By Professor James Strong, S.T.D.,
Drew Theological Seminary.
Taken from THE BIBLICAL WORLD-April 1893
A peculiar interest belongs to
this comparatively small structure on account of several
circumstances which render it
unique in character. It was the
earliest of which we have any
positive record, as having been
erected for the worship of the
true God, and, therefore, was not
modelled after the specimens of which remains exist to the
present day; especially in
Egypt, supposing these to have been extant
at that time; but was
constructed in accordance with explicit and
minute directions by Jehovah
himself, accompanied with a pattern
exhibited to Moses on Mount Sinai. It also differed from all
other temples in being movable, and was actually transported in
detached portions for a period of forty years of migration.
Moreover, as might have been expected from these singular
facts, it was of the most
ingenious and yet practical style, both in
plan and workmanship. The biblical description of it, the
only original source of
information, except such hints as oriental
analogies and the requirements
of the case suggest, although
occupying two long chapters, is
remarkably concise, and yet
sufficiently definite to enable
the careful expositor to reconstruct
it complete. True, great diversity of opinion has existed
among archaeologists on this
head, and almost all have despaired of
any rational solution of the many problems which present
themselves in the account and
its interpretation; but the present
writer at least believes that
all these have at last been satisfactorily
adjusted both with the
statements of the text, and with the known
habits of the times, the region of country, and the demands of
use and consistency. The purpose of this short article is
not to trouble the reader with
the details of this elucidation, but
merely to notice, in a
historical manner, certain salient features
which can be readily understood
and
appreciated by all who have
given attention to the subject. Incidentally it may be remarked
that the study, more or less profound, of the theme, even
down to the present day, is
evinced by the fact that no less than
twenty monographs upon it, some of them highly elaborate, have
been published, during the last three centuries, exclusively
devoted to this structure as a
whole, and innumerable others to its
immediate accompaniments. We may also premise that the
success which now appears to
have crowned these efforts is a
specimen of the improved results
of modern methods of investigation,
as well as an omen of the probability that similar, if not
all, difficulties in the sacred
volume will at length be cleared
up. Biblical archaeology has certainly entered upon a new
career of triumph.
The first cardinal fact which we
here mention, as adapting the central erection to the
nomadic necessities of the
people for whom it was designed, is the
distinction, generally
overlooked, of the mishkan, or “
dwelling-house ” base, and the
๔hel, or " tent ” superstructure. The
former, being the wooden walls
on the sides, gave solidity and
capacity to the building, while
the latter, being the canvas roof,
afforded a light but effectual protection from sun and rain.
The method and means of combining these two, no less
than of constructing each of
them, have been very inadequately
treated by most critics and
writers on the subject. Fergusson, an
architect himself, was the first
to perceive that the roof, of
course, must have had a peak, as
every tent-maker knows and practices;
but his mode of joining and applying the curtains of which
this covering consisted is an obvious failure, both as to
dimensions and utility; for he
is compelled to extend them as
wings far beyond the bounds of the walls, and at last makes a
sad gap in the roof directly
over the precious vail! Besides,
nobody suggested any way of fastening the roof to the walls,
until Paine discovered that the “ taches,” absurdly understood
as designating S-hooks for attaching the two sets of
goats-hair curtains together
(instead of a substantial and close
stitching together, like that of
the breadths themselves), were
knobs
in the walls for buttoning down the edge-loops securely over the
eaves, thus preventing all
drip inside. In like manner he
showed that the coats of badger-skin and of ram-skin were a
perpendicular outside sheathing of the walls, and not a clumsy
and useless blanket on the roof, intended to stop the aforesaid
leak! As to the disposition of the "
boards ” (rather planks) of the walls themselves, the great
puzzle was how to construct each “ corner-board ” out of a
single cubit-and-a-half-wide
plank (like all the others), so as to
make up ten cubits for the rear out of these two and the six
other planks. No plan except the one devised by the present
writer accomplished this feat;
and it may be added, none but his
succeeds in getting all the
requisite sockets duly under the planks
without confusion and interference. Especially has nobody
before him expounded the proof-text on this point as to the
bars and rings (Exod. xxvi. 24)
in any consistent or intelligible
manner. The “corner-boards” are the key to the whole
situation. Paine likewise was the first to
suggest the use of the sixth or
. surplus breadth of one of the
roof-curtains, although he
plainly contradicts the text (Exod.
xxvi. 12) by wrapping it across
the rear gable only. It was he also
who first gave any good reason for sewing the eleven breadths
into two large sheets, namely, because they were spread double,
like the “ fly ” over a modern tent for better shedding the
water; but here again his
curtains misfit in length, because he
makes the rear twelve instead of
ten cubits broad by his mistake in
the corner-boards.
But even a greater trouble with
interpreters has been how to dispose of the inside or colored
curtains; for until Paine none
of them could make these fit, in
whatever way they might be stretched. Here once more
Paine’s ingenuity was of
service, by suggesting that they were sewed
together end-wise, and that they ran double along the walls,
instead of being hung (by some unknown attachments) overhead,
where they would soon lose their beautiful colors by the
wet. As each compound length would thus be exactly twice as
long as the circuit of the three walls, Paine shrewdly suggested
that they must have been fulled in, as folds in curtains usually
are; but how this could be done without disfiguring the
cherubs embroidered on them he
did not expound. He, too, for
the first time, has exhibited a rational mode of distributing
the three colors (blue, purple
and crimson), by having them woven
in cross-stripes of wool on a white linen foundation of warp
or longitudinal threads,
adopting (as he honorably acknowledges) a
private hint to that effect from the present writer; but he
gives no explanation of the proportionate width of these
stripes, nor any reason why they
are invariably named in this precise
order, nor what relation they hold to the cherubs upon them.
Advancing now into the interior
of these sacred apartments, we are met with numerous
questions as to the form,
construction, adjustment and significance of
the various articles or pieces
of furniture, both decorative and
useful, which they present or contain. Most conspicuous of
these are the cherubic figures already brought to notice as
ranged around the walls like a
cordon of sentinels or guard about the
abode of the divine Majesty. On a careful estimate their total
will prove to be an exact
multiple of seven, the sacred number, both
in the holy and the most holy place, and consequently likewise
in the two combined. Moreover, by a coincidence too
remarkable to be accidental, we
shall find the cherubs as well as the
colored stripes on which they
are represented, as well as those
with which they are
interspersed, all occurring in exact harmony
with the boards of the walls on which they hang, and precisely
opposite each other on the two side walls, notwithstanding the
necessary reversal of the direction of these last in the
continuous series; and this is
happily brought about by the same “
corner-boards,” which from a stumbling-block have been
converted into a stepping-stone to the most satisfactory results.
Again, the length required for
the woolen loops, on which the
curtains are suspended, is thus
ascertained; and it will be
discovered to be mathematically
exact in order to fulfil that striking
but at first seemingly
unnecessary injunction, several times
repeated, “ See that thou hang
the vail under the taches; ” for it thus
turns out that the four-cubitwide curtains, added to the
single cubit of a perpendicular
to the triangle which the loops
constitute in order to stretch
the blue stripe for forming a smooth
ground for the gold-threaded cherubs, make up the five cubits
demanded for the height of the vail, like that of all the other
doorway screens. Furthermore, the number of pillars required
for the successive entrances,
and the space of the passages
between them, gradually
diminishing from the outermost to the
innermost, as propriety and
usage approve, as well as their purp>ose
of due and equable support, without interfering with the
sockets of the wall-planks or concealing the cherub-figures,
vindicates not only the whole
arrangement, but also the
presence or absence of the rods
or “fillets” by which they are
kept apart and at the same time
together, and the number and
position of the hooks (not
otherwise specified), in precise
accord with the statements of
the sacred text. Such a series
of agreements is a cumulative
and conclusive argument that the
minutest details and extreme
con-cinnity have at last been
authoritatively expounded.
The cherubim themselves have
been a standing riddle among archaeologists, as to their form
and still more as to their
significance. The fact that on their
first mention in Scripture,
where they appear as guardians at the
gate of Eden forfeited, they are called (in the original) "the
cherubim,” shows that they were already well-known in the time
of Moses, and accordingly we find figures of this sort freely
delineated on the Egyptian monuments. From the visions of
Isaiah (where they re-appear
under the title of seraphim), and more
copiously in those of Ezekiel, we gather that they were
substantially human in shape,
but with the fore-legs and feet of
an ox; that they had, besides human hands, two pairs of wings,
one for clothing, and the other for flight (in Isaiah an extra
pair for veiling the face); and
were four-faced, as a man (the proper
front), a lion (on the right), an ox (on the left), and an
eagle (behind), all of course
upon a single head. Those on the
curtains were doubtless with
both sets of wings closed, and with
arms folded, as the panels were too narrow to contain them
otherwise, while those on the
sacred vail were probably flying, and
those on the ark were certainly with extended wings. There is no
authority for supposing that any of those in the tabernacle
were kneeling, although this
posture is sometimes depicted on
the Egyptian monuments; and
the living creatures (A. V. most
unfortunately "beasts”) of the Apocalypse occasionally assume
that attitude. As to their symbolization we may assume that
they were not intended to represent any actual being
(especially not the glorified
state of Christ or the saints — a grotesque and
even shocking thought to us), for then they would have been
idolatrous; but were, as we
conceive, merely imaginative
embodiments of the four leading attributes of Deity in the
physical world according to the
unscientific, but really profound and
correct, notions of the Hebrews; namely, intelligence, power,
constancy and rapidity.
Accordingly they are (especially in
Ezekiel) the bearers of
Jehovah’s throne; and they correspond essentially
to what we term cardinal " laws of nature,” i.e., forces acting
for a definite purpose uniformly
and instantaneously. In this light
the location of the two upon the lid of the sacred ark is
preeminently fitting as the
custodians of the divine law, nature thus
corroborating revelation.
In this connection we may not
inappropriately pause a moment to correct a common
error, which confounds these
symbolical forms with angels;
whereas the latter are actual
beings, who temporarily in Scripture
assumed a human body, but were invariably
destitute of wings,
notwithstanding the idealism of
poets and the delineation of painters
and sculptors. The common pictorial representation of the
cherubim as beautiful young “ cherubs ” is equally devoid of
foundation. They were essentially
animal forms, as their
analogues on the Egyptian and Assyrian monuments abundantly
show, no less than all the scriptural portraitures.
Inasmuch as the official garb of
the sacerdotal order is part of the prescription in the
cultus of the tabernacle, this
paper would be incomplete without some
allusion to it. It was in fact but an improved fashion of the
ordinary dress of orientals, consisting essentially of the
tunic or shirt, with the
invariable girdle for the waist, and the
skull-cap for the head, but
omitting the sandals on account of
the sanctity of the edifice, and adding drawers for the sake of
decency. The high-priest had an extra robe or surtout fringed
with bells-and tassels, an ornamental ephod or cape, sustaining
the breastplate as a pouch for
the mysterious Urim and Thummim,
a turban about the head, bearing the gold plate with its
inscription significant of consecration to Jehovah’s service.
The furniture or apparatus for
the two sacred apartments, as well as for the exterior court,
is likewise minutely described
in the Scripture account; but for
its elucidation, which would require great detail, we content ourself with referring the
reader to our book so often alluded to
above. On one other point, however, of
a general character we may be indulged with a little
amplification, namely, the
gradually increasing sanctity of the
successive inclosures. The great
mass of the Israelites were wholly
excluded from the sacred
precincts, and privileged characters among
laymen were alone allowed to enter even the outer (and only)
court with any considerable degree of freedom; while (male)
worshipers could only do so for purposes of special
sacrifice. The Levites were
admitted to this at all times as assistants
of the sacerdotal order, but
under no circumstances could they
enter farther, except to carry
away the frame-work and fixtures of
the tabernacle itself, together with the sacred utensils, after
these had been properly dismantled and covered by the priests.
The ordinary priests again went into the holy place, as a
regular thing, but twice a day, namely, at the hour of the
morning and evening sacrifice
(i. e., the one offered on the brazen
altar outside), in order to
extinguish and trim or else to light
the lamps in the candelabrum, to change the shew-bread (once a
week), and to burn incense on the golden altar. The high
priest on the day of annual atonement only went (according
to the rabbins, several times) into the most holy place, but in
plain linen clothing (to denote humility), for the
purpose of
sprinkling the blood around (not upon) the mercy-seat of the ark.
In all this graduated seclusion we perceive a .strong
contrast with the synagogue of
later times, which was the precursor
of Christian churches, where
full liberty of access prevails for
all classes and persons, because
no special Shekinah of the divine
presence is ever visibly there vouchsafed, and no Levitical
services are held therein. The
one great and final Sacrifice has
been offered once for all, in
the person of the supreme High
Priest himself; each truly
regenerate individual is a
priest for himself or herself;
the prayers of the saints are
the daily incense; and every
pious heart is the divine abode.
The original model of the
tabernacle is reserved for the
disclosure of the heavenly
world.1 |
|
1) For a copious elucidation of everything relating to the subject the reader is referred to the writer’s full work entitled "The Tabernacle of Israel in the Desert,” published by Harris, Jones & Co., Providence, R. I.; 1888, square 8vo; with a portfolio of colored plates. |