SKENE 7: the Tabernacle and the cross

In another acute observation, based on a study of Numbers 2, Motyer notes that “the Lord’s tent was pitched at the centre of a huge cross”, with three tribes each camped to the East, South West and North. The symbolism of this is certainly appropriate, as the references to the Tabernacle show that it stands at a crossroads both between the old covenant and the new, and between earth and heaven, time and eternity. Let us, then, turn our attention to the NT, and to the 8 references to ‘skene’ in Hebrews 8 and 9. The 2 references in chapter 8 contrast the true ‘skene’ made by God with the man-made, or Moses-made, ‘skene’ in the wilderness (v.2). In chapter 7, the writer has been showing that Jesus is a High Priest, not in the line of Aaron and Levi, for he was of the tribe of Judah, but “after the order of Melchizedek”, the mysterious king of Salem whose encounter with Abraham is recorded in Genesis 14.17-20. We do not need to follow his reasoning in detail here, for we have enough on our hands to elucidate the opening verses of chapter 8. The writer is drawing a parallel between the rituals of the annual ‘Day of Atonement’ (as prescribed in Leviticus 10), and the crucifixion, resurrection and ascension of Christ. In the Tabernacle, the High Priest would offer a sacrifice both for his own sins and for the sins of the people, and then take the blood of the sacrificial victim behind the veil, and sprinkle it on the “atonement cover”, or “mercy seat” (AV), to “make atonement for the most holy place” (or “Holy of Holies”) “because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites”. It was only thus that even the High Priest could enter beyond the veil. By contrast, our High Priest, the writer says, “sat down at the right hand of the throne of God’s greatness in the heavens, a minister of the Holy of Holies in the true Tabernacle, fixed in place by God, not man”. The verb ‘fixed’ used here (‘pegnumi’) occurs only this once in the NT, and suggests, perhaps, the permanence of the heavenly ‘tent’ in contrast with the moveable Tabernacle. These two verses are really a direct continuation of the last two verses of chapter 6, with the Melchizedek excursus intervening (it is worth noting that an excursus is a soundly scriptural device!). There we read: “We have a hope for our souls laid out in front of us, sure and strong, reaching beyond the veil, right inside the sanctuary, where Jesus has gone before us on our behalf” (Heb 19-20). Like a High Priest, Jesus was “a minister of the sanctuary”, but, unlike his earthly counterparts, he took his seat there, since his sacrificial task was completed – though his intercessory ministry continues to this day, praise be! (7.25) The picture in the writer’s mind seems to be that, on the cross, Jesus was the sacrifice – his passion was a passive role; but after his resurrection and ascension he acted as the High Priest, offering the blood of his own sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary before the mercy-seat of his Father. This explains the otherwise rather enigmatic verse 3: “Every High Priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, so Jesus, too, must have had an offering to make” (the verb here is in the aorist subjunctive, suggesting a single act, a single offering).