sent, which it did not the fabric of the universe, but that especial pattern which was showed unto Moses in the mount.
[2.] Some, with more probability, do judge that by “‘the true
’ tabernacle,’ the universal spiritual, catholic church,” is intended;
VOL, XXIII.
A 18 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. VIII.
for this is compared expressly unto a tabernacle, Isa. xxxiii, 20, liv. 2. And herein doth God dwell, and walk amongst men. Hereof Christ may be said to be the minister; for as he is the head of it, so he dwelleth init. And it is undoubtedly in the behalf of this tabernacle that he continueth to administer im the holy place; and all the benefits of his ministration do redound hereunto. But yet all this doth not suffice to have the Lord Christ called the minister of this tabernacle. This, indeed, is that which he ministereth for; but it is not that which he ministereth by. The tabernacle and the things contained in it were the means of worship, and that which was materially employed in divine service; which the catholic church answereth not unto. Neither was the tabernacle of old, which is here alluded unto, a type of the church, but of Christ himself.
[3.] Most expositors take “ the tabernacle,” as they do “the sanc- tuary,” for heaven itself. And they would have the word “true,” by a zeugma, to belong unto the sanctuary as well as unto the taber- nacle; which we have also before allowed. But yet this proveth not that the sanctuary and the tabernacle must be the same, though both be equally true in the same sense. This way go the Greek expositors, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gicumenius, on the place. And because this tabernacle is said to be “fixed of God,” Chrysostom reproacheth them who say that the heavens do move and are spherical, though he never had a prophetical dream of the Copernican hypothesis. But yet, as Beza well observes, they forsook their own interpretation on Heb. ix. 11, 12, where the tabernacle is spoken of in the same sense that here it is. But besides the rea- sons that shall be given immediately for another interpretation, two things will not comply with this: For, 1st. There is,no reason why the apostle should express the same thing, first under the name of the sanctuary, and then of a tabernacle. 2dly. There is no especial reason why it should be added peculiarly concerning the heavens, “which God hath fixed, and not man;” for this was never ques- tioned.
[4.] I say, therefore, that by this “true tabernacle,” the human nature of the Lord Christ himself is intended. Hereof he is the minister; herein doth he minister before God above. For,—
Ist. Hereof the old tabernacle was a type. Thence is the ex-
pression taken, and thereunto is opposition made in the epithet,
“true.” This, therefore, is our best direction and rule in the inter- pretation of this expression. For look what that type did signify, what was to be the substantial antitype of it,—that is the “true tabernacle,” whereof the Lord Christ is the minister; for all agree that it is called “true” in opposition and answer unto that which was umbratile and figurative. Now that tabernacle was not erected to he a type of heaven, nor is any such thing intimated in the Serip-
“3
! VER. 2.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 19
ture. A token, pledge, and means it was, of God’s presence with his people here on earth, of his nearness unto them; whence also he is said to “dwell among them.” But this he doth really and substantially only through Christ. He therefore alone is this “true tabernacle.” For,—
2dly. In answer hereunto, when he was incarnate, and came into the world, it is said that zcxjvwos, “he fixed his tabernacle among us,” John i, 14; that is the signification of the word which we have translated to “dwell,” because the tabernacle of old was the way and means of God’s dwelling among the people, in the pledges of his gracious presence. All that old curious structure, for a habita- tion for God, did only represent his taking our nature upon him, fixing his tent thereby among men. What was the pattern of this tabernacle, showed unto Moses on the mount, we must inquire, on verse 5.
3dly, He himself called his own body his temple, with respect unto the temple of Jerusalem, which was of the same nature and use with the tabernacle, John ii. 19-22. And this he did, because his body was that true, substantial temple and tabernacle whereof he was the minister.
4thly. That is the true tabernacle, which God truly and really inhabiteth, and on the account whereof he is our God. This was the nature, use, and end of the tabernacle of old. God dwelt there- in, in the signs and pledges of his presence; and was on the account thereof the God of that people, according to the terms of the cove- nant between them, Exod. xxv. 8; Rev. xxi. 3. That, therefore, wherein God dwells really and*substantially, and on the account whereof he is our God‘in the covenant of grace, that, and no other, is the true tabernacle. But this is in Christ alone; for “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” Col ii. 9. Thus the human nature of Christ is that true, substantial tabernacle, wherein God dwelleth personally.