A state of things which was rapidly assimilating the worship of Jehovah to thatof Ashtaroth orMylitta need- ed to be broken up. The ark of God was taken, and the sanctuary lost its glory; and the tabernacle, though it did not perish, never again recovered it (1 Sam. iv, 22). Samuel, at once the Luther and the Alfred of Is- rael, who had grown up within its precincts, treats it as an abandoned shrine (so Psa. Ixxviii, 60\ and sacrifices elsewhere — at IMizpeh (1 Sam. vii, 9), at Kamah (ix, 12 ; X, 3), at Gilgal (ver. 8 ; xi, 15). It probably became once again a movable sanctuarj-; less honored, as no longer possessing the symbol of the Divine Presence, yet cherished by the priesthood, and some portions at least of its ritual kept up. For a time it seems, under Saul, to have been settled at Nob (xxi, 1-6), which thus became what it had not been before — a priestlv city. The massacre of the priests and the flight of Abi- athar must, however, have robbed it yet further of its glory. It had before lost the ark. It now lost the pres- ence of the high-priest, and with it the oracular ephod, the Urim and Thunimim (xxii, 20, xxiii, 6). What change of fortune then followed we do not know. The fact that all Israel was encamped, in the last days of Saul, at Gilboa, and that there Saul, though without success, inquired of the Lord by Urim (xxviii, 4-6), makes it probable that the tabernacle, as of old, was in the encampment, and that Abiathar had returned to it. In some way or other it found its waj' to Gibeon (1 Chron. xvi, 39). The anomalous separation of the two things which, in the original order, had been joined brought about yet greater anomalies, and while the ark remained at Kirjath-jearim, the tabernacle at Gibeon connected itself with the worship of the high-places (1 Kings lii, 4). The capture of Jerusalem, and the erec- tion there of a new tabernacle, with the ark, of which the old had been deprived (2 Sam. vi, 17; 1 Chron. XV, 1), left it little more than a traditional, historical sanctity. It retained only the old altar of burnt-offer- ings (1 Chron. xxi, 29). Such as it was, however, neither king nor people could bring themselves to sweep it away. The double service went on; Zadok, as high-priest, of- ficiated at Gibeon (1 Chron. xvi, 39); the more recent, more prophetic service of psalms and hymns and mu- sic, under Asaph, gathered round the tabernacle at Je- rusalem (ver. 4, 37). The divided worship continued all the days of David. The sanctity of both places was recognised bj' Solomon on his accession (1 Kings iii, 15 ; 2 Chron. i, 3). But it was time that the anomaly should cease. As long as it was simply tent against tent, it was difficult to decide between them. The purpose of David, fulfilled by Solomon, was, that the claims of both should merge in the higher glory of the Temple. Some, Abiathar probably among them, clung to the old order, in this as in other things ; but the final day at last came, and the tabernacle of meeting was either taken down or left to perish and be forgotten. So a page in the relig- ious history of Israel was closed. Thus the disaster of Shiloli led to its natural consummation.
TABERNACLE
III. Description. — Tlie written autlioritics for the res- toration of the tabernacle are, lirst, tlie detailed account to be found in Exod. xxvi, and repeated in xxxvi,«-i38, without any variation beyond tlie slightest possible abritigment; secondly, the account given of the build- ing by Josephus (^Ant. iii, (i), which is so nearly a repe- tition of the account found in the Hible that we tnay feel assured that he had no really important authority before him except the one which is equally accessible to us. Indeed, we might almost put his account on one side if it were not tliat, being a -lew, and so much near- er the time, he may have had access to some traditional accounts which may have enabled him to realize its ap- pearance more readily than we can do, and his knowl- edge of Hebrew technical terms may have assisted him to understand what we might otherwise be unable to explain. The additional indications contained in the Talmud and in Philo are so few and indistinct, and are, besides, of such doubtful authenticity, that they practi- cally add nothing to our knowledge, and may safely be disregarded.
For a complicated architectural building, these writ- ten authorities probably wouhl not suffice without some remains or other indications to supplement them ; but the arrangements of the tabernacle were so simple that they are really all that are required. Every im- portant dimension was either tive cubits or a multiple of five cubits, and all the arrangements in plan were either squares or double squares, so that there is, in fact, no dif- ficulty in putting the whole together, and none would ever have occurred, were it not that the dimensions of the sanctuary, as obtained from the "boards" that formed its walls, appear at first sight to be one thing, while those obtained from the dimensions of the curtains which covered it appear to give another. The appar- ent discrepancy is, however, easily explained, as we shall presently see, and never would have occurred to an}' one who bad lived long under canvas or was familiar with the exigencies of tent architecture.