One of the greatest sins in modern culture is to submit to another. We have to be tough and independent; we have to stubbornly maintain our autonomy always. We go so far as to resent the very idea of God, because we don’t want to obey even Him.
And then? Then we die, and then we return to the dust, and then we go wherever God blows us. All the world forgets us, and no one cares how independent we thought we were, and we dance to God’s every whim anyway.
Independence is an illusion, obedience is inevitable.
31 And he made bars of shittim wood; five for the boards of the one side of the tabernacle,
32 And five bars for the boards of the other side of the tabernacle, and five bars for the boards of the tabernacle for the sides westward.
33 And he made the middle bar to shoot through the boards from the one end to the other.
34 And he overlaid the boards with gold, and made their rings of gold to be places for the bars, and overlaid the bars with gold.
35 And he made a veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen: with cherubims made he it of cunning work.
36 And he made thereunto four pillars of shittim wood, and overlaid them with gold: their hooks were of gold; and he cast for them four sockets of silver.
37 And he made an hanging for the tabernacle door of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen, of needlework;
38 And the five pillars of it with their hooks: and he overlaid their chapiters and their fillets with gold: but their five sockets were of brass.
The record of the tabernacle’s creation continues. As with yesterday, all the specifications here are the same that God described, but written from a fresh perspective, with occasional differences in wording or emphasis. For example, previously we were told, “and the middle bar in the midst of the boards shall reach from end to end,” and now it is “and he made the middle bar to shoot through the boards from the one end to the other.”
This is evidence to me that the author of this record took the time to write it out with as much detail as the record of God’s commands had been. There is no copying word-for-word, and no abbreviating. The author took the time to recount it fully as it happened, as if the other record of God’s commands didn’t exist.
It may not make for the most exhilarating reading, treading through such familiar sentences all over again, and it probably wasn’t the most exhilarating writing either, but I believe it matters. I certainly suspect that the author believed that it mattered, too. I think that it matters, because it is a witness of the Israelite’s obedience, it is proof of the craftsmen’s care, and it is an acknowledgement that the planning and the doing are each their own separate journey.
20 And he made boards for the tabernacle of shittim wood, standing up.
21 The length of a board was ten cubits, and the breadth of a board one cubit and a half.
22 One board had two tenons, equally distant one from another: thus did he make for all the boards of the tabernacle.
23 And he made boards for the tabernacle; twenty boards for the south side southward:
24 And forty sockets of silver he made under the twenty boards; two sockets under one board for his two tenons, and two sockets under another board for his two tenons.
25 And for the other side of the tabernacle, which is toward the north corner, he made twenty boards,
26 And their forty sockets of silver; two sockets under one board, and two sockets under another board.
27 And for the sides of the tabernacle westward he made six boards.
28 And two boards made he for the corners of the tabernacle in the two sides.
29 And they were coupled beneath, and coupled together at the head thereof, to one ring: thus he did to both of them in both the corners.
30 And there were eight boards; and their sockets were sixteen sockets of silver, under every board two sockets.
We’ll progress through these verses quickly, given that they are repeating information that we have discussed previously. These are not word-for-word rewrites, however. The differences are small, but they are there. For example, verse 22’s detail that the two tenons were “equally distant” from one another was not included in the first description. Presumably, this detail means that the gap between each tenon was perfectly centered, and perhaps that there was an equivalent gap on the ends before reaching the tenons of the next board.
Was that design decision detailed by God, and just not recorded in the earlier chapter, or was there enough room for personal design decisions that Bezaleel was able to exercise his own judgment? We do not have a clear answer. What we do see, though, is that the recording of both the vision and the execution were two separate events. As I just said, the scribe did not copy word-for-word from the previous account. Each was observed and recorded individually, and so the great symmetry between the two speaks to how precisely the Israelites adhered to the Lord’s commands.
14 And he made curtains of goats’ hair for the tent over the tabernacle: eleven curtains he made them.
15 The length of one curtain was thirty cubits, and four cubits was the breadth of one curtain: the eleven curtains were of one size.
16 And he coupled five curtains by themselves, and six curtains by themselves.
17 And he made fifty loops upon the uttermost edge of the curtain in the coupling, and fifty loops made he upon the edge of the curtain which coupleth the second.
18 And he made fifty taches of brass to couple the tent together, that it might be one.
19 And he made a covering for the tent of rams’ skins dyed red, and a covering of badgers’ skins above that.
The previous post detailed Bezaleel’s creation of the linen covering, which was the innermost layer, the one that was visible from the interior. Today we hear about all the following layers: the ones of goats’ hair, rams’ skin, and badgers’ skin. These would be visible from the outside, and I would imagine that they effectively blocked out the sun, such that the only illumination would be from the seven lamps on the menorah.
Of course, the menorah was only on one side of the inner curtain, which means there would have been no direct light source for the most holy place, only whatever light leaked in. We do not know how thick the inner curtain was, so maybe light was able to pass through or maybe not. If the most holy place was quite dim, this might seem like a strange choice given the common connection between God and light; but there are a couple possible reasons why this feature could have been fitting.
One explanation could be that this would help the priest to disconnect from the material world. Cutting off his sight may have helped him to surrender his own perception and reason, encouraging him to listen to his spiritual senses instead. Another reason might have been to symbolize the great shroud of mystery that still surrounds God, even when we are at our closest to Him. His depth and breadth are simply unfathomable and imperceivable to us. A third possibility is that the room might have been illuminated, but not by a natural light source. If Moses’s face was made to shine from his visits into the tabernacle, perhaps there was a divine glow that originated in there.
8 And every wise hearted man among them that wrought the work of the tabernacle made ten curtains of fine twined linen, and blue, and purple, and scarlet: with cherubims of cunning work made he them.
9 The length of one curtain was twenty and eight cubits, and the breadth of one curtain four cubits: the curtains were all of one size.
10 And he coupled the five curtains one unto another: and the other five curtains he coupled one unto another.
11 And he made loops of blue on the edge of one curtain from the selvedge in the coupling: likewise he made in the uttermost side of another curtain, in the coupling of the second.
12 Fifty loops made he in one curtain, and fifty loops made he in the edge of the curtain which was in the coupling of the second: the loops held one curtain to another.
13 And he made fifty taches of gold, and coupled the curtains one unto another with the taches: so it became one tabernacle.
I won’t step through every single detail, but notice that the dimensions and design being described in these verses are exactly what God originally dictated to Moses up in the mountain. The author of this record wanted to make sure that we knew that the Lord’s plan was executed exactly as He had given.
With my little experience in creativity, I understand that one of the most difficult challenges is being able to effectively translate the conceptual to the material. It’s easy to have an image in your head, but to actually draw it is something else. You can imagine the characters and their actions perfectly, but the scene still falls flat on the page. It is the work of a true master simply to be able to express exactly what he meant to express, and here we saw that God’s vision was so crystal clear that it could be adhered to perfectly.
5 And they spake unto Moses, saying, The people bring much more than enough for the service of the work, which the Lord commanded to make.
6 And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing.
7 For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much.
I mentioned earlier that the Lord’s vision for the tabernacle was dependent on enough people willfully donating their possessions and time to make it a reality. He trusted that these people would come through, and as we see today, they more than did so. So great was the willful offering that they actually had to turn people away and prevent further donations.
It would seem that the people could have made an even greater tabernacle than what had been detailed. Perhaps the courtyard could have been bigger, perhaps there could have been two large sacrificial altars instead of just one, perhaps precious gems could have been incorporated into more of the architecture. But none of that was what happened. God had provided a vision, it was what it was, and it wasn’t going to be expanded further.
Indeed, simply adding more could have had a detrimental effect. When we reviewed God’s description of the tabernacle, we saw that everything seemed carefully chosen to be representative of an eternal principle. These symbolic lessons could easily have been obfuscated by simply throwing more stuff on top of it all.
There is a message here that while God does ultimately invite us to give our entire lives to Him, that doesn’t mean we are to exceed His parameters for any specific calling. In every moment, He will define what offering is proper, and it would be improper to do more. Take the law of tithing for example. I believe we are only to give a tenth as our tithe, no more and no less. Afterwards, if we feel like we’d like to contribute more to specific charities or ministries, we certainly may, but the tithe to the Lord itself has specific terms that we should not try to extend. It just is what it is, and it isn’t up to us to modify what the Lord has called for.
1 Then wrought Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whom the Lord put wisdom and understanding to know how to work all manner of work for the service of the sanctuary, according to all that the Lord had commanded.
2 And Moses called Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whose heart the Lord had put wisdom, even every one whose heart stirred him up to come unto the work to do it:
3 And they received of Moses all the offering, which the children of Israel had brought for the work of the service of the sanctuary, to make it withal. And they brought yet unto him free offerings every morning.
4 And all the wise men, that wrought all the work of the sanctuary, came every man from his work which they made;
A theme in the Bible is the spiritual and conceptual manifesting in the material. The book even begins with it in the story of creation. On each day God expresses the idea of what He wants, and then it becomesa reality. “God said, Let there be light: and there was light,” (Genesis 1:3). At each stage, “God said,” and then it was so.
This theme most famously manifests in the birth of Jesus, which is the unseen, conceptual God becoming mortal man. In Jesus we see the idea of the law being lived out in perfection. In him we see the concept of perfect love made real upon a cross.
This same pattern of concept-to-reality has been playing out over the last ten chapters of Exodus. We have seen how God inspired Moses with the vision of the tabernacle, how Moses expressed it to the Israelites, and how it now becomes a reality. Accounts like these acknowledge and describe the process by which the metaphysical becomes the material, the vision becomes the work, and the idea becomes the creation.
I may not be very old, but I have already witnessed the way society can swing from one trend to another. I see the masses scramble onto today’s favored platform, only to be embarrassed when it becomes tomorrow’s laughingstock.
I believe that a key component of this is that too often we choose our stance more off of who else is standing there, and not by the merits of the platform itself. The fact is, there are values to be respected in most every position. Conservatism and liberalism, inclusivity and solidarity, faith and skepticism, individualism and collectivism, a solid case can be made for each of these, and it is my personal belief that the correct position comes by taking the good parts of each.
But balance is not the typical position of society. Typically, people go all in on one or another, believing that they do so because of their commitment to its underlying ideals, but more so because of the attractiveness of the community that is built upon it.
Whenever a platform becomes too popular, it starts to attract “all kinds.” Some of the meanest and least understanding jump onto it, and they bring out all the worst extremes of that particular ideal. The rest of society can see the growing ugliness in that position, and so they take up the opposition. In order to escape the depravity of the old platform’s worst tenets, people fully commit to its opposite, until it becomes the popular thing to do. As the masses invest in that side, then they also start to attract even the uglier parts of society to their platform and the cycle repeats, over and over again.
Playing this game is exhausting. Great effort is made, but any short-term progress is eventually undone by an over-correction in the other direction. It’s a pity, because I don’t think it has to be that way. I see the potential for mankind to balance one another out, to elevate the most powerful ideals in each platform, but to circumscribe them by the bounds of all the others. By this I believe we could continually progress towards greater and greater virtue, rather than rising only to fall as has been our historical pattern. I believe this unified progression is a vision of heaven, the society that we shall have when our Lord reigns supreme.
I have frequently heard the argument that if we have an all-loving God, how are tragedies and disasters a part of this world? I have addressed this issue in part with previous posts, but today I wanted to point out a fundamental flaw in the argument itself.
Neil DeGrasse Tyson gave this argument in an interview where he said, “Every description of God that I’ve heard holds God to be all-powerful and all-good, and then I look around, and I see a tsunami that killed a quarter million people in Indonesia, an earthquake that killed a quarter million people in Haiti, and I see earthquakes, and tornadoes, and disease, childhood leukemia, and I see all of this and I say I do not see evidence of both of those being true simultaneously. If there is a God, the God is either not all-powerful or not all-good.”
I find it interesting that Tyson’s public persona is entirely based around having a scientific mind, yet his argument is entirely unscientific. He jumps to a conclusion that is not at all supported by the premises. Here are the premises that he establishes:
God is all-powerful
God is all-good
???
There is great tragedy in this world
And from these he draws the conclusion that the last premise is incompatible with the first two. But as it stands, the statements of God’s character and the state of the world live in isolation from one another. There is a crucial premise missing, one that would establish what the relationship between God and the world even is!
This is the fundamental flaw in all of these criticisms. They speak of the nature of God, and the nature of the world, but never establish what one of those has to do with the other. It is quite a leap to say that if God is all-good that He is required to enforce only good things on the Earth of today. Where did that notion come from? Why can’t God be all-good and not puppeteering everything that plays out in humanity?
The Perfect Earth)
One thing that Tyson did not explicitly say, but which I believe is implied in his argument, is that the missing link between God’s goodness and the state of the earth is that God created the earth. If God is perfect, and the original author of our existence, then why isn’t that existence perfect also?
But even introducing this to the argument doesn’t make it any better. Because if one is going to question why a perfect God did not create a perfect world, the obvious answer is, “well, according to our records…He actually did.” In the first chapters of Genesis, we read that God created a world where everything was “good.” There was no death, no sickness, none of the great tragedies that so distress us today. Thus, the expectation actually fit the reality at the moment of creation. God did give us exactly the sort of world that we would have expected Him, too.
But states can change. And man, not God, chose to introduce sin into this world, corrupted its perfection, and gave birth to the fallen earth that we see all around us. This is all made clear in the first three chapters of the Christian canon, so it doesn’t make sense to state that the Christian conception of God does not account for the disparity between His goodness and the world’s evil.
If one does not believe in the biblical explanation, so be it, but don’t claim that there isn’t any explanation. Indeed, this is one of the unique and compelling aspects of Christianity, that it not only acknowledges the dual nature of our existence but also provides one of the clearest, most explicit explanations of that division’s origin.
Of course, one might still be troubled by the disparity between the professed perfection of the Christian God and the suffering in the world, and one might feel that if God really is all-powerful, then He ought to be able to reclaim that fallen world. And to that I say, brother, have I got some good news for you!
Spiritual Wanderings 