Dimensions of the Tabernacle Courtyard

“Hangings”

The following was taken from a discussion we had with another individual on the Tabernacle while we were on the old Bible Students Forum, which unfortunately has been discontinued since then (This particular individual had his own website at one time in which he covered various aspects of the Tabernacle. If I recall correctly, he was not a believer, nor did he make any pretense, he was simply a student of the Tabernacle, apparently gleaming most of his insights from Rabbinic writings on the subject.), nevertheless we believe it might prove useful to the brethren in their studies and discussions on the Tabernacle for us to post our discussion once again as it covers some interesting points generally overlooked. Unfortunately I cannot find the very first opening discussions I had with him, but I believe that I have enough information here to reiterate the jest of our conversation.

The format may appear a little strange, but this was how I responded at the time as I had not yet learnt how to operate all the little helps on the forum to make things easier when conversing with another member.

Like I said I can’t locate my opening dialog with this individual so what you’re seeing here is my response to an earlier post by this individual. We were discussing the size and length of the white lien curtains which surrounded the tabernacle courtyard. This individual went by the forum name: Aleksandr, but we’ll just call him Alek. I will post Alek’s remarks in green so as to make it easier to differentiate his remarks from ours.

We stated: The difficulty we see with your explanation is that you appear to be under the impression that the curtains (or hangings) were individual curtains 5 X 5 cubits in length spanning the distance between each set of post or pillars. (As shown above)

In response Alek stated: They were – for two reasons: 1) it’s the only possible mathematical solution. 2) Masoretic Text uses plural form for the hangings.

In response to your first point we disagree and will attempt to explain shortly, in response to your second point you are correct the word “hangings” as used here is plural unfortunately you have totally misunderstood its application here and this has led to your error.

There were indeed “hangings” (plural) round about the courtyard as is plainly stated. On the north and south sides there were “hangings” 100 cubits in length each, at the west end (or rear of the enclosure) there were “hangings” of 50 cubits in length, and on the east end (the front of the enclosure) there were three separate sections of “hangings”, two curtains 15 cubits in length one on each side of the entrance curtain. The entrance curtain itself being 20 cubits in length, thus in total there were six sets of “hangings” (plural) in and around the courtyard.

The Tabernacle proper itself was likewise fitted with “hangings” two specifically, viz. the “screen” (the entrance curtain to the Tabernacle proper, often referred to as the First Vail) and the “Vail” (or what we as Bible Students refer to as the Second Vail).

The fact is all the curtains of the tabernacle which were suspended by way of hooks or fillets (rods) were considered “hangings”.

With this in mind let us take another look at the text, Exod 27:9

“You shall also make the court of the tabernacle. For the south side there shall be hangings for the court made of fine woven linen, one hundred cubits long for one side.”

This appears quite clear to us, the “hangings” for the south side of the courtyard were to be 100 cubits in length, if the LORD had intended that the curtains were to be individual pieces as you suggest (five cubits in length each joined by the pillars) I’m sure that he would have specified so, the fact that he did not precludes this assumption.

Once again note the LORD’s words,

“And along the width of the court on the west side (the rear, which the Lord specified was to be 50 cubits in length, Verse 18) shall be hangings of fifty cubits, with their ten pillars and their ten sockets.” (Exod 27: 12)

Note specifically here that the overall length is stated to be 50 cubits, and that this is with the inclusion of the ten pillars, there is no additional length to be added to the court by the pillars themselves, which would be the case had individual curtains been strung between every two pillars.

We stated: It should likewise be noted that the Scriptures do not actually state what precisely the distance is between each pillar (nor do they state that there is to be 5 cubits of curtain between each post) it is only a logical deduction we make given the facts as stated. For example, the statement that the south side of the courtyard consisted of hangings 100 cubits long with 20 pillars naturally leads us to the conclusion that if 20 divides into 100 five times then equally spacing the pillars one from another along this 100-cubit span would naturally result in the pillars being situated about 5 cubits apart, simple mathematics.

Alek’s response: Unfortunately, not so simple. You yourself have noted it, where you have said that there would be either 1 extra pillar or 5 extra cubits. It is called “fence posts” problem. I’m not very good at explaining these kinds of things, but on my page in my blog there are links to articles that go in great length describing what would be wrong with the layout you are proposing.

I’ve reviewed my notes and have yet to have found where I supposedly stated “there would be either 1 extra pillar or 5 extra cubits” perhaps you can point it out to me, or perhaps it was something stated by another one of the various resources you have quoted, nevertheless as was shown in our study of the courtyard we see no problem. We will review this once again for all shortly.

We stated: When placing these pillars in the ground their individual diameter is inconsequential (precisely why no such diameter was given), it is the distance between the centers of each pillar that is of concern. The measurement or placement of each pillar apart from each other is determined from the center of each post. Once again viz. for example if we were running a barbwire fence 100 feet in length, we would naturally wish to set the post equally apart measured by the center of each post, the barbwire as you know would run along the outside of the post, so too with regards to the curtains of the courtyard.

Alek’s response: Sorry, wrong again. You are forgetting about the corners. Since pillars in your design located on the inside(?) of the hangings perimeter, at the corners, the width of the pillar (whatever that may be) will “chew up” some of the distance, and you are going to end up with say 4.75 cubits of hangings at the corners(depending on the width of the pillars).

As I had stated before there is no direct scriptural text stating that there was to be exactly 5 cubits of distance between each post this is only an inference on our part based upon the facts as given.

Alek states: If you will draw me detailed diagram (I could not clearly see the one you have on your web site), I can tell you exactly where you made a mistake.

In Reply, we should be happy to accommodate you shortly in these respects.

Alek states: When describing the “hangings” of each side of the courtyard, the original Hebrew text uses the word “qəlā‘îm“, which is a plural form of the root word “qəlā“. Now, if each side of the courtyard had only one very long “hanging“, a singular form “qəlā” would have been used. However, in our original text, we have a plural form – “qəlā‘îm“. This may mean only one thing and one thing only – there were multiple “hangings” on each side of the courtyard.

In Reply, not necessarily, although Young’s Analytical Concordance interprets the word “hangings” as found in Exod 27:9 as you have suggested from the Hebrew “qelaim” ke•la•’im, (i.e. to hang), Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance on the other hand interprets this same word as “gela” a curtain, drape, or hanging.

“And thou shall make 6213 the court 2691 of the tabernacle 4908: for the south 5045 side 6285 southward 8486 [there shall be] hangings 7050 for the court 2691 [of] fine twined 7806 linen 8336 of an hundred 3967 cubits 520 long 753 for one 259 side 6285 .” (Exod 27:9)

Strong’s # 7050 qela` keh’-lah from 7049; a sling; also, a (door) screen (as if slung across), or the valve (of the door) itself: –hanging, leaf, sling.

NOTE: In Biblical Hebrew, plural forms of words are sometimes used to denote, not plurality, but rather an intensification of a singular. This usage is called by many different expressions, such as “majestic”, “plural intensive”, etc. It is where a plural form is used although a singular is meant. Thus, for example when referring to the “hangings” located on the south side of the courtyard one should not misconstrue that there were 20 separate curtains spanned along this side of the courtyard comprising 100 cubits in length, but rather that it was one curtain 100 cubits in length even as it is written.

“You shall also make the court of the tabernacle. For the south side there shall be hangings (plural intensive) for the court made of fine woven linen, one hundred cubits long for one side.” Exod 27:9

Young’s Analytical Concordance is not wrong it is simply interpreting the word in its plural intensive form.

Nevertheless we believe the Lord’s use of the word “hangings” in its plural sense is the appropriate usage of the word as applied in the context of the subject, i.e., the courtyard construction, materials and etc. The Lord was attempting to explain to Moses the general construction of the courtyard beginning first with its hangings or curtains. His use of the word “hangings” in its plural sense is proper because there was indeed more than one “hanging” (singular) surrounding the courtyard in fact excluding the “entrance curtain” there were five specific linen “hangings” or curtains.

Alek states: I just wanted to add that the inner vail (with cherubims) is called “pārōḵeṯ“, and the entrance curtain of the tent (otherwise referred to as the gate of the court) was called “māsāḵ” … The word “qəlā‘îm” is used only when describing the hangings of the courtyard. But most translations do not differentiate between these words.

In Reply, let’s take another look at this all the same,

“You shall make a veil woven of blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen. It shall be woven with an artistic design of cherubim. You shall hang it upon the four pillars of acacia wood overlaid with gold. Their hooks shall be gold, upon four sockets of silver.” Exod 26:31, 32

Veil: (Strong’s# 6532) “poreketh” po-reh’-keth feminine active participle of the same as 6531; a separatrix, i.e. (the sacred) screen: — (curtain) vail.

“You shall make a screen for the door of the tabernacle (what we sometimes refer to as the “First Vail”), woven of blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen, made by a weaver. And you shall make for the screen five pillars of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold; their hooks shall be gold, and you shall cast five sockets of bronze for them” Exod 26:36, 37

Screen: (Strong’# 4539) “macak” maw-sawk’ from 5526; a cover, i.e. veil:–covering, curtain, hanging.

“For the gate of the court there shall be a screen twenty cubits long, woven of blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine woven linen, made by a weaver. It shall have four pillars and four sockets. All the pillars around the court shall have bands of silver; their hooks shall be of silver and their sockets of bronze.” Exod 27:16, 17

Screen: (Strong’s # 4539) “macak” maw-sawk’ from 5526; a cover, i.e. veil:–covering, curtain, hanging.

Thus as we had previously stated all the curtains which were to be suspended (i.e. “hung”, the past tense of “hang”, in Hebrew “qelaim” to hang, See Young’s Analytical Concordance) by way of hooks or fillets (rods) were all considered “hangings” this regardless as to whether or not they were 5 cubits long hangings or a 100 cubits long hangings.

Hanging: The act of suspending something (hanging it from above so it moves freely).

Curtain: A hanging cloth used as a blind; any barrier to communication or vision.

Alek states: I do agree on the length of the “hangings“. However, they were not one long piece 100 cubits long – they were 20 pieces, 5 cubits each. The text indeed does not say explicitly that “hangings” were 5 cubits, however 5 cubits is the only possible mathematical solution.

In other words, since each side of the court had to have at least two “hangings” (plural, remember?), and the smallest side of the courtyard was 15 cubits, the next smallest whole divisor of 15 is… Guess what? It’s 5, there is simply no way you can satisfy the Biblical description in any other way, except of ‘course if you do not care about math rules.

In Reply, I believe that in the foregoing comments we have explained to the best of our ability the Lord’s use of the word “hangings” in its plural sense as used in conjunction with the courtyard and its construction.

We stated: Once again note the LORD’s words,

“And along the width of the court on the west side (the rear of the court, which the Lord specified was to be 50 cubits in length, Verse 18) shall be hangings of fifty cubits, with their ten pillars and their ten sockets.” (Exod 27: 12)

Note that the overall length of 50 cubits is with the inclusion of the ten pillars, there is no additional length to be added to the dimensions of the court by the pillars.

In response Alek states: This is not an honest argument. If you are saying that there is no additional length to be added to the dimensions of the court by the pillars, this also means that there is no additional pillar to be added to the sides of the court. And we both add (or rather -count) one extra (corner) pillar as the side of the court. You know, because we both know better.

So, it is either extra length and extra pillar, or it neither, extra length or extra pillar. Otherwise, you are nothing but exploiting the rules of argument and logic.

In Reply, actually when rightfully understood it will be observed that we have to the contrary added no additional pillars save those which the Lord has designated, this will be seen when we present our diagram.

As stated before there is no direct scriptural text stating that there was to be exactly 5 cubits of distance between each post this is only a matter of inference on our part based upon the facts as given.

In response Alek states: Yes, I agree. But this is the only possible inference that you can draw out of the description without violating basic rules of mathematics.

In Reply, there could be no violation of any rules where none are given. An inference is only a logical conclusion based on the facts as given, however this does not make it a certainty. You have 100 cubits and 20 pillars, 20 divides into 100 five times thus it is only natural to assume that the pillars were equally space 5 cubits apart one from another, but this still is only an assumption as no direct statement to the fact is made. We will attempt to address this issue likewise when we present our diagrams in our next post.