ents a forceful medium for the experience of Yahweh. God’s acts were decis- ive. But events in the frame of history do not exhaust the means by which God becomes known. In the cult, Yahweh was known, not in a physical display of power, but in the no less forceful practices of worship. In these worship prescriptions and practices Yahweh was known in a way different from a physical display of power, but no less forceful.
It is not as though in an arbitrary way we leave the exodus and dip into cult. A passage in Exodus which is taken up with prescriptions about offer- ings, priests, and furnishings concludes with: ‘And I will dwell among the people of Israel, and will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them forth out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God’ (Ex. 29:45-46). Here the deliverance from Egypt aims at the dwelling of Yahweh with his people, and that phenomenon cannot be understood apart from the cult. In fact another passage ties together the ideas of God delivering his people and dwelling among them: ‘And I will make my abode among you.. . and I will walk among you. , .I am the LORD your God, who brought you forth out of the land of Egypt, that you should not be their slaves; and I have broken the bars of your yoke and made you walk erect’ (Lv. 26: 11-13).
We now turn to divine instruction and single out legislation about the cult: the tabernacle, cultic laws, and cult festivals. By the word ‘cult’ we mean the observable actions of a people, singly or in community, in which people engage in conjunction with their religion.
The tabernacle can be described as a windowless wooden oblong struc- ture with four layers of coverings: linen underneath, goats’ hair, dyed rams’
skin, and an outer coating of leather. Beneath this roof the structure is
‘Quoted in Brevard S. Childs, The Book ofExodus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), p. 547 (= E:xodus, London: SCM Press, 1974).
90 91
God’s design implemented: the pre-monarchy era
divided into two parts: the holy place where stood a table for bread, an altar for incense and a lampstand; and a smaller and more sacred division where was placed the ark of the covenant. The tent was set in a fenced courtyard, just inside the entrance of which stood the main altar and the laver. Priests were active in the courtyard section. Access to the holy places was limited, however, and entry into the most holy place was permitted only one day a year to the high priest. While the descriptions down to the details of posts and rings are many, the meaning of all these trappings is not given explicitly or at great length.
The meaning is given, however, though sadly it is often ignored and fanci- ful symbolism is given free reign instead. What did the Israelite, confronted in the wilderness by this structure in the midst of his camp, understand about its importance?
He understood three things primarily, if the designations for the structure are a legitimate clue. The structure was called a tent of meeting, a taberna- cle, and a sanctuary. It was a tent of meeting (‘ohel rnG’~d). The location of the tent of meeting outside the camp has led some to believe that there were two irreconcilable accounts of the tent, one in the middle of the camp and another outside. Possibly the tent of meeting described in Exodus 33 was a provisional tent used while the other was in the making. The name ‘tent of meeting’ remained and was attached to the later centrally placed structure.
Here the people’s representatives, the priests and Moses in particular, met with Yahweh and he with them. At the door of the tent of meeting the dispute between Aaron and Miriam and the brother, Moses, was arbitrated (Nu. 12:4). The instructions about the daily offerings state that it is at the door of the tent of meeting where the lambs shall be offered morning and evening, and ‘where I will meet with you, to speak there to you’ (Ex. 29:42).
Moses’ meeting with Yahweh, so the description runs, was accompanied by the appearance of the pillar of cloud at the door of the tent. Yahweh spoke to Moses ‘as a man speaks to his friend’ (Ex. 33: 11). But Yahweh met with his people also: ‘There I will meet with the people of Israel’ (Ex. 29:43). The entire contents of the book of Leviticus are represented as being delivered to Moses by Yahweh at the door of the tent of meeting (Lv. 1: 1). From one ref- erence it appears that individuals also could hear from Yahweh in response to their seeking after him at the door of meeting (Ex. 33:7). As the name implies, the tent of meeting was the place where Yahweh and his people met.
But the structure had yet a different name which pointed to yet another understanding of its significance: the name ‘tabernacle’, which translates the Hebrew mi~k%z, ‘dwelling-place’. Yahweh gave instruction: ‘And let them make me a sanctuary [the following verses use the word miikkan], that I may dwell in their midst’ (Ex. 25:8). ‘Dwelling’ signifies an active sense, 92
God’s design: knowledge of God
‘living with’, and is not the word used of ordinary sitting or staying. And when the tabernacle was completed, the signal that Yahweh had come now to inhabit it was the descent of the glory cloud (Ex. 40:34-38). Through their journeys the cloud had been evidence of Yahweh’s presence. Its cover- ing of the tabernacle was a visible token that Yahweh both honoured the construction and took up dwelling in it. Two pieces of furnishing reinforced the concept of the deity residing there. One was the ark, which not only as the depository for the law but as part of the throne of God, as represented by the cover, was put in the holy place of the tabernacle. The second, the table of the bread of the presence (Ex. 25:30), on which were placed the twelve loaves, was so named to indicate that the tribes were present before the LO R D. Understood throughout is the assumption that Yahweh is also present.
A third designation for the wilderness structure, much less used than the other two, is ‘sanctuary’, a word which translates the Hebrew miqdos’. This term derives from ‘holy’ (q&Z) and may have come into use because of the two parts into which the facility was divided: the holy place and the most holy place. The designation, like the name given to the rooms, reinforces the notion of holiness or separateness. The sanctuary testifies to the holiness of God not only by its structure; Aaron, the chief minister in its precincts, wore a diadem with the engraving, ‘Holy to the LORD (Ex. 28:36). God’s instruc- tions were, ‘You shall . . . reverence my santuary’ (Lv. 26:2). The desig- nation miqdojlends an aura of the unapproachable and the distant. Though God was accessible to the people there was enough, including the name, to remind them that this was no ordinary facility. It was set apart and special to Yahweh.
The understanding of the tabernacle as represented by the two terms miZk&z (tabernacle) and miqdoj(sanctuary) comes to terms with the knotty problem of divine transcendence as opposed to divine immanence. Chris- tian theologies have fluctuated between a God who is transcendent and distant, and one who is immanent and present. Stress on the transcendence means that God is so much above men that it seems eventually he is beyond man’s reach. By contrast, the view of God as immanent tends to make God so much here and now that it fails to distinguish him sufficiently from his creation. That tension between transcendence and immanence remains, for Israel affirmed both as true, contradictory as it may sound.
The manifestation of Yahweh together with his presence and holiness sums up the theological implications of the tabernacle. It has been tempting for writers to say more than this and to attach to the tabernacle furnishings, for instance, even if typologically, meanings for the separate fixtures. The laver, it has been maintained, demonstrating the necessity of purity for an approach to God, points to the washing of regeneration and sanctification 93
.
i God’s design implemented: the pre-monarchy era
in Christ (Tit. 3:5; Heb. 9:lO). Bread of presence symbolizes the re- establishment of harmony and is a type and pledge of closer fellowship with Christ.6 An immediate problem in this type of interpretation is that there are no controls or check points to verify the interpretation.’ The book of Hebrews is sometimes cited in justification for the method, but it must be emphasized how restrained the author is, for while he enumerates the taber- nacle divisions and the furnishings he says, ‘By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the sanctuary is not yet opened’ (Heb. 9:8). The author of Hebrews views the tabernacle as such as a type, but he does not see indi- vidual parts of it as having typological significance. He mentions also the impermanence of the arrangement (Heb. 9:9-10). In keeping with a more restrained approach we may affirm that the tabernacle has its New Testa- ment counterpart in Christ. He has come to dwell (tabernacle) among men.
In him God meets the world and his people.
The tabernacle conveys a message about God; so do the laws. The laws which went far beyond the cultic, were means by which Israel might know her God. Frequently, especially in Leviticus 17-26, the so-called Holiness Code, the instructions are punctuated with ‘I am the LORD your God’. The precise implication of this statement is given: ‘Say to all the congregation of the people of Israel, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy” ’ (Lv. 19:2; cfi 11:44; 20:7,26).
Holiness is sometimes equated with purity. While such an equation is not to be dismissed, it does not gather up the essential meaning of the word holy-for prostitutes were also said to be ‘holy’. The Hebrew root (&) is the same for ‘sanctuary’ and for ‘harlot’ or temple prostitute. This is under- standable only if we know what lies behind the words. Scholars are agreed that a key idea wrapped up in ‘holy’ is the idea of separation, not initially a separation from, but a separation to. Someone or something was separated, that is, distinguished from the common, by reason of its specified separation to deity. Prostitutes at the sanctuary were designated as holy in the sense that they were consecrated to a deity (1 Ki. 15:12; 2 Ki. 23:7). In the Pen- tateuch one first meets a form of the word in Genesis 2:3: ‘God sanctified (i.e. made holy and separate) the seventh day.’ A distinction is given to the sabbath: it is not to be like the six days; it belongs in a special way to Yahweh.
Yahweh is not the only agent who sanctifies, for priests consecrated them- selves and also tabernacle furnishings unto God. To sanctify oneself was to prepare, often by cleansing. Israelites changed their clothes prior to per-
“J. Barton Payne, The Theology ofthe Older Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, lY62), p. 362.
‘1 agree with Robert Traina on typology: ‘The best policy to follow is to limit the exposition of Old Testament symbols to those which are explained within the Scriptures themselves’ Methodical BibleStudy:
A New Approach to Hermeneutics (copyright lYS2 by the author at Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmer, Kentucky), p. 176.
9 4
God’s design: knowledge of God
forming a holy act (Ex. 19:lO); priests bathed in water (Lv. 16:4). Moses was told to remove his shoes because the place was holy (Ex. 3:5). The tabernacle, the altar and other objects were sanctified by anointing (Ex. 40:9-l 1). Essentially such acts were preparatory to the formal act of consecration.
The notion of holiness is broadly applied. A catalogue of items to which the adjective ‘holy’ is attached is illuminating. It is applied to everything that is connected with cult: the temple, the furnishings, such as ark, table, candle- stick and altar (Nu. 3:31); priests (Lv. 21:6-g); their clothes (Ex. 29:29);
the sacrifices; days such as the sabbath and festival seasons (Lv. 23) and the year of jubilee (Lv. 25: 12). The Nazirite through a vow separated himself to the LORD (Nu. 6:2), or is holy (Nu. 6:5). Even the people of Israel are desig- nated as holy (Ex. 19:6). The first-born is holy (Ex. 13:12), as are the first fruits of the fields and vineyards (Lv. 19:24). All that is given to Yahweh becomes holy (Lv. 27:9; 30).
In every instance the idea of holiness is bound up with God, Yahweh. No thing or person is holy in itself. Its holiness derives from being placed in re- lation to God. Thus a people is holy in the sense that ‘the man whom the LORD chooses shall be the holy one’ (Nu. 16: 7). ‘For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession’ (Dt. 7:6).
If holiness was the prime message about God that surfaced in the cultic legislation, it was reinforced in the legislation that went beyond the cult.
Divine regulation governedvirtually every area of the people’s life. Holiness was not confined to the tabernacle but extended to daily life, for even sexual regulations were weighted with the refrain, ‘I am the LORD' (Lv. 18:6).
What it meant to be holy, consecrated to the LORD, was specified. Sexual de- filement came through intercourse with next of kin. Sexual relationships with a neighbour’s wife were prohibited. Economic transaction, such as the wages of the servant (Lv. 19: 13) came into the purview of a holy God’s regu- lation, as did just balances and weights, agricultural practices such as har- vesting, customs, or cattle breeding or land use. Health regulations, as for instance those touching leprosy and dietary rules, were specific to the point of exclusion of certain meats such as pork, rabbit, etc. The large and encom- passing range of human activities included in the Torah cannot escape even the most casual reader. Holiness reached into all compartments of living.
And yet, while so widely ranging, the legislation is clearly intended, not to provide laws for every possible situation, but to mark limits, borders. These limits are there to mark off a people separated to Yahweh, a people that is holy. The borders are marked off in part in the context of pagan practices:
cuttings on the body or tattoo marks on account of the dead are taboo: ‘You shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you’
9s
- i God’s design implemented: the pre-monarchy era
(Lv. 18:3). The seriousness of violating these borders is emphasized by the degree of punishment: excommunication (k~ra_t) from the congregation or permanent severance from it, through either ostracism or death. Certain infractions such as offering children to Molech are to be met with instant reprisal: death by stoning (Lv. 20:2). Such drastic punishment is necessary because Yahweh’s name has been defiled.
What holiness means and implies reaches beyond these two observa- tions, to be sure, but a beginning is made by appreciating the extensive domain of human life governed by the call to holiness, and by recognizing that demarcation lines are intrinsic to the holiness concept.
Even the mention of holiness raises for most a scene of sobriety, even melancholy. One conjectures that Israel lived with an ever-present con- sciousness of borders and limits, and that such a life-style was necessarily glum and gloomy.
The opposite, however, is true. Knowing Yahweh provided for joy; fes- tivity and celebration were integral to a life with Yahweh.
After all, Israel was instructed to observe three festivals each year. Each, without exception, as will be explained in the next chapter was an occasion for joy. The festival of unleavened bread followed the spring observance of Passover. Later in the spring or early summer came the festival of first fruits, also a week in length. The feast of booths followed the grape harvest in the autumn. The instruction concerning the last feast is typical: ‘And you shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days’ (Lv. 23:40). Knowing Yahweh through the cult must be interpreted not as a dark and foreboding experience, but rather as joy-creating and joy-bringing.
Knowing God through the cult, namely through worship and religious practice, just as knowing him through historical events, was not an exercise of the intellect alone, for it was not qualities in the abstract that were known.
Rather, in very concrete ways, such as in a building, the tabernacle, or through instructions, or in the social gatherings of a festival, Israel partici- pated in life with Yahweh. From these settings she knew him as present with her, manifesting himself, but always the Other, holy. She knew him as a God whose interest penetrated all aspects of her life, but who had established limits, borders, not for the purpose of making life dull or tedious: the festi- vals testified to the mood in which he desired Israel to live-joy.
In summary, early Israel knew about God through his activity in nature and among nations. She experienced him more directly in his power and sal- vation at the exodus, and in an on-going fashion she was led into a life of inti- macy with him in the religious practices which he enjoined for her.
96