1 Chronicles 17:5

That is, in a tent which removed to and fro.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

I . . . have gone from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle to another--The literal rendering is, "I was walking in a tent and in a dwelling." The evident intention (as we may see from Ch1 17:6) was to lay stress upon the fact that God was a Mithhatlek (a travelling God) and went from one place to another with His tent and His entire dwelling (the dwelling included not merely the tent, but the fore-courts with the altar of burnt offerings, &c.) [BERTHEAU].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 5. But have gone from tent to tent] "I have transferred my tabernacle from Gilgal to Nob, from Nob to Shiloh, and from Shiloh to Gibeon."-Targum and Jarchi.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(5) Since the day that I brought up Israel (“out of Egypt,” Samuel) unto this day.—The construction, as compared with Samuel, is simplified, and the sentence abbreviated.

But have gone . . .—Literally, and I became from tent to tent, and from dwelling. This is clearly too brief for sense; some words must have fallen out, or the reading of Samuel may be original here. The phrase “and I became” almost demands a participle, and the one actually read in Samuel may be here disguised under the expression translated “from tent.” A slight further change (in the prepositions) will give the sense: “And I continued walking in a tent and in a dwelling.” Perhaps, however, the original text was, “and I walked from tent to tent, and from dwelling to dwelling;” alluding to the various sanctuaries anciently recognised, such as Bethel (Jdg_20:18; Jdg_20:26), Mizpeh (Jdg_11:11; 1Sa_10:17), and Shiloh. The word “dwelling” (mishkân) is a more general term than tent. It includes the sacred tent and its surrounding court.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. I brought up Israel] i.e. out of Egypt (so Sam.).

but have gone from tent to tent and from one tabernacle to another] Sam. but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. The Heb. text of Chron. defies translation; that of Sam. is better.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This verse contains the three termshouse, tent, tabernacle. (see notes on 1Ch_16:1) Gesenius observes that when the Hebrew of the last two words is used distinctively, the tent describes the outer coverings of the twelve curtains; and the tabernacle, the ten inner curtains and framework as well, in other words, the whole equipment of the well-known tabernacle. As compared with the version we have here, the parallel place speaks an almost pathetic condescension, "I was a shifting traveller in tent and tabernacle." God meant to remind David how surely and faithfully he had shared the pilgrim lot and unsettledness of his people. What most holy the tabernacle contained was herein a type of the bodily tabernacle of Jesus Christ in later times.

Vers. 5, 6.

God"s earthly dwelling-place a tabernacle, not a house.

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 2Sa_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 bechanging 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 2Co_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.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

but I have [gone] from tent to tent and from tabernacle i.e., and I have walked from tent to tent and from tabernacle to tabernacle: from Gilgal to Shiloh, and from Shiloh to Nob, and from Nob to Gibeon, and although I was wandering from tent to tent and from tabernacle to tabernacle...

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.