THE TWO-FOLD SKIN ROOF
THE TWO-FOLD SKIN ROOF
There were two sets of curtains within the house. Without there were two sets of skin coverings, forming the roof only, and not hanging down the walls as well, as many suppose. Should it be objected to this view that the golden boards would be exposed to the weather, the same objection might be urged with respect to the silver rods, silver capitals, and silver hooks of the court pillars, and also with respect to the five gold-covered pillars at the entrance of the tabernacle, which were all equally exposed to the effects of the weather. Further, on this point, see appendix, chapter 28. The rams’ skins, being tanned, were dyed red, and probably resembled the leather still sold in Syrian towns. The Israelites would find no difficulty in supplying them, since they were rich in flocks and herds.
Badgers’ skins (seal or porpoise skins, RV).—It is generally agreed that “badger” is a wrong interpretation of the Hebrew word “tachash,” but whatever animal is intended, whether it ranged the forest or swam the ocean, it must have had a tough hide, as leather made of it was used for the outermost covering of the tabernacle, being placed above that of the red rams’ skins. THE BADGER-SKIN COVERING
Ugly or beautiful?—It was likely of a sky-blue or other lovely color. Some tell us it was very ugly. The spiritually minded Soltau, in his Tabernacle and the Priesthood, says (p. 67), “The tabernacle must have appeared to the eye of a stranger as a long, dark, coffin-like structure.” Several writers, charmed with Soltau’s description, have been at pains to improve upon it, and in case we might not be sufficiently impressed with the ugliness, one of these writers asks us in imagination to ascend some commanding height, and get a good view of it. The Rev. George Rodgers, in his Gospel according to Moses, says (p. 34): “In this covering there was nothing beautiful or attractive. I can suppose a man to have looked down on the long, dark, coffin-like structure.” The passage usually quoted to confirm this opinion is, “I have shod thee with badgers’ skins,” and hence the writers alluded to above imagine that the covering was ugly and shoe-black like. Such writers, however, appear to quote the text without even once looking it up in the Bible, a dangerous practice, for had they looked it up they would have seen that it was a very grandly dressed woman who was so shod, and with the design of making her not ugly but beautiful. From the crown of her head to the soles of her feet she was dressed in the most costly and splendid attire, and decked with the most precious and lovely ornaments. When so arrayed and shod with the badgers’ shoes, it is said of her, “Thou wast exceeding beautiful” (Ezekiel 16:9-15), and we have no doubt that the tabernacle, even with its badger-skin covering, like her and like the temple of which it was the prototype, was “exceeding beautiful.” The reason why Soltau and those who are influenced by his views are so anxious to see the tabernacle appear ugly is that it may typify Christ’s humility and illustrate such passages as, “I am a worm and no man” (Psalms 22:6) and “When we shall see Him there is no beauty that we should desire Him” (Isaiah 53:2). If such writers are correct, would analogy not lead us to expect that the high priest should have had sackcloth thrown over his golden garments, which we are told, were for glory and beauty?