Exodus 26:36-37

36, 37. Hanging for the door A pendent curtain, or covering, of the same material as the vail (31) and the tabernacle-cloth, (Exodus 26:1,) but wrought with needlework. So this was the work of an embroiderer, ( רקם ,) that of a weaver, ( חשׁב . ) This was to hang on five pillars, while that within hung upon four, but as this was to be for the door of the tent, not of the mishcan, or board structure, it may have been larger than the other . Its hooks, like those of Exodus 26:32, were of gold, but the sockets were to be of brass; those within, of silver .

The plan of the tabernacle as above described, and the adjustment of curtains and coverings, have long been a perplexing problem for interpreters. Perhaps it is too much to expect that now, after the lapse of so many centuries, every detail of its construction can be restored so as to clear up all the statements of this narrative.

Taking first the structure of boards, as it has been described in Exodus 26:15-25, there can be little doubt as to its main features. Its general appearance must have been such as is exhibited in the cut at Exodus 26:26-29.

The next difficulty is concerning the place and purpose of the tabernacle curtains described in Exodus 26:1-6. According to some writers they were spread over the board structure like a pall over a coffin. Supposing the breadth of this structure to have been ten cubits, (see note on Exodus 26:23-25,) this covering, being twenty-eight cubits long, (Exodus 26:2,) would have reached over the two outer sides unto about one cubit from the base, for the boards stood ten cubits high. Exodus 26:16. The goats’ hair covering, being two cubits longer, (Exodus 26:8,) would, when spread over this, have reached completely to the base. This certainly makes a very simple and natural arrangement, but is open to several serious objections. (1.) The ornamental curtains would have been concealed from view, except, at most, the one third which would be visible as a ceiling over the interior. This objection, however, may be offset by saying that, like the most holy place, they were not designed to be seen, and the “cunning work” upon them was but a fitting indication for the interior and symbolical purpose which they served. (2.) The coverings spread flat over the top must, especially by reason of the great weight of the skins, have become soon depressed and so sunken in as to hold pools of water rather than prove a protection against the rain.

Another theory is, that this ornamental curtain was arranged to hang down on the inside of the boards, and so form an ornamental tapestry for the walls as well as for the ceiling. But (1.) a purpose so special would seem to have required more particular definition in the narrative. (2.) This would have entirely concealed the golden-plated boards. (3.) It would also, like the theory just stated, have exposed the roof to the depression and dampness necessarily consequent upon such a flat surface of curtains.

Mr. T.O. Paine represents the two sets of five curtains as coupled together at the ends, (Exodus 26:3,) and hanging double and in festoons on the inside of the boards, at about the height of a man’s head, four cubits, above the floor. His view is in the main adopted by Dr. James Strong in his recent (1888) work on the Tabernacle. But (1.) there is no more ground for making these curtains run in festoons around the interior walls than there is for making the goats’ hair curtains hang in the like form, for both sets are spoken of in the same general way. Such a totally different purpose of the two sets of curtains would certainly have demanded more notice than we can find in the text of the sacred writer. (2.) Such an arrangement, moreover, would not only have concealed a large portion of the boards, but also, hanging in folds, the colours and “cherubim of cunning work” must have been so hidden from view that no one could distinguish or trace their outlines. Strong’s adjustment of the curtains, however, largely obviates this last objection.

A theory proposed by Fergusson, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, (article “Temple”) assumes that the tabernacle must have had, “as all tents have had from the days of Moses down to the present day,” a ridge and a ridge pole, and he supposes that the angle formed by the two sides of the roof was a right angle. The ornamented tabernacle curtain, being the first thrown over the ridge pole, and fastened at the sides, would have served as a lining to the rest, and have formed with its colours and cunning work a visible roof, or ceiling, over the entire structure. Over this as a protecting covering were thrown the other curtains described above. He thinks, however, that the seal skins were used only “for a coping or ridge piece to protect the junction of the two curtains of rams’ skins, which were laid on each slope of the roof, and probably only laced together at the top.” This view is not without objections, but it helps to solve some of the difficulties of the problem. The cuts show the plans of Paine and Fergusson in their main outlines. On the symbolism of the tabernacle, see at the end of chapter 40.