The Meaning Of The Mishkhan

By Kenneth R. Cooper

[Kenneth R. Cooper, M.A., D.D., Ph.D., professor of Bible and theology, Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute]

When God delivered his people from Egyptian bondage, his expressed purpose was that they might serve Him. Part of that purpose, if not the essence of it, was the worship of God, since frequently in Scripture, worship and service go together. For example, God assured Moses of his presence and candidly expressed his purpose when He said, “Certainly I will be with you, and this shall be the sign to you that it is I who have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain” (Exod 3:12).[1] The word translated “worship” in this passage is the same word frequently translated “serve” in passages in which Moses called on Pharaoh to “Let My people go that they may serve Me in the wilderness” (7:16).[2] However, several other things Moses was told to explain to Pharaoh seem to indicate that this service included worship of several kinds. For example, Moses was told to tell Pharaoh to let Israel go “that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God” (3:18); and, on another occasion, “Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness” (5:1). Sacrifice and feasts were both forms of worship;[3] it would, therefore, seem that there is a close connection between serving God and worshiping God.

When the remainder of the book of Exodus is examined, one should notice that more than one third of the book focuses on the worship of God. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. made this identification and stated,

The final sixteen chapters of Exodus center on the theology of the worship of God. The only interruption of this theme is the episode of the golden calf (chs. 32–34). But this section only contrasts the divinely appointed worship established in connection with the tabernacle with humanly devised worship that adores the work of human hands and leads to debauchery.[4]

Kaiser added, “The sheer amount of text devoted to the topic of worship ought to demonstrate its importance.”[5] Terence E. Freitheim agreed, adding, “The volume of material demonstrates the importance of worship to the narrator. Moreover, the movement in the book of Exodus as a whole is one from slavery to worship, from service to Pharaoh to service to God.”[6] The section of Exodus referenced by Kaiser and Freitheim may be further divided into two parts, the first containing instructions for building the tabernacle (chs. 25—29), and the second containing a description of its construction (chs. 30—40).

The first section begins in an interesting manner and ends with God’s statement of his presence with his people, a key factor in the worship of God. At the beginning, He instructed Moses, “Let them construct a sanctuary for Me, that I may dwell among them” (25:8). At the end of his instructions, God explained, “I will meet there with the sons of Israel, and it shall be consecrated by My glory” (29:43). After Bezalel and Oholiab completed the construction of the Tabernacle and all its accoutrements, “Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (40:34). From these references alone, it would appear that the presence of God played a significant role in the worship of Israel.

In fact, the whole idea of the Tabernacle developed a form and provided a vehicle for the close presence of God in the worship of Israel that occurred there. Terence E. Freitheim noted, “Fundamentally, it signals a change in the way God is present with Israel.” He then identified the progressive ways in which God demonstrated his presence with his people. Freitheim noted three stages.

1. The occasional appearance of God on the mountain or at the traveling tent [this refers to the separate tent of meeting which will be discussed later in this article] (33:7–11) will become the on-going presence of God with Israel.
2. The distance of the divine presence from the people will no longer be associated with the remote top of a mountain but with a dwelling place in the center of the camp. God comes down to be with the people at close, even intimate range; they no longer need to ascend to God.
3. The divine dwelling will no longer be a fixed place. God’s dwelling place will be portable, on the move with the people of God.

Freitheim concluded, “Overall, these chapters represent a climax not only in Israel’s journey but in God’s journey.”[7] In the light of this, it would seem that the presence of God with his people is definitely a vital part of their worship of God. How, then, did God demonstrate his presence to his people?

When they first came out of Egypt, Israel traveled to Mount Sinai because God had told Moses they would worship Him at that mountain. While they were there, God came to them in a thick cloud, and the mountain was covered with the cloud (along with thunder and lightning flashes). The experience was all new to Israel. Until now, they had seen God’s presence, if at all, only in the plagues of judgment on the Egyptians. T. Desmond Alexander said, “At Sinai God revealed Himself in a new way to the Israelites.” He identified three aspects of this revelation as significant.

First, attention is drawn to the holiness of God’s nature. We see this in the instructions given to Moses. The people must consecrate themselves, wash their clothes, and abstain from sexual relations for three days (19:14–15). Furthermore, Moses must establish a boundary around the mountain in order to prevent the people from coming into direct contact with God; even the priests were subject to this constraint. As the ground near the burning bush was made holy by God’s presence (3:5), so too is Mount Sinai (19:23).

Second, God’s presence—accompanied by thunder and lightning, fire and smoke, and the violent trembling of the mountain (19:16–19)—is seen, heard and felt by all the people.

Third, God speaks directly to all those gathered at the foot of the mountain and declares the principal obligations to which they must adhere in order for the covenant relationship to be established (20:1–17).

Alexander adds that “The effect of all this on the people is such that they ask Moses to mediate with God on their behalf.”[8] Following this experience of God’s presence, Moses received some of the basic laws by which Israel would live as the people of God (Exod 20—24), then came the instructions for building the Tabernacle, the ongoing place of worship during the wilderness journeys.

The Tabernacle apparently went by several names, all of them related in one way or another to God’s demonstration of his presence in Israel’s midst. For example, it was called simply “the tent” (אֹֽהֶל) (26:9), “the tent of the Lord” (1 Kgs 2:28), “the house of the tent” (לְבֵ֥ית־הָאֹ֖הֶל) (1 Chron 9:23), “the house of the Lord” (Exod 23:19), and “the tabernacle of the house of God” (1 Chron 6:48), to name a few.[9] The Tabernacle was also called the “tent of meeting,” indicating, according to Charles L. Feinberg, “the tabernacle as a place of revelation.”[10] The name occurs over 125 times in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy concerning the Tabernacle but for a short period of time, it also applied to a separate smaller tent erected by Moses outside the camp because of the Israelites’ apostasy with the golden calf. Some scholars believe this was the only tent and that, in reality, the tabernacle never existed historically; it was only an ideal. However, Kaiser argued, “the text presents Exodus 25—40 as being historical. The source hypothesis (JEPD) fails to see that the text of 33:7–11 is different from the tabernacle and was only a temporary structure.”[11]

Menahem Haran (who supports the source hypothesis) nevertheless identified the Tabernacle as a real tent separate from the tent of meeting and discussed briefly the relationship between the two. In his discussion of the tents, he seems to make them exist contemporaneously, and suggested a reasonable distinction between the two in connection with the presence of God. He said,

Thus in E[lohist]D[euteronomist] there are two outstanding tents existing independently of each other in the Israelite camp: one of them presumably provides the temporary covering for the Ark [the tabernacle] . . . , while the second is absolutely empty [the tent of meeting]. The first is found in the very centre of the camp, while the second is outside it and very far away from it. The first serves as the temporary abode of a priestly holy object, while the second is a place where men present themselves before God and receive a nabhic ecstasy. In the first Levitical priests officiate, in the second the prophet’s attendant. In short, the first is, as it were, an “embryo” of a House of God, that is to be built in the Promised Land, while the second is a kind of permanent image of the revelation on Mount Sinai.[12]

Since the Tabernacle itself was also identified as a tent of meeting in many places, it is difficult to say whether or not the smaller tent of meeting continued to exist once the Tabernacle was actually completed. Whether it did or not, there are some distinctions that could still be made regarding these “tents” and the presence of God. Haran distinguished them further by noting that in the smaller tent of meeting the “petitioner” went inside the tent, while God’s presence in the cloud stood outside at the entrance. On the other hand, concerning the tabernacle, the “petitioner” came to the courtyard and stayed outside the tabernacle near the entrance, while the cloud of God’s presence was inside.[13]

The presence of God was demonstrated further through some of the other names of the Tabernacle; it was called the mishkhan, which means a “dwelling place,”[14] following God’s statement that He might dwell among his people; it is also called a “sanctuary.” George A. F. Knight explained, “‘Sanctuary’ means ‘holy place’ and so refers not just to the tabernacle, but to the whole sacred area. Holiness is that reality which Moses discovered about God at the bush, 3:5. At this place, then, Yahweh will not only be with Israel, 3:12, His holy presence will actually reside in her midst.”[15] The presence of God burned with a radiant glory and with pure holiness. The presence of God was to be a continuous reality in their lives. Furthermore, unlike the smaller, temporary tent of meeting outside the camp, the Tabernacle was constructed in the center of the camp, apparently to stress to Israel that the presence of God was to be the center of their lives. By being placed in the center of the camp, the Tabernacle not only demonstrated the presence of God in Israel’s life, but also the sovereignty of God over their life. Longman noted, “the tabernacle was to be placed in the center of the camp, surrounded by the tribes of Israel. In this way, God’s tent, the tabernacle, was like the tent of a Near Eastern monarch. The king’s tent was always in the center, surrounded by his people.”[16]

As one approaches this King, he progresses through materials of lesser value – bronze posts of the outer curtains, for instance, through materials of greater value – silver, then gold, then ultimately fine gold, used to make the only piece of furniture in the Holy of Holies, God’s throne room: the Ark of the Covenant. While linen was used of the outer curtains, the innermost curtains were woven from the finest cloth. After briefly describing all the materials of the tabernacle, Longman summarized the significance as follows:

We can imagine the presence of God in the Holy of Holies in the tabernacle as a red hot flame. The closer one gets to the center the hotter it is. Higher degrees of value marked the precious material used in the tabernacle. There were also decreasing levels of accessibility as one moved from outside the camp to inside the Holy of Holies.[17]

Longman discussed in detail the decreasing degrees of accessibility since there were barriers even at this time to approaching God. The barriers related both to God’s holiness and to his burning glory. God is holy; therefore, the one who approaches Him must also be holy. Hence, the world surrounding the Holy of Holies consisted of five realms according to Longman.

1. Outside the camp: This was the realm of the Gentile, the ritually unclean; in short, anyone could be outside the camp.
2. Inside the camp: Only Israelites who were ritually clean could enter the Israelite camp. . . .
3. Inside the courtyard: Though laypeople could enter this area with their sacrificial animals, the courtyard was dominated by the priests and Levites. These men were specially set apart for this task. They performed the sacrifices on behalf of the people, and only they could further go into the tabernacle proper.
4. Inside the Tabernacle: Here, only the priests and Levites could enter.
5. Inside the Holy of Holies: This was the most restricted area of all. Only the high priest could enter this realm, and he could enter it only once a year, during the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). . . .[18]

After Moses completed the Tabernacle, God’s glory filled it for the most part to the extent of Longman’s description; it was to such an extent that no one could enter the tabernacle itself at all, not even Moses. The demonstration of God’s presence had significant implications not only for Israel, but also for New Testament believers and believers today in that it reveals two significant attributes of God. The two attributes are easily forgotten, but are in need of serious attention. They are the attributes of God’s glory and his holiness. Ralph W. Klein explained the importance of seeing these attributes in the presence of God.

Yahweh’s glory sanctifies or consecrates the tent of meeting. “Holiness” constitutes what God is in Godself; Yahweh’s “glory” connotes what is revealed to humanity about God, often in a radiant manifestation. In the call of Isaiah we learn that Yahweh is most holy; the whole earth is full of His glory (Isa. 6:3). The glory of Yahweh had settled on Mount Sinai when Moses stayed there for forty days and nights; it was exceedingly bright like a “devouring fire” (Exod. 24:16–17). That one-time appearance gets institutionalized in the tabernacle, where it symbolizes also away from Sinai, divine presence.[19]

The divine presence in the Tabernacle, as already noted by Longman, burned “bright like a ‘devouring fire’“ just as it did on the mountain, and it likely produced in the Israelite worshiper a similar fear in approaching God as did the Sinai experience.

Looking back at Sinai and at the Tabernacle in the wilderness, one cannot help but notice that the presence of God is a vital aspect of worship regardless of the place. Longman noted that even before the Tabernacle, and even before Sinai, “the altar was a holy place, a set apart place, because that was where God chose to meet with His people and bring them His blessings.”[20] He later stated that the tabernacle had supplanted the altar as a place where God met with his people. “The tabernacle replaced the altar as the primary location where God revealed His intimate presence to His people. More correctly, the tabernacle incorporated the altar since . . . , the sacrificial altar was an important component of the tabernacle complex.”[21] Sacrifice, worship, and a place to meet with God – all are a vital part of the believer’s experience, but the presence of God is the most vital part. The Lord’s presence indicated to Israel that God was the purpose and object of their lives, and it linked the temporal with the eternal in their lives.

The Tabernacle motif along with the motifs of sacrifice, worship, and the presence of God are carried over into the New Testament and include New Testament believers. The New Testament contains several examples that may be discussed briefly. The first, and perhaps the most obvious, is the person of Jesus Christ. The Apostle John said, “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14, emphasis added). One should find it interesting to note that the word translated “dwelt among us” in this passage is the verb form of the word “tent” or “tabernacle” (ἐσκήνωσεν), and can easily read “The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us.” T. Desmond Alexander explained, “In Jesus, God is viewed as inhabiting human flesh just as He previously inhabited first the tabernacle and then the temple.”[22] Furthermore, Jesus had this same idea in view when He told the Jewish leaders at Jerusalem, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19). Although the Jews did not understand his reference, his disciples did; and to make sure his readers did, John explained that Jesus was referring to the temple of his body in which God was indwelling human flesh.

On occasion, his disciples actually sensed God dwelling in Jesus’ body and responded accordingly. Peter, for instance, when Jesus told him and other disciples to let down their nets on the other side of the boat, saw a catch of fish so great it broke the nets. As a result, Peter dropped to his knees before Jesus and cried, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord” (Luke 5:8). While one should not read too much into his use of the word “Lord” in this passage, Peter’s response does seem to indicate that he recognized the presence of divine power and divine holiness in the person of Jesus (and as a “sinful man,” he felt an overwhelming discomfort in the presence of divine holiness).

Nevertheless, John’s statements previously noted make it clear that he viewed Jesus in the flesh as a kind of New Testament version of God dwelling in the Tabernacle. His statement that “we beheld His glory” only reinforces this conclusion. The glory-fire of God was clearly seen on Mount Sinai by God’s people and even though Longman’s description is addressing the imagination, it is reasonable to assume that glory-fire was also seen when the cloud descended into and occupied the Tabernacle.

Furthermore, when he said, “we beheld his glory,” John may have also been referring to his experience of Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Who is to say that for the three disciples who accompanied Jesus up this mountain the experience was not in some way similar to the fire and lightning seen on Mount Sinai? There were no fire or lightning flashes, it is true; but Matthew said, “And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light” (Matt 17:2). There was an awe-inspiring light emanating from Jesus that would reflect the power, majesty, and brilliance of God once seen on Mount Sinai. If that is not enough, the voice of God was heard on the mountain placing his approval on Jesus and commanding the disciples to obey Jesus. The response of the disciples on this occasion was much like that of the Israelites at Sinai in that “When they heard this, they fell on their faces and were much afraid” (v. 6). Compare this to Israel when Moses wrote “And all the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, ‘Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, lest we die’“ (Exod 20:18). The glory is that which filled the Mishkhan, the Tabernacle, when God’s presence came down and entered it (40:34–35).

One can further see implications of the presence of God motif in the New testament from even a cursory reading of the book of Hebrews. In fact, Brevard S. Childs told his readers, “Indeed the Levitical priestly cult which centered in the tabernacle provides the setting from which the author of Hebrews has developed his whole christology.”[23] Moreover, Childs indicated that the role of the Tabernacle with all its ritual and offices “provides an important model for understanding the relation of the New Testament to the Old.”[24] Childs considered one of the major themes of Hebrews to be an attempt to interpret the whole Tabernacle literature as a testimony to Jesus Christ. If he is correct, then the book of Hebrews becomes a New Testament commentary on, at least, Exodus and Leviticus.

Hebrews does treat the Tabernacle and its paraphernalia as merely a copy of heavenly realities, which seems to be consistent with the instructions Moses received when he was in the mountain with God. He received a pattern that may have been modeled after the heavenly realities, and much of the description of the Tabernacle, at least on the inside, seems to make it appear as a bit of heaven on earth (cf. Exod 25:9, 40).[25] If this is true, it is also true that in Jesus Christ those realities are seen even more clearly. Alexander agreed in arguing as follows:

The early Christians emphasized the secondary nature of the tabernacle/temple. It was merely a “copy and shadow of what is in heaven” (Heb. 8:5; cf. 9:11, 24). Consequently, the New Testament plays down the importance of the temple in Jerusalem, even to the extent of anticipating its destruction (Mark 13:1–2); rather it focuses attention on the heavenly tabernacle. The demise of the Jerusalem temple is clearly linked to how the early church understood the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. First, Matthew 27:51 records that when Jesus died, the curtain in the temple, separating “the Most Holy Place” (Holy of Holies) from the Holy Place, was torn from top to bottom. The tearing of this curtain revealed that, by his sacrificial death, Christ removed the barrier which existed between God and humanity (cf. Heb 9:1–8). Second, Jesus was viewed as entering the heavenly sanctuary, to serve as a high priest: “For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; He entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence” (Heb 9:24; 9:11–28 [NIV]).[26]

The presence of God demonstrated in the tabernacle and in the person of Christ not only reinforces the reality of these narratives but provides them with significant theological substance. Such presence compels us to look beyond the material objects to the divine realities behind them. In the process, Christ is seen as the mediator and in some sense the object of New Testament worship. God’s presence further indicates that the material objects involved are secondary in nature, and God’s presence emphasizes the heavenly sanctuary that was the model for the tabernacle itself (see Exod 25:9, 40). Alexander adds,

This emphasis upon the heavenly sanctuary, rather than the earthly temple in Jerusalem, is also reflected in Jesus’s comments to a Samaritan woman concerning the right place to worship God:

Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and His worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:21–24 [NIV]).[27]

Childs added, “The old forms must be replaced by a new age which is different in kind ([Heb] 9:8ff.). Thus the people of the new covenant need endurance to live by hope in the promise of a heavenly home which the Old Testament saints only greeted from afar (11:13).”[28]

If this is not enough, the Apostle Paul added further implications for the New Testament writings. Although he used the Temple as an image rather than the Tabernacle, it is clear that the issue is the same. The Temple ultimately replaced the Tabernacle as the place of God’s presence and the place where He met with his people. Not long after Jesus’ death, the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by a Roman invasion. Even before that event, however, Paul wrote, “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body” (1 Cor 6:19–20). Commenting on this passage, along with a few other references, Alexander noted,

According to Paul every believer, due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a temple (1 Cor. 6:19; cf. 1 Cor. 3.16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16). Moreover, the Spirit’s presence causes God’s glory to be reflected in the lives of those who are Christ’s followers: ‘We, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into His likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit’ (2 Cor. 3:18 [NIV])[29]

The reality of the Spirit’s presence should have – actually does have – significant implications for believers today. As this author looks at the worship practices of his own church, with no desire to be critical or harsh, he sees some things sadly lacking. The first of these, it seems, is the failure to heed the words of Robert G. Rayburn, who said, “We must never forget that worship is to be the worship of God!”[30] When believers gather together for worship, they seem to do just that: forget they are there to worship God. They also seem to be oblivious of the fact of the presence of God in Jesus Christ, who specifically said, “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst” (Matt 18:20). The Matthew context is primarily one of church discipline; but it can also apply – even must apply – to the church’s worship as well. Moreover, in the worship gathering, his presence should compel believers to focus on Him, on who He is and on faithful worship of Him.

Instead, believers seem to gather together for many reasons other than to meet with God, reasons such as to fellowship with other believers, enjoyment of some religious music, singing some religious songs, and hearing an inspiring message that encourages and uplifts their spirits. None of these reasons is necessarily wrong in and of themselves. However, every one of them is subservient to the primary reason believers should gather together. Christians gather together to meet with God, to worship God, and to praise his name. Rayburn quoted the answer to the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “What is the chief end of man?” and concluded, “Thus the highest and holiest activity in which a believer can be engaged is the worship of the living God by which God is glorified and man attains unto his own highest end.”[31] Corporate worship would find greater significance as well as greater value from a sense of the presence of God and from a sense of the majesty and the holiness and the fiery glory of God when believers gather together to worship God! Further investigation of his Word might suggest better means for accomplishing or performing their worship. Deeper awareness of his presence indwelling believers might suggest a richer relationship with God to foster a richer worship of the Lord. Everett F. Harrison noted,

The devout Israelite recognized that God’s presence was not limited to the temple. God was with His people individually as well as in the congregation. In the throes of anguish over his great sin, David pleaded, “Cast me not away from Thy presence, and take not Thy Holy Spirit from me” (Ps. 51.11 [Mt. 12 {RSV}]). The godly are assured of God’s presence and aid (16.11).[32]

David Peterson added,

The prophets indicated that in the End-time God would ‘make His dwelling’ (καταsκēnoun) in the midst of His people forever (Joel 3.17; Zc. 2.10; cf. Ezk. 43.7) and John proclaims the fulfilment of that promise in the incarnation of the eternal Word. John 1.14 goes on to record the testimony of those true Israelites, who ‘received Him’ and ‘believed in His name’ (cf. vv. 11–13).[33]

The demonstration of God’s presence changed the lifestyle of Israel considerably, and the demonstration of God’s presence changed the worship of Israel considerably. What is also clear is that the demonstration of God’s presence had its impact on the New Testament and its attitude toward worship; it would considerably change the worship of God in congregations today as well if believers would come to that worship experience expecting to meet God there and to respond to that meeting with awe, wonder, and humility (that is what the Mishkhan meant to Israel and what local church worship should mean to believers today, that is, the very presence and power of God in the midst of his people). When it does, as John Piper noted, “The supremacy of God’s goodness and holiness and power and knowledge and justice and wisdom are honey for the heart’s tongue and gold for the treasury of our soul. God means for us to know them with our minds and relish them with our hearts.”[34]

Notes

1. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references in this article are taken from the New American Standard Bible.
2. See also Exodus 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3, 7.
3. See Samuel E. Ballantine, The Torah’s Vision of Worship (Overtures to Biblical Theology) (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999) ch. 6. Ballantine noted, “It is common to regard Leviticus as a ‘book of worship’ and in such a general designation there lies an important incentive for close attention to these words by the whole community of faith” (p. 149). If Leviticus is indeed a “book of worship,” it is significant that the opening chapters are devoted to a number of different sacrificial offerings. Tremper Longman III specifically linked sacrifice and worship together when he said, “As a nation Israel needed a place to come into the presence of God to offer sacrifice and to worship” (Immanuel in Our Place [Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001] 26).
4. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “Exodus,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990) 2:451.
5. Ibid.
6. Terence E. Freitheim, Exodus (Interpretation) (Louisville: John Knox, 1991) 263.
7. Ibid. 264.
8. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main Themes of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995) 71.
9. For a further discussion of these names, see G. Henton Davies, “Tabernacle,” in Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, 4 vols. (New York: Abingdon, 1962) 4:498; Charles L. Feinberg, “Tabernacle,” in Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Merrill C. Tenney, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975–76) 5:572–73; and, Stephen Westerholm, “Tabernacle,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley et al., 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988) 4:698.
10. Feinberg, “Tabernacle,” 5:572.
11. Kaiser, “Exodus,” 451
12. Menahem Haran, “The Nature of the ‘’Ohel Mo‘edh’ in Pentateuchal Sources,” Journal of Semitic Studies 5 (January 1960): 58.
13. Ibid.
14. Feinberg, “Tabernacle,” 573.
15. George A. F. Knight, Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 161–62.
16. Longman, Immanuel, 33.
17. Ibid. 34.
18. Ibid. 34–35.
19. Ralph W. Klein, “Back to the Future: The Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus,” Interpretation 50 (July 1996) 270.
20. Longman, Immanuel, 17.
21. Longman, Immanuel, 26.
22. Alexander, Paradise to the Promised Land, 107–08.
23. Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Theological Commentary (Old Testament Library) (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974) 543.
24. Ibid. 544.
25. Compare Longman, Immanuel, 28–30.
26. Alexander, Paradise to the Promised Land, 107. Note that his Scripture quotations are all taken from the New International Version and will be noted this way in references to this work.
27. Ibid.
28. Childs, Book of Exodus, 547.
29. Alexander, Paradise to the Promised Land, 108.
30. Robert G. Rayburn, “The Relevance of Worship,” Presbyterian 13 (Spring 1987): 4
31. Ibid. 3.
32. Everett F. Harrison, “Presence of God,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 3:957.
33. David Peterson, Engaging With God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992) 93.
34. John Piper, A Godward Life: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life (Sisters, OR: Multnomah, 1997) 19.