Alexander Campbell on the Biblical Tabernacle

Campbell published his four-part series on the biblical Tabernacle in the Millennial Harbinger 1861, the year he turned seventy-three. By that point in his life, Campbell was not nearly as sharp or focused as he had been when he was younger.

Perhaps his disappointments and heartaches, not to mention the distress of the unfolding war, were taking their toll. Whatever the causes, the articles in the series are rambling and disjointed. Lauding the glories of Creation, at other times chiding skeptics, Campbell sometimes writes several paragraphs that never mention his subject. At other points, he includes long quotes from other sources. In the second installment, Campbell quotes almost all of Psalm 72, again, without an obvious need or a necessary connection to his subject.

Nevertheless, the series contains a few particulars about Campbell's understanding of the Tabernacle. For example, regarding the three sections of the Tabernacle and its precincts, Campbell wrote:

"The outer court, at the proper angle of vision, represents the world, dead in trespasses and in sins; the holy place, the church; and the holiest of all, heaven itself." (No. 2, p. 151)

On the great significance of the Tabernacle and the rituals that took place there, Campbell said:

"Were we to enter into all the details of the Tabernacle and its worship, we should need a small volume rather than a short essay. We generally, in our college duties, deliver annually a series of lectures on this institution, and our opinion is, that the Tabernacle and its worship, thoroughly developed, is the best system of theology, properly so called, known to us in all the theologies of our country." (No. 2, p. 156)

E. G. Sewell's Typological Interpretation of the Tabernacle, 1889

In an 1889 article titled "Information Wanted," E. G. Sewell responded to a question from "Wm. Jackson, Elk River Mills, Limestone county, Ala." Sewell wrote that "the tabernacle itself is understood to be typical of the church of God on earth, and of heaven." He further detailed that the Holy Place represented the church, and that the Most Holy Place was "typical of heaven itself." He also suggested that the candlestick represented the word of God, the table of shewbread pointed to the Lord's Supper, the altar of incense stood for prayer, and the brazen laver signified baptism. Here, Sewell commented that while the New Testament called on baptized believers to pray, the various Protestant denominations "in their prayer system of conversion" placed prayer before baptism. Sewell also suggested that the divine presence of the Lord in the tabernacle "is understood to be typical of the Holy Spirit, which filled the spiritual house, the body of Christ . . . and which dwells in the church, in Christians."[1]

Note

[1] E. G. Sewell, "Information Wanted," Gospel Advocate, October 2, 1889, 631.

Brevard Childs on the Biblical Tabernacle

In his monumental 1974 commentary on the Book of Exodus, Yale professor Brevard Childs provided an overview of the long history in which both Jewish and Christian interpreters have sought to understand the tabernacle.[1] Childs noticed a consistent and common fascination with this unique place of worship. The biblical description of the tabernacle, he wrote, "has been regarded from the beginning with the greatest possible interest by Jewish and Christian scholars alike."[2]. And what has been the reason for this? Childs offered a two-part explanation:

First, the dimension of the tabernacle and all its parts reflect a carefully contrived design and a harmonious whole. The numbers 3, 4, 10 predominate with proportionate cubes and rectangles. The various parts--the separate dwelling place, the tent, and the court--are all in exact numerical relation. The use of metals--gold, silver, and copper-- are carefully graded in terms of their proximity to the Holy of Holies. In the same way, the particular colors appear to bear some inner relation to their function, whether the white, blue, or crimson. There is likewise a gradation in the quality of the cloth used. Finally, much stress is placed on the proper position and orientation, with the easterly direction receiving the place of honor.[3]

In addition, Childs highlighted how in the biblical account it is the Almighty who issues each one of the many directions for the construction of the Tabernacle. "Every detail of the structure reflects the one divine will and nothing rests on the ad hoc decision of human builders."[4] Consequently, both Jewish and Christian scholars assumed that these details are rich in meaning, laden with significance. And this naturally led those interpreters to take a figurative, symbolic approach. In the post-Reformation period, Christian studies of the Tabernacle reveal a distinctive effort "to demonstrate the typology between the kingdom of God in the symbolism of the tabernacle and the church."[5]

Notes

[1] Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary, The Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1974), 537-50.  I refer to this work as "monumental" because, with only a handful of possible exceptions--most notably Karl Barth's commentary on Paul's Letter to the Romans--very few twentieth-century commentaries on any book of the Bible made a greater impact than did Childs's work on Exodus. Much of its prominence stemmed from the author's construal of the task of commenting on a biblical text. At the outset, Childs revealed his intention to break new ground by reclaiming what was essentially old ground. Compared to "the majority of scholars within the field," he set out to present "a different understanding of the role of biblical interpretation." While the majority apparently considered historical-critical scholarship an end in itself--particularly investigations of the so-called depth dimensions of the text--Childs intended to use higher criticism as a means whose end was nothing short of what he often referred to as "the recovery of theological exegesis" (ix). And this explains the subtitle he gave to his commentary.

[2] Ibid., 547.

[3] Ibid., 537-38

[4] Ibid., 540.

[5] Ibid., 548.

E. G. Sewell on the Tabernacle (3)

In a follow-up article, "The Altar of Incense, the Brazen Laver, Etc.," which appeared in The Gospel Advocate for February 3, 1886, E. G. Sewell continued his Christian, symbolic interpretation of the biblical tabernacle. In his first article, he had written about the table of shewbread and the candlestick.

Altar of Incense

In his second article, he turns to another item in the Holy Place, the altar of incense. Sewell notes that the priests of ancient Israel were to burn incense on this altar "every morning and evening continually." In this way, they constantly sent up to the Lord, as it were, a fragrant scent. And what does this image typify? Sewell answers that "the general understanding is that the offering of incense was a figure of prayer," and he cites a handful of passages from both the Old and New Testaments in which the burning of incense and prayer are related. For example, in the first half of Psalm 141:2 the writer says to God, "Let my prayer be set before thee as incense." In Revelation 5:8 and again in 8:3, the offering of incense is analogous to the prayers of the saints.[1]

Brazen Laver

This item stood "near the door of entrance into the tabernacle of the congregation," but was "on the outside." There the priests washed themselves before entering the tent. And this, wrote Sewell, "is understood to be figurative of baptism. And as the priest upon washing entered . . . into the tabernacle, so now those who obey the gospel, enter Christ by baptism." Conversely, "as the priest was not allowed to enter the tabernacle without washing at the laver, so no one can enter the church now without being baptized into Christ." Sewell highlights an inference that can be drawn from this interpretation: baptism, represented by the laver on the outside of the tent, comes before prayer, represented by the altar of incense which was inside the tent. Any priest who burned incense on the altar had to first cleanse himself at the laver. "So also if any one wishes to attend at the altar of prayer in the church of God, he must be baptized, must have his body washed with pure water at the door of entrance" into the church. Baptism, which brings the penitent believer into the church, comes before the life of faithful prayer.[2]

Moreover, wrote Sewell, this indicts "those people who teach alien sinners to pray to God for pardon, without baptism, without washing first." Such teachers are guilty of "reversing heaven's order." Sewell goes so far as to compare them to Nadab and Abihu of Leviticus 10. They were two of Aaron's four sons and were thus among the first priests in ancient Israel. Nevertheless, when the brothers "offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not," they were destroyed by fire that went out from the Lord (Lev. 10:1-2). Again, wrote Sewell, preachers who promote "a reversal of God's order" can be compared to Uzziah, King of Judah. According to 2 Chronicles 26:16-21, though he was not a priest, Uzziah burned incense upon the altar. Consequently, he was stricken with leprosy, a skin disease he had for the rest of his life. Only when people are "washed" and thus "sanctified, justified" do they remove all doubt about their being prepared to officiate at God's altar in all spiritual things," including prayer to God through Christ.[3]

Here, Sewell clearly reflects significant differences between the doctrine of Christian initiation according to the Stone-Campbell tradition and that of most other conservative Protestants, like Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians. Much earlier in the nineteenth century, Barton Stone, Alexander Campbell, and like-minded leaders concluded that according to the New Testament, people who came to believe in Jesus as the Christ were to turn from their sins in repentance and be immersed into him for the remission of their sins.[4] Their teaching generated a noticeable change in the way that preachers in the Stone-Campbell Movement concluded their evangelistic sermons. Unlike many other Protestant preachers, whose sermons ended with an invitation for individuals to walk to the front of the assembly in order to anxiously pray for salvation at the mourner's bench, preachers among the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ invited those who believed the gospel message to come forward as an indication that they were turning from their sins and turning to the Lord in repentance, and that they desired to be immersed into Christ.[5] When emphasizing the significance of baptism, however, Sewell guarded against the idea of baptismal regeneration: "Not that baptism is the only prerequisite by any means. Faith and repentance must precede baptism, or no one is ready to be baptized. Everything in its proper place."

Altar of Burnt Offering

Nearing the end of his second article, Sewell refers to the Torah instructions regarding the altar of burnt offering: "two lambs should be offered to the Lord every day."[7]  This, writes Sewell, is "another indication of continued sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving and of prayer to the Lord on the part of Christians." The sacrifice of two lambs each day at the tabernacle was the standard under the Old Covenant. If that was so, then should not "we that enjoy the reality, the New Covenant, the fullness of God's love and mercy . . . with a loving, a joyful heart approach God daily with our sacrifices" of thanksgiving and praise?[8]

Apparently, Sewell did not notice or did not care that in making these comparisons he seemed to contradict the principle he had established earlier: it is only after being baptized that the believer, now a member of the priesthood, inside the Holy Place, can fittingly participate in spiritual activities. If confronted with this apparent inconsistency, Sewell would no doubt have clarified that it is altogether fitting for all people, in or out of Christ, to praise and give thanks to God. His earlier concern involved the virtual substitution of prayer for baptism. And it is baptism, according to his view, to which all penitent believers must submit in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and entrance into the church that Christ established.

Notes

[1] E. G. Sewell, "The Altar of Incense, the Brazen Laver, Etc.," Gospel Advocate 28 (February 3, 1886), 65.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] See, for example, Barton W. Stone, "The Christian Expositor," Christian Messenger 1 (January 25, 1827), 56-63; Alexander Campbell, "Ancient Gospel--No. I. Baptism," Christian Baptist 5, no. 6 (January 7, 1828), 121-24; "Ancient Gospel--No. II. Immersion," Christian Baptist 5, no. 7 (February 4, 1828), 158-63.

[5] Thomas H. Olbricht, "The Invitation: A Historical Survey," Restoration Quarterly 5, no. 1 (First Quarter 1961), 6-16.

[6] Sewell, "The Altar of Incense," 65.

[7] Ibid. The reference is to Exodus 29:38-43 and Numbers 28:3-8, according to which a lamb was to be sacrificed every day, one in the morning and one at twilight.

[8] Sewell, "The Altar of Incense," 66.

E. G. Sewell on the Tabernacle (2)

Candlestick

Next, Sewell interpreted the candlestick which, like the table of shewbread, stood in the Holy Place. The purpose of the literal, Old Testament candlestick was obvious. "The tabernacle was without windows, or any means of admitting light from without, and hence the lamps in the candlestick were the only light." And what does this symbolize? It stands for "the light-bearing attitude" of the church. "The light that shone out from the golden candlestick fitly represents the word of God, as the only light to guide people in the service of God. As the tabernacle had no other light by which to guide its work, so the church has no other light for its work, for its guidance of men to heaven, but God's word." Because this is true, Bible reading, Bible study, and Bible teaching are vital to the life of the church if it is to honor God and bless the lives of people.[1]

Note

[1] E. G. Sewell, "The Tabernacle," Gospel Advocate 28 (January 27, 1886), 49.

E. G. Sewell on the Tabernacle (1)

In 1886, the same year that Meta Chestnutt came to Nashville to begin her studies at Peabody, E. G. Sewell, coeditor with David Lipscomb of the The Gospel Advocate magazine, based in Nashville, published two front-page articles that gave a symbolic interpretation of the biblical tabernacle.

Sewell began by establishing the tabernacle's New Testament counterpart. Not surprisingly, he identified what Protestants had favored for hundreds of years: "That the Jewish tabernacle, in many of its leading features foreshadowed the church of God, is admitted by all." From there, he submitted that the second room, the Most Holy place, should be understood as "a figure, or type of heaven," with "the divine presence upon the mercy seat to foreshadow the eternal presence of God himself in that blessed abode." The first room, or Holy Place, is "a type of the church of the living God on earth." This stood to reason, because in the same way that one entered the Holy Place before going further into the Most Holy Place, so one enters the church before finally reaching heaven. Consequently "all the articles of furniture" in the Holy Place "and the acts performed here are figurative of the worship of the Lord's house on earth."[1] This orientation--with the Most Holy Place as heaven, the Holy Place as the church on earth, and area outside the tent as preliminary--provided the template for Sewell's biblical exposition.

Table of Shewbread

The remainder of Sewell's first article interprets the symbolic meaning of two items in the Holy Place: the table of shewbread and the candlestick. "The table," he wrote, "foreshadows the Lord's table in the church of God on earth." In the same way that the twelve loaves were replaced every week, so it is that every week, Christians are to partake of the Lord's Supper. And in the same way that the priests removed the loaves each Sabbath day, so there is a "specified time" for Christians to observe the Lord's Supper, "the first day of the week." Sewell emphasized that just as divine directions were not to be neglected by the Old Testament priests, "so the breaking of the loaf must not be neglected by the children of God now in the congregations of the Lord." In fact, fidelity to the will of God should, if anything, be stronger in the Christian age. "While the Jewish priests cold only consider the table and shewbread as a formal ordinance, Christians can now see in the broken loaf of the Lord's table an emblem of the actual, real body of the Son of God that was broken, mangled upon the Roman cross, that poor sinners might live."[2]

Notes

[1] E. G. Sewell, "The Tabernacle," Gospel Advocate 28 (January 27, 1886), 49. See also "Temple Building," Gospel Advocate 31 (August 21, 1889), 536, where Sewell writes that the tabernacle "was figurative of the church of God, the spiritual temple on earth now," and "Information Wanted," Gospel Advocate 31 (October 2, 1889), 631. For a brief biography, see David H. Warren, "Sewell, Elisha Granville (1830-1924)," in Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement, 680-81.

[2] Sewell, "The Tabernacle," 49.

Tabernacle Furnishings in Exodus and Hebrews

According to the instructions found in the Book of Exodus, the Tabernacle contained seven ceremonial items. Chapter 25 details four of these furnishings: the ark of the covenant, its atonement cover, in some translations called the mercy seat, which was graced by two cherubim, the table of the bread of presence, and the menorah, sometimes called the lampstand or candlestick). Subsequent passages describe the three remaining items: the altar of burnt offering (27:1-8), the altar of incense (30:1-10), and the brazen laver or basin (30:17-21). In the closing chapter of Exodus, the God of Israel gives Moses specific directions for setting up and consecrating the Tabernacle (40:1-33). Notably, this passage refers to each of the seven items described in the earlier sections of the book.

In the New Testament Epistle to the Hebrews, the author draws parallels between the Mosaic tabernacle and "the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man" (8:2, NIV). Chapter 9 mentions specifically the lampstand, the table, the altar of incense, the ark of the covenant, and the atonement cover (9:2-5), but not the two items that stood outside the tent of meeting, in the tabernacle courtyard: the brazen laver and the altar of burnt sacrifice.

The Heavenly Tabernacle in Hebrews 8 and 9

In Hebrews 4:14 through 7:28, the writer draws an extended comparison between the priests of Israel, especially the high priests, and Christ, who is portrayed as a superior high priest. 7:26 through 8:2 provides a fitting summary of the previous section and an introduction to the next. The passage refers to the superior sacrifice of Christ, the better covenant that God inaugurated through Christ, and the heavenly sanctuary in which Christ serves as the perfect high priest:

Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever. The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man  (7:26--8:2, NIV).

Those verses lead directly into the discussion in chapters 8 and 9, where the author compares the literal tabernacle, constructed by the ancient Israelites under the direction of Moses, and a heavenly tabernacle. Later in this section, the author refers to the "first tabernacle," implying that there is a second (9:8). Finally, he speaks of "the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands" (9:11).

Getting a Handle on Hebrews

In the New International Version of the Bible, the New Testament contains forty-one occurrences of the word better. Of those occurrences, eleven, more than one fourth of the total, appear in the book that was known in the Early Church as To the Hebrews. The word superior occurs five times among the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Three of the five occurrences of superior are in Hebrews.[1]

The relatively high frequency of better and superior in the Epistle to the Hebrews points to the author's use of comparisons. He sets out to compare God's dealings with the human race in two different periods of time, specifically before and after the redemptive work of Christ. The first four verses of the epistle point to its before-and-after perspective:

In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs (Heb. 1:1-4, NIV).

As the writer explains, prior to the coming of Christ, God spoke to humanity "through the prophets." But ever since the Incarnation, the same God has been speaking to humanity "by his Son." The superiority of the messenger, Jesus Christ, implies the superiority of the dispensation in which the readers are living, the Christian age.

So, if the people of God prior to the time of Christ were expected to devote themselves to the Lord and to their covenant obligations, how much more should believers living in the Christian age devote themselves to following the ways of God? To use the language of Hebrews, if the message from God before the coming of Christ "was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation?" (2:2-3).

These patterns of both continuity and discontinuity permeate the rhetoric of the Epistle to the Hebrews and provide a key to understanding its content.[2] 

Notes

[1] Word statistics are taken from the Zondervan NIV Exhaustive Concordance, ed. Edward W. Goodrick and John R. Kohlenberger III (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999). Still one of the better discussions of the title of this book in the ancient church is provided by Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan and Company, 1892), xxvii-xxx.

[2] The discussion here of comparisons and of patterns of continuity and discontinuity in the Epistle to the Hebrews was informed mainly by Luke Timothy Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), ch. 20 titled "The Letter to the Hebrews."

Meta Chestnutt as a Bible Teacher: The Tabernacle

Housed in the Oklahoma History Center, not far from the state capitol in Oklahoma City, is a visual aid that Meta Chestnutt likely used in her Bible lessons at the Church of Christ in Minco, Chickasaw Nation, Indian Territory. A heavy oilcloth, approximately five feet high and three feet wide, presents an overhead schematic of the biblical Tabernacle. It clearly labels the Court, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies. It also presents the locations of, and labels, the Brazen Altar, Brazen Laver, Table of Shewbread, Candlestick, Altar of Incense, and the Ark of the Covenant.[1]

Photo by Frank Bellizzi

The Tabernacle was a portable sanctuary constructed by the ancient Israelites during the time of Moses. The "Tent of Meeting," as it is sometimes called in Scripture, was the unique dwelling of the Almighty, the place where the descendants of Abraham met with their God. It served as a place of worship and a site of divine revelation during the period of the wilderness wanderings. Once the Israelites crossed the Jordan River and entered Canaan, their promised land, the Tabernacle was stationed successively at Shiloh (Joshua 18:1) and Gibeon (1 Chronicles 16:39). Later, King David brought it to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:1-12). Solomon’s Temple, constructed in Jerusalem around 950 B.C., replaced the Tabernacle. Yet, it survived. Eventually, Solomon brought it to the Temple (1 Kings 8:4).[2]

From earliest Christian times, the followers of Jesus considered the Hebrew Bible to be their Bible. In this as in all other matters, they took their cue from Jesus himself, who regarded the Hebrew Bible as authoritative Scripture. Along this line, a survey of the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament reveals a remarkable consistency. To borrow the words of biblical scholar John Bright, "Jesus knew no Scripture save the Old Testament, no God save its God; it was this God whom he addressed as 'Father.'" Jesus "regarded the Scriptures as the key to the understanding of his person; again and again he is represented as saying that it is the Scriptures that witness to him and are fulfilled in him."[3] In the same way, the New Testament the writers never question the authority of the Hebrew Bible. Instead, they always assume and occasionally assert its unique standing, as in the words of 2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (King James Version). The earliest Christians made theological meaning and bolstered their moral exhortations by highlighting and drawing connections to people, events, objects, and stories from the Jewish Scriptures, which they came to call the Old Testament.[4]  

Notes

[1] The oilcloth is located in box 2 of the Meta Chestnutt Sager Collection, Research Division, Oklahoma Historical Society, Oklahoma City.

[2]  "Tabernacle" in Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1998), 837-40 provides an excellent, non-technical discussion. See also Roland Kenneth Harrison, "Tabernacle," in The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967), 821-24. Richard Elliott Friedman, "Tabernacle," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:292-300, is an outstanding piece of technical scholarship. Along the way, Friedman argues that evidence amassed since the beginning of the twentieth century, such as the large number of tent shrines in the Ancient Near East, undermines the older scholarly view that the biblical Tabernacle was only a pious fiction.

[3] John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967), 77.

[4] C. K. Barrett, "The Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New," in Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 1:377-411, provides an insightful discussion of the interpretive assumptions and methods exhibited by New Testament writers as they alluded to, quoted, etc., the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. George W. E. Nickelsburg and Michael E. Stone, Faith and Piety in Early Judaism: Texts and Documents (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991), reveals how New Testament authors developed Old Testament themes like worship, piety, divine wisdom, judgment, and deliverance.