Posted on by Abe Austin

Scriptural Analysis- Exodus 26:4-6

4 And thou shalt make loops of blue upon the edge of the one curtain from the selvedge in the coupling; and likewise shalt thou make in the uttermost edge of another curtain, in the coupling of the second.

5 Fifty loops shalt thou make in the one curtain, and fifty loops shalt thou make in the edge of the curtain that is in the coupling of the second; that the loops may take hold one of another.

6 And thou shalt make fifty taches of gold, and couple the curtains together with the taches: and it shall be one tabernacle.

From yesterday’s verses we heard the design of ten curtains, and how five of them would be joined together along their long edges to make one larger, almost-square curtain, and the same would be done for the other five.

These two halves would now need to be joined together, the manner of which being detailed in today’s verses. First, they would stitch loops of blue along both edges to be united, then there would be taches—which are two sided hooks—that could hold onto a loop from one curtain on one side, and the loop from the other curtain on the other side.

This, of course, this raises the question: if we were going to stitch five curtains together into a half, and five curtains together into another half, why not just stitch all ten together into a whole? Why depend on this less-permanent loop-and-hook system? I can see three reasons.

The first is that the two halves may have been more practical. We know that the Israelites moved many times during their wandering in the wilderness, and the tabernacle had to be disassembled, carried, and reassembled wherever they went. It may well be that rolling/folding and carrying two twenty-cubit by twenty-eight-cubit pieces of cloth was more manageable than a forty-cubit by twenty-eight-cubit piece of cloth.

The second is that there may have been some symbolism in the design. The joining of two in one brings to mind the union of God and man, held together in many places, each hook representing a promise, a covenant, a ritual, or a sacrifice that existed between the two. The visible split between the two also calls to mind the tear that would be made by the spear in Jesus’s side. I’m sure there are other symbolic interpretations that could be thought of as well.

The third comes from verse 33 in this chapter, in which we will hear that these taches were to rest above the inner veil that separated the holy place from the most holy place. Having a physical divide may have allowed for this outer curtain to have a holy portion and a most holy portion, in accordance with the rest of the interior.

Speaking of the placement of this joined curtain, its position in relation to the rest of the tabernacle is not specified in today’s verses. In the following passages we will hear of an almost-identical curtain, though, and that one we are explicitly was laid over the wood-and-gold framework of the tabernacle like a tent covering. It is assumed that it was therefore the same for this first covering, as that seems to be the only thing that its size matches up to.

Note: It can be difficult to visualize some of the structures described in these verses. Here is an excellent and extremely focused series of animations that show the visual form of the temple and its instruments, built up verse-by-verse from the Exodus record: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpjohncRg94EZ55nJrbaKfi-lfeo3MFgl&si=6wm1J9Sdnu7LKYC_

Posted on by Abe Austin

The Two Halves of Justice

Some time ago I did a study on the qualities of Justice and Mercy. One key takeaway was how justice is both a law for punishment and reward. If we harm another who doesn’t deserve it, justice demands that now we be harmed. Conversely, if we do good to another who doesn’t deserve it, justice demands that now we receive good, too. Justice can be either the vehicle for our damnation or our ascension, depending on which way we choose to engage with it.

Recently, I thought some more about this dual nature of justice, and I wanted to point out two more observations that I had.

Two Teachings of Justice)

I’ve realized that the complete picture of justice is only seen by combining two Biblical laws that were given by two different men at two very different times. The first treatise on justice comes from Moses, when he famously pronounced “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” This mandate was given while describing the rules for punishment that would befall those who broke Hebrew law and wronged their neighbor. It was, therefore, a representation of only the negative half of justice. To this day, no one uses the term “an eye for an eye” to mean paying a good deed forward, only for retaliation against the wrong that has been done by another.

The second treatise on justice was given over multiple discourses by Christ. His famous injunction to “do unto others what you would have them do to you” is, at its core, a call for justice. “Doing unto others” is giving the just reaction to a yet unreceived action.

Jesus also invoked the image of justice when he stated, “with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.” That is you being recompensed equally for how you treat another, which is another way of saying ‘justice.’ Undeserved kindness that you show to others must be returned by undeserved kindness from God because the scales of justice require it.

Moses gave the half of justice that condemned the guilty, but Christ gave the half that exonerated the innocent. Christ did not contradict the law of justice given by Moses, he completed it, and both halves have been in full force forever after.

Judicial Justice and Personal Justice)

It also stood out to me that Moses’s half of justice, that of punishment and redress, is the correct form of justice for a people. The chief purpose of a judicial system is to provide protection for the innocent, and to right those that have been wronged. In the western world our sense of national justice still mirrors that of Moses’s. Our court systems are in essence an eye-for-an-eye, intended to allow the victim to be restored to whole by taking from the perpetrator.

Meanwhile, Christ’s half of justice, that of forgiveness and reward, is the correct form of justice for the individual. We do not compel a person in our laws to forgive another who has wronged them, or to turn the other cheek, but we do applaud them when they choose for themselves to take that higher road.

And this is how it should be. There should be a default protection for the weak and innocent, and there should also be an option for the individual to waive the offense if they so choose. We are properly incensed at a judge who decides to withhold justice, while we are properly in awe of those who, without compulsion, show their offender mercy.

One law, two halves, each aligned with the righteous and blessed order of God.