adopted, namely, that while the camps were round about the tabernacle, the tabernacle was outside each camp. Although the tabernacle stood in the midst of the camp, yet it was practically separated from the tents of the tribes by an open space and by the encampment of the Levites (Pulpit Commentary, in the place cited.; compare Keil, in the place cited.). When one calls to mind that the tabernacle was separated from each side of the square probably, as in Jos 3:4, by 2,000 cubits (at 19-25 inches each = about 3/4 of a mile), one has small difficulty in understanding how the tabernacle could be both outside the several camps and inside them all; how the two promises in Ex 33 (the King James Version) – I will not go up in the midst of thee (Exo 33:3) and I will come up into the midst of thee (Exo 33:5) – might be fulfilled; how Moses and the elders could go out from the camp (i.e. their several camps) to the tabernacle and after leaving the tabernacle return to the camp (i.e. their several camps); and how no insuperable difficulty in the shape of an insoluble contradiction exists between E’s account and P’s account.

5. Pre-Exilic Prophets Knew Nothing of Levitical System of Which the Tabernacle Was Said to Be the Center.

That the pre-exilic prophets knew nothing about the Levitical system of which the tabernacle was the center is regarded as perhaps the strongest proof that the tabernacle had no existence in the wilderness and indeed never existed at all except on paper. The assertion about the ignorance of the pre-exilic prophets as to the sacrificial system of the Priestly Code has been so often made that it has come to be a commonplace and stock-phrase of modern criticism. In particular, Amos in the 8th century BC (Amo 5:25, Amo 5:26) and Jeremiah in the 7th century BC (Jer 7:21-23) are quoted as having publicly taught that no such sacrificial ritual as the tabernacle implied had been promulgated in the wilderness. But, if these prophets were aware that the Levitical Law had not been given by Moses, one would like to know, (1) how this interpretation of their language had been so long in being discovered; (2) how the critics themselves are not unanimous in accepting this interpretation – which they are not; (3) how Amos could represent Yahweh as saying I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though ye offer me your burnt-offerings and meal-offerings, I will not accept them; neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts (Amo 5:21, Amo 5:22), if Yahweh had never accepted and never enjoined them; (4) how Jeremiah could have been a party to putting forward Deuteronomy as a work of Moses if he knew that Yahweh had never commanded sacrifices to be offered, which Deuteronomy does; and (5) how Jeremiah could have blamed Judah for committing spiritual adultery if Yahweh had never ordered the people to offer sacrifice.

In reply to (1) it will scarcely do to answer that all previous interpreters of Amos and Jeremiah had failed to read the prophets’ words as they stand (Amo 5:25, Amo 5:26; Jer 7:22), because the question would then arise why the middle books of the Pentateuch should not also be read as they stand, as e.g. when they say, The Lord spake unto Moses, and again These (the legislative contents of the middle books) are the commandments, which Yahweh commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai (Lev 27:34). As for (2) it is conveniently forgotten that Bohlen (Introduction to Genesis, I, 277) admitted that some of the Pentateuch might possibly have originated in the time of Moses, and when quoting Jer 7:22 never dreamed of putting forward an explanation different from the orthodox rendering of the same, and certainly did not cite it as a proof that the Law had no existence prior to the exile; that De Wette in his Einleitung (261, 262, 8th edition) stated that the holy laws and institutions of theocratic people had for their author Moses, who in giving them stood under divine guidance; that Knobel (Die Bucher Ex und Lev, xxii) explicitly declared that Moses must be regarded not only as the liberator and founder of his people, but also the originator of the peculiar Israelite constitution and lawgiving, at least in its fundamental elements; that Ewald (Die Propheten, II, 123) regarded Jer 7:22 as making no announcement about the origin of the sacrificial cult; and that Bleek (Introduction to the Old Testament) forgot to read the modern critical interpretation into the words of Amos and Jeremiah for the simple reason that to have done so would have stultified his well-known view that many of the laws of the middle books of the Pentateuch are of Mosaic origin. Nor is the difficulty (3) removed by holding that, if prior to the days of Amos Yahweh did accept the burnt offerings and meal offerings of Israel, these were not sacrifices that had been appointed in the wilderness, because Yahweh Himself appears to intimate (Amo 5:25, Amo 5:26) that no such sacrifices or offerings had been made during the whole 40 years’ wandering. Had this been the case, it is not easy to see why the post-exilic authors of the Priestly Code should have asserted the contrary, should have represented sacrifices as having been offered in the wilderness, as they have done (see Nu 16; 18). The obvious import of Yahweh’s language is either that the sacrificial worship which He had commanded had been largely neglected by the people, or that it had been so heartless and formal that it was no true worship at all – their real worship being given to their idols – and that as certainly as the idolaters in the wilderness were excluded from Canaan, so the idolaters in Amos’ day, unless they repented, would be carried away into exile. As to (4) Jeremiah’s action in putting forward or helping to put forward Deuteronomy as a work of Moses when he knew that it represented Yahweh as having commanded sacrifices to be offered both in the wilderness and in Canaan (Deu 12:6, Deu 12:11, Deu 12:13), and must have been aware as well that J-E had represented Yahweh as commanding sacrifice at Sinai (Exo 20:24, Exo 20:25), no explanation can be offered that will clear the prophet from the charge of duplicity and insincerity, or prevent his classification with the very men who were a grief of mind to him and against whom a large part of his life was spent in contending, namely, the prophets that prophesied lies in the name of God. Nor does it mend matters to suggest (Cheyne) that when Jeremiah perceived that Deuteronomy, though floated into publicity under high patronage, did not take hold, he changed his mind, because in the first place if Jeremiah did so, he should, like an honest man, have washed his hands clear of Deuteronomy, which he did not; and in the second place, because had he done so he could not have been the iron pillar and brazen wall which Yahweh had intended him to be and indeed had promised to make him against the princes, priests and people of the land (Deu 1:18). And, still further, (5) it passes comprehension how, if Yahweh never commanded His people to offer sacrifice to Him, Jeremiah could have represented Yahweh as enjoining him to pronounce a curse upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem because they transgressed the words of Yahweh’s covenant, which He had made with their fathers in the day when He brought them out of the land of Egypt, by running after other gods to serve them, setting up altars and burning incense unto Baal and even working lewdness in Yahweh’s house (Jer 11:1-15). It is urged in answer to this, that the offense complained of was not that the men of Judah did not offer sacrifices to Yahweh, but that they offered them to Baal and polluted His temple with heathen rites – that what Yahweh demanded from His worshippers was not the offering of sacrifice, but obedience to the moral law conjoined with abstinence from idolatry. But in that case, what was the use of a temple at all? And why should Yahweh speak of it as mine house, if sacrifices were not required to be offered in it (compare on this Kittel, The Scientific Study of the Old Testament, 218)? Why idolatrous sacrifices were denounced was not merely because they were wrong in themselves, but also because they had supplanted the true sacrificial worship of Yahweh. As already stated, it is not easy to perceive how Jeremiah could have said that Yahweh had never commanded sacrifices to be offered to Him, when he (Jeremiah) must have known that the Book of the Covenant in J-E (Exo 20:24, Exo 20:25) represented Yahweh as expressly enjoining them. Had Jeremiah not read the Book of the Covenant with sufficient care? This is hardly likely in so earnest a prophet. Or will it be lawful to suggest that Jeremiah knew the Book of the Covenant to be a fiction and the assumption of divine authority for its enactments to be merely a rhetorical device? In this case his words might be true; only one cannot help regretting that he did not distinctly state that in his judgment the Book of the Covenant was a fraud.

It may now be added in confirmation of the preceding, that the various references to a tabernacle in the New Testament appear at least to imply that in the 1st Christian century the historicity of the Mosaic tabernacle was generally accepted. These references are Peter’s exclamation on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mat 17:4; Mar 9:5; Luk 9:33); Stephen’s statement in the council (Act 7:44); the affirmations in Hebrews (Heb 8:1-13; 9); and the voice which John heard out of heaven (Rev 21:3). It may be admitted that taken separately or unitedly these utterances do not amount to a conclusive demonstration that the tabernacle actually existed in the wilderness; but read in the light of Old Testament aeclarations that such a tabernacle did exist, they have the force of a confirmation. If the language of Peter and that of John may fairly enough be regarded as figurative, even then their symbolism suggests, as its basis, what Stephen and the writer to the He affirm to have been a fact, namely, that their fathers had the tabernacle … in the wilderness, and that, under the first covenant, there was a tabernacle prepared.

Literature.

I, critical: De Wette, Beitrage; von Bohlen, Genesis; Georg, Judische Feste; Reuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des AT; Graf, de Templo Silonensi; Kuenen, The Religion of Israel; Wellhausen, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels; HDB and EB, articles Tabernacle, II, conservative: Bredenkamp, Gesetz und Propheten; Kurtz, Geschichte des alten Bundes; Havernick, Einleitung; Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses; Riehm, Handworterbuch, and Herzog, RE (ed 1; edition 3 is critical), articles Stiftshutte; Baxter, Sanctuary and Sacrifice; Bissell, The Pentateuch: Its Origin and Structure; Orr, The Problem of the Old Testament; Whitelaw, Old Testament Critics.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Tabernacle

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.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Tabernacle

One existed before Moses received the pattern authorized on Mount Sinai

Exo 33:7-11

The one instituted by Moses was called:

– Sanctuary

Exo 25:8

– Tabernacle (or Tent) of Meeting

Exo 27:21

– Tabernacle (or Tent)

Exo 33:7; 2Ch 5:5

– Tabernacle (or Tent) of Testimony

Exo 38:21; Num 1:50

– Tent of Testimony

Num 17:7-8; 2Ch 24:6

– Temple of the Lord

1Sa 1:9; 1Sa 3:3

– House of the Lord

Jos 6:24

Pattern of, revealed to Moses

Exo 25:9; Exo 26:30; Exo 39:32; Exo 39:42-43; Act 7:44; Heb 8:5

Materials for, voluntarily offered

Exo 25:1-8; Exo 35:4-29; Exo 36:3-7

Value of the substance contributed for

Exo 38:24-31

Workmen who constructed it were inspired

Exo 31:1-11; Exo 35:30-35

Description of:

– Frame

Exo 26:15-37; Exo 36:20-38

– Outer covering

Exo 25:5; Exo 26:7-14; Exo 36:14-19

– Second covering

Exo 25:5; Exo 26:14; Exo 35:7; Exo 35:23; Exo 36:19; Exo 39:34

– Curtains of

Exo 26:1-14; Exo 26:31-37; Exo 27:9-16; Exo 35:15; Exo 35:17; Exo 36:8-19; Exo 36:35; Exo 36:37

– Court of

Exo 27:9-17; Exo 38:9-16; Exo 38:18; Exo 40:8; Exo 40:33

Holy place of

Exo 26:31-37; Exo 40:22-26; Heb 9:2-6; Heb 9:8

The most holy place

Exo 26:33-35; Exo 40:20-21; Heb 9:3-5; Heb 9:7-8

Furniture of

– General references

Exo 25:10-40; Exo 27:1-8; Exo 27:19; Exo 37; Exo 38:1-8 Altar; Ark; Candlestick; Cherubim; Laver; Mercy-Seat; Shewbread

Completed

Exo 39:32

Dedicated

Num 7

Sanctified

Exo 29:43; Exo 40:9-16; Num 7:1

Anointed with holy oil

Exo 30:25-26; Lev 8:10; Num 7:1

Sprinkled with blood

Lev 16:15-20; Heb 9:21; Heb 9:23

Filled with the cloud of glory

Exo 40:34-38

How prepared for removal during the journeyings of the Israelites

Num 1:51; Num 4:5-15

How and by whom carried

Num 4:5-33; Num 7:6-9

Strangers forbidden to enter

Num 1:51

Duties of the Levites concerning

Levites

Defilement of, punished

Lev 15:31; Num 19:13; Num 19:20; Eze 5:11; Eze 23:38

Duties of the priests in relation to

Priest

Israelites worship at

Num 10:3; Num 16:19; Num 16:42-43; Num 20:6; Num 25:6; 1Sa 2:22; Psa 27:4

Offerings brought to

Lev 17:4; Num 31:54; Deu 12:5-6; Deu 12:11-14

Causes tried at

Deu 12:5-6; Deu 12:11-14

Tribes encamped around, while in the wilderness

Num 2

All males required to appear before, three times each year

Exo 23:17

Tabernacle tax

Exo 30:11-16

Carried in front of the children of Israel in the line of march

Num 10:33-36; Jos 3:3-6

The Lord reveals Himself at

Lev 1:1; Num 1:1; Num 7:89; Num 12:4-10; Deu 31:14-15

Pitched:

– At Gilgal

Jos 4:18-19

– At Shiloh

Jos 18:1; Jos 19:51; Jdg 18:31; Jdg 20:18; Jdg 20:26-27; Jdg 21:19; 1Sa 2:14; 1Sa 4:3-4; Jer 7:12; Jer 7:14

– At Nob

1Sa 21:1-6

– At Gibeon

1Ch 21:29

Renewed by David, and pitched on Mount Zion

1Ch 15:1; 1Ch 16:1-2; 2Ch 1:4

Solomon offers sacrifice at

2Ch 1:3-6

Brought to the temple by Solomon

2Ch 5:5; 1Ki 8:1; 1Ki 8:4-5

Symbol of spiritual things

Psa 15:1; Heb 8:2; Heb 8:5; Heb 9:1-12; Heb 9:24 Levites; Priest; Temple

Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible

Tabernacle

Tabernacle, Exo 25:9, literally means “a tent.” The sanctuary where in the earlier times the most sacred rites of the Hebrew religion were performed. The command to erect a tabernacle is recorded in Exo 25:8; and in that place, and in Exo 29:42-43; Exo 29:45, the special purpose is declared for which it was to be made. And so we find the various names of it, the “tent,” Exo 26:11-12; the “tabernacle,” dwelling or habitation, Exo 26:13; the “tent of meeting,” Exo 29:43, for so the words should be rendered; the “tent of the testimony” or “tabernacle of witness,” Num 9:15; Num 17:7; Num 18:2; the “house of the Lord,” Deu 23:18; Jos 9:23; Jdg 18:31; all these appelations pointing to the covenant-purpose of God. The command to make it began by inviting the people to contribute suitable materials. They were to be offered with a willing heart. These materials are described in Exo 25:3-7. And the tabernacle was to be built according to the pattern given of God. It was as to its general plan like an ordinary tent, which is usually divided into two compartments, the inner lighted by a lamp and closed against strangers. Such tents are longer than they are broad. And so the tabernacle was an oblong square or rectangle, 30 cubits (45 feet or perhaps 50 feet) long, ten cubits in breadth and in height. The frame-work on these sides was perpendicular boards of shittim-wood, that is, acacia, overlaid with gold, kept together by means of transverse bars passing through golden rings, and each with two tenons, fitting into silver sockets, on which they stood. There were four coverings. The first was ten curtains of byssus, or fine linen, blue, purple, and scarlet, with cherubim embroidered on them, coupled together by loops and gold hooks. The second covering was of goals’ hair in eleven curtains. The third covering was of rams’ skins dyed red, like our morocco leather; and the fourth of “badgers’ skins,” more probably a kind of seal skin. These were to protect the tabernacle from the weather. The inner apartment or most holy place was a cube of ten cubits, the outer apartment 20 cubits in length and ten in breadth. They were separated by a veil of the same kind as the innermost covering, suspended on four gilded acacia pillars reared upon silver sockets. The east end or entrance of the tabernacle had also a large curtain suspended from five gilded acacia pillars set in sockets of brass or copper.

The Furniture. In the most holy place, which the high priest alone entered, was the ark of the covenant; in the holy place, where the priests ministeredto the north the table of shew-bread, to the south the golden candlestick, in the centre the altar of incense. Round about the tabernacle was an open court into which the people were admitted, 100 cubits in length and 50 broad. It was formed by columns, 20 on each side, 10 at each end, raised on brazen or copper sockets. Hangings fastened to the pillars formed three sides and part of the fourth: on the east the breadth of four pillars was reserved for a central entrance, where was an embroidered curtain suspended from the four pillars. Immediately opposite the entrance was the great altar of burnt offering; and between that and the door of the tabernacle was the laver. Ex., chaps. 26, 27, 38, 40. There are some parts of the description of the pillars and hangings of the court which it is not easy to understand. The tabernacle was completed in about nine months: and as the people offered most liberally, Exo 36:5, it was a costly structure: the value of the materials being estimated at $1,000,000. It was erected on the first day of the first month of the second year after leaving Egypt. It was carried by the Israelites into Canaan, and there set up, possibly first at Gilgal, then, when the land was subdued, at Shiloh, Jos 18:1, and also at Bethel, perhaps afterwards at Nob, and then at Gibeon. 1Ch 16:39; 1Ch 21:29. It was removed, when the temple was built, to Jerusalem, and possibly deposited in the temple. 1Ki 8:4; 2Ch 5:5. For the regulations about its removal see Num 4:1-49. David seems to have constructed a second tabernacle to receive the ark when it was brought to Jerusalem. 2Sa 6:17; 1Ch 15:1. Doubtless the first one had perished or worn out. See Bissell, Bib. Antiq.

Fuente: People’s Dictionary of the Bible

TABERNACLE

Exo 25:8; Exo 26:1; Exo 39:32; Exo 40:34; Lev 8:10; Lev 16:16; Num 1:51; Num 2:17; Num 7:1; Jos 18:1

1Ki 8:4; 1Ch 21:29; 2Ch 1:3; 2Ch 5:5; 2Ch 24:6; Heb 9:11

Fuente: Thompson Chain-Reference Bible

Tabernacle

“a tent, booth, tabernacle,” is used of (a) tents as dwellings, Mat 17:4; Mar 9:5; Luk 9:33; Heb 11:9, AV, “tabernacles” (RV, “tents”); (b) the Mosaic tabernacle, Act 7:44; Heb 8:5; Heb 9:1 (in some mss.); Heb 9:8, Heb 9:21, termed “the tent of meeting,” RV (i.e., where the people were called to meet God), a preferable description to “the tabernacle of the congregation,” as in the AV in the OT; the outer part, Heb 9:2, Heb 9:6; the inner sanctuary, Heb 9:3; (c) the heavenly prototype, Heb 8:2; Heb 9:11; Rev 13:6; Rev 15:5; Rev 21:3 (of its future descent); (d) the eternal abodes of the saints, Luk 16:9, RV, “tabernacles” (AV, “habitations”); (e) the Temple in Jerusalem, as continuing the service of the tabernacle, Heb 13:10; (f) the house of David, i.e., metaphorically of his people, Act 15:16; (g) the portable shrine of the god Moloch, Act 7:43.

the equivalent of No. 1, is used metaphorically of the body as the “tabernacle” of the soul, 2Co 5:1, 2Co 5:4.

occurs in Act 7:46; 2Pe 1:13-14; see HABITATION, No. 6.

properly “the setting up of tents or dwellings” (No. 1, and pegnumi, “to fix”), represents the word “tabernacles” in “the feast of tabernacles,” Joh 7:2. This feast, one of the three Pilgrimage Feasts in Israel, is called “the feast of ingathering” in Exo 23:16; Exo 34:22; it took place at the end of the year, and all males were to attend at the “tabernacle” with their offerings. In Lev 23:34; Deu 16:13, Deu 16:16; Deu 31:10; 2Ch 8:13; Ezr 3:4 (cp. Neh 8:14-18), it is called “the feast of tabernacles” (or “booths,” sukkoth), and was appointed for seven days at Jerusalem from the 15th to the 22nd Tishri (approximately October), to remind the people that their fathers dwelt in these in the wilderness journeys. Cp. Num. 29:15-38, especially Num 29:35-38, for the regulations of the eighth or “last day, the great day of the feast” (Joh 7:37).

Note: For skenoo, “to spread a tabernacle over,” Rev 7:15, RV, see DWELL, No. 9.

Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words

Tabernacle

in Hebrew, , in Greek, , 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.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary

Tabernacle

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.

Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles