Why was the tabernacle of meeting located in Gibeon according to 2 Chronicles 1:3? Historical Journey of the Tabernacle Prior to Gibeon After Israel entered Canaan, the tabernacle rested at Shiloh for roughly three centuries (Joshua 18:1; 1 Samuel 1:3). When the Philistines captured the ark (1 Samuel 4), Shiloh apparently fell (Jeremiah 7:12–14). Saul then supervised priestly ministry at Nob (1 Samuel 21:1), but when he slaughtered those priests (1 Samuel 22:18-19) the Levitical structures could not remain there. According to 1 Chronicles 16:39–40 and 21:29, “the tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses had made in the wilderness… was at that time on the high place at Gibeon” . Thus, between Saul’s death and David’s early reign, the mosaic tent, its bronze altar, and supporting furnishings were moved to Gibeon while the ark itself was eventually brought by David to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6:17). Geographical and Strategic Considerations Gibeon lies about 6 mi / 10 km northwest of Jerusalem, atop a prominent ridge (modern el-Jib). Its elevation (2,540 ft / 774 m) provided both security and visibility—qualities ideal for a provisional national sanctuary. The site was central to the tribes of Benjamin, Ephraim, and Judah, allowing equal access before Jerusalem’s annexation as Israel’s undivided capital. The location also sat along north–south and east–west trade arteries, enabling the sacrificial system to function with steady supply lines for wood, water, and animals (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:40 “regular burnt offerings, morning and evening”). Priestly Presence and Levitical Infrastructure After Saul’s purge at Nob, surviving priests like Abiathar fled to David (1 Samuel 22:20–23). Yet other Levitical families—most prominently the Zadokite line—remained near their ancestral inheritance in Benjamin (Joshua 21:17). 1 Chronicles 16:39 identifies Zadok as the chief priest “before the tabernacle of the LORD at the high place in Gibeon,” ensuring ceremonial continuity while David ministered with the ark in Jerusalem. Such parallel centers fit the transitional nature of David’s reign: Zadok at Gibeon guarded sacrificial orthodoxy; Asaph in Jerusalem led ark-centered worship (1 Chronicles 16:4-6). Divine Sanction for Worship at Gibeon The Chronicler twice emphasizes God’s approval of this arrangement. First, 1 Chronicles 21:29–30 explains that David could not yet “inquire of God” at Gibeon because of the angel’s sword—implying that normally he would have. Second, 2 Chronicles 1:5–6 records that “Solomon and the assembly sought Him there.” The LORD’s response—appearing to Solomon at Gibeon and granting the famous wisdom request (2 Chronicles 1:7; 1 Kings 3:5)—confirms the site’s legitimacy. Theological Rationale: Covenant Continuity Until the Temple Though David possessed the ark, Mosaic law required sacrifices on the bronze altar before the sanctuary (Exodus 27:1–2; Leviticus 17:2-9). By leaving the altar and tent intact at Gibeon, David upheld Torah commands until a permanent house could bring ark and altar together (2 Samuel 7:1-13). Hence, Gibeon served as a divinely permitted interim solution: worship remained tethered to Sinai’s pattern while anticipating its eschatological fulfillment in the temple—ultimately foreshadowing Christ, the true dwelling of God with humanity (John 1:14; Hebrews 9:11). Why Solomon Went to Gibeon (2 Chronicles 1:3) 1. Legal faithfulness: The tabernacle and the “bronze altar that Bezalel… had made were there before the tabernacle of the LORD” (2 Chronicles 1:5). To offer a thousand burnt offerings lawfully, Solomon had to use that altar. 2. National unity: Gathering “all Israel” (2 Chronicles 1:2) at their recognized sanctuary consolidated support for the young king. 3. Divine encounter: God had a predetermined appointment with Solomon at that high place (2 Chronicles 1:7), mirroring earlier theophanies at transitional sites (Genesis 28:12-17; Exodus 3:5). 4. Transitional symbolism: By worshiping at Gibeon first, then building the temple, Solomon physically moved Israel’s worship from provisional tent to permanent house—dramatizing redemptive-historical progress. Archaeological Corroboration of Gibeon’s Suitability Excavations by James Pritchard (1956-1962) unearthed over sixty inscribed storage jar handles reading gb‘n (“Gibeon”) and a massive water system descending 37 m to a spring—ample evidence for priestly washing and the daily needs of large pilgrim crowds. The site’s Late Bronze–Iron Age occupation aligns with Ussher’s chronology for Davidic/Solomonic eras (c. 1010–930 BC). Egyptian topographical lists (Amun temple of Karnak, 15th century BC) include “Gbn,” corroborating its antiquity. Such finds verify the existence, size, and infrastructure necessary for the tabernacle complex. Extra-Biblical Witnesses to Gibeon’s Cultic Role - Josephus, Antiquities 7.14.5 and 8.1.3, locates “the tabernacle of Moses” at Gibeon during David’s reign. - The Mishnah (Zebahim 14:7) recalls that “the great altar which Moses made” was separate from the ark location until Solomon united them, echoing the biblical separation. - Fourth-century church father Jerome, in his Onomasticon, notes “Gabaon… where Solomon sacrificed.” Transition From Tabernacle to Temple 2 Chr 1–5 forms a literary arc: seeking wisdom at Gibeon (chap. 1) culminates in installing the ark into the completed temple (5:7-14). The Chronicler thereby teaches that divine wisdom governs worship renovation. The tabernacle’s relocation, rather than random, represents God’s ordered redemptive plan—preserving sacrificial typology until its fulfillment in the temple and, ultimately, in the risen Christ (Luke 24:44; Hebrews 10:1-14). Practical and Devotional Implications 1. God meets His people even amid provisional settings, evidencing covenant faithfulness. 2. True worship balances adherence to revealed patterns with expectant hope for promised fulfillment. 3. Leadership seeks divine wisdom by approaching God on His terms—Solomon’s model prefigures the believer’s access through Christ, our greater altar and ark (Hebrews 4:14-16). Answer Summary The tabernacle of meeting stood at Gibeon because, after Shiloh’s fall and Nob’s tragedy, Gibeon offered a secure, central, priestly-controlled site where the bronze altar could operate according to Mosaic law until the temple could reunite ark and altar in Jerusalem. Scripture, archaeology, and ancient testimony converge to present Gibeon as a divinely sanctioned interim sanctuary, validating the Chronicler’s narrative and highlighting God’s meticulous providence in guiding Israel’s worship toward its climactic fulfillment in the resurrected Christ. |
    |