<- Previous   First   Next ->

In this work it must be observed that Christ is said to make use not of ‘ a greater tabernacle’ but of ‘ the greater tabernacle,’ ‘the true, ideal, tabernacle’ (Heb. 8:2). The thought of the reader is thus carried back to the heavenly pattern which Moses followed (Heb. 8:5 note; Ex. 25:9). The earthly Tabernacle witnessed not only to some nobler revelation of God's Presence, but definitely to the archetype after which it was fashioned.

What then is this heavenly Tabernacle? Some preparation will be made for the answer if we call to mind the two main purposes of the transitory Tabernacle. It was designed on the one hand to symbolise the Presence of God among His people; and on the other to afford under certain restrictions a means of approach to Him. The heavenly Tabernacle must then satisfy these two ends in the highest possible degree. It must represent the Presence of God, and offer a way of approach to God, being in both respects eternal, spiritual, ideal ( ajlhqinhv Heb. 8:2).

In seeking for some conception which shall satisfy these conditions it is obvious that all images of local circumscription must be laid aside, or, at least, used only by way of accommodation. The spiritual Tabernacle must not be defined by the limitations which belong to ‘this creation.’ We may then at once set aside all such interpretations as those which suppose that the lower heavens, through which Christ passed, or the supra-mundane realm, or the like, are ‘the greater tabernacle.’ We must look for some spiritual antitype to the local sanctuary.

And here we are brought to the patristic interpretation which it requires some effort to grasp. The Fathers both Greek and Latin commonly understood the greater Tabernacle to be the Lord's ‘flesh,’ or ‘humanity.’ Thus Chrysostom: th;n savrka ejntau'qa levgei . kalw'" de; kai; meivzona kai; teleiotevran ei\pen, ei[ ge oJ qeo;" lovgo" kai; pa'sa hJ tou' pneuvmato" ejnevrgeia ejnoikei' ejn aujth'/ .

And Theodoret, followed by OEcumenius: skhnh;n ajceiropoivhton th;n ajnqrwpeivan fuvsin ejkavlesen h}n ajnevlaben oJ despovth" Cristo;" ... ouj kata; novmon fuvsew" th'" ejn th'/ ktivsei politeuomevnh" . Compare also Euthymius: dia; tou' ijdivou fhmi; swvmato" ejn w|/ w[/khsen hJ touvtou qeovth", o} mei'zon wJ" hJnwmevnon th'/ qeovthti touvtou pavntote .

And Primasius: Tabernaculum per quod assistit deo patri humanitas illius est.

In this connexion Chrysostom and Theophylact notice how the Lord's ‘Body’ and ‘heaven’ are each spoken of as ‘a veil’ and as ‘a tabernacle.’ The text of Chrysostom is confused, but Theophylact has preserved his meaning: kalei' to; sw'ma tou' Kurivou kai; skhnhvn, wJ" ejntau'qa, dia; to; to;n Monogenh' skhnw'sai ejn aujth'/ : kai; katapevtasma, wJ" ajpokruvptousan th;n qeovthta . kalei' kai; to;n oujrano;n toi'" aujtoi'" touvtoi" ojnovmasi, skhnhvn, wJ" ejkei' o[nto" tou' ajrcierevw" : katapevtasma, wJ" ajpoteicizomevnwn tw'n aJgivwn dij aujtou' .

This interpretation was met by one interesting objection in early times: How could the Lord's Body be said to be ‘not of this creation’? Was not this assertion, it was asked, a denial of His true humanity? ejntau'qa , Theophylact says, ejpiphdw'sin oiJ aiJretikoi; levgonte" oujravnion ei\nai to; sw'ma kai; aijqevrion . He replies that ‘heaven’ and ‘sky’ are themselves ‘of this creation.’ But OEcumenius meets the difficulty more satisfactorily by saying that under different aspects the Lord's Body was and was not ‘of this creation’: to; sw'ma


<- Previous   First   Next ->