The Ark and the Tent

Joe O. Lewis
At first glance, the passages dealing with the ark and the tent in
Exodus 25-40 strike the average reader as barren ground indeed. Even the
laws must seem exciting compared to these chapters that monotonously
catalogue the tabernacle's dimensions and materials. And, certainly, after
going through the sea with Israel and thrilling to the fire and thunder of her
mountain-top experience with God, one might be tempted to treat the dry
blueprints of this section as mere appendices which could be skipped.
To do so, however, would be like ignoring an ancient "tell" with all its
hidden treasures to explore a known phenomenon that yields more immediate
rewards. Even on the surface of these chapters there lie hints of what is
beneath. The "mercy seat" (Ex. 25:17) with its relationship to Paul's un-
derstanding of atonement (Rom. 3:25) comes at the very beginning. And
who can miss the Johannine flavor of the word "tabernacle" (Ex. 25:9; John
1:14—"the Word become flesh and 'tabernacled' among us."). Moreover, in
addition to their explicit ties to the New Testament, these chapters conceal
profound insights to the growing edge of Israel's theology across the cen-
turies. To grasp this development in Israel's understanding of God is to
realize afresh the meaning of revelation in history.
The story of the ark and the tent cannot all be told from the book of
Exodus. Indeed, much of Exodus 25-40 represents the end of that story
rather than its beginning. But a survey of the contents of these chapters will
provide a starting point.
Exodus 25-40 begins and ends with sections about a sanctuary known
as the tabernacle (Hebrew: mishkan ). The first three chapters of this section
contain God's command to Moses to construct the tabernacle and its fur-
nishings consisting of the ark, the mercy seat, the altar for burnt offerings,
the table for the bread of the Presence, and the lampstand. Exodus 28 and
29 pertain to priestly garments and the ordination of priests. More fur-
nishings—an altar of incense and a laver for washing—are mentioned in
chapter 30.
Exodus 35-39 describe in detail the actual construction of the items
mentioned in the earlier chapters and end with Moses surveying his finished
work much as God had done at the end of creation (cf. Gen. 1:31-2:3 and
Ex. 39:32,43). The final chapter of Exodus commands the assembly of the
finished components and tells of the execution of the command. Chapter 40
concludes with the cloud filling the tabernacle as a sign of God's presence.
These chapters form the framework around the episodes in Exodus 32-
34, which tell of the golden calf, the command to leave the mountain, and
537
538 REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR

the renewal of the covenant, most of which will not be pertinent to this
article. However, there is a reference to a "tent of meeting" in chapter 33
which will be significant for this study.
Survey of Opinions
In the light of the contents of Exodus 25-40 one might well ask, "Why
is this article about the ark and the tent? Would it not more logically deal
with the tabernacle?" The answer to those questions lies in the pages of
scholarly research over the last hundred years. A brief review here may
clarify both the title and the important points that need to be treated.
Early interpretation of this material concentrated on the symbolism
involved in measurements and materials and on a reconstruction of the
appearance of the tabernacle.1 This period ended with Julius Wellhausen's
famous work in which arged that the tabernacle was a literary projection of
the Jerusalem temple back into the time of Moses. He labelled it a
"historical fiction."2 A generation later, again in Germany, scholars turned
again to examine more closely the evidence for historical antecedents to the
tabernacle. Granting Wellhausen's thesis that the tabernacle was an
idealized structure, Sellin (1913) and Hartmann (1917) found evidence for a
tent of Yah weh independent of the tabernacle—and not associated with the
ark of the covenant.8
Gerhard von Rad's article, which appeared in 1931, marked the next
turning point.4 Von Rad noted that the tent was conceived both as God's
abode and as the place where he appeared. God's abiding presence seemed to
be related to the ark with its cherubim, while the appearance of Yahweh in
the cloud was associated with the tent. Beginning with the Priestly account,
von Rad worked backward through Deuteronomy (where the ark is only a
container for the law) and through the account of the installation of the ark
in the temple (where the ark is viewed as Yahweh's throne, 1 Kgs. 8; 2 Kgs.
19:15). Turning to Exodus 33, von Rad demonstrated that the tent of
meeting involved the idea of Yahweh coming from afar off to meet with
Moses. He argued that the ideas of meeting and being enthroned were
mutually exclusive, representing "two currents flowing side by side in a
single stream down the ages of Israel's religious history."5 Von Rad con-
cluded that Wellhausen was wrong, therefore, since the Priestly writer
combined ancient traditions rather than simply projecting backward recent
traditions about the temple of Solomon's time.
In subsequent works others have attempted to take this line of study
further. Some have tried to associate large blocks of traditions with the two
understandings of God noted by von Rad.6 Others have attempted to trace
the original home of the tent to Shiloh7 or Gibeon8 or to a particular
festival.9
Another line of development which has been pursued simultaneously
with that begun by von Rad involves the attempt to illuminate the ark, tent,
and tabernacle from archaeology or extra-biblical sources. Morgenstern
familiarized the scholarly world with Arabic tent structures mounted on
camels which offer genuine parallels to the biblical materials.10 Frank
 THE ARK AND THE TENT 53Θ

Cross soon afterward demonstrated that both ancient desert traditions and
Ugaritic materials confirm the antiquity of elements of the tabernacle. "
For those who read German the entire scholarly discussion has now been
exhaustively surveyed in Rainer Schmitt's work, Zelt und Lade als Thema
alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft. " This brief survey will permit us now to
recognize the significance of the pair of terms "ark and tent" and also allow
us to begin not with Exodus 25 but with Exodus 33.
The Tent of Meeting
With the insight available from the history of scholarship, it is possible
to see that the Priestly community responsible for Exodus 25-40 did not
start empty-handed. While their key concept was that of a tabernacle
(mishkan ) in which Yahweh could dwell, numerous references to a tent of
meeting (yohel mo 9ed ) remain like footnotes to alert the reader to the an­
cestry of their idea.18 The names "tabernacle," "tent of meeting," and
"tabernacle of the tent of meeting" are used synonymously but perhaps
reflect different Priestly hands at work.
Another indication of the independence of the tent of meeting tradition
is its surprising appearance in Exodus 33:7-11. While the command to
construct the tabernacle/tent of meeting had been given, work had not yet
begun on it. Exodus 35:8 notes its construction according to the Priestly
source. Thus interpreters have long said that this tradition and the others in
Exodus 32-34 form an island of older ideas surrounded by Priestly
material. "
Numbers 11-12 and Deuteronomy 31:14f. are like Exodus 33:7-11 in that
they refer to the tent of meeting and appear to be loosely related to their
setting. They all share some characteristic ideas about the tent of meeting.
In their understanding, the tent of meeting was set up outside the camp
(Ex. 33:7, Num. 11:26; 12:4). When Yahweh met with Moses or the elders in
the tent, he "came down" (Ex. 33:9; Num. 11:17, 25; 12:5). l6 A pillar of
cloud stood at the door of the tent (Ex. 33:10; Num. 12:5; Deut. 31:15).
And, finally, only Moses or his successor Joshua (Deut. 31:14f.) ministered
in the tent. " These core ideas formed the nucleus of the ancient tradition of
the tent of meeting, which the Priestly community used as the basis of their
programmatic work.
Little can be determined for certain about the ultimate origin of this
tent. The Chronicler traced it to Gibeon prior to its transfer to Jerusalem (I
Chr. 16:39). n A few references place the tent of meeting in Shiloh (Josh.
18:1; 19:51; I Sam. 2:22). Von Rad believed that Nathan's protest against
the building of the temple (II Sam. 7:Iff.) reflected a southern (Judean)
home for the tent. 18 Others have attempted to expand this hypothesis by
tracing the relationship of the tent back into the wilderness period. " While
this theory helps to explain the basic dichotomy between south and north, it
remains very conjectural. What seems certain at this point is that Moses
and Joshua were associated with such a tent sanctuary, and that it played a
much different role in the worship life of the people than did the Priestly
tabernacle.
The Priestly tabernacle formed the center of the Israelite camp toward
540 REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR

which all the tents of the tribes faced (Num. 2:2). The ancient tent stood
outside the encampment. The immediate context of the tent passage in
Exodus 33 would lead one to assume that the tent was outside the camp
because the people had sinned in regard to the golden calf (v. 3). Indeed,
many passages which refer to something being done or placed "outside the
camp" imply that some impurity necessitated the location (Ex. 29:14; Lev.
4:12; 13:46; Num. 15:35; Deut. 23:12).20 One major recent interpreter of
Exodus has argued that, while the placement originally had no negative
value, the Priestly writer placed the passage where he did "because the
people had just proved themselves unfit for God to dwell in their midst."21
This interpretation of the location of the ancient tent must be balanced,
however, by asking whether the text itself gives a negative connotation to
this factor. First of all, the verbs of this section "are all imperfects, so we
are not concerned here with a single occurrence, but with something which
'used' to happen."" This would suggest that the Priestly writer intended to
relate the placement of the tent to a normal rather than an exceptional state
of affairs. Furthermore, verses 7-11 appear to deal more directly with Yah-
weh's relationship to Moses than with his relationship to the people. The
entire chapter deals with the issue of Yahweh's continued presence with the
people—a presence which has, indeed, been jeopardized by their sin. The
dialogue moves from condemnation and denial of his presence with them (w.
1-3) through repentance ( w . 4-6) to supplication by Moses ( w . 12-14). It
concludes with a repeated supplication and response which confirms and
strengthens the first ( w . 15-17).2S But the paragraph about the tent of
meeting emphasizes that Yahweh, whose "face" (presence) was in doubt,
was in "face to face'* contact with Moses. Therefore, Moses' intercession
received a favorable response. The relationship, then, between the sin of the
people and the location of the tent is more apparent than real. The fact that
the tent was outside the camp carries little, if any, theological weight.
The ancient tent not only had a location different from that of the
tabernacle, it also served quite a different function. This fact can be
established from two different directions. On the one hand, the tent of
meeting offered a place where divine directions—oracles—could be sought.24
People who needed to "seek" the Lord went to the tent (33:11). Perhaps this
indicates that a priest (not a group of Lévites) officiated at the tent of
meeting, but there are no cultic activities associated with it comparable to
those in the Priestly tabernacle (Ex. 29-30). When sacrifice was offered by
Moses he built an altar for that purpose and the altar is not associated with
the tent of meeting (Ex. 24:4).2δ Thus, in view of the association of the tent
with prophecy in Numbers 11, it seems equally probable that the oracles
were received not through priestly officials but through prophets.26
The difference in function can also be seen by the absence of the ark in
the old tent narratives. Many scholars have argued that at one time Exodus
33 contained a reference to the building of the ark. They argued that such an
account has dropped out of the text after verse 6. Verse 7 says that Moses
"used to pitch it (Heb., lo ) outside the camp/' Some take the "lo" to refer
to the ark which had been made from the ornaments mentioned in 33:6.27
 THE ARK AND THE TENT 541

However, even if such a theory could be accepted—and there is no com-

pelling evidence in its favor—it would not alter the fact that in this text the
attention is fixed on the tent itself rather than on something contained in the
tent. In addition there is no mention of the ark in Numbers 11-12 or in
Deuteronomy 31:14f.28
A third significant aspect of the ancient tent of meeting involves its
name and is related to the tent's function described above. The tent is called
a tent of meeting (mo'ed ). The significance of the term "meeting" has been
debated. Some associate this term with Ugaritic parallels in which the god
El and his assembly live in tents. This mythical background would relate the
term to an assembly of divine figures (cf. Isa. 14:13; I Kgs. 22:19)" which
carried over to political assemblies in early Israel.
Others suggest that the word mo'ed refers to periodic festival
gatherings. Pointing to Hosea 12:9, "I will again make you dwell in tents as
in the days of the appointed feast," H. J. Kraus concluded that there was
once an annual tent festival which later developed into the feast of taber-
nacles.80
Very little can be learned from the etymology of the word or its root.
The verb ya'ad means "to appoint" and can be used in the sense of making
an appointment (Amos 3:3) or of gathering an assembly (Jos. 11:5) or even
of summoning for judgment (Job 9:19). It is the verb root from which the
word "congregation" is formed ('edah ). The noun mo'ed most often refers
to an appointed time or place. Von Rad has stressed the fact that Yahweh
comes to the tent to meet with Moses rather than dwelling there.81 However,
aside from the obvious fact that man and God met at the tent, the name
offers scant assistance to the interpreter.
In summary, then, it can be said that Israel conceived of Yahweh as
coming to meet them—indeed as appearing in dwellings like their own, and
that is theologically significant. The God of Israel was not a captive deity,
but he could be sought and would appear at appointed times and places.
This ancient understanding of God became even more meaningful in suc-
cessive centuries as Israel moved first to an urban environment and then to
an exiled existence. It provided at one point a fundamental mode of worship
by which to assess the validity of new worship forms (II Sam. 7:1-6).82 Later
it became the hallowed imagery associated with the Lord "who has stret-
ched out the heavens like a tent" (Ps. 104:2). Ultimately it became the core
of the Priestly theology of God's presence.
The Ark
The ark which plays such a prominent role in the Priestly theology
appears to have an independent history too. In addition to some scattered
references to the ark there seems to have been a connected account of the
fortunes of the ark in I Samuel 4-6 and II Samuel 6. These references point
to at least one and, perhaps, several roles for the old ark which indicate its
independence.
The word ark88 is used in the Old Testament to mean both a coffin
(Gen. 50:26) and a money box (II Kgs. 12:9). But aside from these few
542 REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR

references the word refers to the box which served as a sacred object in the
wilderness period of Israel's history. Perhaps the oldest references
to the ark are those which relate it to warfare. Numbers 10:35 contains
sayings associated with the ark's leadership in battle: "Arise, O Lord, and
let thy enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee,"
and "Return, O Lord, to the ten thousand thousands of Israel/' The ark is
also portrayed as that which accompanied the troops in battle at Jericho
(Josh. 6:8f.), in the disastrous Philistine campaign (I Sam. 4), and against
the Ammonites in David's time (II Sam. 11:11). The ark was not primarily
intended to assist in battle, however, because in some cases it was only
brought to the battlefield in desperation (I Sam. 4). In these accounts the
ark clearly represents the presence of Yahweh. When the Philistines heard
that the ark had arrived in the enemy camp they exclaimed, "The gods have
come into the camp" (I Sam. 4:7).
Many scholars have followed L. Rost in seeing II Samuel 6 as the
continuation of I Samuel 6, despite the intervening chapters.84 David's
success in rescuing the ark from oblivion and installing it in a tent in
Jerusalem (II Sam. 6:17) was narrated as the finale of the long history of the
ark. No hint is given, however, that the ark contained any objects. It was
the Lord himself whom David brought into Jerusalem. In these old accounts
the cherubim appear in connection with the ark for the first time: Yahweh
"is enthroned on the cherubim" (I Sam. 4:4; II Sam. 6:2). The relationship
between the ark and cherubim is not-specified in these texts. Instead, the
"ark of God" is brought into association with "the name of the Lord of
hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim."
The cherubim were winged sphinxes or winged lions with human
heads.86 In the texts mentioned above Yahweh is described as "enthroned on
the cherubim" (yòsheb ). In ancient Near Eastern literature the cherubim
were thought of as protecting the dwelling place of a deity or as providing
the throne upon which the deity stood or sat. Clements has suggested that
the cherubim "represent the cloud-chariot of Yahweh on which he rides
through the skies."86 Von Rad also concluded that in the early traditions
about the ark, the ark functioned as Yahweh's throne from which he "stood
forth" (I Sam. 3:10). Cherubim served as supports for thrones in some
ancient pictures.87 Von Rad reasoned that the ark gradually ceased to be
thought of as a throne and that the cherubim, therefore, came to be thought
of simply as protectors of the ark. In Solomon's temple the cherubim clearly
did not support the ark as a throne but stood beside and over it as
guardians (I Kgs. 8:6-7).
More recently, the interpretation of the ark as a throne has been called
into question. As noted above, Yahweh was depicted as sitting "above" or
"over" the cherubim, and in the earliest references which spell out the
relationship between the cherubim and the ark (I Kgs. 8:6-7), the ark is
beneath the wings of the cherubim. Thus some scholars prefer to understand
the ark as the footstool of Yahweh which was beneath or before the cherubim
throne.88 Since it was not uncommon for laws to be placed at the feet of the
deity in the ancient Near East, this custom might explain the association
between the ark and the tablets of the law in both Deuteronomy and the
 THE ARK AND THE TENT 643

Priestly material. Against the thesis that the ark was either an empty throne
or a footstool is the fact that the name "box" ('aron ) remains constant
throughout the Old Testament.
In Solomon's temple the ark was flanked by huge cherubim standing
fifteen feet high with wings spanning an equal distance (I Kgs. 6:23). The
cherubim "made a covering above the ark and its poles" (I Kgs. 8:7). The
ark in this case was the one David had moved to Jerusalem, although the
description of the ark with its poles seems to presuppose the Priestly
description (Ex. 25:13). While the ark was in Jerusalem, it may have been
born ritually in processionals. Psalm 24 has frequently been interpreted as a
liturgy associated with such a processional. H . J . Kraus has suggested that
the ark was used annually to celebrate the exodus and the entry into the
promised land. Joshua 3 and 4 form the text for this act of worship, which
included taking the ark in procession through the Jordan, according to
Kraus.89
In the book of Deuteronomy, the ark is merely a container for the
tablets of the law (10:1-5). Since Deuteronomy associated the law with the
term "covenant," the ark is called "the ark of the covenant" in deuteronomk
traditions. It seems clear that the role of the ark has been deliberately
played down in Deuteronomy. One recent treatment of this phenomenon
concluded that the widespread use of the ark in processionals and other
cultic functions had made it too important, perhaps even idolatrous, thus
triggering an attempt to restore an earlier function to it. 40
Having reached the Priestly stage in the development of the ark, it will
now be possible to see how both the ark and the tent have been taken up
into the Priestly tabernacle.
The Tabernacle
According to the Priests, the tabernacle was authorized by God on Mt.
Sinai (Ex. 25:9, 40). Its outer dimensions were precisely specified (27:18; 100
cubits by 50 cubits). As usual the Priests indicated that the Lord left
nothing to chance. (Note the dimensions of Noah's vessel and the precise
dating of the flood in relation to Noah's life in Genesis 6-9). The materials to
be use were likewise specified (25:3). The three great metals of an­
tiquity—bronze, silver, and gold—were used in a significant gradation as
one proceeded from the outer court to the innermost sanctuary.41 A
gradation of cloths parallels that of the metals (25:4). The most elaborate
was that which had a pattern woven in like tapestry; next came the material
which had a pattern placed on it by embroidery; and finally there was the
42
plain cloth in three colors—blue, purple, and scarlet. The wooden objects
were made of acacia wood, which is native to the dry southern areas of
48
Palestine.
The tabernacle envisioned by the Priest was constructed of a wooden
framework (not solid boards) (Ex. 26:15f.) covered with a layer of tapestry
(26:1-6). Over this there was a tent of goats hair (v. 7) and at least one more
layer, possible two (v. 14, tanned rams skins and goatskins). The tabernacle
had ten sets of curtains joined in the middle by clasps. They measured 28
cubits by 40 cubits. The tent covering the tabernacle measured 46 χ 30
544 REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR

cubits extending completely over the tabernacle. Thus the actual tabernacle
occupied a space thirty cubits by ten cubits within a curtained courtyard
measuring one hundred by fifty cubits (27:9-18). Apparently the cherubim
figures were spaced on the curtains so there would be one appearing in each
of the wooden frames (26:1).
The tabernacle was divided into two parts by a veil (26:31) made of the
same fabric as the sides and also decorated with cherubim. This curtain was
placed twenty cubits back from the entrance, closing off a cube of 10 χ 10 χ
10 cubits where the ark was installed. In front of the veil there was the table
for the sacred bread, the lampstand, and the altar of incense (cf. 30:6). The
front entrance to the tabernacle was covered by a second veil (26:36).
The ark appears in Exodus 25:10f. as "the ark of the testimony" (25:16,
22; 26:33). The word "testimony" is the Priestly term for the tablets of the
law corresponding to Deuteronomy's "covenant." The ark is described as a
box two and one-half cubits high. A cubit was approximately eighteen
inches, so the ark was roughly four feet by two feet and rectangular. It was
carried by two poles permanently attached to it by means of rings built into
the four "feet." 44
The Priestly ark diverges most radically from the ark of Solomon's
temple in regard to the cherubim. A kapporeth covered the top of the ark
and had a cherubim on each end facing each other and bowing with their
heads down as if in adoration of the one seated between them. This allowed
their wings to spread over the kapporeth. The cherubim were made into the
kapporeth and did not stand separately. They faced each other across the
top of the ark rather than facing toward the veil of the Holy of Holies. And
the cherubim spread both wings over the kapporeth rather than extending
one wing toward the outer wall (cf. I Kgs. 8:6f.).
The word kapporeth stems from a Hebrew word with two basic
meanings, one physical and one religious. It means "to cover" or "to atone."
Thus the New English Bible translates kapporeth as the "cover " of the ark,
while the Revised Standard Version has "mercy seat." The latter seems
preferable both in view of the predominant meaning of the word and because
of the role the kapporeth plays in the Priestly tabernacle. In the Priestly
theology the kapporeth is actually of greater significance than the ark it­
46
self.
The Priestly community apparently combined the functions of the
ancient tent and ark into their ark and kapporeth. The concept of "meeting"
associated with the tent remained (25:22; 29:42,43; 30:36); however, God
met Moses not just in the tent but "from above the mercy seat and from
between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony" (25:22).4e
Moreover, the "door of the tent" so prominent in the old traditions
became a technical term for the priests, indicating the place where priestly
duties were to be performed by the sons of Aaron (Ex. 29:4,11,32,42).
For the Priestly community the ark remained the container for the law
as it was in Deuteronomy (40:20). Moses continued as the mediator of God's
commands (25:22), but, for the Priests, those commands clearly centered in
 THE ARK AND THE TENT 545

the instructions for the tabernacle. God's command was to constitute anew
the essentials of their worship.
Thus, the tabernacle became the Priestly response to the question,
"How shall we sing the Lord's song in a foreign land?" (Ps. 137:4). When
the Israelites were deported to Babylon in the sixth century B.C. they lost
more than their physical possessions. They were also stripped of their
spiritual treasures as well. The Temple, which they had viewed as the
symbol of the visible presence of God in their midst and the guarantee of
God's promises, was gone. With its loss there died in some people the will to
worship (Ps. 137). God had been tied to a place, and for them the place was
far away—and a heap of ruins as well.
The Exile also meant the loss of the Davidic monarchy, which had been
a foundation stone in Israel's faith. God had made an everlasting covenant
with David which they believed would never be broken. For the Exiles such
theological anchors, which had helped generations "in ages past" feel secure,
were as much a pile of rubble as the city of Jerusalem.
The Priests who were taken to Babylon, like Ezekiel, had a difficult
assignment. How do you sing the Lord's songs in a foreign land, indeed! No
anointed king to lead, no holy city to set your face toward with the joy of a
pilgrim, no temple shrouding the awesome presence of God in its recesses.
The priests were faced with the task of leading worship without any usable
symbols—a difficult process even at home.
The great complex of architecture and law which begins in Exodus 25
gives testimony to how these priests helped their people realize anew the
presence of God. It testifies eloquently to the transformation of faith that
enabled the Israelites to believe again. Other voices added sustenance
too—the voice of past prophets whose harsh words sounded more and more
like the words of God himself; the voice of Ezekiel, who saw God coming on
his chariot throne to Babylon; the voice of an unknown prophet whose words
are kept now in Isaiah 40ff.; and the voice of historians who made sense of
the terrible event that had put them all in Babylon. But it was the Priests
who helped the Exiles adapt their faith to their place.
The key element in the transformation effected by the priests was the
concept of the tabernacle. The name "tabernacle" comes from the Hebrew
verb "to dwell" {shakan ). This verb is rooted in the nomadic past of Israel
and literally means "to pitch a tent." There was another word {yashab)
normally used for dwelling in houses; it meant "to sit down." The two words
differ at the point of permanency. The book of Deuteronomy, "when it came
to describe the dwelling of Yahweh's name on earth, distinctly preferred to
use sakan, reserving yasab for Yahweh's dwelling in heaven. Their belief was
that the only place where Yahweh could be said to dwell (yasab) was heaven,
and that on earth his name only "tented," or "tabernacled" (saken)."41
For the Priests of the exilic period, the word shakan was perfect—not
that God only let his name reside on earth, but that God's glory, his visible
presence, could "tent" among his people. The Priests took over the ancient
traditions and shaped them as a response to their own contemporary
situation. God's house was gone like their own houses, but God's presence
546 REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR

would "tent" with them, sharing their place in life as he had done in Moses'
time.
Indeed, the cloud had covered the tent when Moses met with God, but
the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Who could miss the element of
hope in that description? The Exiles knew all too well how ancient Israel felt
when the Philistines captured the ark: "The glory has departed from Israel"
(I Sam. 4:21). But the glory had returned and they were commanded to
make him a sanctuary that he might dwell in their midst (25:8).
Tent and Ark in the New Testament
The tabernacle provided the author of Hebrews with a magnificent
analogy for preaching Jesus, even though Jesus "was descended from
Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests"
(Heb. 7:14). Jesus is superior to the priests who ministered before the tent,
for they held a temporary priesthood in an imitation tent (8:2,5) while Jesus
exercised a permanent priesthood in "the true tent" (8:2, 9:24). Jesus, our
high priest ministers in "the inner shrine behind the curtain" (6:19), so we
may confidently "draw near to the throne of grace" (4:16). His flesh has
become the curtain through which Christians may pass into the Holy of
Holies (10:20). The "outer tent" where ordinary priests could serve sym-
bolized for the author the "present age," but Christ mediates a new
covenant in a more perfect tent that belongs to another age (9:9,11,15). The
new covenant, however, is rooted in the old. Jesus saves by doing perfectly
what ancient Lévites could only do imperfectly—-even with gold plated arks
and lavish tapestries.
In addition to the treatment of the ark and the tent in Hebrews, these
traditions provide the backdrop for understanding other less obvious
references. The Gospel of John joined the theme of "dwelling" (tenting,
tabernacling) with that of the "glory of God" to present the incarnation
(John 1:14). The transfiguration experience (Mark 9:2ff.; Matt. 17:lff.; Lk.
9:28ff.) in the synoptic gospels may also have utilized the ancient figures.
The word "booths" is literally "tents", and, especially, in Luke where the
disciples "saw his glory" and "entered the cloud," there may have been an
attempt to parallel the tent of meeting tradition (cf. also Acts 7:44).
In the book of Revelation the seven angels bearing the seven plagues
came from "the temple of the tent of witness in heaven" (15:5) bringing
down "great Babylon" (16:19). And when the prophet saw the new
Jerusalem his exclamation echoed the tabernacle tradition: "Behold, the
dwelling of God is with men" (21:3).
Finally, when Paul needed an analogy for explaining the work of Christ
in his letter to the Romans, he turned to the kapporeth of the ark. Christ
was the hilasterion which God offered to all. The Septuagint translated
kapporeth by hilasterion; thus Paul was suggesting that in Christ God
offered his presence and received the blood of the atoning sacrifice (Lev.
16:14).
 THE ARK AND THE TENT 547
1
German works dealing with symbolism dominated the 1830's and lS40's. See M. Gorg,
Das Zelt der Begegnung, "Bonner Biblische Beitrage/' No. 27 (Bonn: Peter Hanstein Verlag,
GMBH, 1967). The most thorough and illuminating reconstruction of what the tabernacle
looked like appeared about 1900 in A.R.S. Kennedy's article on "Tabernacle/' in Hastings
Dictionary of the Bible, IV: 653-668.
2
Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (Edinburgh: Adam and Charles
Black, 1885), p. 39.
s
Gorg, op. cit., p. 4.
4
G. von Rad, "The Tent and the Ark/' in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other
Essays, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966), pp.
103-124.
6
Ibid., p. 118.
• Most notably M. Newman, The People of the Covenant, (New York: Abingdon, 1962)
and B. W. Anderson, understanding the Old Testament 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1975).
7
M. Haran, "Shiloh and Jerusalem/' JBL, 81: 14-24, 1962.
8
Gorg, op. cit.
* H. Kraus, Worship In Israel, trans. Geoffrey Buswell (Richmond, Va.: John Knox
Press, 1966), pp. 128ff.
10
J. Morgenstern, The Arh the Ephod and the 'Tent of Meeting" (Cincinnati: The
Hebrew Union College Press, 1945).
11
Frank M. Cross, "The Priestly Tabernacle/' The Biblical Archaeologist 10: 45-68, 1947.
Reprinted in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, ed. by G. E. Wright and D. N. Freedman
(New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1961), pp. 201-228.
11
(Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1972). See also, Page H. Kelley, "Israel's Tabernacling God"
Review and Expositor, LXVII: 485-494, Fall, 1970, for a recent treatment.
"Exodus 27:21; 28:43; 29:4,10,11,30,32,42,44; 30:16,20,26,36; 31:7; 38:8,30; 39:32;
40:2,6,12,24,26,30,32,34,35.
14
M. Noth called this "an old pre-Priestly, pre-deuteronomic tradition/' Exodus, trans. J.
S. Bowden (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), p. 254.
16
But notice also Gen. 11:5; Ex. 3:8; 19:11; Ps. 18:9; 144:5, which use the verb "come
down" of Yahweh's action but are not related to the tent tradition. Does .this mean that the
"coming down" of Yahweh is tied not to the tent but to the literary source behind these
references?
l
· K. Koch, " 'ohel; anal/' Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974), I: 125.
17
Gorg, op. cit. pp. 127-136, supports this view. Likewise, J. Blenkinsopp, Gibeon and
Israel (Cambridge: University Press, 1972), pp. 65-83, argues that Jerusalemite interests have
suppressed material about the role played by Gibeon (particularly in relation to the ark— not
the tent).
18
G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, (New York: Harper and
Row, 1965), I: 238, footnote 114. See also Newman, op. cit., pp. 66f.
» Ibid.
" B. S. Childs, The Book of Exodus (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), p. 592.
21
Ibid. V. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrams
(Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1967), p. 429, used the LXX to argue that Moses pitched "his
tent" outside the camp as a "temporary surrogate" for the tabernacle which sinful Israelites
could not build!
M
Noth, op. cit., p. 255. The verbs are imperfects followed by connected perfects.
" Childs, op. cit. pp. 594-595, has rightly seen the effect of the duplicate supplications.
"The effect is to minimize the partial concession in order to press for the full request." See a
similar pattern in Joshua 24:19-21 and, perhaps, another in I Sam. 8:10-22 where the people
refused to be dissuaded. Childs is not correct in his treatment of the function of w . 7-11,
however, if the interpretation given here is valid.
548 REVIEW AND EXPOSITOR
84
Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I: 234 ff.
" H. H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Forms and Meaning (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1967), p. 51.
86
See Koch, op, cit., p. 125.
17
The scholarly debate is treated in detail by Schmitt, op, cit., pp. 65ff.This idea was
first suggested in 1857. The phrase would then read that Moses pitched the tent "for it," i.e.
the ark.
28
J. Plast aras, The God of Exodus (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1966),
p. 186, suggests that the pillar of cloud is "the column of smoke which rose from the altar of
incense at Israel's sanctuary" see also Lev. 16:2,13; I Kgs. 8:10-12; Isa. 6:4-6. If this were
true it would demand the presence of the incense altar and, presumably, the ark within the
tent of meeting unless the pillar of cloud could be shown to be a Priestly addition. But, as
Clements, God and Temple (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), p. 37, points out, "If the ark were
in fact present in the tent, it is strange that the cloud appears at the door of the tent, and not
over the ark."
98
Most recently, R. J. Clifford, "The Tent of El and the Israelite Tent of Meeting,"
Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33: 221-227,1971. See also Koch, op. cit., p. 124.
80
H. J. Kraus, Worship in Israel, trans. Geoffrey Boswell (Richmond, VA: John Knox
Press, 1966), pp. 131-134.
81
Von Rad, "The Tent and the Ark," p. 117. But see Clements, op. cit., p. 37, for a
rebuttal.
31
Gorg argues that the adjustment to a temple in Jerusalem was very difficult for those
who saw the old shrines as more sacred.
88
The boat which Noah built is called a tebah in Hebrew not an 'aron, the word used for
the cult object.
34
Rost's theory appeared as part of his treatment of Die Überlieferung von der Thron-
nachfolge Davids, "BWANT" (1926), pp. 4-47.
86
W. F. Albright, "What Were the Cherubim," The Biblical Archaeologist, I: 1-3,
February, 1938. Reprinted in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader, pp. 95-97.
86
Clements, op. cit., p. 31. See also II Kgs. 19-15; Isa. 37:16; Jer. 3:16f.; Ps. 99:1.
87
Von Rad, The Tent and the Ark, p. 111.
88
H ans-Jürgen Zobel, " 'orón, " Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974), I: 372. Schmitt, op. cit., pp. 120-128, has a summary with
full documentation. See also I Chr. 28:2.
99
Kraus, op. cit., pp. 156-157.
40
T. Fretheim, "The Ark in Deuteronomy," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30: 1-14,
1968.
41
A. R. S. Kennedy, "Tabernacle," Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, IV: 656.
42
Ibid.
48
See J. C. Trever, "Acacia," Interpreters' Dictionary of the Bible, I: 23. The Hebrew
word for acacia is reflected in the KJV translation, "shittah tree."
44
But see Numbers 4:6 which pictures the poles as removeable.
46
Von Rad, "The Tent and the Ark," p. 104.
48
Childs, op. cit., p. 534.
41
Clements, op. cit., p. 116.
 ^ s
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.