The Typology of Scripture

By Patrick Fairbairn
Published by Smith & English, 1854

BOOK THIRD.

CHAPTER THIRD.

SECTION SECOND.

P. 220-243.

THE TABERNACLE IN ITS GENERAL STRUCTURE AND DESIGN.

By the establishment of the Sinaitic covenant the relation between God and Israel had been brought into a state of formal completeness. The covenant of promise, which pledged the divine faithfulness to bestow upon them every essential blessing, was now properly supplemented by the covenant of law, which took them bound to yield the dutiful return of obedience he justly expected from them. The foundation was thus outwardly laid for a near relationship subsisting, and a blessed intercourse developing itself between the God of Abraham on the one hand, and the seed of Abraham on the other. And it was primarily with the design of securing and furthering this end, that the ratification of the covenant of Sinai was so immediately followed up by the adoption of measures for the erection of the tabernacle.

I. The command is first of all given for the children of Israel bringing the necessary materials; "and let them make me," it is added, "a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them" (Ex. xxv. 8.) The different parts are then minutely described, after which the general design is again indicated thus: "And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God; and they shall know that I am the Lord their God that brought them out of the land of Egypt, that I may dwell among them; I am the Lord their God" (Ex. xxix, 45, 46.) With this representation of its general design, the names or designations applied to it perfectly correspond.

(1.) Most commonly when a single name is used, it is that which answers to our word dwelling or habitation, [1] although the word generally employed in our translation is tabernacle. Sometimes we find the more definite term house, [2] the house of God, or the Lord's house (Deut. xxiii. 18; Josh. ix. 23; Judg. xviii. 31), or tent, [3] (Ex. xxvi. 11.) The dwelling in its original form was a tent, because the people among whom God came to reside and hold converse, were then dwelling in tents, and had not yet come to their settled habitation. But afterwards this tent was supplanted by the temple in Jerusalem, which bore the same relation to the ceiled houses in the land of Israel, that the original tabernacle held to the tents in the wilderness. And coming, as the temple thus did, in the room of the tabernacle, and holding the same relative position, it was sometimes spoken of as the tent of God (Ez. xli. 1), though more commonly it received the appellation of the house of God, or his habitation.

(2.) Besides these names, certain descriptive epithets were applied to the tabernacle. It was called the tent of meeting; [4] for which our version has unhappily substituted the tent of the congregation. The expression is intended to designate this tent or dwelling as the place in which God was to meet and converse with his people; not, as is very often supposed, the place where the children of Israel were to assemble, and in which they had a common interest. It was this certainly; but merely because it was another and higher thing -- because it formed for them all the one point of contact and channel of intercourse between heaven and earth. This is clearly brought out in Ex. xxix. 42, 43, where the Lord himself gives an explanation of the "tabernacle of meeting," and says concerning it: "Where I will meet with you, to speak there unto thee; and there I will meet with the children of Israel, and it shall be sanctified by my glory."

(3.) The tabernacle is again described as the tabernacle of testimony, or tent of witness, [5] (Numb. ix. 15, xvii. 7, xviii. 2.) It received this designation from the law of the two tables, which were placed in the ark or chest that stood in the innermost sanctuary. These tables were called "the testimony," (Ex. xxxi. 18, xxxiv. 29), and the ark which contained them, "the ark of testimony," (Ex. xxv. 21, 22); whence also the whole tabernacle was called the tabernacle or tent of testimony. The witnessing, as previously noticed (chap. ii. sec. 1), had a twofold respect--to the holiness of God on the one hand, and to the sinfulness of the people on the other. While the tables expressed the righteous demands of the former, they necessarily bore a condemnatory testimony respecting the latter. So that the meeting which God's people were to have with him in his habitation, was not simply for receiving the knowledge of the divine will, or holding fellowship with God in general, but all with an especial respect to the sins on their part against which the law was ever testifying, and the means of their restoration to his favour and blessing.

Viewing the tabernacle, then, (or the temple), in this general aspect, we may state its immediate object and design to have been, the bringing of God near to the Israelites in his true character, and keeping up an intercourse between him and them. It was intended to satisfy the desire so feelingly expressed by Job, "Oh that I knew where I might find him? that I might come even to his seat;" and to provide, by means of a local habitation, with its appropriate services, for the attainment of a livelier apprehension of God's character, and the maintenance of a closer and more assured fellowship with him. To some extent this end might have been reached without the intervention of such an apparatus; for in itself it is a spiritual thing, and properly consists in the exercise of suitable thoughts and affections towards God, meeting with gracious manifestations of his love and blessing. But under a dispensation so imperfect as to the measure of light it imparted, the Israelites would certainly, without some outward and visible help, such as a worldly sanctuary, have either sunk into practical ignorance and forgetfulness of God, or betaken themselves to some wrong methods of bringing divine things more distinctly within the grasp and comprehension of their minds. It was thus that idol-worship arose, and was with such difficulty repressed in the chosen family itself. Till God was made manifest in flesh, in the person of Christ, even the pious mind anxiously sought to lay hold of some visible link of communion to connect it with heaven. So Jacob, after he had seen the heavenly vision on the plains of Bethel, could not refrain from anointing the stone on which his head was laid, and calling it "the house of God." He felt as if that stone now possessed a connection with heaven peculiar to itself; and with a mind less enlightened, he would assuredly have converted it in the clays of his future prosperity into an idol, and erected on the spot a fane where it might be enshrined and worshipped.

It was, therefore, with the view of meeting this natural tendency, or of assisting the natural weakness of men, in dealing with divine and spiritual things, that God condescended to provide for himself a local habitation among his people. His doing so was an act of great kindness and grace to them. At the same time, it manifestly bespoke an imperfect state of things, and was merely an adaptation or expedient to meet the existing deficiences of their religious condition, till a more perfect dispensation should come. Had they been able to look, as with open eye, on the realities of the heavenly world, they would have been raised above the necessity of any such external ladder to bring them into contact with its affairs; they would have found every place alike suitable for communing with God. And hence, when the intercourse between him and his redeemed offspring shall be brought to absolute perfection--when "the tabernacle of God shall be with men, and he shall dwell with them," no temple shall any longer be seen; [6] for the fleshly weakness, which once required this, shall have finally disappeared; everywhere the presence of God will be realized, and direct communion with him maintained. But it was otherwise amid the dim shadows of the earthly inheritance. There a visible pattern of divine things was required to help out the manifold imperfection of the spiritual idea; a habitation was needed for the indwelling of Godhead in its communications with sinful men, such as might be scanned and measured by the bodily eye, and by serving itself of which the spiritual eye might rise to the clear apprehension of the realities of an unseen, spiritual existence.

II. But that this material dwelling-place of God might be a safe guide and real assistance in promoting fellowship with heaven--that it might convey only right impressions of divine things, and form a suitable channel of communication between God and man, it must evidently be throughout of God's, and not of man's devising. He must exhibit to Moses the pattern of things in the heavens, after which it was in every particular to be constructed; and though, it was to be a tabernacle built with men's hands, yet these, from Moses, who was charged with the faithful execution of the whole, to the artificers who were to be employed in the preparation of the materials, must all be guided by the Spirit of God, supplying "wisdom, and understanding, and knowledge" for the occasion. This plainly indicates the high importance which was attached in the mind of God to the proper construction of this divine habitation, and what a plenitude of meaning was designed to be expressed by it. Yet here, also, there is a middle path, which is the right one; and it is possible, in searching for the truths embodied in those patterns of heavenly things, to err by excess as well as by defect. We are not to suppose that a separate and distinct meaning attaches to each part by itself, or to the separate qualities, perhaps, of the materials of which the different parts were composed. Due regard must be had to the connection and order of the parts one with another--their combination so as to form one harmonious whole--the circumstances in which, and the purposes for which, that whole was constructed. And it is no more than we might expect beforehand, that in this sacred structure, as in erections of an ordinary kind, some things may have been ordered as they were from convenience, others from necessity, others again from the general effect they were fitted to produce, rather than from any peculiar significance belonging to them. Such, we think, will appear to be the case in regard to the only two points we are called to consider in the present section--the materials of which the tabernacle was formed, and its general structure and appearance.

(1.) In regard to the materials, one thing is common to them all, that they were to be furnished by the people, and presented as an offering, most of them also as a free-will offering, to the Lord: "Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering; of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering," (Ex. xxv. 2). That the materials were to be brought by the people as an offering, implied that the structure for which they were given was altogether of a sacred character, being made of things consecrated to the Lord. And that the offering should have been of a free-will description, implied that there was to be no constraint in anything connected with it, and that, as in the erection of the house, so, in the carrying out of the purposes for which it was erected, there must be the ready concurrence of man's sanctified will with the grace and condescension of God. Other ideas have sometimes been sought in connection with the source from which the materials were derived, but without any warrant from Scripture. For example, much has frequently been made of the circumstance, that these materials formed a portion of the spoils of Egypt. They may, indeed, have been so, and in all probability were, to a considerable extent at least; but the text is silent upon the subject, and at the time when the people were called upon to give them, they were their own property, and simply as such (not as having been in any particular manner obtained) were the people called upon to give them. Again, a portion of the materials, the whole of the silver, it would seem, which was employed in the erection, was formed of the half-shekel of redemption-money, which Moses was ordered to levy from every male in the congregation; and as this was chiefly used in making the sockets of the sanctuary, special meanings have been derived from the circumstance. But that nothing peculiar was designed to be intimated by that, is clear from the twofold consideration, that a part of this silver was applied to a quite different use, to the making of hooks and ornaments for the pillars, and that all the sockets were not made of it; for those of the door or entrance were formed of the free-will offerings of brass.

The materials themselves were of various sorts, according to the uses for which they were required: Precious stones, of several kinds; gold, silver, and brass; shittim-wood; linen or cotton fabrics of blue, purple, and scarlet, and skins for external coverings. Separate and distinct meanings have been found in each of these, derived either from their inherent qualities, or from their colours, and by none with so much learning and ingenuity as Bähr; but still without any solid foundation. That the wood, for example, should have been that of the shittah-tree, or the acacia, as it is now generally supposed to have been, had a sufficient reason in the circumstance, which Bähr himself admits, [7] that it is the tree chiefly found in that part of Arabia, where the tabernacle was constructed, and the only one of such dimensions as to yield boards suitable for the purpose. It was not, therefore, as if a choice lay between this and some other kinds of trees, and this in particular fixed upon on account of some inherent qualities peculiar to itself. Besides, in the temple, which for all essential purposes was one with the tabernacle, the wood employed was not the acacia, but the cedar, and that, no doubt, for the same reason as the other had been, being the best and most suitable for the purpose which the region afforded. The lightness of the acacia wood, and its being less liable to corrupt than some other species, [8] were incidental advantages peculiarly fitting it for the use it was here applied to. But we have no reason to suppose that anything further, or more recondite, depended on them; according to the just remark of Hengstenberg, that in so far as things in the tabernacle differed from those in the temple, they must have been of an adventitious and external nature. [9]

In regard to the other articles used, it does not appear that any higher reason can be assigned for their selection, than that they were the best and fittest of their several kinds. They consisted of the most precious metals, of the finest stuffs in linen manufacture, with embroidered workmanship, the richest and most gorgeous colours, and the most beautiful and costly gems. It was absolutely necessary, by means of some external apparatus, to bring out the idea, of the surpassing glory and magnificence of Jehovah as the king of Israel, and of the singular honour which was enjoyed by those who were admitted to minister and serve before him. But this could only be done by the rich and costly nature of the materials, which were employed in the construction of the tabernacle, and of the official garments of those who were appointed to serve in its courts. It is expressly said of the high-priest's garments, that they were to be made "for glory (or ornament) and for beauty" (Ex. xxviii. 2); for which purpose they were to consist of the fine byss or linen cloth of Egypt (Gen. xli. 42; Luke xvi. 19), embroidered with needle-work done in blue, purple, and scarlet, the most brilliant colours. And if means were thus taken for producing effect in respect to the garments of those who ministered in the tabernacle, it is but reasonable to infer that the same would be done in regard to the tabernacle itself. Hence, we read of the temple, the more perfect form of the habitation, that it was to be made "so exceeding magnifical as to be of fame and glory throughout all countries" (1 Chron. xxii. 5), and that among other things employed by Solomon for this purpose, "the house was garnished with precious stones for beauty" (2 Chron. iii. 6). Such materials, therefore, were used in the construction of the tabernacle, as were best fitted for conveying suitable impressions of the greatness and glory of the Being, for whose peculiar habitation it was erected. And as in this we are furnished with a sufficient reason for their employment, to search for others were only to wander into the regions of uncertainty and conjecture.

We therefore discard (with Hengstenberg, Baumgarten, and others,) the meanings derived by Bähr, as well as those of the older theologians, from the intrinsic qualities of the metals, and the distinctive colours employed in the several fabrics. They are here out of place. The question is not, whether such things might not have been used, so as to convey certain ideas of a moral and religious nature, but whether they actually were so employed here--and neither the occasion of their employment, nor the manner in which this was done, in our opinion, gives the least warrant for the supposition. So far as the metals were concerned, we see no ground in Scripture for any symbolical meaning being attached to them, separate from that suggested by their costliness and ordinary uses. A symbolical use of certain colours, we undoubtedly find, such as of white, in expressing the idea of purity, or of red, in expressing that of guilt; but when so used, the particular colour must be rendered prominent, and connected also with an occasion plainly calling for such a symbol. This was not the case in either respect with the colours in the tabernacle. The colours there, for the most part, appeared in a combined form-- and, if it had been possible to single them out, and give to each a distinctive value, there was nothing to indicate how the ideas symbolized were to be viewed, whether in reference to God, or to his worshippers. Indeed, the very search would necessarily have led to endless subtleties, and prevented the mind from receiving the one direct and palpable impression, which we have seen was intended to be conveyed. (As examples of the arbitrariness necessarily connected with such meanings,Bähr makes the scarlet in the tabernacle symbolical of the life-giving property of God, while Sol. van Til had with equal reason descried in it a sign of the blood of the martyrs; and the gold with which so many articles were overlaid, is taken byBähr to be the symbol of the splendour and majesty of God's holiness, while in this country typologists have considered it as representing the divine nature of Christ, giving infinite perfection to his holiness and services. In such cases, it is impossible to distinguish between one opinion and another, as there is no solid ground for any of them to stand upon).

The total value of the materials used in the construction of the tabernacle must have been very great. Estimated according to the present commercial value, the twenty-nine talents of gold alone would be equal to about L.173,000; and Dr Kitto's aggregate sum of L.250,000, might probably come near the mark of the entire cost. But there can be no doubt that the precious metal and stones were much more common, consequently of much less comparative value in remote antiquity than they are now. In some of the ancient temples, as well as treasure-houses of kings, we read on good authority of almost incredible stores of them. For example, in the temple of Belus at Babylon, there was a single statue of Belus, with a throne and table, weighing together 800 talents of gold; and in the temple altogether about 7170 talents. Still, even this was greatly outdone by the amount of treasure which, on the most moderate calculation, we have reason to think was expended on the temple at Jerusalem. In such vast expenditure, whether on the tabernacle or the temple, it is not necessary to think of any accommodation to heathen prejudices, nor of anything but an intention to represent symbolically the greatness and glory of the divine Inhabitant.

(2). Looking now to the general structure and appearance of the tabernacle, we might certainly expect the following characteristics: that being a tent, or moveable habitation, it would be constructed in such a manner as to present somewhat of the general aspect of such tenements, and be adapted for removals from place to place; and that being the tent of God, it would be fashioned within and without, so as to manifest the peculiar sacredness and grandeur of its destination. This is precisely what we find to have been the case. Like tents generally, it was longer than broad, thirty cubits long by ten broad; and while on three of the sides possessing wooden walls, yet these were composed of separate gilded boards, rising perpendicularly from silver sockets, kept together by means of golden rings, through which transverse bars were passed, and hence easily taken asunder when a removal was made. So also the larger articles of furniture belonging to the tabernacle, the ark, the table, and the altars of incense and burnt-offering, were each furnished with rings and staves, for the greater facility of transportation. But neither within nor without must the wooden walls be seen, otherwise the appearance of a tent would not be preserved. Hence a series of coverings was provided, the innermost of which was formed of fine linen--ten breadths, five of which were joined together to make each one curtain, and the two curtains were again united together by means of fifty loops. This innermost covering was not thrown over the boards of the tabernacle, so as to hang down outside, but was suspended within by means of hooks and eyes, so that the whole interior of the sides, as well as the roof, was covered by it. Internally, it might be regarded as the tabernacle itself, and, indeed, is so named in Ex. xxvi. 6, where, after describing how the several curtains were to be coupled together, it is added respecting the whole, "and it shall be one tabernacle." [10] Then, above this, and forming an outer covering, reaching to the foot of the boards outside, was a cloth made of goat's hair--which, to the present day, is the usual external covering of the Arabian tents. As this gave to the sacred tabernacle externally the appearance of a tent, it is also, as well as the internal tapestry, designated as the tabernacle itself (Ex. xxvi. 11). And above both of these curtains, a double coating of skins was thrown, evidently for protection--the first consisting of ram's skins dyed red, the other and outermost, of what, in our version, are called badger's skins, but which are now commonly understood to have been some kind of deer-skin, or perhaps seal-skin, peculiarly adapted for withstanding the atmospheric influences.

These parts and properties, or things somewhat similar, were essential to this sacred erection as a tent; it could not have preserved its tent-like appearance without them, and been adapted for moving from place to place. Therefore, to seek for some deeper and spiritual reasons for such things as the boards and bars, the rings and staves, the different sorts of coverings, the loops and taches, &c. is to go entirely into the region of conjecture, and give unbounded scope to the exercise of fancy. A plain and palpable reason existed for them in the very nature and design of the erection; and why should this not suffice? Or, if licence be granted for the introduction of other reasons, who shall determine, since it must ever remain doubtful which ought to be preferred? It is enough to account for the things referred to, that as God's house was made in the fashion of a tent, these, or others somewhat similar, were absolutely necessary; they as properly belonged to it in that character, as the members of our Lord's body and the garments he wore "belonged to his humanity; and it is as much beside the purpose to search for an independent and separate instruction in the one, as for an independent and separate use in the other. Hence, when the house of God exchanged the tent for the temple form, it dropt the parts and properties in question, as being no longer necessary or suitable; which alone was sufficient to prove them to have been only outward and incidental.

But other things, again, were necessary, on account of the tabernacle being, not simply a tent, but the tent of the Most High God, for purposes of fellowship between him and his people: Such as, the ornamental work on the tapestry, the division of the tabernacle into more than one apartment, and the encompassing it with a fore-court, by means of an enclosure of fine linen, which in a manner proclaimed to the approaching worshippers, Procul profani! That the apartments should have consisted of no more than an outer and inner sanctuary; or that the figures wrought into the tapestry should have been precisely those of the cherubim, in these we may well feel ourselves justified in searching for some more special instruction; for they might obviously have been ordered otherwise, and were doubtless ordered thus for important purposes. On which account, both characteristics reappear in the temple, as being of essential and abiding significance. But considered merely in a general point of view, the embroidery, the separate apartments, and the surrounding enclosure, may all be regarded as having the reason of their appointment in the sacred character of the tabernacle itself, and the high ends for which it was erected. Such things became it as the tent which God took for his habitation.

III. This habitation of God, whether existing in the form of a tent, or of a temple, was at once the holiest and the greatest thing in Israel; and therefore required, not only to be constructed of such materials and in such a manner as have now been described, but also to be set apart by a special act of consecration. For it was the seat and symbol of the divine kingdom on earth. The one seat and symbol; because Jehovah, the God of Israel, being the one living God, and, though filling heaven and earth with his presence, yet condescending to exhibit in an outward, material form, the things concerning his character and glory, behoved to guard with especial care against the idea, so apt to intrude from other quarters, of a divided personality. In heathen lands generally, and particularly in Canaan, every hill and grove had its separate deity, and its peculiar solemnities of worship. (Deut. xii.) God, therefore, sought to check this corruption in its fountainhead, by presenting himself to his people as so essentially and absolutely one, that he could have but one proper habitation, and one throne of government. Here alone must they come to transact with God in the things that concerned their covenant relation to him. To present elsewhere the sacrifices and services, which became his house, was a violation of the order and solemnities of his kingdom; [11] while, on the other hand, to have free access to this chosen residence of Deity, was justly prized by the wise among the people as their highest privilege. Exclusion from this, was like banishment from God's presence, and excision from his covenant. And, as appears from the experience of the Psalmist, pious Israelites, in the more flourishing periods of the Theocracy, counted it among the most dark and trying dispensations of Providence, when events occurred to compel their separation from this appointed channel of communion with the Highest.

Still enlightened worshippers understood, that the enjoyment of God's presence and blessing was by no means confined to that outward habitation, and that while it was the seat, it was also the symbol of the kingdom of God. They perceived in it the image of his character and administration in general, and understood that the relations there unfolded were proper to the whole church of God. Hence, the Psalmist represents it as the common privilege of an Israelite to dwell in the house of God, and abide in his tabernacle (Ps. xv, xxiv), though in the literal sense not even the priests could be said to do so. Of himself he speaks as desiring to dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of his life (Ps. xxvii.), by which he could only mean, that he earnestly wished continually to realize and abide in that connection and fellowship with God, which he saw so clearly symbolized in the form and services of the tabernacle. And, indeed, this symbolical import of the tabernacle was plainly indicated by the Lord himself to Moses, in the words, "And I will set my tabernacle among you, and I will walk among you, and will be your God, and ye shall be my people" (Lev. xxvi. 11, 12.) The least in spiritual discernment could scarcely fail to learn here, that what was outwardly exhibited in the tabernacle, of God's nearness and familiarity with his people, was designed to be the image of what should always and everywhere be realizing itself among his people; that the tabernacle, in short, was the visible symbol of the church.

Now, to fit it for this high destination and use, a special act of consecration was necessary. It was not enough that the materials of which it was built, were all costly, and sacred as well as costly, having been presented as the people's offerings to the Lord; nor that the pattern, after which the whole was constructed, was furnished immediately by the hand of God. After it had been thus constructed, and before it could be used as the Lord's tabernacle, it had to be consecrated by the application to all its parts and furniture of the holy anointing oil, which Moses was particularly instructed how to prepare (Ex. xxx, 22, sq}. [12] "And thou shalt sanctify them," was the word to Moses regarding this anointing oil, "that they may be most holy; whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy."

Old Testament Scripture itself provides us with abundant materials for explaining the import of this action. It expressly connects this with the communication of the Spirit of God as in the history of Saul's consecration to the kingly office, to whom Samuel said, after having poured the vial of oil upon his head, "And the Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee" (1 Sam. x. 6). And still more explicitly in the case of David is the sign coupled with the thing signified, "Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren; and the Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that clay forward--but the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul" (xvi. 13, 14). The gift, symbolized by the anointing, having been conferred upon the one, it was necessarily withdrawn from the other. More emphatically, however, than even here, is the connection between the outward rite and the inward gift, marked in the prophecy of Isaiah, Ixi. 1, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach good tidings," &c.

This passage may fitly be regarded as the connecting link between the Old and the New Testament usage in the matter. It designated the Saviour as the Christ, or Anointed One, and because anointed, filled to overflowing with the grace of the Spirit, and in this grace travelling on with blessed power and energy in the execution of his redemption-work. In his case, however, we know there was no literal anointing. The symbolical rite was omitted, as no longer needed, and the direct spiritual action proceeds by itself, the Spirit being given to abide with him in all his fulness. He was hence said by Peter to have been "anointed with the Holy Ghost and with power" (Acts x. 38). And because believers are spiritually united to Christ, and what He has without measure, is also in a measure theirs, they too are said to be "anointed by God," or "to have the unction (***) of the Holy One, which teacheth them all things" (2 Cor. i. 21; 1 John ii. 20). Even under the dispensation of the New Testament, in regard to its earlier and more outward, its miraculous operations, we find the external symbol still retained: "The apostles anointed many sick persons with oil, and made them whole in the name of the Lord" (Mark vi. 13), and James even couples this anointing with prayer, as means proper to be employed by the elders of the church for drawing down the healing power of God (v. 14). But the external rite could now only be regarded as appropriate in such operations of the Spirit as those referred to, in which the natural and symbolical use of oil ran, in a manner, into each other.

We do not mean, that oil was used in such cases merely as "a salutary and approved medicament" (Bib. Cyclop. Art. Anointing), as if the miraculous agency of the Spirit needed such external aid. But neither is it necessary to regard the action, with Hengstenberg, Christol. on Dan. ix. 24, as purely symbolical. The use of oil in sickness, as a kind of outward cordial and refreshment, or even a sort of healing ointment, is frequently referred to in Scripture (Isa. i. 6; Luke x. 34), and as the operation of the Spirit was here itself outward, the outward action at once as a symbol and a natural ointment, might fitly be employed.

This sacred use of oil, however foreign to our apprehensions, grew quite naturally out of its common use in the East, especially in Egypt, Arabia, and Palestine. There, it has from the earliest times been regarded as singularly conducive to bodily health and vigour, and the heat of the climate may actually render it so. Even in Greece, where the heat is less enervating, the bodies of the combatants in the public games, it is well known, were always copiously rubbed and suppled with oil. And when mixed with perfumes, as the oil appears generally to have been, the copious application of it to the body may, partly from usage, and partly also from physical causes, have produced the most agreeable and invigorating sensations. So much, indeed, was this the case, especially in respect to the head, that the Psalmist even mentions his "being anointed with oil" among the tokens of kindness he had received from the hand of God; and in entertainments, it was so customary to administer this species of refreshment to the guests, that our Lord charges the omission of it by Simon the Pharisee as an evident mark of disrespect (Luke vii. 46), and in ancient Egypt "it was customary for a servant to attend every guest as he seated himself, and to anoint his head." [13]

As the body, therefore, which was anointed with such oil, felt itself enlivened and refreshed, and became expert and agile for the performance of any active labour, it was an apt and becoming symbol of the Spirit-replenished soul, which is thus endowed with such a plentitucle of grace, as disposes and enables it to engage heartily in the divine service, and to run the way of God's commandments. So that, in the language of Vitringa, "the anointed man was he, who being chosen and set apart by God for accomplishing something connected with God's glory, was furnished for it by his good hand with necessary gifts. And the more noble the office to which any one was anointed, the greater was the supply of the Spirit's grace, which the anointing brought him." [14] Understood thus in reference to persons, to whom the outward symbol was both most naturally and most commonly applied, we can have no difficulty in apprehending its import, when applied to the tabernacle and its furniture. This being a symbol of the true church as the peculiarly consecrated, God-inhabited region, the anointing of it with the sacred oil was a sensible representation of the effusion of the Holy Spirit, whose part it is to sanctify the unclean, and draw them within the sphere of God's habitation, as well as to fit them for occupying it. And as the anointing not only rendered the tabernacle and its vessels holy, but made them also the imparters of holiness to others--"whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy"--the important lesson was thereby taught, that, while all beyond is a region of pollution and death, they who really come into a living connection with the church or kingdom of God, are brought into communion with his spiritual nature, and made partakers of his holiness. It is within the church that all purification and righteousness proceeds. [15]

IV. In turning now to gospel-times for the spiritual and heavenly things, which answer to the pattern exhibited in that worldly sanctuary, we are not, of course, to think of outward and material buildings, which, however necessary for the due celebration of divine worship, must occupy an entirely different place from that anciently possessed by the Jewish tabernacle or temple. What is true of the divine kingdom generally, must especially hold in respect to the heart and centre of its administration; viz. that everything about it rose, when the antitypes appeared, to a higher and more elevated stage; and that the ideas which were formerly symbolized by means of outward and temporary materials are now seen embodied in great and abiding realities. Of what, then, was the tabernacle a type? Plainly of Christ, as God manifest in the flesh, and reconciling flesh to God. This is heaven's grand and permanent provision for securing what the tabernacle, as a temporary substitute, aimed at accomplishing--the indwelling of God with his people, and the maintaining of a holy fellowship between them. In Christ personally the idea was in the first instance visibly realized, when, as the divine Word, "he became flesh, and dwelt (*** tabernacled) among us." For the flesh of Jesus, though literally flesh of our flesh, yet being sanctified in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Ghost, possessed in it "the whole fulness of the Godhead bodily' (***, in a bodily receptacle or habitation) and held such pre-eminence over other flesh, as the tent of God had formerly done over the tents of Israel. But this was still merely the first stage in the developement of the great mystery of godliness; only as in the seed-corn was the indwelling of God with men seen in the person of the incarnate Word. For Christ's flesh was the representative and root of all flesh as redeemed j in him the whole of an elect humanity stands as its living head, and there alone finds the bond of its connection with God, the channel of a real and blessed fellowship with heaven. So that as the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Christ, he again dwells in the church of true believers as his fulness; and the idea symbolized in the tabernacle is properly realized, not in Christ personally and apart, but in him as the head of a redeemed offspring, vitally connected with him, and through him with God. Consequently the idea, as to its realization, is still in progress; and it shall have reached its perfect consummation only when the number of the redeemed has been made up, and all are set down with Jesus amid the light and glories of the New Jerusalem.

Every reader of New Testament Scripture is aware, how prominently the truths involved in this representation are brought out there, and how much the language it employs of divine things bears respect to them. The transition from the outward and shadowy to the final and abiding state of things, is first marked by our Lord in the words, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John ii. 19), by which he plainly wished it to be understood, that his body had now become, what the temple had hitherto been--or rather, that the great idea symbolized in the temple was now actually embodied in his person, in which Godhead had really and properly taken up its dwelling, that men might draw near and have fellowship with it. As there could be but one such place and medium of intercourse, Christ's saying this of his body, of necessity implied, that the outward temple, built with men's hands, had served its purpose, and was among the things ready to vanish away. But the peculiar expression he uses implies somewhat more than this. For when he speaks of the destroying of the temple, and the raising of it up again in three days, he so identified his body with the temple, as in a manner to declare that the destruction of the one would carry along with it the destruction of the other; that that alone should henceforth be the proper dwelling-place of Deity, which, from being instinct with the principle of an immortal life, could be destroyed only for a season, and should presently be raised up again to be the perpetual seat and centre of God's kingdom. From that time, therefore, the other must necessarily lose its significance and use, and must become, indeed, a habitation left desolate.

But this inhabitation of God in the man Christ Jesus, being not for himself alone, but only as the medium of intercourse and communion between God and the church, we find the idea extended so as to embrace both each individual believer and the entire company of believers as one body. The church is, "the house of God," or "his habitation through the Spirit" (1 Tim. iii. 15; Eph. ii. 21, 22); and as the Church universal of believers, is only an aggregate of individuals, who must each be in part what the whole is, so they also are designated "a building of God," and more especially "the temple of the living God "or, as St Peter describes them, "lively stones built up on Christ the living stone, into a spiritual house" (1 Cor. iii. 9, vi. 19; Eph. iii. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 5, 6.) In this apparent complexity of meaning, there is still a radical oneness; and it is by no means as if the tabernacle or temple-idea were applied to so many objects properly distinct and apart. There is an essential unity in the diversity, arising from the vital connection subsisting between Christ and his people; for all redeemed humanity is linked with his, as his is linked with the Godhead, so that what belongs to the one, is the common property and distinction of the whole. This was unfolded in the sublime words of Christ himself, which describe the ultimate realization of what was typified in the temple: "And the glory, which thou gavest me, I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John xvii. 22, 23.)

And as everything in the original tabernacle required to be sprinkled with the holy anointing oil, to fit it for its sacred destination and use, so in these higher and ultimate realities of the divine kingdom, all is pervaded and consecrated by the living Spirit of God. It is as connected with His working, that humanity in Jesus becomes the fit dwelling-place of Deity. It is as replenished with His fulness that Jesus accomplished in his own person the work of reconciliation, and placed on a secure foundation the intercommunion between God and man. It is, again, as having received from the Father the promise of the Spirit, and shedding forth his regenerating grace through the divine kingdom, that it becomes a hallowed region, consecrating whatever really comes within its borders, and that every one, whom a living faith brings into contact with Christ, is made partaker of his holiness. So indeed from the divine head downwards to the very skirt of his garments. The ordinances of the church are sources of life and blessing, only in so far as they are the instruments and channels of the Spirit's working. He who, through baptism, has become savingly united to the one spiritual body, must have been baptised into it by the one Spirit, (1 Cor. xii. 13). He who, through the word of the Gospel, has been convinced of sin, righteousness and judgment, and received of the things of Christ, has found them thus powerful, because accompanied with the inward grace of the Spirit (John xvi. 8, 14.) Only as endowed with the Spirit is the believer constituted a temple of God (1 Cor. vi. 19), and only as being wrought in him by the same Spirit, do the works which proceed from his hand possess the essential element of righteousness, and attain to a place and a memorial in the kingdom of God. In a word, it is by the Spirit that all in this kingdom is sanctified and cemented in holy union with the Godhead. [16]

In the preceding remarks we have made no allusion to the views of other writers respecting the tabernacle, but have simply unfolded what we conceive to be the true idea of it, and its relation to Christ and his kingdom. It may be proper, however, to give here a brief outline of other views, noticing, as we proceed, what is mainly erroneous or defective in them.

1. By Philo, the tabernacle was taken for a pattern of the universe: to the two sanctuaries belonged ***, and to the open fore-court ***; the linen, blue, purple, and scarlet, were the four elements; the seven-branched candlestick represented the seven planets,—the light in the centre, however, at the same time representing the sun; the table with the twelve loaves pointed to the twelve signs of the zodiac and months of the year, &c. Josephus adopts the same view, only differing in some of the details; as do also many of the fathers,—in particular, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret. Several of the Jewish Rabbis also concur in regarding the erection as an image of the creation in heaven and on earth, references to whom, as well as the others, are given by Bähr, i. p. 104, 105. He justly objects to this view, however, that it places the symbols of the Mosaic religion substantially on a footing with those of heathenism; both alike would have been employed in the service of a mere nature-worship. Not only would the peculiar ideas and principles of the true religion have been excluded from the one sanctuary and centre of all its services, but religious symbols of a precisely opposite kind must have occupied their place. This was plainly impossible.

2. But Bähr's own view so far coincides with the one just mentioned, that he also holds the tabernacle to have been a representation of the creation of God, which, he endeavours to shew, is frequently exhibited in Scripture as the house or building of God; not, however, in the heathen sense—not as if the Deity and creation were identified, but in the sense of creation being the workmanship and manifestation of God—the outgoing and witness of his glorious perfections. In like manner, the tabernacle was the place and structure, through which God gave to Israel a testimony or manifestation of himself; and, therefore, it must contain in miniature a representation of the universe—the habitation, in its two compartments, representing heaven, God's peculiar dwelling-place, and the fore-court the earth, which he has given to the sons of men.

It may be regarded as alone fatal to this view, that amid the many allusions in Scripture to the tabernacle, and express explanations of the things belonging to it, the view in question is never once distinctly brought out. And as a great deal is found there in direct confirmation of the view we have presented, we are fully entitled to consider it as involving a substantial repudiation of the other. No doubt heaven and earth are often represented in Scripture as a building of God; but, as Hengstenberg justly remarks, [17] "there is not to be found, in all Scripture, a single passage in which the universe is described as the building or dwelling-place of God; so that the view ofBähr fails in its very foundation." He further remarks, that it provides no proper ground for explaining the separation between the Holy and the Most Holy place, and that Bähr has hence been obliged to put a false interpretation upon the furniture belonging to the Holy place. As for the confirmation, which the learned author seeks for the basis of his view, in the opinion of Philo and Josephus, as if that were the originally Jewish mode of contemplating the tabernacle, no one unbiassed by theory can regard it in any other light than as the fruit of that anxiety, which these writers constantly display, to bring the Jewish Scriptures and religion into some degree of conformity with the heathen philosophy.

3. The work of Bähr has called forth a laboured defence of another view, equally unsupported in Scripture, and still more arbitrary—according to which the tabernacle was made in imitation of man, as the image of God. This view had been briefly indicated by Luther, not as a formal explanation of the proper design and purpose of the tabernacle, but rather by way of illustration and similitude, when expounding the words of Mary's song: "My soul doth magnify the Lord, and niy spirit rejoiceth in God my Saviour." There, after mentioning the different divisions of the tabernacle, he says: "In this figure there is represented a Christian man; his spirit is the Holy of holies, God's dwelling, in dark faith without light; for he believes what he sees not. His soul is the Holy place, where are the seven lights, that is all sorts of understanding, discernment, knowledge, and perception of corporeal and visible things. His body is the forecourt which is open to all, so that every one can see what it does, and how it lives." Bähr had justly said of this, that it was only an allegorical explanation, and intimated that he conceived it impossible to carry out such a view into the particulars. But a zealous Lutheran, Ferdinand Friederich, offended at the slight thus put upon "the words of the blessed Luther," has undertaken a vindication of the view, in a volume of considerable size, and accompanied by twenty-three plates. The work contains some good remarks on the more objectionable parts of Bähr's system, yet adopts a number of its errors, displays throughout, indeed, the want of a sound discrimination, and utterly fails to establish the main point at issue. The objections given above to Bähr's view apply with increased force to this.

4. The view of what are distinctively called the typical writers, errs primarily and fundamentally in considering the tabernacle as too exclusively typical, in seeking for the adumbration of Christ and his salvation as the only reason of the things belonging to it. Hence no proper ground or basis was laid for the work of interpretation, and unless where Scripture itself had furnished the explanation, the most arbitrary and even puerile meanings were often resorted to, without the possibility of applying, on that system, any check to them. Not keeping in view the great idea or design of the tabernacle, everything for the most part was understood personally of Christ; and even where a measure of discretion was observed in abstaining from too great minutiae, and keeping in view the larger features of the Christian system, as in Witsius' (Miscellanea Sacra), still all swims in a kind of uncertainty, because no care was taken to investigate the meaning of the symbols, before they were interpreted as types.

5. The only remaining view requiring a separate notice is what is commonly regarded as the Spencerian, although Spencer did not originate it, but found its leading principles already laid down by Maimonides. [18] It proceeds on the ground of an accommodation in the grossest sense to the heathenish tendencies and dispositions of the people. The Egyptians and other nations had dwellings for their gods; it was not convenient or practicable at once to abolish the custom; and God must, therefore, to prevent his people from lapsing into heathenism, suit himself to this state of things, have a tabernacle for his dwelling, with its appropriate furniture and ministering servants. We have already, in the introductory chapter, substantially met this view; as it rests upon the same false principles which pervade the whole system of Spencer. According to it God accommodates himself, not merely to what is weak and imperfect in his creatures, but to what is positively wrong; and lowers and adjusts his requirements to suit their depraved tastes and inclinations. Consequently the views of God, which such a structure was fitted to impart, and the services connected with it, must have been quite opposed to the spiritual nature of God, and an obstruction, rather than a help, to pious Israelites in their endeavours to worship and serve God aright. It was not a temporary and fitting expedient to aid men's conceptions of divine things, and to render the divine service more intelligible and attractive; but a sop put into the mouth of a rude and heathenish people, to keep them away from the grosser pollutions of idolatry. God's house could never be built on such a foundation.—Some of the older typical writers, such as Outram (De Sac. L. i. 3), trod too closely upon this view of the tabernacle, as regards its primary intention for Israel, and so also, we regret to say, does Dr Kitto of recent writers (Hist, of Palestine, i. 245-6.)

Notes

1. ***

2. ***

3. ***

4.  ***

5.  ***

6. Rev. xxi. 3, 22.

7. Symbolik, i. p. 262. 

8. That it was absolutely incorruptible, is not of course to be imagined, though the language of Josephus, Philo, and some heathen writers would seem to imply as much, It is called *** *** by the LXX., and Josephus affirms it could not "suffer corruption." For other authorities, see in Bähr, i. p. 262. The simple truth seems to have been, that it was light and stood the water well, hence was much used by the Egyptians in making boats, and was loosely talked of as incorruptible.

9. Authentie, ii. p. 639.

10. Bähr's Symbolik, i. p. 222, 223. The usual descriptions respecting these coverings (not excepting Dr Kitto's) representing them all as thrown over the boards simply for protection, are by no means correct.

11. Hence, sacrificing in the high places, though occasionally done by true worshippers, always appears as an imperfection. In times of war, or great internal disorder, such as those of Samuel, when the ark was separated from the tabernacle, and the stated ordinances suffered a kind of suspension, sacrifices in different places became necessary.

12. It consisted of olive-oil, mixed with the four best kind of spices, myrrh, sweet cinnamon, calamus, and cassia, producing, when compounded together, the most fragrant smell.

13. Wilkinson, Manners, &c. of Eg. ii. 213.

14. Com. in Isa. vol. ii. p. 494, comp. also i. p. 289.

15. In connecting the spiritual with the natural use of this symbol, Bähr does not appear to us to be happy. He throws together the two properties of oil: its capacity for giving light, and for imparting vigour and refreshment; and holds the anointing symbolical of the Spirit's gift, as the source of spiritual light and life in general—or rather (for he evidently does not hold the personality of the Spirit), as symbolical of the principle of light and life, or, in one word, of the holiness which was derived from the knowledge of God's law (ii. p. 173.) But to say nothing of the doctrinal errors here involved, why should those two quite distinct properties of oil be confounded together? The qualities and uses of oil as an ointment, had nothing to do with those which belong to it as a source of light, and should rio more be conjoined symbolically than they are naturally. Oil as an ointment does not give light, and it is of no moment whether it were capable of doing so or not. When used as an ointment, it was also usually mixed with spices, which still more took off men's thoughts from its light-giving property, and especially was this the case in regard to its symbolical application in the tabernacle.— When oil began to be applied symbolically for consecrating persons and things is unknown. It was so used by Jacob on the plains of Bethel, and there is undoubted proof of its having been used in consecrating kings and priests in Egypt.— (Wilkinson, v. 279, ss.)

16. The supplanting of the Old Testament temple by this new consecration through the Spirit of something unspeakably better and higher, is referred to in that part, as Dathe, Stonard, and especially Hengstenberg, have clearly shewn, it should rather be, "anointing a holy of holies," i. e. a new temple for the Lord, the Church of the New Covenant, consisting of Christ and all his spiritual members. In the coming and better state of things, not one part merely, but the whole, should be a holy of holies; and while this was being done, the old fabric should be made desolate because of the overspreading of abominations in it (v. 26.) Instead of being a holy thing, sanctifying all that touched it, it is regarded as having become a seat of pollution; and not only must be dispensed with, as no longer needed on account of the new dwelling-place provided, but must even be swept away, as an abomination, from the earth.

17. Authentie, ii. p. 639.

18. He is substantially followed by many of the later Rabbis, who represent the tabernacle and temple as constructed with the view of imitating, and, at the same time, outdoing the palaces of earthly monarchs. Various quotations may be seen in Outram. That from R. Shem Tob is the most distinct and graphic, and is held in great account by Spencer: "God, to whom be praise, commanded a house to be built for himself, such as a royal house is wont to be. In a royal house all these things are to be found, of which we have spoken: namely, there are some to guard the palace; others, whose part it is to do things belonging to the royal dignity, to prepare banquets, and do other things necessary for the monarch. There are others, besides, who serve with vocal and instrumental music. There is a place also for making ready victuals; a place for burning perfumes; a table also for the king, and an apartment appropriated to himself, where none are permitted to enter, excepting his prime minister, and those who are specially favoured by him. In like manner God," &c.