1 Chronicles 17:5, 6 For I have not dwelled in an house since the day that I brought up Israel to this day; but have gone from tent to tent… In the Divine reply sent to David it is made an important point that God had hitherto dwelt in a tent, and had expressed no desire for a more permanent form of habitation. As the message is given in 2 Samuel 7:6, God had "walked in a tent and in a tabernacle; "the term "tent" properly indicating an erection of curtains and ropes, and the term "tabernacle" a somewhat more stable structure of boards. In either case the point of comparison is the movableness of the building God had hitherto used, and the fixity of the one which David now proposed to raise. The verses indicate that permanency in the symbol of the Divine presence is not offered by God, but sought by man. It would seem that there is some peril in the settledness of things - even in the thought of the Divine presence - for sinful man. His conditions and his associations had better be changing and transitory. Permanence can only belong to that which is "perfect" and "holy." Again and again this reproach has rested on men: "Because they have no changes, therefore they forget God." It may also be shown that elaboration of the external, artistic form and beauty in the house itself has always for man this peril, that it may satisfy him, and take away his thought from that spiritual reality of which it is the expression. Religious symbols assume a certain amount of religious culture and sensitiveness to the spiritual; if they become of value to us for their own sakes, they are mischievous as was the old brazen serpent, and spiritual reformers may well call them "Nehushtan," worthless brass. None seem to have valued the old tabernacle for its own sake, but in after days men thought the temple sacred, and assumed the peculiar acceptableness of prayer offered within its courts, when the Shechinah glory had passed away from its holy place. I. A TABERNACLE BETTER REPRESENTED MAN'S BODY THAN A HOUSE COULD DO. See St. Paul's figure in 2 Corinthians 5:1-3. Illustrate such analogies as these: A tent is frail; easily taken down, and removed; seriously affected by storms, and manifestly decaying swiftly. II. A TABERNACLE BETTER REPRESENTED MAN'S LIFE. Especially in its lasting but a little while - "Brief life is here our portion; Brief sorrow, short-lived care;" and in its changeableness. The shepherd's tent is set up but for the shelter of a night; journeying on to find fresh pastures, he knows not where he may be on the morrow. So in our life on earth we can seldom gain the security that we may rest. Again and again, so unexpectedly, the moving pillar-cloud bids us be up and away. III. A TABERNACLE WAS MORE SUGGESTIVE OF DEVINE ADAPTATIONS TO MAN'S CIRCUMSTANCES. As an easily movable thing, it could be where it was most wanted: sometimes in the centre of the camp, while the people tarried in one spot; at other times in the front of the camp, when the people journeyed; and at another time in the midst of the divided Jordan, holding back, as it were, the waters until the people passed over. Yet in this there was a peril of misuse, for, in their wilfulness, the people sort for the ark to their camp, seeking to make it a mere charm to ensure their victory, and in consequence the symbol of God's presence fell into the hands of the enemy. No one would have thought of taking the ark away from the fixed and permanent temple. IV. A TABERNACLE WAS LESS LIKELY TO TAKE ATTENTION OFF FROM GOD HIMSELF THAN A HOUSE WAS. For this, which may be the lesson to impress in conclusion, see passage in the introduction to this homily, and also the previous sketch on ver. 1. - R.T. Parallel Verses KJV: For I have not dwelt in an house since the day that I brought up Israel unto this day; but have gone from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another. |
    |