TABERNACLE. A transliteration of the Lat. tabernaculum, meaning a tent either with or without a wooden framework. The Gr. equivalent is σκηνή, G5008.

I. Terminology

A number of words and phrases are employed in connection with the Tabernacle.

1) הָאֹ֑הֶל “the tent” occurs nineteen times; also אֹ֣הֶל יְהוָ֗ה, “tent of the Lord” (1 Kings 2:28ff.); בֵ֥ית־הָאֹ֖הֶל, “the house of the tent” (1 Chron 9:23); בֵּ֖ית יְהוָ֣ה, “the house of the Lord” (Exod 23:19); and מִשְׁכַּ֖ן בֵּ֥ית הָאֱלֹהִֽים, “the tabernacle of the house of God” (1 Chron 6:48; cf. Heb 6:33). LXX uses for אֹ֫הֶל֒, H185, “tent,” σκηνή, G5008, about 140 times and σκήνωμα, G5013, 44 times. Vulgate uses tabernaculum and, less often, tentorium; σκηνή ἅλια, “sacred tent,” occurs in Wisdom of Solomon 9:8 and Ecclesiasticus 24:10.

2) אֹ֣הֶל מﯴעֵ֑ד, “tent of meeting,” that is, of God and Israel through Moses, thus indicating the Tabernacle as a place of revelation. This name occurs over 125 times (Exod 33:7; Num 11:16; 12:4; Deut 31:14). It is almost always rendered in Gr. by ἡ σκηνή τοῦ μαρτυρίον, “the tent of the testimony,” and in the Vul. by tabernaculum testimonii and more often in Numbers by tabernaculum foederis, “the tabernacle of the covenant.” The place where the Lord met with Moses and Israel (Exod 29:42, 43; Num 17:4) was for communication and revelation (Exod 29:42; 33:11; Num 7:89). It is practically equivalent to “tent of revelation,” since here God declared His will for Israel. The rendering “the tabernacle of the congregation” is not exact.

3) מִשְׁכָּ֥ן, “dwelling place” or “dwelling,” the place where God disclosed Himself to His people and dwelt among them. The root is “to dwell.” Exodus 25:9 uses the word to speak of the entire shrine; in 26:1 it is limited practically to the holy of holies. The LXX tr. is σκηνή, G5008, about 106 times and σκήνωμα, G5013, about 17 times. The Vul. renders it tabernaculum.

4) מִשְׁכַּ֣ן הָעֵדֻ֔ת, “the tabernacle of the testimony” also occurs (Exod 38:21). Also, but more seldom, we have אֹ֖הֶל הָעֵדֻ֑ת, “the tent of the testimony” (Num 9:15 ASV). LXX renders it ἡ σκηνή τοῦ μαρτυρίον with a probable reference to the tables of the law. The Vul. employs tabernaculum testimonii except in Numbers 10:11 where tabernaculum foederis, “the tabernacle of the covenant,” occurs.

5) The general term מִקְדָּ֑שׁ, “holy place,” “sanctuary,” appears in Exodus 25:8 and Leviticus 10:17ff. The renderings in the LXX are ἁγίασμα, ἁγιατήριον, ἡγίασμενον, and τὰ̀ ἁγια. The Vul. employs sanctuarium. The root is the verb “to be separate, holy.”

II. OT references

The principal passages dealing with the Tabernacle are (1) Exodus 25-29; (2) Exodus 30, 31; (3) Exodus 35-40; and (4) Numbers 3:25ff.; 4:4ff.; 7:1ff. The record of the Tabernacle proper is given in Exodus 25-27; 30; 31; 35-40; also Numbers 3:25ff.; 4:4ff.; 7:1ff. The purpose of the structure is stated in Exodus 25:8, 21, 22. It was made after the pattern shown to Moses on the mount (25:9; 26:30). The entrances to the court and to the structure, were from the E. First was the altar of burnt offering in the court, then the laver; inside the Tabernacle, farthest W, stood the holy of holies, or the most holy place, hidden by a veil or curtain, and which housed the Ark of the covenant. The second division inside the Tabernacle, the holy place, contained the table of showbread, the golden lampstand, and the altar of incense.

III. Plan of the Tabernacle

Altars preceded sanctuaries in Israel (Gen 12:7, 8). Monotheism underlay the Tabernacle, and the later temples were modeled after it. The ground plan of the Tabernacle is sufficiently clear, although there are various opinions concerning the details. It is customarily held that the shape of the structure was oblong with a flat roof and ornate coverings that hung down at each side and at the back. Another opinion is that the Tabernacle had a sloping roof.

The outer court contained the altar of burnt offering and the bronze laver. The Tabernacle structure consisted of two divisions: the holy place and the holy of holies, or the most holy place. In the former stood the table of showbread on the N (the structure was oriented toward the E); the golden lampstand on the S; the golden altar of incense on the W against the veil leading to the most holy place. The innermost compartment held the Ark of the covenant, in which were deposited the two tables of the law, the pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded. Its covering, a lid of pure gold, was the mercy seat, or propitiatory, overshadowed by two angelic figures called cherubim. At the mercy seat God met with His people in their need on the basis of shed blood.

IV. Traditional view

There is a marked division on the subject of the Tabernacle between those who take the Pentateuchal record as a historical account and those who approach the matter from the standpoint of critical presuppositions based on an evolutionary concept of the religion of Israel. Both Biblical data and extra-Biblical material compel the belief that the existence of an ancient portable tent-shrine was not only possible or extremely probable, but actual (cf. Exod 33:7-11; Num 11:24; 12:4-10; 14:10; Josh 18:1; 19:51; 1 Sam 2:22; 2 Sam 6:17; 7:6; 1 Kings 2:28, 29; 8:4). Research has shown that there existed until recent times portable shrines among the nomads of the Syrian desert. Similar shrines are mentioned by writers of the classical period.

The conservative position holds that the Tabernacle was made by Moses in the wilderness. It was constructed according to the pattern shown to him on the mount. It was to be the center of worship for the tribes of Israel in their wilderness travels. Centuries later, the Temple of Solomon was modeled after the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle, although primarily a provisional and temporary sanctuary for the journey from Sinai to Pal., nonetheless continued in use long after the settlement in Canaan.

The higher critical view maintains that the Tabernacle had only an ideal, not a historical, existence; that it was a product of priestly imagination in exilic or postexilic times. It was a miniature built on the model of the Solomonic Temple. The claim that it was constructed in the wilderness was put forth only to give sanction to the newly written “Priestly Code” (PC), or Levitical ritual, still preserved in the books of the Pentateuch. The details of the Tabernacle in PC (Exod 25-31; 36-40; Num 2:2, 17; 5:1-4; 14:44) are said to conflict with those given in E (the Elohist in Exod 33:7-11) as to the character and location of the structure.

Part of this divergence of views on the Tabernacle stems from the interpretation of the nature and function of the tent of meeting mentioned in Exodus 33. The record indicates that at Sinai a worship altar was built by Moses (Exod 24:4). After the worship of the golden calf, Moses pitched a tent and often resorted to it outside the camp at a distance (33:7ff.). It had a definite interim function before the Tabernacle was constructed. It was a place of revelation of the will of God and of meeting with Him (33:7, 9-11). Critics, however, equate the tent of meeting with that of Numbers 11:16ff.; 12:4ff.; Deut 31:14, 15 (E), and consider it the tent of the wilderness wanderings, distinguishing it from the Tabernacle presented later by P, thus denying the historicity of the Tabernacle. It is true that such a localization of the Lord’s presence to a specific sanctuary could be misunderstood as indicating a local or tribal deity. At that stage of national growth it was a necessary step in God’s self-revelation to Israel.

V. The Tabernacle in Exodus and Numbers (PC)

The account of the Tabernacle begins in Exodus 25-31 and continues in Exodus 35-40. The LXX differs as to tr., order, and extent of chs. 35-40 (cf. D. W. Gooding, The Account of the Tabernacle). Other references to the Tabernacle and its furnishings are found in Numbers 3:25ff.; 4:4ff.; 7:1ff. The Tabernacle is mentioned in the works of Josephus and Philo and in Jewish accounts of the 3rd cent. a.d. Jewish and Christian commentators all reveal difficulty in understanding the details of the plan of the structure, although the general appointments are clear. Parallels to the Tabernacle are found in the record of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 6:2) and that of Ezekiel’s Temple (Ezek 40-46). Benzinger, although he does not take the traditional position, admits: “The whole description leaves at first sight such an impression of painstaking precision that the reader might be tempted forthwith to take for granted its historical truth” (EB, IV, 4862). However, he prefers the position of Wellhausen, who held that the statements are after all just fancy. If this were so, what was the purpose of the writer(s)?

A. Materials and furniture. The Tabernacle was made from the voluntary gifts of Israel. Materials are listed in Exodus 25:3ff.; 35:4ff.: gold, silver, bronze; blue, purple, scarlet material, fine twined linen; goats’ hair, dyed rams’ skins, goatskins, acacia wood, oil for lamps, spices for the anointing oil and the fragrant incense, onyx stones, and stones for the ephod and the breastpiece. The three metals of ancient times—bronze, silver, and gold—are used in meaningful gradation from the outer court to the most holy place. The most artistic use of the metals is found in the cherubim and the golden lampstand. The wood used throughout the structure was shittim or acacia wood, known for its durability. The material employed was linen, also fine twined linen, dyed blue, purple, and scarlet (25:4). The yarn was spun by women in charge of the weaving (35:25, 35); the work included both embroidery and tapestry.

1. Framework. The framework of the Tabernacle (Exod 26:15-37; 36:20-38) was made of forty-eight wooden frames, 15 ft. high by 27 in. wide with three vertical arms joined by three cross pieces. These were placed in wooden supports and over them were hung two large curtains. Over all were spread three covers. The framework was constructed of uprights of acacia wood, making three sides of the oblong structure. The front was closed by an embroidered screen (26:36, 37). The boards, forty-eight in number, were overlaid with gold. The construction was divided into two compartments separated by a veil, hung from four pillars overlaid with gold and set in sockets of silver. The veil, like the covering of the Tabernacle, was woven with blue, purple, and scarlet, with figures of cherubim. The holy place was 30 ft. long by 15 ft. broad; the most holy place was 15 ft. square. It has been suggested that the Tabernacle proper was tent-like in shape with a ridge pole and a sloping roof.

2. Coverings. The coverings of the Tabernacle are described in Exodus 26:1-14 and 36:8, 9. The wooden framework of the Tabernacle had three coverings: the total covering of the Tabernacle itself, the covering of goats’ hair, and the covering of rams’ and goatskins spread over the entire structure. The first covering was made of ten curtains of fine twined linen woven with blue, purple, and scarlet, with figures of cherubim. The second covering was of eleven curtains of goats’ hair. The top covering was made of rams’ skins dyed red and goatskins.

3. Court of the Tabernacle. The description of the court is found in Exodus 27:9-18 and 38:9-20. The court of the Tabernacle was a rectangle on an E to W plan, 100 cubits (c. 150 ft.) long and 50 cubits wide. To the W was the Tabernacle proper and to the E, the altar. The court was screened off from the camp by five white curtains five cubits high. It was an enclosure of 150 ft. in length and 75 ft. in breadth, with curtains of fine twined linen supported on bronze pillars and attached by silver hooks. In the court stood the altar of burnt offering and the laver, the latter being set between the altar and the Tabernacle proper (30:17-21). The entrance to the court was from the eastern side through a “gate” or “screen” with its hangings.

a. Altar. The altar of burnt offering is treated in Exodus 27:1-8 and 38:1-7. It is called “the altar of bronze” from its appearance, and “the altar of burnt offering” from its use. The fire on this altar was never to go out (Lev 6:13). The most important of the contents of the outer court was the altar. It was a hollow chest of acacia wood covered with bronze, five cubits long and wide and three cubits high, with four horns at the corners. In the middle of the altar was a ledge (Lev 9:22) and below it a grating. The altar was carried by bronze-covered poles in bronze rings. The horns of this altar were at times misused for asylum (1 Kings 1:50, 51). They were sprinkled with blood at the consecration of the priests (Exod 29:12), at the presentation of the sin offering (Lev 4:18-34), and on the Day of Atonement (16:18). The grating on the four sides at the foot of the altar permitted the blood of the sacrifices to be spilt at the base of the altar through the network. Laymen were permitted to approach the altar, for when they brought their sacrifices, they laid their hands on the victim (1:4).

b. Laver. The laver is described in Exodus 30:17-21, and 38:8. It was for the exclusive use of the priests as they ministered in the ritual of the Tabernacle. They neglected this provision at the peril of their lives (Exod 30:20, 21). Made of bronze, the laver had a base, evidently for the washing of the feet of the priests. Some scholars believe that the base was a part of the laver proper, whereas others with greater probability maintain that the base was a separate vessel from the laver itself. The record indicates that the bronze was contributed by the ministering women who were engaged in work about the Tabernacle (38:8).

4. Sanctuary proper. The Tabernacle proper is described in Exodus 26:1-14 and 36:8-19. It appears that the curtains, rather than the boards, constituted the dwelling of the Lord (Exod 26:1). The record of the wooden framework of the dwelling is found in Exodus 26:15-30 and 36:20-34. At the inner portion of the court stood the Tabernacle, an oblong structure 45 ft. long by 15 ft. broad with two divisions, the holy place and the most holy (26:33). These two divisions are found in the Solomonic Temple as well (1 Kings 6:5). The area of the most holy place was 30 ft. square; the holy place measured 60 ft. by 30. The two were separated by a veil. On the Day of Atonement the high priest entered the veil, or curtain, at the open end into the innermost sanctuary. The emphasis in Exodus 26 and 36 is on the Tabernacle itself and its curtains, of which there were ten, each 28 by 4 cubits. The ten curtains of colored fabric with woven cherubim were joined in two sets of five along the sides of the Tabernacle. Fifty loops of violet thread were sewed, and the curtains were to be held together by fifty gold clasps, thus uniting the whole Tabernacle (26:6). Over all this was placed a tent, one covering of goats’ hair with five or six curtains coupled by hooks and clasps, amounting to a total size of 40x30, to make certain the Tabernacle was completely covered. The covering overlapped the linen and permitted an extra fold at the front (26:9). The tent had two coverings, one of rams’ skins dyed red and another of skins of goats (cf. 26:14; 40:19).

The curtains were held in place by forty-eight acacia frames. These frames consisted of two arms connected at the top, center, and bottom by cross rungs with two silver bases for each frame. The silver bases formed an unbroken foundation around the Tabernacle. The frames were also held together by five bars. The frames and bars were gold-plated. The front of the structure was enclosed by curtains. (Exod 26:22-25 is difficult. It may speak of a pair of frames joined at each corner of the W or rear of the framework, sloping upward and inward from their bases to a point under the top bar.) The screen was the entrance to the holy place. The veil separated the holy of holies (the most holy place) from the holy place. The veil was made of variegated material with embroidered cherubim, draped over four pillars of acacia wood, overlaid with gold, supported by four silver bases. The screen was of the same material as the screen at the entrance to the outer court (27:16). It was suspended from golden hooks on five pillars of acacia wood, overlaid with gold, supported by bronze bases.

a. Holy place. The outer compartment or holy place, contained three pieces of furniture: (1) the table of showbread, (2) the golden lampstand, and (3) the golden altar of incense. The table was set on the N side of the holy place (40:22); the lampstand on the S side (40:24); and the altar of incense on the W side before the veil. The table was made of acacia wood covered with fine gold and ornamented with a gold molding. Rings and poles were made for carrying. A number of accessories were made for the table: gold plates to hold the loaves, dishes for the frankincense (Lev 24:7), and golden vessels for wine offerings. On this table were placed two piles of twelve loaves or cakes, changed each week (24:5-9). The dishes, spoons, and bowls were all of pure gold.

On the S side of the holy place stood the golden seven-branched lampstand. It was the most ornate of all the furniture. Of pure gold it had a central shaft (Exod 25:32-35) from which were made six golden branches, three on either side. All was adorned with almonds and flowers. All stands supported a lamp which gave continuous (others say only nightly) illumination (27:20; Lev 24:2, 3; 1 Sam 3:3). Accessories of the lampstand, such as snuffers, snuff dishes, and oil vessels, were all of gold. The lampstand was made of a talent of pure gold (Exod 25:38).

In front of the veil was placed an altar of incense (30:1-5; 37:25-28). Because it is not mentioned in Exodus 25, it is considered by some to be a later addition. It is not mentioned in the LXX in Exodus 37. It was a small altar constructed of acacia wood and overlaid with gold, one cubit long and wide, and two cubits high. It was a replica in miniature of the bronze altar (30:1-10). Its fire was provided from the main altar. Horns, rings, poles, and a golden molding were made for it. Perpetual sweet smelling incense was offered on it night and morning, and on the Day of Atonement expiation was made on its horns. On the basis of Hebrews 9:4, some have thought that Exodus 30:6 and 1 Kings 6:22 suggest that the altar of incense was inside the veil in the most holy place. The sacred writer of Hebrews is viewing the sanctuary and its ritual proleptically, that is, in the light of the rent veil and an accomplished redemption, and, furthermore, the passages in Exodus and 1 Kings cannot be made to teach a condition contrary to the other passages on the holy place. Provision was made for replenishings of the oil for the lamps and incense for the altar (Exod 30:22-33, 34-38).

b. Holy of holies. The smallest of all the parts of the sanctuary was the holy of holies, yet it was the most significant because of the ritual that was carried out there on the Day of Atonement, and because of the reiterated declaration that God Himself dwelt in the Tabernacle in the holiest of all, a dwelling represented by the Shekinah cloud over the innermost sanctuary.

The account is found in Exodus 25:10-40; 30:1-10; 37. The record of the Tabernacle begins with the construction of the Ark (Exod 25:10). Its measurements were about 3 and 3/4 by 2 and 1/4 by 2 and 1/4 ft. It was the only furniture in the holy of holies. It contained the Ten Commandments (2 Kings 11:12; Ps 132:12), the pot of manna (Exod 16:33ff.), and Aaron’s rod that budded (Num 17:10). It was covered within and without of pure gold, with golden moldings, rings, and staves. Resting on the Ark of the covenant and held securely in place by the gold molding was a solid slab of gold called the mercy seat, or the propitiatory כַּפֹּ֫רֶת, H4114. Wrought out of the ends of the covering or lid were figures of gold, the cherubim (Exod 25:19; 37:8). Their faces were toward the mercy seat and their wings touched overhead. Between the cherubim the God of Israel dwelt visibly (25:22; 30:6; Num 7:8, 9), and met with His people through their representatives, first Moses, then Aaron. The rendering “mercy seat” was first employed by Tyndale who followed Luther’s tr. (Gnadenstuhl) based on the Gr. ἱλαστήριον, G2663, (propitiatory) and the Lat. (propitiatorium). “Propitiatory” best conveys the concept intended, i.e., that of making propitiation for sin; hence the place where God was rendered favorable to His people. The cherubim of pure gold were soldered to the propitiatory, making it “of one piece” with it (Exod 25:19). They represented angelic ministers of the Lord who guarded the divine throne from all pollution. The Ark was carried by poles in four golden rings at the sides of the Ark. The Tabernacle with the Ark was lost in the Battle of Aphek (1 Sam 4). In the second, or restoration, Temple of Zer ubbabel there was no Ark with its propitiatory (contra Apoc. of Baruch 6:7).

B. Construction and consecration of the Tabernacle. The account is found in Exodus 25-27; 28; 29. Moses was instructed to erect the Tabernacle on the first day of the first month in the second year of the Exodus, nine months after reaching Mount Sinai (Exod 19:1). The pattern was revealed by God for His dwelling place (25:8; 29:45). The many workmen were led by men of artistic skill who were empowered and illuminated by the Spirit of God, Bezalel the son of Uri and Oholiab the son of Ahisamach (31:1-6). When the structure was completed and the furniture installed in place, the cloud symbolizing the presence of God filled all the place. The cloud henceforth signaled to Israel when they were to camp and when to journey. When Israel was encamped, the Tabernacle was at the center of the camp with Levites on three sides and Moses and Aaron and his sons on the fourth (E) side: Judah at the center of the E side; Ephraim at the center of the W side; Reuben on the S side. The number of Levites who ministered at the Tabernacle was 8,580 (Num 4:48). The Tabernacle manifested what has been termed a “graduated holiness and perfection,” i.e., the metal in the most holy place was solid gold; in the holy place, ordinary gold; in the court, bronze. The people were allowed into the court, the priests into the holy place, and only the high priest into the most holy place one day a year. Only the altar is mentioned for consecration (Exod 29:36f.), but later all the furniture of the sanctuary was included (chs. 30; 31).

C. Moving the Tabernacle. Numbers 2:17; 3:25-38; and 4:1ff. discuss the Tabernacle on the march. The camp moved when the cloud that rested on the sanctuary was taken up from over the dwelling (Exod 40:37; Num 9:17). While the cloud hovered over the dwelling, the camp remained stationary (9:18ff.). When a silver trumpet blast heralded the breaking of camp (10:1ff.), the priests took down the veil and covered the Ark with it (4:5ff.) and two other covers. Similarly, all the furniture was to be wrapped (4:7-14). The Kohathites carried all the pieces that were transported by poles. The Gershonites were entrusted with the curtains of the Tabernacle, the tent of meeting with its covers, the screen, the hangings of the court, the screen, the altar, and its equipment. The Merarites transported the frames, bars, pillars and bases of the Tabernacle proper and the pillars and bases of the court. The Levites marched in the middle of the nation with six tribes before them and six behind (2:17).

The Ark went before Israel in the crossing of the Jordan. They set up the Tabernacle at Shiloh, and the land was divided among the tribes there (Josh 18:1; 19:51). Only the Ark is mentioned, although the assumption is that the tent of meeting was present also (1 Sam 2:22). After the destruction of Shiloh, the Ark was placed in the home of Abinadab at Kiriath-jearim. The account in 1 Samuel 22:18, 19 implies the existence of a sanctuary (cf. ch. 21).

VI. Historical references to the Tabernacle

When all the Biblical references are collated, it is found that there are mentions of both a Tabernacle and a tent of meeting. Some of the problems involved will be discussed later. Early references to the tent of meeting are Exodus 33:7-11; Numbers 11:16, 17, 24, 26; 12:5, 10; and Deuteronomy 31:14, 15. In the first reference the tent of meeting is pitched outside the camp (Exod 33:7; cf. Num 11:26, 27). Here Moses and others went to commune with God and to inquire of Him. This tent was guarded by Joshua, an Ephraimite, but no Levites. The verbs used in Exodus 33:7-11 and Numbers 10:17-21 indicate customary conditions. The whole picture is different from the tent made by Bezalel and his assistant. To recapitulate, this tent was called “tent of meeting.” It was located outside the camp and some distance from it. Although the account appears to indicate a temporary or occasional arrangement, it lasted throughout the wilderness journeys (cf. A. R. S. Kennedy, HDB, IV, 653ff.). Its function was to provide the meeting place between God and Moses (Num 12:5; Deut 31:15). It was also the site where worshipers sought the Lord (Exod 33:7). The attendant was Joshua the son of Nun (33:11; Num 11:28).

The Tabernacle was erected at Sinai in the second year after the Exodus, two weeks before the Passover (Exod 40:2, 17). When the congregation journeyed, the Ark was covered with the veil (Num 4:5). The Ark and the two altars were carried by the sons of Kohath, a descendant of Levi, under the supervision of the high priest (3:31, 32; 4:15). The rest of the disassembled structure was carried in six covered wagons, given by a prince (Num 7:7), each drawn by two oxen. Others must have been used for the heavier materials. Before Israel departed from Sinai, the Tabernacle had been erected for fifty days (10:11).

The journey of Israel took them from Horeb in Arabia to Kadesh-barnea in the Negev of Judah. Of the forty years spent marching to Canaan, almost thirty-eight were spent at Kadesh. The Tabernacle remained here through those years apart from one year spent going S to the Red Sea. During all these years the customary sacrifices were not offered (Amos 5:25). Few events of those years are recorded and little is stated concerning the Tabernacle except that the Ark headed the march (Num 10:33-36). Because history deals mainly with the unusual, the daily occurrences of the life of the people are not alluded to.

After the crossing of the Jordan River, a place was found for the sacred tent near Jericho at Gilgal (Josh 4:19; 5:10; 9:6; 10:6, 43). This site was temporary, and in time the Tabernacle was moved to Shiloh in Ephraim, a central location convenient for the men to attend the three annual pilgrimage feasts (Josh 18:1; 19:51). At Shiloh the Tabernacle appears to have had some permanent features, and was called a “temple” (1 Sam 1:9; 3:3). In Samuel’s day there was a sanctuary at Shiloh with doors and posts (1:9; 3:15).

During the period of the judges, Israel repeatedly fell into apostasy, and the Tabernacle services must have been performed in a formal, heartless manner, if at all. When war erupted with the Philistines in Samuel’s time, the people decided to bring the Ark of the covenant from Shiloh (1 Sam 4:1ff.). The outcome was tragic: the Philistines captured the Ark and routed Israel. Doubtless, Shiloh fell at this time at the hands of the Philistines (cf. Ps 78:60ff.; Jer 7:12). The Tabernacle appears to have remained in Israel, for it is later mentioned at Nob.

After the death of Eli and his sons it appears that Samuel presided over the religious exercises of the nation. He offered burnt and peace offerings. After the Ark was restored by the Philistines, it remained at Kiriath-jearim (1 Sam 7:1, 2). Gilgal, Bethel, Mizpah, and Ramah were places of administration of justice, and gained religious associations as well.

The next reference to the Tabernacle is at Nob with Ahimelech as high priest (21:1ff.). After Saul had all the priests of Nob slain except Abiathar (22:11ff.), it was removed to Gibeon (1 Chron 16:39; 21:29).

After David captured Jebus and built himself a palace, he prepared a place for the Ark of God and a tent on Zion (2 Sam 6:17ff.; 1 Chron 16:1). David pitched a tent for the Ark, which he had brought to Jerusalem. This seems to have been a new tent for the arrival of the Ark to his capital (2 Sam 7:2; 1 Chron 17:1). Burnt offerings and peace offerings were presented there. The Ark was brought from Kiriath-jearim and delivered to the priests (2 Sam 6:1ff.). When Uzzah was struck dead for his indiscretion in connection with the Ark, the Ark remained for three months at the home of Obed-edom, a Levite. Then with great solemnity it was transferred to David’s Tabernacle. There is evidence of the continuous presence of the tent (2 Sam 7:6).

With David’s removal of the Ark to Jerusalem there were both a Tabernacle with its altar at Gibeon and one with the Ark in Jerusalem, both soon to be replaced by the Temple. The Gibeon altar was in use to Solomon’s time. Notice also the occurrence of a reference to the “tent of meeting” in 1 Kings 8:4. After Solomon’s Temple was built, the tent of meeting with all its equipment was transferred with the Ark into the Temple (8:4). Of all the materials of the Tabernacle, it is held, only the Ark remained the same in the Temple. The last references, then, in the history of Israel to the Tabernacle concern the time when it with its sacred vessels were transported to Jerusalem, where from all indications they were kept as sacred relics in the Temple (ibid). Thus the Tabernacle disappeared from history.

VII. Critical view

The critical view of the Tabernacle, referred to briefly earlier in this treatment, is complex indeed compared with the accounts already discussed. One position of the critical camp is that the Tabernacle in the wilderness (Exod 25-30; 35-40) was always an ideal, never a real structure. It is argued that the elaborate symbolism of the Tabernacle could not have been reproduced in its entirety in any of the temples that were actually constructed in Israel. It is pointed out that the earthly Tabernacle was said to be built from a heavenly pattern delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai (25:40).

Many older critics considered the Tabernacle as only a projection backward of the Temple into Israel’s nomadic past; this was supposedly a product of the late priestly source (P or PC) without a shred of historical foundation. In all fairness it must be pointed out that more recent critical studies have admitted that this judgment was a far too sweeping and radical treatment of the Biblical data. In fact, the Wellhausen school explained the Tabernacle of Exodus 25ff. as a postexilic representation based on Solomon’s Temple. The claim was that the Tabernacle was a copy, but not the model or prototype, of the Temple of Solomon (cf. Wisd Sol 9:8). The order would be: the shadowy original in the tent (Exod 33:7-11), then Solomon’s Temple, then Ezekiel’s ideal representation, and finally the Tabernacle of Exodus 25. It should be added that some modern scholars view Ezekiel’s “ideal” reconstruction as actually prophetic, eschatological, and Messianic.

The weight of modern OT scholarship is opposed to the historicity of the Tabernacle treated in Exodus and Numbers (P). Some of the general arguments lodged against the historicity of the Tabernacle are that an unorganized body of Heb. slaves could never have accomplished the feat involved in constructing the Tabernacle with its demands for a high degree of artistic skill; that even Solomon in his reign had to hire skilled artists from Phoenicia for the Temple. Moreover, the highly organized priestly ministry with its elaborate ritual is out of keeping with the simple appointments indicated for the tent of meeting. Furthermore, the most cogent argument advanced against the historicity of the Tabernacle (in P) is the silence of the preexilic historical writers with reference to it. The claim is made that no genuine passage of history in that long period so much as hints of the existence of a Tabernacle with ministering priests and Levites. When references occur in the Chronicler (1 Chron 16:39; 21:29) and the psalmists, it is laid to the activity of editors and glossators who inserted references where they thought the Tabernacle should have been (1 Kings 3:2ff.; 2 Chron 1:3).

Other objections to the historicity of the Tabernacle have not been lacking. The Tabernacle must be the creation of the imagination, it is argued, because the author has so poorly thought out the details of the structure. Moreover, the fundamental question has been posed as to whether such a structure was capable of standing at all. As a matter of architecture, the Tabernacle is pronounced an utter impossibility (Benzinger, EB IV, 4872). Furthermore, it is asserted that E knows nothing of a Tabernacle of this kind. That source speaks only of a tent that excludes the possibility of the Tabernacle in P (cf. Exod 33:7ff). It is felt that this simple tent-sanctuary involves none of the difficulties of the Tabernacle in P. The tent of E is not a place of sacrifice (as the Tabernacle is in P), but a place of oracle, more like the portable sanctuaries of the heathen Sem. peoples of the time. (Note the denial of the uniqueness of the faith of Israel, which is the distinguishing feature of the OT.)

To elaborate further on the historical argument, historical tradition from the settlement in the land to the building of Solomon’s Temple is said to reveal no knowledge of any Tabernacle. Passages that do mention or imply the existence of the Tabernacle are treated with suspicion and are rejected. The conclusion is then drawn that the Tabernacle of P is just the Temple of Solomon read back into earlier days by a vivid priestly fancy. Simply stated, it was not the Temple that was built on the pattern of the Tabernacle, but the Tabernacle was constructed for the worship of Israel from the prototype of the Temple. A general observation is in order: one of the characteristic features of the critical school is the tenet that development always proceeds from the simple to the complex. Why is this principle departed from at this point when the Tabernacle and Temple are discussed?

VIII. The historicity of the Tabernacle

The historicity of the Tabernacle is of vital significance for the entire validity of the Scriptures. The main contentions of those who deny the historicity of the Tabernacle will be presented, and then will be followed by specific refutations.

Critical opinion claims that if Solomon’s Temple had been patterned after the Mosaic Tabernacle, the writers of Kings and Chronicles would have stated this fact. This position overlooks 1 Kings 8:4 and 2 Chronicles 5:5. It is argued that these passages refer to “the tent of meeting” and not the Mosaic Tabernacle of Exodus 25. However, in P the Mosaic Tabernacle has the same name (Exod 27:21). What logic requires that the authors of Kings and Chronicles state explicitly that the Solomonic Temple was modeled after the Mosaic Tabernacle?

Much is made of the argument from silence. Arguments from silence are notoriously precarious. The only way a silence of the historical books can be made out is to delete all such reference passages relative to the Mosaic Tabernacle as the work of a late redactor who allegedly inserted them to support his view that the Mosaic Tabernacle originated in the wilderness. No external evidence has been produced by any critic to sustain this position. If the evidence of the OT is heeded, it reveals a number of clear evidences.

First, there was the Mosaic Tabernacle at Shiloh. According to the account in 1 Samuel 1:3, 9, 19, 24; 2:11, 12 and 3:3, the structure mentioned is the Mosaic Tabernacle. It had the Ark of the covenant, a priesthood, sacrifices, burning of incense, and the wearing of an ephod. Elkanah’s annual pilgrimage to Shiloh to worship and offer sacrifice strongly implies that Shiloh was the central sanctuary, and that the law of the annual feasts was known (Exod 23:14; Lev 23:1-18; Deut 16:16).

Secondly, the sanctuary at Nob was the Mosaic Tabernacle (1 Sam 21:1-6). It had a high priest and eighty-five ordinary priests, a priest’s ephod, and a table of showbread. The eating of the showbread was under the same ceremonial regulations as indicated for the Mosaic Tabernacle (Lev 15:18). The Urim and Thummim were used by the priest to determine God’s will as in the Tabernacle arrangement. These are particulars that relate to the Tabernacle and to no other institution among Israel.

Thirdly, the reference to the Mosaic Tabernacle at Gibeon precedes the building of Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 8:4; 2 Chron 1:3; 5:3). It is stated that the Ark of the covenant, the tent of meeting, and all the holy vessels of the tent were solemnly brought into the Temple Solomon had built.

Critics claim the Mosaic Tabernacle could not have been made as Exodus describes it, because (1) the time was too short; (2) the Israelites were not qualified or artistically capable; and (3) they did not have sufficient materials for such a splendid building as the Mosaic Tabernacle. The argument as to time is amply answered by the fact that 600,000 able men for nine months could well have accomplished, with their wives and children, all that was needed for so circumscribed a structure. The objection as to their artistic ability is untenable in the light of the fact that in over 400 years they could well have learned something of the mechanical arts for which Egypt was justly famous. Furthermore, who can disprove that some of the famous works of Egypt of those days were not done by Israelite slave labor? The argument as to scantiness of material is refuted by the considerations that Israel had some preparation for their wilderness journey, that the amount of material involved is not in excess of what other ancient oriental peoples possessed, that a large part of what they needed could have come from what the Egyptians gave them to leave their land and from the spoils of the war with Amalek, and that a number of the materials required for the construction were available in the wilderness.

The Biblical account is said to have certain internal marks that reveal its unhistorical character. (1) It states the Tabernacle was made on a model supernaturally shown to Moses. (2) It continually refers to geographical locations of the Tabernacle when no previous instructions had indicated any such order. (3) The bronze altar was made of acacia wood overlaid with bronze where a fire would burn constantly. (4) The Tabernacle is pictured, not as a temporary shelter for the Ark on the march, but as the only authorized sanctuary for the tribes of Israel before the time of Solomon. (5) The description of the Tabernacle found in P, “priestly code” (Exod 25-31; 36-40; Num 2:2, 17; 5:1-4; 14:44) is said to conflict with E (Exod 33:7-11) as to character and location.

In refutation of the first objection, it must be affirmed that there is no inherent impossibility that God should reveal the pattern of the Tabernacle to Moses in the mount (Exod 25:40; Heb 8:5). Is the Temple of Solomon unhistorical because David said that the pattern of it given to Solomon had been revealed to him (David) by God (1 Chron 28:19)? Moreover, Ezekiel claimed that the Temple he described was seen by him in a vision. Here it is a matter of one’s theology and the possibility of supernatural revelation.

The second objection is indeed difficult to comprehend, because it argues against the obvious. The Tabernacle had to be oriented in some way, and the most natural would be according to the four points of the compass. Moreover, there was no conscious imitation of the Solomonic Temple, because the account in Kings and Chronicles makes no reference to the four quarters of the earth. 1 Kings 7:25 does not demand that the sides of the Temple were so positioned.

The third argument assumes more than is stated. The text does not claim that a large fire constantly burned on an altar of wood. A reading of Exodus 27:1-8 and 38:1-7 shows that the altar proper, where the fire burned and consumed the sacrifices, was the earth- (or stone-) filled hollow (Exod 20:24f.) which the wooden and bronze frame enclosed.

The fourth contention is in exact conformity with a natural reading of Exodus, namely, the Tabernacle was meant to be the authorized sanctuary for the tribes before Solomon’s day. It is true that on occasion altars were built for sacrifice at locations other than the Tabernacle, e.g., by Gideon at Ophrah and by Samuel at Ramah (Judg 6:24-27; 1 Sam 7:17), but this is inadequate to prove that the Tabernacle was not the central sanctuary. By the same reasoning, Jerusalem could be shown not to be the central sanctuary because of the altar on Mount Ebal (Deut 27:5). Actually, the Tabernacle was the central sanctuary, but the original legislation of Exodus 20:24 had never been rescinded. It was still permissible to offer sacrifice wherever the Lord revealed Himself to His people. Because local shrines existed at the same time as the Tabernacle does not warrant the conclusion that the Tabernacle was never constructed.

The fifth objection is adequately answered by the observation that the description of the Tabernacle in P differs from the description of the tent in E, because two different structures are in view: one the Tabernacle proper (P) and the other the preliminary tent built by Moses. This explanation accounts for the variations in character and location of the two.

Perhaps the strongest proof advanced for the nonhistoricity of the Tabernacle is the alleged ignorance of the pre-exilic prophets concerning the Levitical system. Critics cite Amos in the 8th cent. b.c. (5:25, 26) and Jeremiah in the 7th cent. b.c. (7:21-23) as teaching that no sacrificial Tabernacle ritual was ever enunciated in the wilderness.

Against the critical contention based on the words of Amos and Jeremiah, it can be stated as remarkable that former interpreters did not so understand the words of these prophets. Moreover, it can be easily shown that critics are far from agreement on this interpretation. Amos 5:21, 22 would be meaningless unless God had accepted their sacrifices at one time and would do so no longer when the worship was heartless, and idolatry was indulged in at the same time (Num 16:18).

Finally, if the Lord had never commanded sacrifices for Israel, how did God order Jeremiah to pronounce a curse on the people of Jerusalem for transgressing the Lord’s covenant that He had made with their fathers in the wilderness, and that enjoined sacrifices to Him and not to idols (Jer 11:1-5)? If God had desired only obedience to moral law without sacrifice, then where was the need for the Temple? God had accepted the Temple as His house. All idolatrous sacrifices were proscribed, not only because they were wrong in themselves, but because they displaced the true sacrificial worship of the Lord. Jeremiah certainly knew God had commanded sacrifices in Exodus 20:24, 25.

The NT references to the Tabernacle at least imply that the sacred writers were agreed on the historicity of the Mosaic Tabernacle. Such citations were Peter’s words on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt 17:4; Mark 9:5; Luke 9:33), Stephen’s statement to the council (Acts 7:44), the references in Hebrews (chs. 8; 9), and the voice from heaven (Rev 21:3).

IX. Problems related to the tent of meeting and the Tabernacle

At various points in this discussion mention has been made of the problems connected with the tent of meeting and the Tabernacle. It is now necessary to put these problems in clearer focus and to answer them. It has been admitted by some that it would be both natural and logical to understand from the Pentateuch that the tent and the Tabernacle were the same structure. However, some difficulties appear. The original instructions (Exod 25) are said to be so vague and full of omissions that it would have been impossible on the basis of those instructions to build such a structure as the Tabernacle. Details are said to be lacking for the shape of the cherubim, the feet of the Ark and table, the thickness of the mercy seat, and how the weight of the curtains could have been sustained by the frames without collapsing the structure. How did the altar of burnt offering sustain such great heat needed to consume the animal sacrifices? Where did Israel get the skill and craftsmanship to erect the Tabernacle? Solomon later had to have help from skilled Phoen. artisans (1 Kings 5:6; 7:13, 14, 40, 45). The amounts of materials used were quite large: about one and one-fourth tons of gold, about four tons of silver, and about three tons of bronze. (It must be remembered that the population was over two million—Num 1.) Why is the record so silent concerning the Tabernacle from the settlement in Canaan to Solomon’s Temple? But what of 1 Chronicles 16:39; 21:29; Ps