Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadMcClintock Biblical Encyclopedia: Tabernacle
Subjects in this Topic:
is the rendering, in the A. V., of the following Heb. and Gr. words;
1. àֹäֶì , ohel, the most frequent term, but often signifying and rendered a common “tent;”
2. îùְֹׁëָּï , 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. ñֹêְ [once ùׂêְ , Lam_2:6], suk (Psa_76:2), ñֻëָּä , 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 ñַëּåּú , sikkuth (Amo_5:26), all meaning a booth, as often rendered;
4. óêçíή , óêῆíïò (2Co_5:1; 2Co_5:4) or óêήíùìá (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 àֹäֶì îåֹòֵã , the tent of meeting, or (especially in Numbers) îַùְׁëִּï äָòֵãåּú , tabernacle of the congregation (Sept. óêçíὴ ) [1Ki_8:4; 1Ki_8:6, óêήíùìá ] ôïῦ ìáñôõñßïõ ; Philo, ἱåñὸí öïñçôüí , Opp. 2 146; Josephus, ìåôáöåñüìåíïò êáὶ óõìðåñéíïóôῶí íáüò , 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 îַùְׁëָּï , mishkan, from
ùָׁëִï , 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; àֹäֶì , 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 óêçíή for both. The original difference appears to have been that àֹäֶì 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 óêçíή only, with the exception of the var. lect. of ἡ óêçíὴ ôῆò óêåðῆò 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. áִּéַú , bayith, house ( ïéêïò , 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. ÷ֹãֶùׁ , kódesh, or îַ÷ְãָּùׁ . mikdash ( ἁãßáóìá , ἁãéáóôήñéïí , ôὸ ἃãéïí , ôὰ ἃãéá , 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. äֵéëָì , heykal, temple ( íáüò , 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
îåֹòֵã
(moed), and with
äָòֵãåּú
(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
éָòִã
is “to meet by appointment,” and the phrase
àֹäֶì îåֹòֵã
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
ἡ óêçíὴ ôïῦ ìáñôõñßïõ
, 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,
ῥ
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 (
îåֹòֵã
) where I will meet you (
àַåָּòֵã
,
ãíùóèήóïìáé
) to speak there unto thee. And there will I meet (
ðֹòִãðְúּé
,
ôÜîïìáé
) with the children of Israel. And I will sanctify (
÷ַãִּùְׁúַּé
) the tabernacle of meeting... and I will dwell (
ùָׁëִðְúַּé
) among the children of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the Lord their God” (Exo_29:42-46). The same central thought occurs in Exo_25:22, “There I will meet with thee” (comp. also 30:6, 36; Num_17:4). It is clear, therefore, that “congregation” is inadequate. Not the gathering of the worshippers, but the meeting of God with his people, to commune with them, to make himself known to them, was what the name embodied. Ewald has accordingly suggested Offenbarungszelt= tent of revelation, as the best equivalent (Alterthümer, p. 130). This made the place a sanctuary. Thus it was that the tent was the dwelling, the house of God (Bahr, Symb. 1, 81). SEE CONGREGATION.(b.) The other compound phrase, àֹäֶì äָòֵãðְú , as connected with òåּã (= to bear witness), is rightly rendered by ἡ óêçíὴ ôïῦ ìáñôõñßïõ , tabernaculum testimonii, die Wohnung des Zeugnisses, “the tent of the testimony” (Num_9:15) “the tabernacle of witness” (Num_17:7; Num_18:2). In this case the tent derives its name from that which is the center of its holiness. The two tables of stone within the ark are emphatically the testimony (Exo_25:16; Exo_25:21; Exo_31:18). They were to all Israel the abiding witness of the nature and will of God. The tent, by virtue of its relation to them, became the witness of its own significance as the meeting-place of God and man. The probable connection of the two distinct names, in sense as well as in sound (Bahr, Synb. 1, 83; Ewald, Alt. p. 230), gave, of course, a force to each which no translation can represent. SEE TESTIMONY.
II. History. —
1. We may distinguish in the Old Test. three sacred tabernacles:
(1.) The Ante-Sinaitic, which was probably the dwelling of Moses, and was placed by the camp of the Israelites in the desert, for the transaction of public business. Exo_33:7-10, “Moses took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the Congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought the Lord went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp. And it came to pass, when Moses went out unto the tabernacle, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent- door, and looked after Moses until he was gone into the tabernacle. And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and the Lord talked with Moses. And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand at the tabernacle-door: and all the people rose up and worshipped, every one in his tent-door.” This was neither the sanctuary of the tabernacle described in ch. 25 sq., which was not made till after the perfect restoration of the covenant (ch. 35 sq.), nor another sanctuary that had come down from their forefathers and was used before the tabernacle proper was built (as Le Clerc, J. D. Michaelis, and Rosenmüller supposed); but an ordinary tent used for the occasion and purpose (Keil, Comment. ad loc.).
(2.) The Sinaitic tabernacle superseded the tent which had served for the transaction of public business probably from the beginning of the Exode. This was constructed by Bezaleel and Aholiab as a portable mansion- house, guildhall, and cathedral, and set up on the first day of the first month in the second year after leaving Egypt. Of this alone we have accurate descriptions. It was the second of these sacred tents, which, as the most important, is called the tabernacle par excellence. Moses was commanded by Jehovah to have it erected in the Arabian desert, by voluntary contributions of the Israelites, who carried it about with them in their migrations until after the conquest of Canaan, when it remained stationary for longer periods in various towns of Palestine (as below).
(3.) The Davidic tabernacle was erected by David, in Jerusalem, for the reception of the ark (2Sa_6:12); while the old tabernacle remained to the days of Solomon at Gibeon, together with the brazen altar, as the place where sacrifices were offered (1Ch_16:39; 2Ch_1:3).
2. Varied Fortunes of the Sinaitic Tabernacle.
(1.) In the Wilderness. —The outward history of the tabernacle begins with Exodus 25. It comes after the first great group of laws (ch. 19-23), after the covenant with the people, after the vision of the divine glory (ch. 24). For forty days and nights Moses is in the mount. Before him there lay a problem, as measured by human judgment, of gigantic difficulty. In what fit symbols was he to embody the great truths without which the nation would sink into brutality? In what way could those symbols be guarded against the evil which he had seen in Egypt, of idolatry the most degrading? He was not left to solve the problem for himself. There rose before him, not without points of contact with previous associations, yet in no degree formed out of them, the “pattern” of the tabernacle. The lower analogies of the painter and the architect seeing, with their inward eye, their completed work before the work itself begins, may help us to understand how it was that the vision on the mount included all details of form, measurement, materials, the order of the ritual, the apparel of the priests. lie is directed in his choice of the two chief artists, Bezaleel of the tribe of Judah, Aholiab of the tribe of Daniel (Exodus 31). The sin, of the golden calf apparently postpones the execution. For a moment it seems as if the people were to be left without the Divine Presence itself without any recognized symbol of it (Exo_33:3). As in a transition period, the whole future depending on the patience of the people, on the intercession of their leader, a tent is pitched (probably that of Moses himself, which had hitherto been the headquarters of consultation), outside the camp, to be provisionally the tabernacle of meeting. There the mind of the lawgiver enters into ever-closer fellowship with the mind of God (Exo_33:11), learns to think of him as “merciful and gracious” (Exo_34:6); in the strength of that thought is led back to the fulfillment of the plan which had seemed likely to end, as it began, in vision. Of this provisional tabernacle it has to be noticed that there was as yet no ritual and no priesthood. The people went out to it as to an oracle (Exo_33:7). Joshua, though of the tribe of Ephraim, had free access to it (Exo_33:11).
Another outline law was, however, given; another period of solitude, like the first; followed. The work could now be resumed. The people offered the necessary materials in excess of what was wanted (Exo_36:5-6). Other workmen (Exo_36:2) and workwomen (Exo_35:25) placed themselves under the direction of Bezaleel and Aholiab. The parts were completed separately, and then, on the first day of the second year from the Exode, the tabernacle itself was erected and the ritual appointed for it begun (Exo_40:2).
The position of the new tent was itself significant. It stood, not, like the provisional tabernacle, at a distance from the camp, but in its very center. The multitude of Israel, hitherto scattered with no fixed order, were now, within a month of its erection (Num_2:2), grouped round it, as around the dwelling of the unseen Captain of the Host, in a fixed order, according to their tribal rank. The priests on the east, the other three families of the Levites on the other sides, were closest in attendance, the “body-guard” of the Great King. SEE LEVITE. In the wider square, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, were on the east; Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin, on the west; the less conspicuous tribes, Dan, Asher, Naphtali, on the north; Reuben, Simeon, Gad, on the south side. When the army put itself in order of march, the position of the tabernacle, carried by the Levites, was still central, the tribes of the east and south in front, those of the north and west in the rear (ch. 2). Upon it there rested the symbolic cloud, dark by day and fiery-red by night (Exo_40:38). When the cloud removed, the host knew that it was the signal for them to go forward (Exo_40:36-37; Num_9:17). As long as it remained — whether for a day, or month, or year they continued where they were (Exo_40:15-23). Each march, it must be remembered, involved the breaking up of the whole structure, all the parts being carried on wagons by the three Levitical families of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari, while the “sons of Aaron” prepared for the removal by covering everything in the Holy of Holies with a purple cloth (Exo_4:6-15). SEE ENCAMPMENT.
In all special facts connected with the tabernacle, the original thought reappears. It is the place where man meets with God. There the Spirit “comes upon” the seventy elders, and they prophesy (Num_11:24-25). Thither Aaron and Miriam are called out when they rebel against the servant of the Lord (Num_12:4). There the “glory of the Lord” appears after the unfaithfulness of the twelve spies (Num_14:10) and the rebellion of Korah and his company (Num_16:19; Num_16:42) and the sin of Meribah (Num_20:6). Thither, when there is no sin to punish, but a difficulty to be met, do the daughters of Zelophe had come to bring their cause “before the Lord” (Num_27:2). There, when the death of Moses draws near, is the solemn “charge” given to his successor (Deu_31:14).
(2.) In Palestine. — As long as Canaan remained unconquered and the people were still therefore an army, the tabernacle was probably moved from place to place, wherever the host of Israel was for the time encampedat Gilgal (Jos_4:19), in the valley between Ebal and Gerizim (Jos_8:30-35), again, at the headquarters of Gilgaal (Jos_9:6; Jos_10:15; Jos_10:43); and, finally, as at “the place which the Lord had chosen,” at Shiloh (Jos_9:27; Jos_18:1). The reasons of this last choice are not given. Partly, perhaps, its central position, partly its belonging to the powerful tribe of Ephraim, the tribe of the great captain of the host, may have determined the preference. There it continued during the whole period of the judges, the gathering-point for “the heads of the fathers” of the tribes (Jos_19:51), for councils of peace or war (Jos_22:12; Jdg_21:12), for annual solemn dances, in which the women of Shiloh were conspicuous (Jdg_21:21). There, too, as the religion of Israel sank towards the level of an orgiastic heathenism, troops of women assembled, shameless as those of Midian, worshippers of Jehovah, and, like the ἱåñüäïõëïé 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 ( îַùְׁëָּï ) 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 ( ìåּì ) 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 ( îִ÷ְáַּìåֹú )
6. the one to its fellow. And thou shalt make fifty taches I ( ÷ֵøֶñ ) 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 ( àֹäֶì ) 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 ( ÷ֶøֶùׁ ) for the tabernacle, trees [wood] of acacias ( ùַׁèַéí ), 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 ( îְùְׁìָּáåֹú , 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 ( àֶãֶï ) 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 seaward23. [west] thou shalt make six planks. And two planks shalt thou make for (the) angles ( îַ÷ְöåֹò , cutting off)
24. of the tabernacle in the thighs [rear]: and (they) shall be twinned ( úֹּàֲîַéí , 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 ( áְּøַéçִ ) 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 (
îִáְøַéçִ
, 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 ( çָöֵø ) was a large rectangular enclosure, open to the sky, and with its entrance at the east end. Its dimensions are given more than once, being 100 cubits long and 50' broad. Its construction was very simple, being composed of a frame of four sides of distinct pillars, with curtains hung upon them. In other words, it was surrounded by canvas screens-in the East called kannats, and still universally used to enclose the private apartments of important personages. The pillars were probably of shittim- wood (that is, the desert acacia), a light, close-grained, imperishable wood, easily taking on a fine natural polish, though it is nowhere directly intimated of what material they were; they were five cubits in height (sufficient to prevent a person from looking over them into the enclosure), but their other dimensions are not given, so that we cannot be sure whether they were round (Ewald) or four-cornered (Bähr), probably the latter. At the bottom these pillars were protected or shod by sockets of brass (copper). It is not quite easy to say whether these sockets were merely for protection, and perhaps ornament, or if they also helped to give stability to the pillar. In the latter case, we may conceive the socket to have been of the shape of a hollow wedge or pointed funnel driven into the ground, and then the end of the pillar pushed down into its cavity; or they may have been simply plate laid on the ground, with a hole for the reception of the tenoned foot of the pillar, as in the case of the “boards” noticed below.
Other appliances were used to give the structure firmness, viz. the common articles of tent architecture, ropes and pins (Exo_35:18). At the top these pillars had a capital or head (Exo_38:17, chapter), which was overlaid with silver; but whether the body of the pillar was plated with any metal is not said. Connected with the head of the pillar were two other articles, hooks, and things called çֲùֻׁ÷ַéí , chashukim, rendered “fillets,” i.e. ornamental chaplets in relief round the pillar (so Ewald, Alterthümer, p. 335, note 5), but most probably meaning rods (so Gesenius, Fürst, and others), joining one pillar to another. These rods were laid upon the hooks, and served to attach the hangings to and suspend them from. The hooks and rods were silver, though Knobel conjectures the latter must have been merely plated (Exodus p. 278). The mode of adjusting these hangings was similar to that of the doorway screens and “vail” described below. The circumference of the enclosure thus formed was 300 cubits, and the number of pillars is said to have been 20 + 20 + 10 + 10 = 60, which would give between every two pillars a space of 3-0 =5 cubits. There has been considerable difficulty in accurately conceiving the method adopted by the writer in calculating these pillars. This difficulty arises from the corner pillars, each of which, of course, belongs both to the side and to the end. It has been supposed by many, that the author calculated each one corner pillar twice; that is, considered it, though one in itself, as a pillar of the side and also as a pillar of the end. This would make in all 56 actual pillars, and, of course, as many spaces (Biahr, Knobel, etc.); that is, nineteen spaces on each side, and nine on the end. Now since the side was 100 cubits and the end 50, this would give for each side space 10'=5 and for each end space 54=5 cubits, spaces artificial in themselves and unlike each other. It is certainly most probable that the spaces of side and end were of exactly the same size, and that each of them was some exact, and no fractional, number of cubits. The difficulty may be completely removed by assuming the distance of 5 cubits to each space, and counting as in the accompanying ground-plan. Thus, since each side was 100 cubits, this needs twenty spaces. But twenty spaces need twenty-one pillars.
So that, supposing us to start from the south-east corner and go along the south side, we should have for 100 cubits twenty-one pillars and twenty spaces; but of these we should count twenty spaces and pillars for the south side, and call the south-west corner pillar, not the twenty-first pillar of the side, but the first of the end. Then going up the end, we should count ten pillars and spaces as end, but consider the north-west corner pillar not as eleventh of the end, but first of the north side; and so on. In this way we gain sixty pillars and as many spaces, and have each space exactly 5 cubits. The hangings- ( ÷ַìָòַéí , 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 îָñָêְ , masak) of “blue, purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, work of the øåֹ÷ֵ , 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 ( ÷ְøָùַׁéí , 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” ( éָãåֹú , 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, îַùֻׁìָּáåֹú , 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. ( ἀíôéðßðôïíôåò ) 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 ( îִáְøַéçִ , ìַáְøֹçִ ) 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” ( úֹּàֲîַí , 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 ( úִּîַּéí , 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 ( áְּúåֹêְ ): 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” ( éַøַéòåú ), 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” ( çַáֵּø ), 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, åְëָôִìְúָּ àֶìàּîåּì ôְּðֵé äָàֹäֶì ), 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” ( ìֻìָàֹú , luslsth) of unspecified (probably the same strong) material, and as many taches ( ÷ְøָñַéí , 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, àֹäֶì àֶçָã , 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
àַùָּׁä àֶìàּàֲçֹúָäּ , one to the other, exo Exo_26:3; different from ìְáָã , 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, àֶäָã îַùְׁëָּï , 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, îַìְîִòְìָä , 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, b