THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY AND PROFESSOR MILLIGAN ON THE TABERNACLE
THE DEAN OF CANTERBURY AND PROFESSOR MILLIGAN ON THE TABERNACLE
Some may be of opinion that too much has been said about Mr. Fergusson’s sloping-roofed tabernacle, but as his long, able, and elaborate article in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible is in defense of the tabernacle having had such a roof, we do not see how we could have sufficiently and satisfactorily replied to it in fewer words. When an article appears in such a work as the above, and claiming to be written by one who is supposed to be pre-eminently qualified for the task, it sometimes happens that other learned men, writing on a similar topic, look up to him as an authority, and adopt his views without testing their merits or even taking the trouble to try to understand them. This is exactly what has occurred with respect to Mr. Fergusson’s “Restoration of the tabernacle.” The Very Reverend R. Payne Smith, D.D., Dean of Canterbury, having read Mr. Fergusson’s article, gets very confused notions into his head about the structure, and while in this state of mind he writes an article on the subject in a work in which, if anywhere, we might expect to obtain the latest and best information on Bible themes. The following are a few extracts from his contribution to the Bible Educator:— “Vol. 1, p. 80.—Taking the cubit as equal to 18 inches, the ark was 3 feet 9 inches in length and 2 feet 3 inches in height and breadth. This alone stood in the holy of holies, a small chamber 18 feet square.” It was 10 cubits square, and taking the cubit at 18 inches it was 15 feet and not 18 feet square.
Dr. Smith proceeds: “And always, except on the march, so covered that all was dark within. Into this solemn gloom once in a year the high priest entered alone.”
It is true the Lord said (1 Kings 8:12) “that He would dwell in the thick darkness,” but this was referring to the chamber being entirely without natural or artificial light. This sacred place in the tabernacle was not “all dark within,” for the Lord, by a visible symbol, was enthroned on the mercy seat, and that symbol was a resplendent light or flame, and would surely shed some light in the throne-room. Neither the light of the sun, nor the seven-fold light of the golden lamp-bearer, shone in the innermost apartment, and as far as they were concerned it would have been in utter darkness, but it had a more glorious light than either in Him who shone forth from between the cherubim. Surely the region where God manifested His gracious presence, and which was a type of that place where there is no night, could not be one of darkness nor of solemn gloom.
“The Holy Place,” says the Dean, “was of the same breadth as the Holy of Holies, but twice its length, itself carefully covered over, but lighted with the seven-branched candlestick, and containing also the table of shewbread, the altar of incense, and the altar of burnt offering.”
If it was all dark and solemn gloom in the holy of holies it is clear the dean gives us a superabundance of light in the holy place, for besides the seven- fold light of the splendid lamp-bearer, the fire of the brazen altar and that of burning bullocks blazed here. We cannot conceive how the tabernacle and all that it contained could have been prevented from being burned to the ground.
“These two chambers,” says the Dean, “were made of movable boards, two feet three inches broad, and fifteen feet high, fastened to sockets of silver, while over all four coverings were thrown; not lying flat upon them as many have supposed, but supported by a ridge-pole raised thirty feet above the ground in front, and the coverings were so arranged that a passage of seven feet six inches was left between the boards forming the walls of the inner shrines and the edge of the curtains.” The space between the boards was not seven feet six inches, but fifteen feet.
Mr. Fergusson invents, as we have seen, boards to rest or take hold of the edge of the curtains; but the Dean does not inform us how he supports the edge of the curtains. He says the ridge-pole was raised above the ground in front. He appears not to understand in the least what he is saying, for he speaks of the ridgepole as if it were a flagstaff. He seems to think it quite unnecessary to tell us in what part of the text we are to find it, and the internal supports which it involves. Mr. Fergusson raises this imaginary pole to a height of twenty-two and a-half feet (fifteen cubits) above the ground; but his disciple, Dr. Smith, not content with even this high elevation, raises it to a still greater height, even to thirty feet (twenty cubits). As we have seen (p. 203), every inch of the curtains was used up by Mr. Fergusson’s sloping roof, so that they could not have been nearly long enough for the two slopes of a roof whose ridge-pole was seven and a-half feet higher than his. In fact, for such a roof there was no more cloth than to suffice for one of its slopes, and for about half of the other one, and to cover the large triangular spaces at the front and back, there was not even a rag. Mr. Fergusson takes the liberty of adding five cubits to the stature of the tabernacle, but the Dean of Canterbury goes a great deal further, for he adds ten cubits to the height of the sacred structure; and both writers think it quite scriptural to do so without any warrant whatever from the Bible. “These coverings,” continues the Dean, “were four in number the first of fine twined linen, of various colors, embroidered with cherubim, and formed into curtains six feet wide and thirty-seven feet in length. Over these was a covering of goats’ skins, consisting of eleven curtains, each six feet wide and forty feet long.”
Seeing that a ridge-pole raised thirty feet above the ground would require a greater extent of curtains than for any other “Restoration of the tabernacle” that has been designed yet, one would have thought that the restorer would not have diminished the length of the curtains; but this is what the very Reverend Dean has done. The fine linen curtains were twenty-eight cubits or forty-two feet long—not thirty-seven; and the other curtains were not of goats’ skin, but of goat-hair, and were thirty cubits or forty-five feet long, and not forty feet as incorrectly stated. No light, but a flood of darkness is thrown on the tabernacle by this article in the Bible Educator. It cannot be better described than in the author’s own words, “All is dark and solemn gloom, a gloom so dense as not to be pierced by even one ray of light.” The late Rev. William Milligan, D.D., Professor of Divinity and Bible Criticism in the University ot Aberdeen, after describing the tabernacle, says, at p. 42 of the third volume of the Bible Educator, “The diagram (p. 41) will sufficiently illustrate what has been said;” and also very properly remarks, “It (the tabernacle) was all to be executed in strict accordance with the Divine directions, and nothing was to be left to merely human ingenuity or skill.” And yet the diagram which illustrates his observations is, in almost every particular, opposed to the text of Scripture, and is entirely according to human ingenuity or skill—(1.) The diagram represents the structure with a ridge-pole, which is a mere human invention, or at least a mere conjecture, for not a single word is said about it or its supports in the text. Although it is one of the most important features in the above diagram, yet the professor is silent on the point, and remarks, “The directions for the construction of all parts” (of the tabernacle) “are given in the Old Testament with unexampled minuteness; the directions extending not only to its leading parts, but to the smallest particulars —the loops of the curtains, the hooks of the pillars, the rings of the bars, the cords, and the pins.” What about the ridge-pole and its supports? (2.) This imaginary pole in the diagram is raised ten cubits (fifteen feet) above the tabernacle boards, or twenty cubits above the ground. We have already shown conclusively, by diagrams and otherwise, that for a sloping roof supported by a ridge-pole at this elevation, there was not nearly enough of goat-hair curtains, not an inch being left over after forming the two slopes, either to enclose the large triangular space above the door hanging, or that above the boards at the back-end. (3.) Mr. Fergusson admits that a ridge-pole involves at least one pillar to support it at each of its extremities, besides other internal supports; but the ridge-pole of the tabernacle in the Bible Educator (Vol. 3, p. 41) has no such pillar to bear it up. Of course the text does not furnish any, nor any other supports whatever. It is difficult to conceive how the ridge-pole could rest on nothing, when it is made to sustain the whole weight of the curtains and skin coverings. (4.) Twelve curtains are represented in the diagram as constituting the slopes of the roof, whereas there were only eleven goat-hair curtains altogether. (5.) While the court is properly represented as twice the length of its breadth, the tabernacle itself, which was three times its breadth, is represented in the diagram as only half its proper length. It may make a better picture than if its length had been shown to be three times that of its breadth, but in this and other respects which we have pointed out, the text is not in the least cared for. Everything is left, to use Professor Milligan’s own words, “to merely human ingenuity and skill.”
Whether our remarks on Mr. Fergusson’s sloping roofed tabernacle and on other details of the structure, may or may not be of use to general readers, they may not be altogether valueless to learned men and others who are ignorant of these details, and yet lecture and write articles and even books about them. If the Dean of Canterbury, whether he agreed with our views or not, had spent an hour in looking into our little work, he certainly never would have crowded so many blunders together as are to be found on p. 80 of volume I of the Bible Educator.