1:
TABERNACLE [Heb miškān (מִשְׁכָּן)]. The Israelite tent sanctuary frequently referred to in the Hebrew Bible. It is also known as the tent of meeting (Heb ˒ōhel mô˓ēd) and, occasionally, as the Tabernacle (or tent) of testimony (miškan ha˓ēdût). It is the central place of worship, the shrine that houses the ark of the covenant, and frequently it is the location of revelation. It is presented in biblical narrative as the visible sign of Yahweh’s presence among the people of Israel. More verses of the Pentateuch are devoted to it than to any other object. It contains the ark, an incense altar, a table, a seven-light candelabra, an eternal light, Aaron’s staff that miraculously blossomed (Num 17:23–26), the vessels that are used by the priests, possibly a container of manna (Exod 16: 33–34), and a scroll written by Moses (sēper hattôrâ).
———
A. In Biblical Narrative
B. Historicity
1. Archeology and the Biblical Sources
2. Architecture
3. The Tabernacle and the Temple
C. The Tabernacle and the Sources
———
A. In Biblical Narrative
The Tabernacle’s history, as recounted in the biblical text, covers between six and seven centuries. The construction of the Tabernacle is commanded in a revelation to Moses at Mt. Sinai (Exodus 26). The materials are then donated by the people, the component structures and fabrics are fashioned (Exodus 36), and the Tabernacle is erected and consecrated (Exodus 40). In an apparent contradiction or confusion of sequence, it is reported that the Tabernacle is moved outside the camp in the wake of the golden calf episode (Exod 33:7–8), but this relocation comes before the report of the Tabernacle’s actually being built (see below). In any case, once the Tabernacle is completed, it becomes the place of communication between the deity and Moses for the remainder of Moses’ life. The law requires that all sacrifice and the execution of several other practices must take place at its entrance (Lev 1:3, 5; 3:2, 8, 13; 4:5–7, 14–18; etc.).
During the journey from Mt. Sinai to the promised land, the Tabernacle is disassembled and transported whenever the people travel, and it is erected again whenever they stop to camp. Joshua stands guard inside it. Major events occur in it or in its precincts: the inauguration of the priesthood (Leviticus 8–9), the deaths of Aaron’s sons Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10), the reprimand of Aaron and Miriam concerning Moses’ Cushite wife (Numbers 12), the divine decision that the generation of the Exodus is to die in the wake of the spies episode (Num 14:10–35), the confrontation in the Korah episode (Num 16:18–19), the plague in the wake of the Korah episode (16:6–15), the miraculous flowering of Aaron’s staff (16:16–25), the divine command in the Meribah episode (20:6–8), the sexual offense and Phinehas’ zealous act at Peor (25:6–8), the transfer of leadership from Moses to Joshua (Deut 31:14–23), and, at the conclusion of the Pentateuch, the placement of the scroll of the tôrâ there beside the ark (31:24–26).
Following the arrival in the land and the conquest under Joshua, the Tabernacle is erected at SHILOH (Josh 18:1; 19:51). It is recognized as the only permissible place of sacrifice (22:19, 29). Shiloh and the Tabernacle then retain the status of being Israel’s religious center through the age of Eli and Samuel (1 Sam 2:22). In the course of a defeat of the Israelites by the Philistines, the ark is separated from the Tabernacle; the ark is located at the house of Abinadab at Gibeah (7:1) while the Tabernacle remains at Shiloh. Following the destruction of Shiloh (not reported in the narrative books but referred to in Jer 7:12, 14; 26: 6, 9), the fate of the Tabernacle is partly unclear. According to the book of Chronicles, the Tabernacle somehow comes to be located at the high place of Gibeon. When King David brings the ark to Jerusalem he houses it in a new tent (1 Chr 16:1 = 2 Sam 6:17), but he still sends the chief priest Zadok and his retinue to Gibeon to perform the nation’s sacrifices (as commanded in Leviticus 17) at the Tabernacle (1 Chr 16:39–40; cf. 21:29). The Chronicler’s account of David’s sacrifice at the threshingfloor of Ornan explains that David performs the sacrifice at this location only because he is unable to get to the Tabernacle at Gibeon at the time (21:28–30). The Chronicler’s history also reports that this division of locations is the case at the beginning of King Solomon’s reign, stating that the ark is in Jerusalem in David’s tent but that Solomon and the people go to sacrifice at the Tabernacle at Gibeon (2 Chr 1:3–6). The books of Samuel and Kings are silent as to the location of the Tabernacle at this point. They give a report that Adonijah is killed at the “tent of Yahweh” (1 Kgs 2:28–30), but it is not clear whether this means the Tabernacle or the tent of David. However, both Chronicles and Kings report that when Solomon dedicated the Jerusalem Temple, he not only brought the ark to the Temple but also the tent of meeting as well (2 Chr 5:5 = 1 Kgs 8:4).
In the book of Kings, the Tabernacle is never mentioned again after this. The book of Chronicles, though, consistently pictures the Tabernacle as located somewhere inside Solomon’s Temple. The Chronicler reports that David appoints Levites who serve at “the Tabernacle of the tent of meeting” until Solomon builds the Temple (1 Chr 6:16–17, MT). There follows a list of these persons whom David appoints, and the list concludes with the notation that “their brothers the Levites were appointed to all the service of the Tabernacle of the house of God”(miškān bêt ha˒ĕlōhı̂m; 16:33, MT). The Levites’ appointment to keep the charge of the tent of meeting is again explicitly identified as part of the service of the house of Yahweh (1 Chr 23:32). Later, in the Chronicler’s report of King Joash’s efforts to repair the Temple, Joash demands of the priests that they acquire funds for the support of “the tent of the testimony (˒ōhel ha˓ēdût, 2 Chr 24:6). Likewise in the Chronicler’s account of King Hezekiah’s repairs and renewal of worship at the Temple (2 Chr 29: 5–7), Hezekiah speaks of the Tabernacle as present in the Temple:
Now sanctify yourselves and sanctify the house of Yahweh, God of your fathers, and take the impurity out of the holy place, for our fathers trespassed and did what was bad in the eyes of Yahweh our God, and they left him, and they turned their faces from Yahweh’s Tabernacle and turned their backs. They also closed the doors of the hall and put out the lights and did not burn incense and did not offer burnt offerings in the holy place (qodeš) of the God of Israel.
The reference to the Tabernacle (miškān) in this verse is frequently taken as figurative or as meaning God’s “habitation” generally, but all of the other items mentioned in the passage (the house, the holy place, the hall, lights, incense, and offerings) are concrete and literal. The context therefore indicates that this account is part and parcel of the Chronicler’s record of the Tabernacle’s presence in the Temple in Jerusalem. The references to the Tabernacle in Chronicles end here at the account of the reign of Hezekiah, and none of the narrative books of the Hebrew Bible gives any indication of the fate of the Tabernacle beyond this point. However, a Psalm (74:7) speaks of the Tabernacle as having been destroyed along with the burning of the Temple: “They cast your Temple into the fire,/ To the ground they profaned your name’s Tabernacle.”
The book of Lamentations (2:6–7) also speaks of the destruction of the Tabernacle along with the Temple:
And he has dealt violently with his pavilion as with a garden,
He has destroyed his [tent of] meeting.
Yahweh has caused holiday and sabbath to be forgotten in Zion,
And he has spurned in his angry indignation king and priest.
The Lord has cast off his altar,
He has abhorred his Temple.
He has closed up the walls of her palaces in the enemy’s hand,
They have made a noise in Yahweh’s house as on a holiday.
The reference to a pavilion (sukkâ) in the first line is consistent with other references to a sukkâ as a structure in the interior of the Tabernacle (see below). The parallel line refers to “his meeting” (mō˓ădô), which has regularly been taken to mean “his tent of meeting” (˒ōhel mō˓ădô), as the context, the parallel with the “pavilion,” and the use of mô˓ēd in the sense of “holiday” in the following line all indicate. The context also indicates that the references to the tent are not to be taken as figurative here, for the other items in this poetic reckoning of things that are lost with the Temple are all actual objects, institutions, and persons: altar, walls, holiday, sabbath, king, priest. The books that recount the postexilic period do not refer to the Tabernacle or indicate any attempt to replace it actually or symbolically in the Second Temple. Like the ark, it ceases to play any part in the religious life of the community.
The Hebrew Bible thus presents a picture of the Tabernacle’s place in history from its construction in the wilderness to its erection at Shiloh and then at Gibeon to its placement inside the First Temple until its destruction in the burning of the Temple ca. 587 b.c.
B. Historicity
1. Archeology and the Biblical Sources. A central component of the Graf-Wellhausen model of the history of ancient Israel was the view that the Tabernacle never really existed, that it was a pious fraud conceived by the authors of the priestly (P) sections of the five books of Moses to represent the Second Temple. Evidence collected by scholars since the beginning of the 20th century, however, has undermined the view that the Tabernacle was a fiction. Parallel institutions of tent shrines in the Semitic world from ancient Phoenician to modern Islamic examples have been described (see Cross 1961: 217–19, and references; CMHE, 72). Most notable among the parallels probably is the pre-Islamic qubbah, a small, portable red-leather tent. The biblical tent of meeting, too, is protected by a red-leather covering (Exod 26:14). It has been claimed that the Tabernacle as described in the Torah is too massive to be portable as required. Admittedly, the Tabernacle is set on silver bases that would be quite heavy, but historically the bases may have been permanent mounts that were added precisely when the Tabernacle ceased to be portable. The Pentateuchal text, in that case, would subsequently have included them because, by the time of the composition of this text, they would have been in place for a long time. The actual mass of the Tabernacle itself, meanwhile, is unknowable since it is made of wooden frames, and only the frames’ length and width are given in the biblical text, but not their thickness. The thickness has occasionally been assumed to be one cubit (18 inches), which would indeed produce a massively heavy structure, but this is a groundless assumption in the absence of any report in the text. Indeed, this view assumes a frame that is many times the thickness of the siding of a house. The frames were formerly assumed to be solid boards, but the language of the text itself and especially the use of the term qerasîm for these boards (with parallels in the dwelling of El in an Ugaritic text) suggest rather that they were formed like a trellis (Cross 1961: 220).
Furthermore, the elaborate details of the fabrics, wood, and precious metals of the Tabernacle do not have the appearance of sheer fiction. Embedded in the priestly (P) Pentateuchal narrative, the description of the Tabernacle’s materials looks like the other documents that are embedded in the P narrative, for example the book of generations (tôlĕdōt) that is now cut and distributed through Genesis, the list of stations of Israel’s journey (Numbers 33), and the Israelite census list (Numbers 1–2). These lists appear to be older documents that were used to add detailed facts to the narrative, and the Tabernacle text is of the same character. There is no need or justification for going into these details of fabrics, rings, rods, poles, embroidery, and silver bases in a work of pure fiction; and indeed there is no comparably detailed description of anything in the priestly work (cf., for example, the description of Noah’s ark in Gen 6:14–16).
Cross (1961) and Haran (1965) have sought to identify the referent of the priestly description of the Tabernacle. Cross has argued that it is the tent that David erected. The description of that tent has now been made part of the priestly work and called the Tabernacle of Moses. Haran has argued that it is the Tabernacle of Shiloh, which the priestly writers believed to have been carried there from Sinai. Haran takes the elaborate detail and precious components of the description to be priestly embellishments in picturing the ancient tent structure. If we regard these details as unlikely to be fictional, as suggested above, then Cross’ view is more likely. If we doubt that the details have any veracity, then either view seems possible (see below).
Two textual considerations figure in this matter of historicity. The first concerns the passages that picture the place of worship at Shiloh as a tent. The structure is called a house (byt) in Judg 18:31; 1 Sam 1:24 and a temple (hykl) in 1 Sam 1:9; 3:3. It is called the tent of meeting in 1 Sam 2:22b, but this half verse has been regarded with suspicion because (1) its language is so similar to the priestly (P) passage Exod 38:8, yet it is embedded in a context that otherwise is not priestly, and (2) it does not appear in the Greek or 4QSam a. Still, the half verse may possibly be native to its text and not a “gloss”; and, in any case, Ps 78:60 agrees with its identification of the Shiloh structure as a tent: “And he forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh,/ The tent that he placed among humans.” A. R. S. Kennedy (HDB 4: 654) dismissed this explicit reference to the Shiloh Tabernacle in the Psalm as “of too uncertain a date to be placed against the testimony of the earlier historian”; but Eissfeldt, Albright, and Cross have dated the Psalm as certainly preexilic and possibly as early as the united monarchy (CMHE 73n., 134, 242–43). That is, it is no less reliable than the prose source in the book of Samuel that refers to the structure as a house or temple. The Psalm, the reference in 1 Sam 2:22, and the P source in Josh 18:1; 19:51 all speak of a tent at Shiloh. The question is how to adjudicate between these passages and those that speak of the Shiloh sanctuary as a building (see below).
The second textual consideration concerns the depiction of the Tabernacle in the book of Chronicles as located in the Temple of Solomon. This depiction has been doubted on the grounds that (1) Chronicles is a late source and (2) Chronicles simply follows the P conception of the Tabernacle. The claim that the Chronicler is simply following P on this point is questionable. The law according to P declares repeatedly that sacrifice and various other practices can be performed nowhere on earth but at the Tabernacle (see citations above) and that this is the law forever. Since the Chronicler wrote in the period of the Second Temple, which did not contain the Tabernacle, the Chronicler would hardly be expected to go out of his way to develop this P perspective. Moreover, there is evidence that the references to the Tabernacle in the books of Chronicles were not the Chronicler’s insertions but rather were part of the Chronicler’s preexilic source. Halpern (1981) has assembled evidence that the Chronicler made use of a source text that recounted the history of the Judean monarchy down to the time of Hezekiah. A substantial number of terms, phrases, and concerns in the Chronicler’s history run consistently through the accounts of the kings of Judah down to the reign of Hezekiah, and they cease thereafter. In addition to the many items that Halpern lists, we must add the matter of the Tabernacle, which, as we have seen, is treated frequently and with importance down to the time of Hezekiah and then is not mentioned thereafter.
In sum, there is reason to believe that the Tabernacle was historical, and the biblical depiction of it as located in the Solomonic Temple cannot simply be dismissed as late and tendentious.
2. Architecture. The architecture of the Tabernacle is both interesting in itself and significant for the light it sheds on the history of the Tabernacle. The architecture has presented a classic problem in amateur and professional biblical scholarship for centuries. The biblical account of the command to build the Tabernacle includes descriptions of the components of the structure but no directions as to how to put them together. The assembly of the tent must therefore be derived from the character and dimensions of the components.
The Tabernacle is a series of enclosures, with diminishing sanctity as one progresses from its interior through the various layers to the outside:
a. The pārōket. Inside is a small pavilion that contains the ark. This pavilion is composed of four columns with a fabric canopy spread over them. The pavilion is called the pārōket. It has generally been taken to be a veil hanging vertically in front of the ark, but the text says quite explicitly that one is to cover over the ark with it. The divine instruction to Moses at the time of the erection of the Tabernacle is, “And you shall make the pārōket cover over the ark” (wesakkōtā ˓al hā˒ārōn; Exod 40:3). It is called the pārōket hammāsāk (40:21; Num 4:5). There is a reference to the sukkâ in the passage from Lamentations quoted above and in a passage picturing the deity’s tent in Ps 27:5. The LXX uses the term katapetasma, meaning something that one stretches, a covering; its verbal form means to spread over, to cover with fabric. The term pārōket came to mean a veil by the rabbinic period, and so apparently the Tabernacle pārōket was assumed from that time to the present to have been a veil hanging as a partition in the interior of the Tabernacle. This assumption already led to some confusion in rabbinic times. A Talmudic passage (b. Sukk. 76) dealing with Exod 40:3 states: “And you shall make the pārōket cover over the ark.” The pārōket was a partition, yet the Scriptures call it a covering (skkh). Consequently, a partition is meant in the sense of a covering. And the rabbis (explain it thus): It means that it is bent a little (at the top) so that it looks like a covering.” (See also b. Soṭa 37a; b. Menah. 62a, 98a; since the verse in Exodus explicitly says to make the pārōket “cover over” [Heb ˓al] the ark, the Gemara concludes that in this case the word ˓al means “near to.”) This confusion and these strained explanations of words that made no sense with reference to a veil underscore the difficulty of this view of the pārōket. It is rather a sukkâ that is pictured in Exodus as the innermost enclosure. This inner pavilion is made of the finest fabric: linen embroidered with cherubs, with blue, purple, and scarlet; and the columns over which this fabric is spread are made of acacia (šittîm) wood (Exod 26:31–32). See also VEIL; SCREEN.
b. The miškan. The pārōket is set up inside a second enclosure, called the Tabernacle, Heb miškān. (The biblical narrative uses the term miškān both for this second enclosure and for the entire Tabernacle.) The structure of this miškān in particular must be deduced from the information given about its components. The miškān is a great cloth composed of sheets of material (yĕrı̂˓ôt, generally translated as “curtains”). The curtains that make up the miškān are made of the same fabric with the same embroidery as the pārōket. The miškān is constructed by arranging wooden frames (qĕrāšı̂m) as a rectangular box and then spreading the curtains over them.
(1) The Frames. The frames are made of acacia wood. Each frame is a trellis, with two vertical “arms,” joined to one another (Exod 26:17). See Fig. TAB.01(a). See also TENONS. There are 48 frames: 20 for each of the 2 sides of the miškān, 6 for the rear wall, plus 2 that are somehow arranged at the rear presumably for support at the corners. The frames are 10 cubits tall and 1.5 cubits wide. Metal rings are attached to the frames, and long rods (five on each side) are slid through the rings to hold the framework together. See also RING. The text does not say whether the frames are to be set up flush alongside one another (Fig. TAB.01(b)) or whether they are to overlap one another (Fig. TAB.01(c)).
The most common view in scholarly depictions of the miškān has been to assume that the frames stand flush against one another. Since the frames are 1.5 cubits wide, the framework has thus been understood to be 30 cubits long by 10 cubits wide. In favor of this reckoning it has been observed that the Temple of Solomon is reported in 1 Kings 6 to have been 60 cubits long by 20 cubits wide: the Tabernacle is thus seen as a 1:2 scale model of the Temple. A problem with this comparison is that the six frames of 1.5 cubits width each in the back of the Tabernacle add up to only 9 cubits, not 10. The two special corner frames may make up the difference, or perhaps it is made up by the thickness of the side frames. The fact remains, though, that the 10-cubit width was not determined by what the dimensions in the text require; it was simply a guess that was proposed precisely to make the Tabernacle dimensions analogous to those of the Temple. The 1:2 analogy of the Tabernacle to the Temple is questionable in any case because the Temple’s height is 30 cubits while that of the Tabernacle is only 10 (1:3).
A second question with regard to this flush arrangement concerns the 1.5 cubit width of the frames. Why the unusual size rather than a 1.0- or 2.0-cubit width? In the case of the overlapping arrangement of the frames the extra half cubit would be for the overlap. In that case, the 20 frames of each of the miškān’s sides would mean a wall of 20 cubits. The rear wall, of 6 frames, would be 6–8 cubits wide depending on the arrangement of the corner frames and the thickness of the frames. The description of the rings and rods that connect the frames seems to fit better with this overlapping arrangement; the middle rod is said to reach from one end of the wall to the other “in the midst of” (Heb btwk) the frames.
(2) The Fabric. The measurements of the cloth miskan that is to be spread over the frames are given, and this information further helps to choose between these alternative arrangements of the frames. The miškān is composed of ten curtains, each of which is 4 × 28 cubits. Five of the curtains are sewn together into one large piece that is 20 × 28 cubits, as are the other five, resulting in two larger pieces of fabric, each 20 × 28 cubits. Loops are then sewn into the 28-cubit side of each, and the two larger pieces of fabric are then connected to each other by putting gold rings through the loops, yielding a double cloth that, if stretched flat, would measure 40 × 28 cubits. See Fig. TAB.02(a). See also LOOPS; TWINED LINEN. This double cloth is then spread over the standing frames. On the view that the frames are standing flush, forming a rectangular box that is 30 cubits long, 10 cubits wide, and 10 cubits high, the double cloth would be spread full length from the opening. The cloth is 40 cubits long altogether, and so it covers the 30-cubit length of the frames, and its remaining 10 cubits fall as a flap to cover the back frames. The length of the cloth thus matches the structure satisfactorily; the width of 28 cubits, however, does not match. The frames are 10 cubits high on each side, and it is another 10 cubits across the top. That requires that the miškān be 30 cubits wide altogether; but, since it is only 28 the cloth is a full cubit above the base on each side. Those who hold this view of the Tabernacle suggest that the shortfall may be to protect the precious cloth from touching the ground; but if this were the case the rear flap of the cloth should be one cubit shorter as well, but it goes all the way to the base. Also, a gap of an entire cubit (about 18 inches) between the end of the fabric and the base seems excessive and awkward looking in any case.
Another problem with this view of the design is that it leaves precious gold rings virtually invisible, for in this view the frames stand between the rings and the interior of the Tabernacle so that one who is inside cannot see them. They cannot be seen from the outside either because the entire structure is wrapped in a red-leather cover. That leaves them unseen. In this view, their purpose is to divide the Tabernacle into two parts, the “holy place” and the “holiest place” (or “holy of holies”). The text says that the pārōket is to be hung “under the rings” (Exod 26:33), and so in this view the pārōket is pictured as a veil hanging directly below the rings. This is attractive to the extent that it makes the “holy of holies” a perfect cube, 10 cubits long, wide, and high. (The “holy of holies” in Solomon’s Temple is a 20-cubit cube.) As we have seen, however, the pārōket is more probably a canopy, not a veil; and so it does not make sense to speak of it as standing under a single line of rings.
In the case of the overlapping arrangement of the frames, the two pieces of fabric that make up the miškān would not be laid side by side but rather on top of one another as a double layer of the fabric. The rings would thus all be at one end. The measurements of this cloth would be 20 × 28 cubits. The frames would be 20 cubits long, 6–8 cubits wide, and 10 cubits high. The cloth of the miškān would fit this perfectly. Its 20-cubit width would match the 20-cubit length of the framework. Its 28-cubit length would go up the 10-cubit high side, across an 8-cubit width, and down the other 10-cubit high side. The rings would form a pattern of gold around the entrance. See Fig. TAB.02(b).
The question may be raised against this view that the instruction that the pārōket be placed “under the rings” makes little sense if the rings are encircling the entrance. The problem, however, appears to be a textual one. The LXX of this verse does not say “under the rings” but rather “under the frames.” The Heb term for “frames,” as mentioned above, is qĕrāšı̂m. The Heb term for “rings” is qĕrāsı̂m. The Greek translator is reading the former, while the MT gives the latter. In the light of the clumsiness of the MT text for either of the two views of the miškān, and the obvious vulnerability of these two terms to scribal confusion, the LXX is preferable. The command to place the pārōket “under the frames” would then mean that the pārōket must be lower than the height of the frames.
c. The ˒ōhel. The miškān is covered by a third enclosure, called the “tent” (Heb ˒ōhel). It is made of a less-valuable fabric, goat wool, and it is not dyed or embroidered. Like the miškān, it is made of two pieces of fabric joined together by loops and rings, but its rings are of brass instead of gold. Its measurements shed further light on the construction of the Tabernacle. Instead of having a 28-cubit width, it has 30. In the flush arrangement of the frames, this leaves a cubit of this less-attractive fabric showing on each side (but not on the back) of the structure, which, again, seems questionable. In the overlapping arrangement of the frames, however, the extra cubit would be spread back along the edges of the miškān on both sides to cover it and thus protect the finer fabric from touching the ground. This is stated explicitly in Exod 26:13: “And the cubit on one side and the cubit on the other side, of the extra in the length of the curtains of the ˒ōhel, shall be spread on the sides of the miškān on the one side and on the other side to cover it.” This favors the overlapping arrangement of the frames. It is difficult to reconcile it with the flush arrangement. There is one more aspect of the ˒ohel that further confirms the overlapping arrangement of the frames. Instead of being made of two groups of five curtains like the miškān, the ˒ōhel rather has one group of five and one of six curtains. The sixth curtain, which like the others is 4 cubits wide and 30 cubits long, falls along the rear wall of the frames. When folded double, each half of it is spread back to cover 4 cubits of the rear wall. See Fig. TAB.02(c). This, too, matches and confirms the 8-cubit width of the overlapping arrangement of the frames. It does not fit the 10-cubit width of the flush arrangement. Those who have held this view of the Tabernacle, i.e. the flush arrangement, have understood the sixth curtain to be folded back around the entrance of the structure, i.e. as a flap folded back along the roof and sides of the front, rather than on the rear wall. The text says, “And you shall double the sixth curtain opposite the front of the tent (˒el mûl pĕnê hā˒ōhel)” (Exod 26:9b). The words “opposite the front” do not easily fit with this understanding. The location that is “opposite the front” is the rear; and the verse that refers to the spreading back of the half curtain (v 12) says explicitly, “The half of the extra curtain shall be spread on the rear of the miškān.” Again, it is the overlapping arrangement that conforms to the description of the materials in Exodus 26.
d. The Outer Enclosures. The ˒ōhel is covered by two more enclosures: the covering of ram leather dyed red and a covering of tĕḥāšı̂m skins. The meaning of tĕḥāšı̂m is uncertain. It has been translated as “badger” or “dolphin” among other things. It has been connected to an Assyrian word meaning “sheepskin” and an Egyptian word meaning “to stretch or treat leather” see Cross 1961: 220.) The entire structure with all its layers is then surrounded by one more enclosure, a great open court.
3. The Tabernacle and the Temple. The matter of the dimensions of the Tabernacle has implications for the recovery of its history. The view of the flush arrangement of the frames resulted in a Tabernacle that was analogous to the dimensions of the Temple of Solomon. This has been judged here to be questionable since only one of the three Tabernacle measurements (the length) can be ascertained to be one half the size of the corresponding Temple measurement; the height is one third, and the width is uncertain. This raises questions concerning the view in the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis that the Tabernacle was merely a literary fiction, conceived to stand for the Temple. The evidence that the Tabernacle was historical in any case, discussed above, coalesces with this matter of the dimensions to place serious doubt on this point.
In the view of the overlapping arrangement of the frames, the Tabernacle is 10 cubits high, 20 cubits long, and 8 cubits wide. The 8-cubit width, it should be noted, is the size of its exterior dimensions. Since the frames themselves have some thickness, the interior of the Tabernacle would be somewhat smaller, but not less than 6 cubits wide since there are 6 frames in the rear. These dimensions correspond to the dimensions of structures known to us from the Hebrew Bible and from archeology. In the Hebrew Bible, these dimensions correspond to the size of the space under the wings of the cherubs in the holy of holies in the Temple of Solomon. The Holy of Holies is a perfect cube, 20 cubits on each side (1 Kgs 6:20; 2 Chr 3:8). Inside stand the two cherubim, carved of olive wood and plated with gold. These two statues are each 10 cubits tall. Unlike the usual cherubs known to us from the ANE, which have their wings folded back against their bodies, the Temple cherubs have their wings spread wide, touching the wall on either side and touching each other in the center. The space under their outspread wings is 20 cubits deep, 10 cubits high, and less than 10 cubits wide (because their bodies take up some of the center space).
The discovery of a temple at Arad by Y. Aharoni led to further confirmation of these measurements. The Arad temple was found to have features strikingly in common with the Tabernacle (Aharoni 1973). The height of the Arad temple is unknown, but its length is 20 cubits, and its width is 6 cubits. As discussed above, the Tabernacle and the space under the wings of the cherubs both match this 20-cubit length. The width of the Tabernacle is calculated here to be 8 cubits wide at the exterior and at least 6 cubits wide in the interior, which also matches the Arad sanctuary’s width and fits within the less-than-ten-cubits limit of the place under the cherubs’ wings.
The correspondence of the dimensions of the Tabernacle to the dimensions of the space under the wings of the cherubs in the Temple sheds light on the question of the historicity of the biblical report. The Tabernacle may have actually stood under the wings of the cherubs in the Solomonic Temple, or it may have been stored inside the Temple while the corresponding space under the cherubs’ wings symbolized and reflected its presence. The Babylonian Talmud in fact reports that the tent of meeting was stored away beneath the crypts of the Temple of Solomon (b. Soṭa 9a). Josephus reports that the Tabernacle was brought to the Temple as well (Ant 8.101; see also 106), and he comments that the outspread wings of the cherubs had the effect of looking like a tent (8.103). A number of Psalms (26:8; 27:4) present this same picture of the Tabernacle in the Temple. Remarkably, Ps 61:5, says:
I shall abide in your tent forever,
I shall trust in the covert of your wings.
The parallel here of the deity’s tent and the hidden place of the deity’s wings is notable in the light of the evidence associating the tent of meeting with the wings of the cherubim. It has long been recognized that the referent of the wings in this Psalm is the winged cherubs (Rabe 1963: 35; Dahood, Psalms I AB, 107–8; Briggs, Psalms ICC, 64; Kraus, Psalms I BKAT, 433; Weiser, Psalms ATD, 302). The report of the destruction of the Tabernacle along with the Temple in Ps 74:7 belongs with this group of Psalmic references to the Tabernacle in the Temple as well (see also Pss 27:6; 76:2–3; and more general references in Psalms 15; 43; 46; 84).
The report in 1 Kgs 8:4 (= 2 Chr 5:5) that the Tabernacle was brought to the Temple at the time of the Temple dedication thus cannot simply be dismissed as a “gloss”; nor can the references to the Tabernacle’s presence in the Temple in the books of Chronicles, Psalms, and Lamentations be lightly discarded as late, idealizing, or figurative. Indeed the rejection of the report of the Tabernacle’s arrival in 1 Kgs 8:4 was a product precisely of the Graf-Wellhausen rejection of the historicity of the Tabernacle. Wellhausen argued that “Some mention of the Tabernacle, had it existed, would have been inevitable when the Temple took its place” (WPHI, 43). But here in fact was the mention of the Tabernacle that Wellhausen insisted upon, and Wellhausen eschewed it, saying that it “has no connection with its context, and does not hang together with the premises which that furnishes . . .” and he concluded, “it is the interpolation of a later hand” (WPHI, 43–44). These claims are simply unfounded. The report of the transfer of the Tabernacle is perfectly consistent with its context, following as it does immediately upon the report of the transfer of the ark. It is true that the Tabernacle is not mentioned for quite some time prior to this point, but this particular source of the Deuteronomistic historian only begins a few chapters earlier (1 Kings 3; the lengthy narrative preceding this is a different source, the Court History of David). The verse in Kings has also been suspected of not being native to this passage because it refers to “the priests and the Levites,” according to the MT. This is atypical in Deuteronomistic terminology and more characteristic of priestly (P) terminology. These words do not appear in some of the OG texts, however; and the MT (but not OG) of the equivalent verse in Chronicles reads “the Levitical priests,” which is in turn atypical in the Chronicler’s terminology. The textual situation is therefore too unclear for this wording to be evidential on either side. In any case, whatever the stage at which the report of the transfer of the Tabernacle to the Temple came to be in the text, it is in agreement with the archeological evidence, the architectural evidence, and the reports in Chronicles, Psalms, Lamentations, Josephus, and the Talmud that the Tabernacle was housed inside the Temple of Solomon.
This may also explain the confusion, noted above, over the passages that refer to the sanctuary at Shiloh both as a house/temple and as a tent/tabernacle. The Shiloh sanctuary may have been, like the Jerusalem Temple, a building in which the Tabernacle was stored or erected. If so, then this arrangement would have been made because the Tabernacle already had some prehistory and special status prior to the construction of the building at Shiloh. The report of the Pentateuchal sources E and P that the Tabernacle was the portable sanctuary of the followers of Moses before entering the land must be taken seriously in this regard. At the same time it must be recognized that the Tabernacle as described in the priestly (P) portions of the Torah and discussed above is not likely to correspond to this original tent structure. It is possibly too heavy and certainly too elaborate and costly to have been produced in the Sinai wilderness. As noted above, Haran (1962; 1965) takes the priestly description as an elaboration upon the more modest actual Tabernacle that had been at Shiloh, while Cross (1961) takes the priestly description to reflect the tent that David erected at Jerusalem. On the argument that the elaborate details do not appear to be sheer fabrication, the tent of David is the likely referent of these details. Also historically, if the tent of Shiloh was lost with the destruction of the Shilonite temple, then the tent that was brought to the Temple at Jerusalem and housed there may have been the tent of David, thereafter referred to as the Tabernacle or tent of meeting, whose successor it was.
The association of the Tabernacle with the Temple, whether at Shiloh or Jerusalem, whether the tent of David or the older tent of meeting, had an important symbolic meaning as well. It merged the stability of an established nation in its land with an ancient heritage of a people newly freed from slavery who experience a period of incubation in closeness to God. The Tabernacle in the Temple was a link to a history that played a defining part in the formation of biblical Israel’s character.
C. The Tabernacle and the Sources
The Tabernacle is not mentioned in the Pentateuchal sources J and D. Its role is significant in E, but it is mentioned only a few times. There is no indication there of its size or materials. Its importance derives from the fact that it is the place where the deity communicates with Moses. It is pictured sufficiently simply and so connected to Moses personally that some have argued that it is Moses’ own tent, though there is no textual support for this claim. There are contradictions of fact between the E picture of the tent of meeting and that of P. In E the tent is moved outside of the camp following the golden calf incident (Exod 33:7–11), and it remains outside the camp, as indicated by the wording of the episode of Miriam’s leprosy (Num 12:4). The E report of the tent’s being moved, however, comes before the report of the Tabernacle’s being made and erected in P (Exodus 40), resulting in this contradiction, as noted above. According to E, further, Joshua stays inside the tent. This is in contradiction to the view of P, according to which no one who is not a priest is permitted inside the tent of meeting.
Most importantly, though, in P the Tabernacle is the center of religious worship, the only locus of sacrifice. It is thus inextricably bound to the crucial priestly law of centralization of worship (Leviticus 17). One cannot sacrifice anywhere but at the entrance to the tent of meeting. This in turn has important implications for the date of the source P. If the Tabernacle was historically located in the Temple of Solomon until its destruction in 587 b.c., as the evidence discussed here indicates, then the priestly narrative and much of the priestly law must have been composed in the period prior to the destruction. Otherwise one must assume that in the years following the destruction of the Tabernacle a priestly author wrote the law requiring that one sacrifice nowhere but at the Tabernacle that no longer existed. Other recent evidence coalesces with this matter of the Tabernacle’s historical place to support a preexilic date for P. See also TORAH.
Centralization of religious worship at the Tabernacle also played a critical role in the development of the priesthood in Israel. It meant the concentration of legitimacy, authority, and income in the priestly establishment at the central sanctuary. At Shiloh this meant the priesthood that is associated with Eli and Samuel. The background of this priesthood is debated and has been identified in recent scholarship as being Levitical, non-Aaronid, and possibly Mushite (CMHE, 195–215; Friedman 1987: 40–42, 72–79, 117–49). At Jerusalem, apparently from the beginning of the establishment of the Temple, the Aaronid priesthood was in authority. With the policy of centralization, which begins with the reign of Hezekiah according to the report of the books of Kings and Chronicles, the command to sacrifice only at “the entrance of the tent of meeting” comes to be manifestly in the service of the Aaronid priesthood. This, too, belongs among the evidence that P was composed in the preexilic period and quite possibly in the reign of Hezekiah.
The place of the Tabernacle in centralization also means that the Tabernacle plays a substantive role in the priestly conception of monotheism and thus in the biblical presentation of monotheism overall. Though monotheism need not require that there be only one legitimate place of sacrificial worship, such centralization does seem to be particularly compatible with and serviceable to monotheism: one God, one altar, one central shrine.
Bibliography
Aharoni, Y. 1973. The Solomonic Temple, the Tabernacle, and the Arad Sanctuary. In Orient and Occident. Ed. H. A. Hoffman, Jr. Neukirchen.
Busink, T. A. 1970. DerTempel von Jerusalem. Leiden.
Cross, F. M. 1961. The Priestly Tabernacle. Pp. 201–28 in BAR 1.
Friedman, R. E. 1980. The Tabernacle in the Temple. BA 43:241–48.
———. 1987. Who Wrote the Bible? New York.
Halpern, B. 1981. Sacred History and Ideology: Chronicles’ Thematic Structure—Indications of an Earlier Source. Pp. 35–54 in The Creation of Sacred Literature. Ed. R. E. Friedman. Berkeley.
Haran, M. 1962. Shiloh and Jerusalem: the Origin of the Priestly Tradition in the Pentateuch. JBL 81: 14–24.
———. 1965. The Priestly Image of the Tabernacle. HUCA 36: 191–226.
———. 1978. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Oxford.
Rabe, V. 1963. The Temple as Tabernacle. Diss., Cambridge, MA.
———. 1966. The Identity of the Priestly Tabernacle. JNES 25: 132–34.
Wright, G. E. 1962. Biblical Archaeology. 2d ed. Philadelphia.
Richard Elliott Friedman
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:292). New York: Doubleday.
2:
TABERNACLE Heb. mishkan, “dwelling place.” The portable tent (‛ohel) sanctuary made at God’s command during Israel’s wilderness wanderings (Exod. 25–31, 35–40), it was eventually to be replaced by Solomon’s Temple. Its construction details, adornment, and function are extensively allegorized by Bede, De Tabernaculo ac Vasis et Vestibus Ejus.
See also temple; tent.
Bibliography. Halderman, I. M. The Tabernacle, Priesthood and Offerings (1925); Haran, M. Temples and Temple Service in Ancient Israel (1978); Meyers, C. L. The Tabernacle Menorah (1976); Morgenstern, J. The Ark, the Ephod, and the “Tent of Meeting” (1945); Nicholson, W. B. The Hebrew Sanctuary: A Study in Typology (1951); Rothenburg, B. Timna (1972), 125-207.
Jeffrey, D. L. (1992). A Dictionary of biblical tradition in English literature. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
3:
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.
Easton, M. (1996, c1897). Easton's Bible dictionary. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
4:
TABERNACLE Place of worship during the earliest years of the history of Israel.
PREVIEW
•Introduction
•Names for the Tabernacle
•Background
•The Tabernacle and Its Furniture
•The Tabernacle Proper
•The Outer Court and Its Furnishings
•The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle
Introduction The tabernacle was the precursor of the temple during most of the period between the formation of Israel at Sinai and its final establishment in the Promised Land in the early period of the monarchy. A portable sanctuary in keeping with the demand for easy mobility, it was the symbol of God’s presence with his people and, therefore, of his availability, as well as a place where his will was communicated. At an early period it was anticipated that, when peace and security had been secured, a permanent national shrine would be established (Dt 12:10–11). This was not realized until the time of Solomon, when the temple was erected (2 Sm 7:10–13; 1 Kgs 5:1–5). Historical events, as well as the similarities in construction and underlying theology, illustrate the close connection between the tabernacle and temple.
The Tabernacle
Names for the Tabernacle Several words and descriptive phrases are used:
1. “Sacred residence,” “sanctuary,“ or “holy place” (Ex 25:8; Lv 10:17–18) derive from the verb “to be holy.”
2. “The tent” occurs 19 times and is also found in expressions such as “the tent of the testimony” (Nm 9:15), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28–30), “the house of the tent” (1 Chr 9:23), and “the tent of meeting” (e.g., Ex 33:7). The last name appears approximately 130 times. The word involves the concept of meeting by appointment and designates the tabernacle as the place where God met with Moses and his people to make known his will.
3. “Dwelling place” is the literal meaning of “tabernacle.” In Exodus 25:9 the word indicates the whole tabernacle (including the outer court), but in Exodus 26:1 it refers to the tabernacle proper (that included the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). A variant of this is “the tabernacle of the testimony” (Ex 38:21; nlt ”Tabernacle of the Covenant”), which, with other expressions like “the tent of the testimony,” stresses the presence of the two tablets of the law.
4. “The house of the Lord” (Ex 23:19).
Background The three-part construction of the tabernacle, composed of a general area and two restricted areas, was not unique. In other developed religions that included an organized priesthood there were three main levels of approach: one for all members of the community; one for the priests generally; and one for the chief religious leaders, which was an inner sanctuary, conceived as the dwelling place of the deity. Excavations of heathen sanctuaries in Palestine and Syria in the pre-Israelite period have revealed this type of divided sanctuary.
There is also widespread evidence of the use of portable, often complex, prefabricated structures during the second millennium bc, usually as either staterooms for kings and other high dignitaries, or as sanctuaries. Rulers of settled communities used these structures when traveling to other areas within their kingdoms (e.g., Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Canaan). Also, nomadic or seminomadic peoples, such as the Midianites, used portable sanctuaries. In pre-Mosaic Egypt, craftsmen used techniques similar to those used in the construction of the tabernacle.
The Tabernacle and Its Furniture The book of Exodus (Ex 25–40) describes the tabernacle and its furnishings in detail. The materials used included items ranging from precious to common materials. Three metals are mentioned in descending order of importance: gold, copper, and silver. Gold alone was employed in the principal sanctuary furnishings. The total amount of metals used was approximately one ton (.9 metric ton) of gold, three of copper, and four of silver (38:24–31). The relatively large amount of silver came from an offering (30:11–16), which augmented the silver and gold already given by the Egyptians (12:35).
Significantly, in God’s building specifications, the starting point was the furniture of the inner sanctuary (the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies). In the actual construction, this furniture was made after the tabernacle itself, presumably so that it could be immediately and adequately housed (Ex 25:9–27:19; cf. 36:8–37:28).
The first item listed was the ark, the only furniture in the Holy of Holies. It was a wooden box sheathed in gold, approximately three and three-quarters feet (1.1 meters) long, with a width and height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The supreme symbol of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, it was often called “the ark of the covenant of the Lord” (Dt 10:8). Unlike contemporary arks in some neighboring countries, it contained no representation of the deity, only the Ten Commandments (Ex 25:16), a jar of manna (16:33), and Aaron’s rod (Nm 17:10)—all symbolic of various aspects of God’s provision (see Heb 9:4).
The ark was transported by two poles that passed through rings attached to each lower corner (Ex 25:13–15). These poles, left in place, projected underneath the veil into the Holy Place, serving as a reminder of the presence of the unseen ark.
Resting upon the ark was the mercy seat (nlt “atonement cover”), a rectangular slab of solid gold, to which were attached two cherubim. The inward-looking cherubim and the mercy seat formed a throne for the invisible God (Ex 25:22), who is frequently described as enthroned above or upon the cherubim (Pss 80:1; 99:1). The noun “mercy seat” comes from a verb meaning “to make atonement.” The mercy seat was sprinkled with blood at the climax of the annual Day of Atonement (Lv 16:14). The fact that the ark was placed under the mercy seat (Ex 25:21) signifies that the law was under God’s protection and explains the references to the ark as his footstool (e.g., Ps 132:7). Like the cherubim in the Garden of Eden (Gn 3:24), those in the Holy of Holies probably had a similar protective function. In the ancient world, symbolic winged creatures like the cherubim were frequently placed as guardians of thrones and important buildings.
Like the ark, the portable table of the bread of the Presence (Ex 25:30) was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was marginally smaller, with a length of three feet (.9 meter), a width of one and a half feet (.5 meter) and a height of two and a quarter feet (.7 meter). The various auxiliary vessels and implements are detailed (v 29); presumably the dishes would be used for carrying the bread. On each Sabbath day, 12 loaves, symbolizing God’s provision for the 12 tribes of Israel, were placed in two rows on the table (Lv 24:5–9). The table was located in the Holy Place, on the north side.
On the south side was the seven-branched golden lampstand (Ex 25:31–39; 37:17–24; 40:24). It was the most impressive item of furniture in the Holy Place; like the cherubim and the mercy seat, it was made of pure gold. Six golden branches, three on either side, extended from a central shaft, and the whole lampstand was ornamented with almond flowers. From the biblical evidence, it is not clear whether the lampstand gave continuous illumination (Ex 27:20; Lv 24:2) or night light only (1 Sm 3:3 in most versions). Leviticus 24:4 strongly supports the former, and the reference in 1 Samuel probably reflects the laxity that had crept in during the period of the judges. In Scripture, the golden lampstand symbolizes the continuing witness of the covenant community (Zec 4:1–7; Rv 2:1). The precise attention to the smallest detail is well illustrated in the listing of the supplementary items, all made of pure gold, required for the servicing of the lamps. Without this precise attention, the light would soon grow dim, and the sanctuary itself be defiled by carbon deposits (Ex 25:38). Moreover, only the best-quality olive oil was used, thus ensuring the brightest possible light (27:20).
The altar of incense (Ex 30:1–10) may have been deliberately played down to give greater prominence to the sacrificial altar in the outer court, which is frequently referred to as “the altar.” In order to distinguish the altar of incense from the bronze altar of sacrifice, the former was called “the golden altar” (40:5). The altar of incense was located in the Holy Place, immediately opposite the ark in the Holy of Holies but just outside the veil, between the table of the bread of the Presence and the lampstand. Made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, it was 18 inches (45.7 centimeters) square and 3 feet (.9 meter) high, with horns and a golden molding around the four sides. Like the ark, it was made readily portable by the provision of rings and carrying poles. The altar was used for the offering of incense every morning and evening and for anointing the horns for the yearly atonement (30:7–10). The incense from a special recipe was forbidden for secular use. Originally, incense indicated something that ascended from a sacrifice, a pleasing aroma to God. Incense acknowledged God in worship (Mal 1:11) and at an early date signified the prayers of the godly (Ps 141:2). It also concealed God from human eyes (Lv 16:13).
The Tabernacle Proper The tabernacle was fundamentally a tent structure supported on a rigid framework. As with most of the other items, a triplication of detail underlines the importance of the tabernacle proper. The specifications are given in Exodus 26, the construction in Exodus 36:8–38, and the final erection in Exodus 40:16–19. The overall dimensions were approximately 45 feet (13.7 meters) long, 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide, and 15 feet high.
The basic framework was a series of upright supports, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and 2 feet (.7 meters) wide, and each standing on two silver bases (Ex 26:15–25). Scholars used to think these supports or frames were solid planks of acacia wood, but most modern scholars accept that each comprised two upright sides connected by horizontal pieces like a ladder. Such sections would be considerably stronger, would keep their shape better, and would allow a view of the beautiful inner layer of curtains from within the sanctuary. On the south and north sides were 20 such frames, with 6 more at the western end. In addition, on the western side were two corner pieces to which all the walls were attached by clasps (vv 23–25). A series of bars, which passed through gold rings attached to each upright frame, provided further security and alignment (vv 26–29). There were five such bars on each of the three sides. The central one on both the south and the north sides extended the entire length; the other four probably extended halfway, so that each frame was effectively secured by three bars. All the wooden sections were sheathed in gold.
Over this framework several layers of coverings formed the top, sides, and back of the tabernacle. The first layer of ten linen curtains was dyed blue, purple, and scarlet, and embroidered with cherubim (Ex 26:1–6; 36:8–13). Each measured 42 feet by 6 feet (12.8 meters by 1.8 meters). Pairs joined along their length formed five sets of curtains. The two large curtains were themselves attached with 50 golden clasps that passed through a similar number of loops in each. Probably the curtains were stretched over the structure like a tablecloth.
Eleven curtains or tarpaulins of goat hair, each 45 feet by 6 feet (13.7 meters by 1.8 meters), formed the next layer. These were divided into two sets by joining together five and six curtains respectively, and were linked using a similar method as the under curtain, except that bronze clasps instead of gold were used. The extra length of the goat-hair tarpaulins provided an overlap to protect the under curtain, and the larger tarpaulin overlapped at both the front and the rear of the tabernacle (Ex 26:7–9, 12–13). Two further layers ensured complete weatherproofing, one of ram’s skins dyed red and one of goatskins.
A veil made of the same material as the under curtaining divided the sanctuary and hung under the golden clasps that joined the two curtains, supported by four pillars of acacia wood plated with gold and resting in silver bases. The cherubim on both the veil and the curtains were symbolic guardians of the sanctuary. The positioning of the veil made the Holy of Holies a perfect cube of 15 feet (4.6 meters). The layers of overlapping material and the attention given to the joints emphasizes the darkness of the innermost shrine. God was surrounded by darkness, carefully isolated from any unauthorized sight (Ps 97:2). The Holy Place occupied an area 30 feet by 15 feet (9.1 meters by 4.6 meters), exactly twice the area of the Holy of Holies. A screen made from the same fabric as the main curtain stood between the Holy Place and the outer court and hung from golden hooks on five posts of acacia wood, overlaid with gold and resting on bronze sockets. There is no mention of embroidered seraphim on this section, which formed the tabernacle’s eastern wall.
The tabernacle, while probably having a somewhat squat appearance suggestive of strength, could be easily dismantled, transported, and reassembled. By the standards of that age, it was a fit dwelling place for God, constructed by the best human skills and the highest quality materials.
The Outer Court and Its Furnishings The court of the tabernacle was a rectangle 150 feet (45.7 meters) long on the north and south sides and 75 feet (22.9 meters) wide on the east and west (Ex 27:9–18; 38:9–19). The tabernacle itself was at the western end. Curtains of fine-twined linen 7 feet (2.3 meters) high screened the entire tabernacle area. In the eastern section, there was a central entrance, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide. An embroidered curtain of the same height screened this doorway, which was probably recessed to facilitate entrance on either side. Silver rods supported all the curtains. These rods passed through silver hooks attached to the silver-plated posts that rested on bronze bases (38:17).
The altar of burnt offering (Ex 27:1–8; 38:1–7), at the eastern end of the court adjacent to the entrance (40:29), was a reminder that there could be no approach to God except by the place of sacrifice. Seven feet (2.1 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high, it was small in comparison to the gigantic altar in Solomon’s temple (2 Chr 4:1). Basically, it was a hollow wooden framework overlaid with bronze, light enough to be carried on bronze-plated poles that passed through bronze rings at each corner. The grating (Ex 27:4–5) was probably inside the altar at the middle, although some scholars believe that it extended around the lower, outer sides of the altar, to provide draft and to allow the sacrificial blood to flow to the base of the altar. The horns, possibly symbolizing the sacrificial victims, could be used to tether the animals about to be sacrificed. In Israel, a person could claim sanctuary by clinging to the horns of the altar (e.g., 1 Kgs 1:50), with the possible symbolism that he was offering himself as a sacrifice to God and so claiming his protection. The lower part of the altar may have been partly filled with earth to absorb the blood (Ex 20:24). All the accessories were bronze: ash buckets, shovels for removing the ashes and filling the base with earth, basins for the blood, carcass hooks, and fire pans (27:3).
No specifications concerning the size of the laver (nlt “washbasin”) have survived (Ex 30:17–20; 38:8). It was made from the mirrors of the women who served at the entrance to the court. The laver stood between the altar of sacrifice and the tabernacle. Failure to wash at the laver prior to ministering was punishable by death—a solemn reminder of the need for cleanliness and obedience before undertaking any task for God. The bronze pedestal may have been merely a support for the laver, but possibly it incorporated a lower basin in which the priests could wash their feet.
The Construction and Consecration of the Tabernacle The God-given specifications required skills beyond the capabilities of Moses and Aaron. Prominent in the construction were Bezalel and Oholiab (Ex 30:1–11), with a large supporting group of experts, who must have learned their craftsmanship in Egypt. In a remarkable community effort, the Israelites gave so generously that the flow of gifts had to be stopped (35:20–24; 36:4–7). In addition, many gave of their special skills (35:25–29).
When all the items had been completed and placed in position (Ex 40:1–33), every piece except the mercy seat and the cherubim was anointed with special oil (30:22–33; 40:9–11) and symbolically consecrated for its particular function. The climax came when the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle (40:34). He came to be present among his people, and thereafter the cloud by day and fire by night provided reassurance concerning his presence and guidance. Yet there could be no laxity in approaching him, and even Moses was excluded from the Holy of Holies. The tabernacle was erected exactly one year after the deliverance from Egypt and a mere nine months after the Sinai revelation.
Thereafter, when Israel camped, the Levites surrounded the tabernacle on three sides (Nm 1:53), with the families of Moses and Aaron occupying the remaining eastern side (Nm 3:14–38). This prevented any unauthorized intrusion into the sacred area. When the tabernacle was moved, the dismantlement was carefully regulated (4:5–15). The Kohathites were responsible for transporting the more sacred items, using the carrying poles; the Gershonites dealt with all the soft furnishings, the altar of sacrifice, and its accessories; and the Merarites carried the hard furnishings, such as the frames, bars, and bases. Even on the march, the tabernacle remained central, with six tribes preceding and the remaining six following (Nm 2).
See also Temple.
Elwell, W. A., & Comfort, P. W. (2001). Tyndale Bible dictionary. Tyndale reference library (1233). Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers.
5:
TABERNACLE. The rendering of several Gk. and Heb. words.
1. Heb. ˒ōhel, “tent” and mishkān, “residence” are both used of the Jewish Tabernacle, but the terms are found to be carefully discriminated. ˒Ohel denotes the cloth roof, whereas mishkān is used for the wooden walls of the structure.
2. Heb. sūkkâ, from sākak, to “entwine,” is used to denote a hut, booth (Lev. 23:34; Amos 9:11; Zech. 14:16), rendered “tabernacle” in Ps. 76:2 (“tent,” NIV).
3. Heb. sikkût is used to denote an “idolatrous” booth that the worshipers of idols constructed in their honor, like the Tabernacle of the covenant in honor of Jehovah (“shrine,” Amos 5:26, see marg.).
4. The Gk. words rendered “tabernacle” are: (1) Skēnē, used for any habitation made of green boughs, skin, cloth, etc. (Matt. 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33; John 7:2; cf. Heb. 11:9; etc.). The “tabernacle of Moloch” (Acts 7:43; cf. Amos 5:26) was a portable shrine, in which the image of the god was carried. (2) Skēnōma, used of the Tabernacle, etc.
Figurative. “For in the day of trouble He will conceal me in His tabernacle” (Ps. 27:5; cf. 15:1) indicates being on terms of peaceful communion with God, i.e., in the church.
The term Tabernacle is transferred to heaven, as the true dwelling place of God (Heb. 9:11; Rev. 13:6). To spread one’s tabernacle over others (Rev. 7:15, skēnōsei ˒ep˒ autous,) is to afford shelter and protection. The “tabernacle” (hut) of David seems to be employed in contempt of his house, i.e., family, reduced to decay and obscurity (Acts 15:16).
Unger, M. F., Harrison, R. K., Vos, H. F., Barber, C. J., & Unger, M. F. (1988). The new Unger's Bible dictionary. Revision of: Unger's Bible dictionary. 3rd ed. c1966. (Rev. and updated ed.). Chicago: Moody Press.
6:
TABERNACLE. 1. The tabernacle of the congregation (av), more properly ‘tent of meeting’, as in rv, rsv: a small, provisional meeting-place of God and his people in use before the large tabernacle was built (Ex. 33:7–11). This tent of meeting was pitched outside the camp. Moses would enter it and the Cloud, marking the divine Presence, would descend and stand outside it at the door. In this the function of the tent resembled that of the cleft of the rock in which Moses was placed (Ex. 34:22–23), and that of the cave in which Elijah stood (1 Ki. 19:9–18), to be addressed by God while the glory of God passed by outside. The tabernacle, by contrast, was erected in the midst of the camp, and the Cloud of glory rested not outside but inside it, so that at first Moses had to stay outside (Ex. 40:34–35).
2. The tabernacle commonly so-called was the portable sanctuary in which God dwelt among the Israelites in the desert. After their entry into Canaan, it was stationed successively at Shiloh (Jos. 18:1), at Nob (1 Sa. 21) and at Gibeon (1 Ch. 16:39). Eventually Solomon brought it up to the Temple (1 Ki. 8:4). It is called simply miškān = ‘dwelling’ (evv ‘tabernacle’), as in Ex. 25:9; or miškān YHWH = ‘dwelling of Yahweh’ as in Lv. 17:4; or miškān ha‘ēḏûṯ = ‘dwelling of the *covenant terms’ (av, rsv ‘of the testimony’), because it housed the covenant tablets, as in Ex. 38:21; or ’ōhel mô‘ēd = tent (av ‘tabernacle’) of meeting’, i.e. the appointed meeting-place between God and his people, as in Ex. 28:43; or miškān ’ōhel mo‘ēd = ‘dwelling of the tent of meeting’, as in Ex. 39:32; or miqdāš = ‘sanctuary’ as in Ex. 25:8; or qôḏeš = ‘holy place’ (av, rsv ‘sanctuary’), as in Ex. 38:24. It is also called beṯ YHWH = ‘house of Yahweh’, as in Ex. 34:26.
The materials used in its construction are listed at Ex. 25:3–7. The metal translated ‘bronze’ (av ‘brass’) was more probably copper. The colour ‘blue’ was probably a violet-blue and the colour ‘purple’ a reddish-purple. The material translated ‘goatskins, (rsv; av ‘badgers’ skins’) was probably dugong (or ‘porpoise’, neb) skin.
I. Tabernacle, tent, coverings and frames
In its stricter technical meaning the term ‘tabernacle’ refers to a set of ten linen curtains, which when draped round a structure of wooden frames formed God’s dwelling-place. The curtains were of linen with figures of cherubim woven into the violet-blue, reddish-purple and scarlet tapestry-work. Each measuring 28 cubits by 4, they were sewn together along their length into two sets of five, which when assembled were held together by fifty golden clasps (av ‘taches’) passing through loops on the edge of each set (Ex. 26:1–6). The tabernacle was covered by eleven goats’-hair curtains, called in strict terminology ‘the tent’ (Ex. 26:7–15). They each measured 30 cubits by 4, were sewn together into two sets, one of five, the other of six, which when assembled were held together, like the tabernacle, by loops and clasps, only their clasps were of copper.
Over the tent went a covering of tanned (literally, ‘reddened’) rams’ skins, and over that again (cf. neb ‘an outer covering’; av, rv ‘above’,) a covering of dugong skin (Ex. 26:14).
These curtains were spread over the top, back and two sides of a framework (Ex. 26:15–30) assembled from forty-eight units, each 10 cubits high and 1 1/2 wide, called qerāšı̂m. The most likely interpretation of these qerāšı̂m is that given by A. R. S. Kennedy (HDB, 4, pp. 659–662); they were not solid boards (as av, rv), nor planks (as neb), but open frames, each consisting of two long uprights yāḏôṯ: not ‘tenons’ as in most versions) joined by cross-rails somewhat like a ladder. Such frames would have three advantages over solid planks: they would be much lighter, less liable to whip, and instead of hiding the beautiful tabernacle curtains would allow them to be seen from the inside all round the walls. The feet of the two uprights in each frame stood in sockets made of silver obtained from the census tax (Ex. 30:11–16; 38:25–27). Twenty frames in their sockets, stationed side by side, formed each side of the tabernacle; six formed the rear. In each corner at the rear was an extra frame. The purpose of these extra frames, to give rigidity to the whole structure, is clear; but the details of the specification are not.
Perhaps the best explanation is that given by U. Cassuto: each corner frame was coupled (not ‘separate’ as rsv) at the bottom and the top so as to form a twin with the end frame in the side, and then clamped to its twin by means of a metal ring (translating v. 24 ‘into the one ring’ and not ‘at the first ring’, as rsv). To keep the frames in alignment five bars ran along the sides and rear through gold rings attached to the cross-rails of each frame. The middle bar ran the whole length, the other four only part of the way. The frames and bars were made of acacia wood overlaid with gold.
When the frames were assembled the distance from the top of the frames at the front along the roof and down to the bottom of the frames at the rear was 20 x 1 1/2 + 10 = 40 cubits. The assembled tabernacle curtains measured 28 cubits by 10 x 4 = 40 cubits. They were spread over the frames so that the 40 cubits ran from the top front of the frames to the rear bottom. The assembled tent curtains measured 30 cubits by 11 x 4 = 44 cubits. When they were spread over the tabernacle curtains, the extra 2 cubits (30 as against 28) gave an overhang of 1 cubit on each side (Ex. 26:13). The extra 4 cubits in the other direction (44 as against 40) were disposed as follows: at the rear the tent extended 2 cubits beyond the tabernacle curtains (v. 12), and at the front the other 2 cubits were doubled back and, presumably, tucked under the tabernacle curtains all the way along the top and sides, so protecting what otherwise would have been an exposed edge of tabernacle curtain (v. 9). The word used for arranging the curtains over the frames is not the normal word for pitching a tent, naṭâ, but pāraś, which means ‘to spread’ (it is used of wrapping cloths round the furniture). The roof was flat. To prevent the curtains from sagging at the roof and so causing the frames to collapse inwards, there were probably (the text does not say so, but it omits many details which one would need to know to make a tabernacle) wooden struts running across the top of the framework from side to side (see, for comparison, the portable pavilion of Hetep-heres). J. Fergusson (Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 3, pp. 1452–1454) and many others have argued unconvincingly that the curtains must have been spread over a ridge-pole. Some of their arguments presuppose that the sides and rear of the tabernacle were formed of solid planks; since they were formed not of planks but of open fragments, their arguments are invalid, and would lead to the impossible result of exposing the holy place and the most holy to view from the outside. Other arguments are invalidated by their failure to observe that the term ‘tabernacle’ in Ex. 26:1–13 refers not to the building in general but to the ten linen curtains.
II. The interior
The interior of the dwelling was divided into two compartments by a veil hung under (not ‘from’ as rsv) the clasps that joined the tabernacle curtains (Ex. 26:31–34). Hence we know that the first compartment was 20 cubits long, the second 10. The height of the frames, 10 cubits, gives us the second dimension, and in all probability the breadth of both compartments was 10 cubits likewise: for while the six frames at the back give a total breadth of 9 cubits, allowance must be made for the thickness of the side frames and corner frames.The first compartment is called ‘the holy place’, the second ‘the holy of holies’, i.e. the most holy place, or simply ‘the holy place’ (Lv. 16:2–3; Heb. 9:12; 10:19, rv. rsv ‘sanctuary’ in these latter two verses is misleading: entry into the holy of holies is intended). Again, the first compartment is sometimes called ‘the first tabernacle’ and the second ‘the second tabernacle’ (Heb. 9:6–7, av, rv; rsv ‘the outer tent’ and ‘the second’ respectively). The dividing veil (pārōḵeṯ: a term used of no other hanging), made of the same material, colours and design as the tabernacle curtains, was hung by gold hooks on four acacia-wood pillars overlaid with gold and standing in silver sockets. The pillars had no capitals. At the door (= doorway) was a linen screen of violet-blue, reddish-purple and scarlet (but without cherubim).It hung by gold hooks on five acacia-wood pillars overlaid with gold standing in copper sockets. These pillars did have capitals and were overlaid with gold, as were their fillets (Ex. 26:36–37). To distinguish the pārōḵeṯ from this screen, the pārōḵeṯ is sometimes called the second veil.
III. The furniture
In the most holy place stood the *ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:10–22). A slab (av, rsv ‘mercy seat’) of pure gold with a cherub at each end rested on top. The name of this slab, kappōret means not ‘lid’ but ‘propitiatory’, i.e. place where the blood of propitiation was sprinkled. This is how the lxx (hilastērion) understood it as does the NT (Heb. 9:5; rsv ‘mercy seat’). The poles for carrying the ark ran through rings attached to the feet (not ‘corners’, as in av) of the ark (Ex. 25:12). There is no implied discrepancy between Ex. 25:15 and Nu. 4:8. The latter verse indicates that to facilitate the covering of the ark for transport the poles were temporarily removed and immediately replaced: the former verse directs that at all other times the poles were to be left in their rings even when the ark was not travelling.
In the holy place in front of the veil was the incense-altar (Ex. 30:1–10). Made of acacia wood and overlaid with pure gold—hence its other name, ‘the golden altar’—it was a cubit square and 2 cubits high, with horns projecting at the four corners and an ornamental gold moulding round the top. (For a pagan, stone incense-altar with horns, see *Altar.) For transport, two poles were shot through gold rings attached just under the moulding. The altar stood directly opposite the ark (note the emphasis of 30:6), and so was regarded as ‘belonging to’ the most holy place (cf. 1 Ki. 6:22 and Heb. 9:4, where ‘golden altar of incense’ and not ‘censer’ seems to be the right translation). With the position of the altar compare the position of the two incense-altars in the temple at Arad (BA 31, 1968, pp. 22ff).
On the N side (Ex. 26:35) stood a table for the Bread of the Presence (av ‘shewbread’; *Showbread) (Ex. 25:23–29). One such table and a lampstand (see below) from Herod’s Temple are represented on Titus’ Arch at Rome. Some doubt is cast, however, on the accuracy of these sculptures, since on the lampstand’s base various non-Jewish figures appear. The detail of v. 25 is uncertain. Some translators envisage an 8-cm wide horizontal border, some an 8-cm high vertical rim, or frame, running round the top of the table, others, in agreement with apparent vestiges on Titus’ Arch, envisage 8-cm broad cross-struts between the legs of the table.
The vessels connected with the table were: plates, presumably for the bread; dishes (kappōṯ: for incense, so rsv; cf. kap̱, in Nu. 7:14 = av ‘spoon’); and flagons and bowls for drink-offerings (not as av ‘to cover withal’).
On the S side (Ex. 26:35) stood the *lampstand, menōrâh (av ‘candlestick’) (Ex. 25:31–40), in the form of a stylized tree. In strict technical parlance the base and central shaft form the lampstand proper; the six branches are then described as ‘going out of the lampstand’ (v. 33). In v. 31 the rsv‘s literal translation, ‘its cups, its capitals, and its flowers’, i.e. three items, is to be preferred to interpretative renderings such as that of neb ‘its cups, both calyxes and petals’, i.e. one item made up of two parts. The capitals were round protuberances of some kind, in the arms and shaft of the lampstand (not, as ‘capital’ might suggest, on the ends of them). It is probable, but not completely certain, that the six branches rose to the same height as the central shaft. The seven lamps were presumably placed one on the end of each of the six branches and one on the central shaft. There were provided *snufflers and *trays.
IV. Court
The tabernacle stood in the W half of a courtyard, 100 x 50 cubits, the long sides running N and S (Ex. 27:9–19). The tabernacle door faced E.
The courtyard was bounded by a linen screen (evv ‘hangings’) 5 cubits high hung on pillars. There was an opening for a gate, 20 cubits wide, set centrally in the E end. The gate screen was linen, embroidered in violet-blue, reddish-purple and scarlet.
The pillars were apparently made of acacia wood (they are not mentioned in the list of copper articles, Ex. 38:29–31), and stood in copper sockets. They were stabilized by guy-ropes and pegs, and had capitals overlaid with silver, and silver bands, called fillets, round the neck.
Three main methods are advocated for spacing the pillars:
(1) On the basic assumption that there was one pillar per 5 cubits of hanging, and that no pillar was counted twice, sixty pillars in all are placed to make twenty spaces along the two long sides and ten spaces along the two ends. The gate screen then hangs on four of its own pillars and one of the others.
It is questionable whether this satisfies the direction for the 20 cubits of gate-screen ‘ … their pillars four … ‘.
(2) The Baraitha on the Erection of the Tabernacle, 5, has it that the pillars stood in the middle of each imaginary space of 5 cubits and that there were no pillars in the corners. (For an attempted solution of the difficulties this would create at the corners and the gate, see M. Levine, The Tabernacle, 1969, pp. 76, 81.).
(3) Since the text nowhere says that the pillars were 5 cubits apart, maybe at the corners the two end pillars stood together. Or perhaps the corner pillars were counted twice (the text does not explicitly state that the total was sixty). The gate could then be recessed (or advanced). But this system gives very awkward measurements for the spaces between the pillars.
In the E half of the court stood an altar. It was called the copper altar from its covering material and the altar of burnt-offering from the chief *sacrifice offered on it (Ex. 27:1–8). It was a hollow framework of acacia wood, 5 cubits square and 3 high, with projecting horns at the top corners. The whole was overlaid with copper. Halfway up the altar, on the outside, was a horizontal ledge (av ‘compass’) running all round. (For a stone altar of comparable dimensions with horns, see Y. Aharoni, BA 37, 1974, pp. 2–6; *Altar.) Running vertically all round from the ground up to the ledge (not ‘extending halfway down the altar’ as rsv) was a grating of copper network, on the four corners of which were the rings for the carrying-poles. The grating was not a hearth, and the altar was topless and hollow. Some suppose that in use it was filled with earth and stones, others that it acted like an incinerator, draught being supplied through the grating. Its service vessels were *pots for ashes, *shovels, *basins, *forks (av *’fleshhooks’) and *firepans.
Between the altar and the door of the tabernacle stood the laver (Ex. 30:17–21; 38:8; 40:29–32). It was a copper basin standing on a copper base. Nothing is told us of its size, shape and ornamentation (nor of its means of transport, though the absence of this detail from the MT of Nu. 4 may be accidental: lxx gives the expected information). It held water for the priests’ ablutions.
In camp the tabernacle court was surrounded first by the tents of the priests and Levites, and outside them by those of the twelve tribes (Nu. 2; 3:1–30).
V. Problems arising
Revision of source-critical theories, particularly those relating to the so-called Priestly texts, together with archaeological discoveries have considerably modified the earlier arguments of the liberal school against the historicity of the tabernacle. See e.g. G. Henton-Davies, IDB, 3, pp. 503–506; Y. Aharoni, Orient and Occident (ed. H. A. Honner, Jr), 1973, p. 6; C. L. Meyers, IDBS, p. 586. Allegations that the instructions for the building of the tabernacle are in parts impracticable, and thus evidently the work of an idealist, would be valid only if the records were intended to be fully detailed blueprints. They are not that, of course, but records ‘for our learning’. Hence many practical details of no aesthetic, symbolic or spiritual value are omitted. At the same time portable pavilions, employing practically the same constructional techniques as the tabernacle, are known to have been in actual use in Egypt long before the time of Moses; see K. A. Kitchen, THB 5–6, 1960, pp. 7–13. From the fact that the instructions for the making of the incense-altar stand in Ex. 30, and not as expected in Ex. 25, it used to be argued that its description is a late addition to Exodus and that the incense-altar was not introduced into Israel’s worship until a comparatively late date. But since incense-altars have been discovered at Arad and at various Canaanite sites dating from the 10th century bc, it is highly improbable that Israel lacked one in the early period. Similarly, on the basis of the wide divergence of the lxx from the MT in Ex. 36–40, it used to be argued that the last chapters of Exodus in Heb. had not yet reached their final form when the lxx was translated, and that the lxx followed in part a Heb. tradition which knew of no incense altar. But the argument is not valid: see D. W. Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle, 1959.
VI. Significance
Theologically the tabernacle as a dwelling-place of God on earth is of immense importance, as being the first in the series: tabernacle, Temple, the incarnation, the body of the individual believer, the church. It follows from the fact that the tabernacle was built to God’s design as ‘a copy and shadow of heavenly things’ (Heb. 8:5) that its symbols conveyed spiritual meaning to the Israelites of the time. What that meaning was is often stated explicitly, as with the ark and mercy seat (Ex. 25:16, 22; Lv. 16:15–16), the veil and the two-compartment structure (Lv. 16:2; Heb. 9:8), the incense-altar (Ps. 141:2; cf. Lk. 1:10–13; Rev. 5:8; 8:3–4), the laver (Ex. 30:20–21), the copper altar (Lv. 1:3–9; 17:11); and where it is not stated explicitly, as with the table and the lampstand, it is self-evident from their declared function. How far these symbols were also types of spiritual realities later to be revealed to us is disputed. Understandably, the extravagant interpretations that from the early centuries have been placed upon the subject have brought it into disrepute. But the NT declares that the law had ‘a shadow of the good things to come’, which good things actually came with Christ (Heb. 10:1; 9:11). So Christ is said to have entered through the veil (Heb. 6:19–20), and to be set forth as a propitiatory, or mercy seat (Rom. 3:25, hilastērion; cf. Lxx Ex. 25:17–22; Lv. 16:15–16. rsv ‘expiation’ is scarcely exact); while the writer to the Hebrews indicates that he could have expounded in this fashion all the tabernacle vessels and not simply the one feature which was relevant to his immediate argument (Heb. 9:5).
Bibliography. A. H. Finn, JTS 16, 1915, pp. 449–482; A. R. S. Kennedy, HDB, 4, pp. 653–668; M. Haran, HUCA 36, 1965, pp. 191–226; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, 1967, pp. 319ff.; R. K. Harrison, IOT, 1970, pp. 403–410; R. P. Gordon, A Bible Commentary for Today, 1979, pp. 173ff. d.w.g.
Wood, D. R. W., Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996, c1982, c1962). New Bible Dictionary. Includes index. (electronic ed. of 3rd ed.) (1145). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
7:
tabernacle, the portable sanctuary of the Israelites during the wilderness period, according to the Priestly sources of the Pentateuch and related texts. The directions for building it are given in Exodus 25-30 and the account of its actual construction follows in Exodus 35-40. It consisted of a rectangular enclosure, hung with curtains supported on poles, some 145 feet (44 m.) long, 72 feet (22 m.) wide, and 7 feet (2.2 m.) high (Exod. 27:18). Within this, there was another building, also curtained, divided in two by a veil, behind which was the Holy of Holies containing the Ark; before the veil stood the altar of incense, the seven-branched lampstand, and the table for the bread of the Presence (Exod. 25:30). In the courtyard outside this building stood the altar of burnt offering and the laver (Exod. 30:18). When the Israelites moved about during their wilderness wanderings, the whole tabernacle was dismantled by the Levites and re-erected by them wherever the tribes pitched camp (Num. 1:51). While it was stationary, the twelve tribes camped around it in a defined order (Num. 2:1-31), with the Levites in its immediate vicinity (Num. 1:52-53). The furnishings of the tabernacle were made of the finest and costliest materials (Exod. 25:3-7).
This picture raises doubts as to what extent the tabernacle can be considered an actual fact during the wilderness period. The constant movement of so large a structure is difficult to envisage in desert conditions, nor is it likely that wilderness Israel had the craftsmen, materials, or wealth to erect it. Above all, the Priestly account records a structure that, in its shape and the cultic objects it contains, resembles Solomon’s Temple. What it presents is a description of the Temple under the guise of a portable sanctuary. It is thus a retrojection of the Jerusalem Temple to the wilderness epoch, in accordance with the Priestly view that all Israel’s religious institutions originated at that time, but with the knowledge that a permanent building did not exist before the settlement in Canaan.
Tent of Meeting: But the Priestly account is not therefore a mere fiction. As well as using the word ‘tabernacle’ (Heb. mishkan) for its structure, it also employs, some 130 times, the expression ‘tent of meeting’ (Heb. ohel mo‘ed). This refers to a much simpler type of shrine that is much more likely to have existed during the wilderness wanderings. It is described in an early passage, Exod. 33:7-11. From this we see that the tent of meeting was a simple tent that one man could pitch, it was outside the camp, unlike the tabernacle, which was in the middle, and it was looked after by a single officiant. It was not a place of sacrifice nor is there any real evidence that it sheltered the Ark. Rather it was a shrine for the receiving of oracles, and the divine presence did not reside permanently there but was manifested, in the form of a pillar of cloud, whenever Moses entered the tent to inquire of God. As such, it had a different function from a temple or tabernacle and there is nothing improbable in its existing later alongside a temple at Shiloh (1 Sam. 2:22) or alongside a high place as at Gibeon (2 Chron. 1:3) or, because it was easily portable, its being brought into Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 8:4). What the Priestly authors do is to build upon their knowledge of this ancient institution and transfer its most significant features to their picture of the tabernacle. So the divine cloud descends on the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34-35) and the ‘meeting’ with God takes place over the Ark in the tabernacle (Exod. 25:22). The two are also brought together by the odd feature of a tent on top of the tabernacle (Exod. 36:14); the materials from which it was made, tanned ramskins and goatskins (Exod. 36:19), retain a genuine desert tradition, being those of a bedouin tent, and particularly the qubba (portable tent-shrine).
For the nt writers, the significance of the tabernacle is found in Exod. 25:40, which they interpret as meaning that the earthly tabernacle had a heavenly counterpart, which is the true tabernacle (Heb. 8:2, 5; 9:22). In Acts 7:44-50, the wilderness tabernacle, made according to the pattern of the one in heaven, is contrasted with Solomon’s Temple made with hands, while in Rev. 13:6; 15:5; and 21:3 the only tabernacle envisaged is that in heaven. See also Ark; High Place; Levites; Temple, The.
Bibliography
Clements, R. E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965. Chaps. 3, 7.
Wright, G. E., and D. N. Freedman, eds. The Biblical Archaeologist Reader I. Garden City, NY: Doubleday (Anchor Books), 1961. Pp. 201-228. J.R.P.
Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary. Includes index. (1st ed.) (1013). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
8:
Tabernacle
The portable sanctuary said to have been built at Mt. Sinai in the time of Moses and used until Solomon built the First Temple. The term (Heb. miškān) means “dwelling.” Other names are the “tent of meeting” (˒ōhel mô˓ēḏ) and the “sanctuary” (miqdāš).
The story of the tabernacle’s construction dominates Exod. 25–40. God showed Moses the heavenly pattern for the tabernacle on Mt. Sinai (Exod. 25:9, 40), but before construction could begin the people committed apostasy by making a golden calf. God threatened to withdraw his presence from Israel, but Moses interceded and afterward the people furnished material for the tabernacle. Construction was supervised by the craftsman Bezalel, and when the work was completed, the glory of God filled the tabernacle (Exod. 40:34–38).
The design given in the final form of the Pentateuch locates the tabernacle in a courtyard in the center of the Israelite camp. The courtyard was 46 m. (150 ft.) long, 23 m. (75 ft.) wide, and enclosed by curtains that were 2.3 m. (7.5 ft.) high. Within the courtyard was a bronze wash basin in which the priests purified themselves as well as a bronze altar for burnt offerings. The tabernacle itself was a kind of tent made of wooden frames covered with goat hair and leather; it was 4.6 m. (15 ft.) high, 4.6 m. (15 ft.) wide, and 14 m. (45 ft.) long. The interior was divided into two parts. The forecourt, which had a multicolored screen at its entrance, was furnished with a seven-branched lampstand; a table; 12 loaves of bread, known as the bread of the presence; and a golden incense altar. A multicolored curtain covered the entry into the second part of the sanctuary or “holy of holies.” In this inner sanctuary was the ark of the covenant, a box made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, in which the tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments were kept. The ark had a golden cover known as the mercy seat, which was adorned with two cherubim. Items that were later placed in the holy of holies included a jar of manna (Exod. 16:33–34) and Aaron’s staff, which had miraculously borne almonds (Num. 17:1–11 [MT 16–26]).
The tabernacle was the place where offerings were made to God and revelations received from God. Offerings were made daily on the bronze altar in the courtyard and the incense altar in the forecourt, but the most solemn rite took place once a year on the Day of Atonement, when the high priest sprinkled the blood of a bull and a goat before the mercy seat to make atonement for Israel’s sins. Revelations of God’s will were sometimes said to have been given at the mercy seat in the holy of holies (Exod. 25:22) and sometimes at the door of the tent (Num. 12:5; Deut. 31:14–15).
The Israelites took the tabernacle with them as they traveled through the desert toward Canaan. Responsibilities for transporting and assembling it at each new encampment were entrusted to the Levites. When the people reached the Promised Land, the tabernacle was placed at Shiloh (Josh. 18:1; 19:51; Ps. 78:60); later sources say that it was also at Gibeon for a time (1 Chr. 16:39; 21:29; 2 Chr. 1:3–6, 13). When David brought the ark to Jerusalem, he placed it in a tent following the pattern of earlier sanctuaries (2 Sam. 6:17; 7:5–7). Solomon built a permanent temple, and at the time of the dedication he had the tent of meeting, the ark, and the holy vessels placed in the temple so that the temple became the successor to Israel’s earlier tent sanctuaries (1 Kgs. 8:4).
The depiction of the tabernacle in the final form of the Pentateuch is based on multiple traditions which can be discerned on the basis of incongruities in the text. An early tradition tells of the simple tent that was set up outside the Israelite camp before the tabernacle was built. This tent was attended by one man, Joshua the son of Nun, rather than by Aaron and the levitical priests (Exod. 33:7–11). It was apparently not used for sacrifice and did not house the ark of the covenant. God spoke with Moses at the door of this tent rather than in the holy of holies. The name “tent of meeting” was suitable for such a tent since God occasionally met people there, while the name “tabernacle” or “dwelling” was more suitable for a shrine in which God dwelt continually.
The elaborate plans for the tabernacle are generally regarded as the literary creation of the Priestly writer (P), whose design incorporates features from various Israelite sanctuaries. The covering of goat hair and leather recalls the simple tent sanctuary mentioned in the earliest sources; the extensive wooden framework and the name “tabernacle” or “dwelling” is reminiscent of semi-permanent sanctuaries located in Canaan; and the sanctuary’s furnishings correspond closely to those of Solomon’s temple. Some have argued that the Priestly writer sought to legitimate the cult of his own time by projecting it back into the wilderness period, but others dispute this since the tabernacle’s design draws on premonarchical traditions and differs from Solomon’s temple in numerous respects. The description of the tabernacle may correct certain ideas associated with the temple since the tabernacle was a sanctuary designed by God and made with freewill offerings, while the temple was a royal project that depended on forced labor. Moreover, God sometimes “met” with Israel in the tent sanctuary but was not confined there.
NT references to the tabernacle (Gk. skēnḗ) appear in the speech ascribed to Stephen, which considers the tabernacle to represent worship that was acceptable to God but criticizes the temple as an attempt to usurp God’s prerogatives (Acts 7:44–50). Hebrews interprets the forecourt of the tabernacle as a symbol for the realm of the flesh and the present time, and identifies the holy of holies where Jesus carries out his high priestly ministry with the purified conscience and the new age of salvation (Heb. 8:1–6; 9:1–14). John’s Gospel announces the Incarnation by saying that “the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us,” as the locus of God’s glory (John 1:14), and Revelation speaks of heaven and the New Jerusalem as God’s “tabernacle” (Rev. 13:6; 15:5; 21:3).
Bibliography. J. I. Durham, Exodus. WBC 3 (Waco, 1987), esp. 349–501; M. Haran, Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel (Oxford, 1978); C. R. Koester, The Dwelling of God. CBQMS 22 (Washington, 1989).
Craig R. Koester
Freedman, D. N., Myers, A. C., & Beck, A. B. (2000). Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (1269). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
