Ark of The Covenant
VIEW:16 DATA:01-04-2020
(aron, not teebah). An oblong chester shittim wood (acacia), two and a half cubits long, one and a half broad and deep. F. W. Kolland measured acacias nine feet in girth, in the region of Israel's wandering; he attributes their being usually stunted there to the Arabs cutting off the young shoots for the she goats. Thus Colenso's cavil that "not a single acacia" is to be seen where the ark is said to have been constructed is answered. It is a propriety characteristic of the truth of the Scripture narrative that it represents the ark as not made of oak or cedar, the best woods of the Holy Land, but of acacia, the wood of the wilderness. Cedar actually was the wood used for the Jerusalem temple. In the thorn of man's curse appeared the angel of the covenant to Moses, to bless man; and out of its wood was formed the ark of the covenant, the typical source of his blessing. Overlaid with gold within and without.
The mercy-seat supporting the cherubim, one at each end, was on the lid, with a crown or raised border, and was Jehovah's mystical throne. It had rings at the four grainers for the two staves to pass through, wherewith the Kohathite Levites or priests carried it. The staves were permanently in the rings. Within e veil was its proper place, the ends of the staves, however, being visible, in Solomon's temple, in the outer holy place. When carried about, the ark was wrapped in the veil, the badger's skin, and blue cloth. Its title, "the ark of the testimony," implies its purpose, namely, to keep intact God's "covenant" written by God on the two stone tables (Exo_34:28), as the sacred deposit of the Israelite church (Exo_25:22; Num_10:33).
The outward keeping taught symbolically the moral and spiritual keeping of God's commandments. In the wilderness "the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey to search out a resting place for them; and when the ark set forward, Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let Thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate Thee flee before Thee. And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel" (Num_10:33-36; Psa_68:1; Psa_132:8). At the passage of the Jordan it was when the ark was borne by the priests and their feet had touched the water, that an open way was made for Israel. Only when the material ark, apart from obedience, was expected to give that favor of God which only obedience to the law contained within the ark could ensure, did God "deliver His strength" (the pledge of God's strengthening His people) "into captivity and His glory into the enemy's hands" (Psa_78:61; 1Sa_4:11).
When the ark was taken the "glory" was departed (1Sa_4:21-22). The ark and the sanctuary were "the beauty of Israel" (Lam_2:1). The antitype, Messiah, goes before His redeemed, exploring their way through the wilderness, making clear passage through death's waters into the heavenly Canaan. Like the ark with the Philistines Messiah was the captive of the grave for a brief space, but with triumph He rose again; and as when the ark went up to the tabernacle reared for it by David on Zion, so on Christ's ascending the heavenly mount the glorious anthem arose: "Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in" (Psalm 24). Every Dagon must fall before Him now; for even in His temporary captivity in death the powers of darkness were crushed before Him (Col_2:14-15; Mat_27:50-54). As the ark blessed the house of Obed Edom, so Christ is the true bestower of blessings (Act_3:20).
The restriction of the ark's contents to the decalogue implies that this is the central core of all the various precepts, the moral end for which the positive precepts were given. They were in the innermost shrine, to mark their perpetually obligatory nature and the holiness of God; in the ark, the type of Christ, to mark that in Him alone, "the Lord our righteousness," they find their perfect realization. 1Ki_8:9 states there was nothing in the ark of Solomon's temple save the two stone tables of the law; but Heb_9:4 states there were also the golden pot of manna (the memorial of God's providential care of Israel), and Aaron's rod that budded (the memorial of the lawful priesthood, Num_17:3-10). Probably by the time of Solomon the other two relics had been lost, perhaps when the ark was in the hands of the Philistines. "Before the Lord" and "before the testimony" was where they were directed to be laid up (Exo_16:32-36).
The mercy-seat was not merely regarded as the lid of the ark, but as the most important feature in the holiest place (Exo_25:17; Exo_26:34; Lev_16:2), the only meeting place between God and man. It was the (caporeth) or covering, not merely of the ark. but (when sprinkled with the sacrificial blood once a year on the great day of atonement) of Israel's sins against the law contained within the ark. Hence it is called in the Septuagint "the propitiatory" (hilasterion); and Christ, the true mercy-seat (Psa_85:10) and place of meeting between the holy God and guilty man, is called the very same (Rom_3:25), "propitiation," lit. propitiatory. In 1Ch_28:11 the holiest is called" the place of the mercy-seat," so prominent was the latter in symbolical significance.
The ark was never seen save by the high priest; symbol of God whom no man can see, and whose likeness is only to be seen in Christ (Joh_1:18; Heb_1:3), the true Ark, and our High Priest with the Father. Thus every tendency to idolatry was excluded, an ark occupying the central place of holiness, and that seen only once a year by the one religious representative of the people. Even it is to be superseded in the coming temple at. Jerusalem, when "they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord, neither shall it come to mind, neither shall they re. member it"; for Jehovah Jesus, the Antitype, will be there, "at that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered unto it" (Jer_3:16). The absence of the ark after its capture by the Philistines possibly impaired the reverential awe felt toward it (1Ch_13:3; 1Ch_13:9). But the stroke on Uzza, and the rearing of the tabernacle for it in Zion by David, after its long abode of 20 years in Kirjath Jearim, in Abinadab's house, recovered for it all its sanctity.
The altar of burnt offering where the sacrifices were offered continued separate from it at Gibeon, the "great high place" (1Ki_3:4) (in the tabernacle of the ark on Zion the service was song and praise alone) until the two were reunited in the temple of Solomon, a type of the gospel separation of the spiritual service of prayer and praise going on here below, from the priestly intercession being carried on above by our Lord Jesus. The spiritual and the literal priestly services will perhaps be reunited in Ezekiel's millennial temple at Jerusalem, one antitype to Solomon's temple. Compare Act_15:16-17. Manasseh set up an idol, a carved image, instead of the ark which contained the testimony against him. Josiah restored it to its place in the house of God (2Ch_33:7; 2Ch_35:3).
The ark was wanting in the second temple, having been probably burnt with the temple (2Ch_36:19); compare (apocryphal) 2 Esdras 10:22, "the ark of our covenant is spoiled." Its absence was one of the points wherein the second was inferior to the first temple. (See ALTAR.) There must have been some substitute for it, on which to sprinkle the blood, in the holiest, on the great day of atonement; the Jews mention an altar stone, slightly raised from the floor. Pagan nations too had their mystic arks (whence arcanum is the term for a mystery), but so distinct in use from the Mosaic that the differences are more prominent than the resemblances.
The Egyptian arks (on their monuments) were, like the Hebrew ark, carried by poles on men's shoulders. Some had too on the cover two winged figures like cherubim; but between these was the material symbol of a deity, and the arks were carried about in procession to make a show before the people. The ark of the covenant on the contrary was marked by the absence of any symbol of God. It was never carried in procession. When moved it was carefully covered up from the eyes even of the Levites who bore it (Num_4:5-6; Num_4:19-20): "they shall not go in to see when the holy things are covered, lest they die." Compare 1Sa_6:19. In the tabernacle the ark was withdrawn from view in the mysterious holy of holies.
It was not moved from its "rest" (Psa_132:8; Psa_132:14) when once Jerusalem became the fixed capital, and the hill of Zion God's chosen seat, until its forcible removal under Nebuchadnezzar; God giving up the apostate Jews to the pagan world power. Previously it had a few times accompanied the army (1Sa_4:3; 1Sa_14:18; 2Sa_11:11). But from the first rest was appointed as its final condition, and under David it obtained that "rest" (Deu_12:10-11; 1Ch_6:31; 1Ch_16:1). Its simple and grand purpose was to be the casket containing the precious tables of stone written with the moral law by God Himself. The originality of the tabernacle furniture and arrangements is more striking than the superficial resemblances which have been traced to pagan usages.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.
Ark of the Covenant. The first piece of the Tabernacle's furniture, for which precise directions were delivered. Exodus 25.
I. Description. It appears to have been an oblong chest of shittim (acacia) wood, 2 1/2 cubits long by 1 1/2 broad and deep. Within and without, gold was overlaid on the wood, and on the upper side or lid, which was edged round about with gold, the Mercy-Seat was placed. The Ark was fitted with rings, one at each of the four corners, and through these were passed staves of the same wood similarly overlaid, by which it was carried by the Kohathites. Num_7:9; Num_10:21. The ends of the staves were visible without the veil in the Holy Place of the Temple of Solomon. 1Ki_8:8. The ark, when transported, was enveloped in the "veil" of the dismantled Tabernacle, in the curtain of badgers' skins and in a blue cloth over all, and was therefore not seen. Num_4:5; Num_4:20.
II. Its purpose was to contain inviolate the divine autograph of the two tables, that "covenant" from which it derived its title. It was also probably a reliquary for the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron.
III. History. Before David's time, its abode was frequently shifted. It sojourned among several, probably Levitical, families, 1Sa_7:1; 2Sa_6:3; 2Sa_6:11; 1Ch_13:13; 1Ch_15:24-25, in the border villages of eastern Judah; and did not take its place in the Tabernacle, but dwelt in curtains, that is, in a separate tent pitched for it in Jerusalem by David. Subsequently the Temple, when completed, received, in the installation of the Ark in its shrine, the signal of its inauguration by the effulgence of divine glory instantly manifested. It was probably taken captive or destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, 2Es_10:22, so that there was no Ark in the second Temple.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863
a small chest or coffer, three feet nine inches in length, two feet three inches in breadth, and two feet three inches in height; in which were contained the golden pot that had manna, Aaron's rod, and the tables of the covenant, Num_17:10; Heb_9:4. This coffer was made of shittim wood, and was covered with a lid, called the mercy seat, Exo_25:17-22, &c, which was of solid gold, at the two ends whereof were two figures, called cherubim, looking toward each other with expanded wings, which, embracing the whole circumference of the mercy seat, met in the middle. The whole, according to the rabbins, was made out of the same mass, without any of the parts being joined by solder. Over this it was that the Shechinah, or visible display of the divine presence in a luminous cloud rested, both in the tabernacle, and in the temple,
Lev_16:2; and from hence the divine oracles were given forth by an audible voice, as often as God was consulted in behalf of his people. Hence it is that God is said in Scripture to dwell between the cherubim, on the mercy seat, because there was the seat or throne of the visible appearance of his glory among them, 2Ki_19:15; 1Ch_13:6; Psa_80:1, &c; and for this reason the high priest appeared before the mercy seat once every year, on the great day of expiation, at which time he was to make his nearest approach to the divine presence, to mediate and make atonement for the whole people of Israel.
On the two sides of the ark there were four rings of gold, two on each side, through which staves, overlaid with gold, were put, by means whereof they carried it as they marched through the wilderness, &c, on the shoulders of the Levites, Exo_25:13-14; Exo_27:5. After the passage of the Jordan, the ark continued for some time at Gilgal, from whence it was removed to Shiloh. From this place the Israelites carried it to their camp, where, in an engagement with the Philistines, it fell into their hands. The Philistines, having gotten possession of the ark, carried it in triumph to one of their principal cities, named Ashdod, and placed it in the temple of Dagon, whose image fell to the ground and was broken. The Philistines also were so afflicted with emerods, that they afterward returned the ark with various presents; and it was lodged at Kirjath-Jearim, and afterward at Nob. David conveyed it to the house of Obededom, and from thence to his palace at Zion; and lastly, Solomon brought in into the temple which he had built at Jerusalem. It remained in the temple till the times of the last kings of Judah, who gave themselves up to idolatry, and even dared to place their idols in the holy temple itself. The priests, being unable to bear this profanation, took the ark and carried it from place to place, to preserve it from the hands of those impious princes. Josiah commanded them to bring it back to the sanctuary, and it was accordingly replaced, 2Ch_35:3. What became of the ark at the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, is a dispute among the rabbins. Had it been carried to Babylon with the other vessels of the temple, it would, in all probability, have been brought back with them at the close of the captivity. But that this was not the case, is agreed on all hands; whence it is probable that it was destroyed with the temple.
The ark of the covenant was, as it were, the centre of worship to all those of the Hebrew nation who served God according to the Levitical law; and not only in the temple, when they came thither to worship, but every where else in their dispersions through the whole world; whenever they prayed, they turned their faces toward the place where the ark stood, and directed all their devotions that way, Dan_6:10. Whence the author of the book of Cosri, justly says, that the ark, with the mercy seat and cherubim, were the foundation, root, heart, and marrow of the whole temple, and all the Levitical worship performed therein; and, therefore, had there been nothing else wanting in the second temple but the ark only, this alone would have been a sufficient reason for the old men to have wept when they remembered the first temple in which it stood; and for the saying of Hag_2:3, that the second temple was as nothing compared with the first; so great a share had the ark of the covenant in the glory of Solomon's temple. However, the defect was supplied as to the outward form, for in the second temple there was also an ark of the same dimensions with the first, and put in the same place; but it wanted the tables of the law, Aaron's rod, and the pot of manna; nor was there any appearance of the divine glory over it; nor any oracles delivered from it. The only use that was made of it was to be a representation of the former on the great day of expiation, and to be a repository of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the original copy of that collection of them made by Ezra after the captivity; in imitation of which the Jews, in all their synagogues, have a like ark or coffer in which they keep their Scriptures.
For the temple of Solomon a new ark was not made; but he constructed cherubim in the most holy place, which were designed to give additional state to this most sacred symbol of God's grace and mercy. These cherubim were fifteen feet high, and were placed at equal distance from the centre of the ark and from each side of the wall, so that their wings being expanded, the two wings which were extended behind touched the wall, and the other two met over the ark and so overshadowed it. When these magnificent cherubim were finished, the ark was brought in and placed under their wings, 2Ch_5:7-10.
The ark was called the ark of the covenant, because it was a symbol of the covenant between God and his people. It was also named the ark of the testimony, because the two tables which were deposited in it were witnesses against every transgression.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.
kuv?e-nant (ארון הבּרית, 'ărōn ha-berı̄th):
I. The Statements of the Old Testament Concerning the Ark of The
Covenant.
1. Pentateuch
In Exo_25:10, Moses receives the command to build an ark of acacia wood. Within this ark were to be placed the tables of the law which God was about to give to Moses. Upon the top of the ark, probably not as a lid but above the lid, the כּפּרת, kappōreth, in the New Testament τὸ ἱλαστήριον, tó hilastḗrion (Heb_9:5), is to be placed, which was a golden plate upon which two cherubim, with raised wings and facing each other, covered the ark. From the place between the two cherubim God promises to speak to Moses, as often as He shall give him commands in reference to the Israelites.
The portion of the Pentateuch in which this is recorded is taken from the so-called Priest Codex (P). The reports of the Elohist (E) and the Jahwist (Jahwist) on this subject are wanting; but both of these sources report concerning the important role which the ark played in the entrance of Israel into Canaan, and these documents too must have contained the information that the people had received this ark. It can further with certainty be stated concerning the Elohist, and with some probability concerning the Jahwist, in what part of these documents these accounts were to be found. For Elohist reports in Exo_33:6 that the Israelites, in order to demonstrate their repentance on account of the golden calf, had at God's command laid aside their ornaments. In Exo_33:7-10 there follows a statement concerning the erection of the sacred tent; but this is explained only by the fact that between Exo_33:6 and Exo_33:7 a report concerning the erection of the ark of the covenant must have been found, which the R of the Pentateuch (since before this he had already made use of the much more exhaustive account of the Priest Codex) was compelled to omit. But that at this place the Elohist must have reported not only concerning the erection of the sacred tent but also of the construction of the ark of the covenant, is in itself probable, and can too be concluded from this, that according to the Deuteronomist, the composition of which is also conditioned upon that of the Elohist and the Jahwist, the ark was built on this occasion. We further conclude that it was not so much the tabernacle which could serve as a consolation to the people, something that at that time they needed, but rather the ark, which was to symbolize to them that God was on the march with them. In the Jahwist we do not indeed find at this place any statement concerning this sacred structure, but we do find the statement that the Israelites, out of sorrow because of the bad news brought by Moses, discarded their ornaments. For Exo_33:4 is taken from the Jahwist, since the Elohist contains the command to discard the ornaments later on, and hence could not have written Exo_33:4. Now it is a justifiable surmise that the Jahwist has also reported what use was made of the ornaments that had been discarded; and as this author, just as is the case with the Elohist, must have at some place contained a report concerning the construction of the ark, he certainly must have given this just at this place. The corresponding account in the Deuteronomist is found in Deu_10:1-5. Accordingly, then, all the four Pentateuch documents reported that Moses had built the ark at Sinai. The Deuteronomist, like the Priestly Code (P), says, that it was built of acacia wood. In the Elohistic narrative the subject is mentioned again in Num_10:33, where we read that the ark had preceded the people as they broke camp and marched from Sinai. At this place too the words are found which Moses was accustomed to speak when the ark began to move out and when it arrived at a halting-place.
2. Joshua
According to the narrative in Josh 3 the ark cooperated at the crossing of the Jordan in such a way that the waters of the river ceased to continue flowing as soon as the feet of the priests who were carrying the ark entered the water, and that it stood still above until these priests, after the people had crossed over, again left the bed of the river with the ark. In the account of the solemn march around Jericho, which according to Josh 6 caused the walls of the city to fall, the carrying of the ark around the city is regarded as an essential feature in Jos_6:4, Jos_6:7, Jos_6:11. In chapter 7 it is narrated that Joshua, after the defeat of the army before Ai, lamented and prayed before the ark. In chapter 8 this is mentioned in connection with Mount Ebal.
3. Other Historical Books
At the time of Eli the ark stood in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1Sa_3:3). From this place it was taken after Israel had been defeated by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in order to assure the help of Yahweh to the people; but, instead of this, the ark fell into the hands of the Philistines (1 Sam 4). But the various misfortunes that now afflicted the Philistines induced these to regard the possession of the ark as a calamity (1Sa_5:1-12) and they sent it back to Israel (1 Sam 6). It was brought first to Bethshemesh in the tribe of Judah, near the borders of the Philistines, and soon after to Kiriath-jearim, about 7.5 miles Northwest of Jerusalem. There the ark remained for years in the house of a man by the name of Abinadab, whose son was its guardian (1Sa_7:1), until David brought it to Mount Zion, after he had established his camp and court there. He there placed it in a tent prepared for it (2 Sam 6; 1Ch_13:1-14; 15). In David's time again the ark was taken along into battle (2Sa_11:11). When David fled from the presence of Absalom, the priests wanted to accompany him with the ark, but he sent it back (2Sa_15:24 f). David had also intended to build a temple, in which the ark was to find its place, since before this it had always found its resting-place in a tent. But God forbade this through Nathan, because He was willing to build a house for David, but was not willing that David should build one for Him (2 Sam 7). Solomon then built the temple and placed the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies of this temple, where it was placed under the wings of two mighty cherubim images (1 Ki 8; 2Ch_5:1-14).
4. Prophetical and Poetical Books
Jeremiah in the passage Jer_3:16, which certainly was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, states that in the future new Jerusalem nobody will any more concern himself about the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and no one will again build such a one. In the post-exilic Ps 132 (Psa_132:8), Yahweh is petitioned to occupy together with the ark, the symbol of His omnipotent presence, also the sanctuary that has been erected for Him, the poet describing himself and those who sing this psalm as participants in the home-bringing of the ark by David. No further mention is made of the ark of the covenant in the Psalter or the prophetical books.
5. The New Testament
In the New Testament the ark of the covenant is mentioned only in Heb_9:4 in the description of the Solomonic temple.
II. The Form of the Ark of the Covenant
According to the statements in the Priestly Code (P), the ark of the covenant was a chest made out of acacia wood, 2 1/2 cubits (about equal to 4 ft.) long, 1 1/2 cubits wide and 1 1/2 high. That it was made out of acacia wood is also stated by the Deuteronomist in Deu_10:3. According to P it was covered with gold within and without, and was ornamented with a moulding of gold running all around it. At its four feet rings were added, through which the gold-covered carrying-staves were put. These staves are also mentioned in 1Ki_8:7, 1Ki_8:8; 2Ch_5:8, 2Ch_5:9, and mention is often made of those who carried the ark (2Sa_6:13; 2Sa_15:24). The correctness of these statements cannot be proved, but yet there is no reason to doubt them. Rather we might have reason to hesitate in clinging to the view that on the old ark there was really a golden kappōreth, but only because in olden times the possession of such valuables and their use for such a purpose would be doubtful. But on the basis of such reasons we could at most doubt whether the lid with its cherubim consisted of solid gold. That the cherubim were attached to or above the ark is not at all improbable. That Solomon placed the ark in the Holy of Holies between two massive cherubim figures (1Ki_6:19, 1Ki_6:23; 1Ki_8:6) does not prove that there were no cherubim figures on the ark itself, or even that those cherubim figures, which according to Exo_25:19 were found on the ark, were nothing else than those of Solomon's days in imagination transferred back to an earlier period (Vatke, Biblische Theologie, 1835, 333; Popper, Der biblische Bericht ?ber die Stiftsh?tte, 1862). In recent times the view has been maintained that the ark in reality was no ark at all but an empty throne. It was Reichel, in his work Vorhellenische G?tterkulte, who first expressed this view, and then Meinhold, Die Lade Jahwes, T?bingen, 1910, and Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1901, 593-617, who developed this view in the following manner. It is claimed that in the days of Moses a throne-like rock at Mount Sinai was regarded as the seat of Yahweh, and when the Israelites departed from Sinai they made for themselves a portable throne, and Yahweh was regarded as sitting visibly enthroned upon this and accompanying His people. In the main the same view was maintained by Martin Dibellius (Die Lade Jahwes, G?ttingen, 1906; Hermann Gunkel, Die Lade Jahwes ein Thronsitz, reprinted from the Zeitschrift f?r Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft, Heidelberg, 1906). The occasion for this view was given by the fact that among the Persians and other people there were empty thrones of the gods, which were carried or hauled around in processions. The reasons for finding in the ark of the covenant such an empty throne are found chiefly in this, that the passages in the Old Testament, in which it seems that the presence of God is made conditional on the presence of the ark (compare Num_14:42-44), can be explained if the ark is regarded as a throne of Yahweh. However, empty thrones of the gods are found only among the Aryan people, and all of the passages of the Old Testament which refer to the ark can be easily explained without such a supposition. This view is to be rejected particularly for this reason, that in the Old Testament the ark is always described as an ark, and never as a throne or a seat; and because it is absolutely impossible to see what reason would have existed at a later period to state that it was an ark if it had originally been a throne. Dibelius and Gunkel appeal also particularly to this, that in several passages, of which 1Sa_4:4; 2Sa_6:2 are the oldest, Yahweh is declared to be enthroned on the cherubim. But this proves nothing, because He is not called ?He who is enthroned on the ark,? and the cherubim and the ark are two different things, even if there were cherubim on the lid of the ark. Compare the refutation of Meinhold and Dibelius by Budde (ZATW, 1901, 193-200, and Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1906, 489-507).
III. The Contents of the Ark of the Covenant
According to the Priestly Code the two tables of the law constituted the contents of the ark. In Exo_25:16; Exo_40:20, as also Deu_10:5, and, too, in 1Ki_8:9, we have the same testimony. The majority of the modern critics regard this as an unhistorical statement first concocted by.the so-called ?Deuteronomistic school.? Their reasons for this are the following: (1) The critics deny that the existence of the Mosaic tables of the law is a historical fact; (2) The critics declare that if these tables had really been in possession of the Israelites, they would not have been so foolish as to put them into a box which it was forbidden to open; (3) The critics declare that the views entertained in olden times on the importance of the ark cannot be reconciled with the presence of the tables in the ark. But we reply: (1) that the actual existence of the two tables of the law is denied without sufficient reasons; that the ten principal formulas of the Decalogue, as these are given in Ex 20 and Dt 5, come from Moses, must be insisted upon, and that according to Ex 34 other ten commandments had been written on these tables is incorrect. The laws in Exo_34:17-26 are not at all declared there to be the ten words which God intended to write upon the tables. But if Moses had prepared the tables for the commandments, then it is (2) only probable that he caused to be made a suitable chest for their preservation and their transportation through the desert. Now it might be thought that the view that the ark was so holy that it dared not be opened had originated only after the time of Moses. However, it is just as easily possible, that that importance had already been assigned by Moses to the tables in the ark which the sealed and carefully preserved copy of a business agreement would have and which is to be opened only in case of necessity (Jer_32:11-14). Such a case of necessity never afterward materialized, because the Israelites were never in doubt as to what was written on these tables. On a verbatim reading no stress was laid in olden times. (3) With regard to the importance of the ark according to the estimate placed upon it in the earlier period of Israel, we shall see later that the traditions in reference to the tables harmonize fully with this importance.
Of the modern critics who have rejected this tradition, some have thought that the ark was empty, and that the Israelites thought that Yahweh dwelt in it (Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 39), or that the empty chest was a kind of fetish (Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltert?mer, 1901, I, 10). As a rule they believe that a stone image of Yahweh or two stones had been placed in the ark, these being possibly meteor stones, in which it was thought that some divine power was dwelling (Stade, Geschichte Israels, I, 458); or possibly stones that in some battle or other had been hurled and through which a victory had been won (Couard, ZATW, XII, 76); or possibly they were the stones which at the alliance of the tribes that dwelt about Mount Sinai were first set up as testimonials of this covenant (Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament, 216). Of these views only the one which declares that the ark contained meteor stones deserves any notice, because it could indeed be thought possible that Israel would have taken with them on their journey through the desert such stones which they could have regarded as pledges of the Divine Presence fallen from heaven and could have preserved these in a sacred ark. But it is impossible to show that this view is probable, not to speak of proving it to be correct. The only extant tradition says that the ark contained the tables of the law, and this is the only view that is in harmony with what we must think of the whole work of Moses. Finally we must again remember that it is probable that Elohist and Jahwist, who speak both of the ark and also of the tables of the law, in the portions of these documents which have not been preserved, reported also that the tables were placed in the ark.
IV. The Names of the Ark of the Covenant
The name ?ark of the covenant of Yahweh? was not originally found everywhere where it now stands, but in many places the words ?of the covenant? were added later. However, the expression ?ark of the covenant? is found in the oldest source of the Book of Sam (2Sa_15:24), and in 1Ki_3:15 in the old source for the history of Solomon, of which the Deuteronomistic author of the Book of Kings made use; in 1Ki_8:1, a very old account of the building of the temple; and the genuineness of the expression ?ark of the covenant? in these passages is not with any good reasons to be called into question. Further the expression is found in the books of Numbers and Joshua, in a number of passages (Num_10:33; Num_14:44; Jos_3:3, Jos_3:6, Jos_3:8; Jos_4:9, Jos_4:18; Jos_6:6, Jos_6:8), which in all probability belong to the document of Elohist. It appears that the Elohist designates the ark as the ?ark of the covenant of God,? or more briefly; as the ?ark of the covenant,? unless in a connected narrative he writes only ?the ark,? while in the Jahwist the principal appellation was ?ark of Yahweh, the Lord of the whole earth? (compare Lotz, Die Bundeslade, 1901, 30-36). From this we must conclude that the appellation ?ark of the covenant of Yahweh? must go back to very ancient times, and we must reject the view that this term took the place of the term ?ark of Yahweh? in consequence of a change of views with reference to the ark, brought about through Deuteronomy. Indeed, since the name ?ark of the covenant,? as is proved by the Elohist, was nowhere mor e in use than in Ephraim, where they did not possess the ark and accordingly would have had the least occasion to introduce a new name for it, it can be accepted that the name originated in the oldest times, namely those of Moses. The other expression ?ark of Yahweh? may be just as old and need not be an abbreviation of the other. It was possible to designate the ark as ?ark of Yahweh? because it was a sanctuary belonging to Yahweh; and it was possible to call it also ?the ark of the covenant of Yahweh,? because it was a monument and evidence of the covenant which Yahweh had made with Israel. It is for this reason not correct to translate the expression 'arōn berı̄th Yahweh by ?the ark of the law of Yahweh,? as equivalent to ?the ark which served as a place for preserving the law of the covenant.? For berı̄th does not signify ?law,? even if it was possible under certain circumstances to call a covenant ?law? figuratively and synecdochically the ?covenant?; and when 1Ki_8:21 speaks of ?the ark wherein is the covenant of Yahweh,? the next words, ?which he made with our fathers,? show that covenant does not here mean ?law,? but rather the covenant relationship which in a certain sense is embodied in the tables.
In P the ark is also called ?the ark of the testimony,? and this too does not signify ?ark of the law.? For not already in P but only in later documents did the word ‛ēdhūth receive the meaning of ?law? (Lotz, Die Bundeslade, 40). P means by ?testimony? the Ten Words, through the proclamation of which the true God has given evidence of His real essence. But where this testimony is found engraved in the handwriting of God on the tables of stone, just there also is the place where He too is to be regarded as locally present.
V. The History of the Ark of the Covenant
According to the tradition contained in the Pentateuch the sacred ark was built at Mount Sinai and was taken by the Israelites along with them to Canaan. This must be accepted as absolutely correct. The supposition is groundless, that it was a shrine that the Israelites had taken over from the Canaanites. This view is refuted by the high estimate in which in Eli's time the ark was held by all Israel (1 Sam 1ff; 1Ki_2:22); and especially by the fact that the ark was at that time regarded as the property of that God who had brought Israel out of Egypt, and accordingly had through this ark caused the Canaanites to be conquered (1Sa_4:8; 1Sa_6:6; 2Sa_7:6; 1Ki_12:28). The opinion also that the ark was an ancient palladium of the tribe of Ephraim or of the descendants of Joseph and was only at a later period recognized by all Israel (Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, 458) is not tenable, for we hear nothing to the effect that the descendants of Joseph concerned themselves more for the ark than the other tribes did. In the time of Eli the ark stood in the sanctuary at Shiloh. When Israel had been conquered by the Philistines, the ark was taken from Shiloh in order that Yahweh should aid His people. But notwithstanding this the Philistines yet conquered and captured the ark (1Sa_5:1-12). But the many misfortunes that overtook them made them think that the possession of the ark was destructive to them and they sent it back (1 Sam 6). The ark first came to Bethshemesh, in the tribe of Judah, and then to Kiriath-jearim (or Baale-judah, 2Sa_6:2), about 7.5 miles Northwest of Jerusalem. There the ark remained for many years until David, after he had taken possession of Mount Zion, took it there (2 Sam 6) and deposited it in a tent. Solomon brought it into the Holy of Holies in the temple (1Ki_8:3-8), where in all probability it remained until the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; for Jer_3:16 proves that the Israelites felt that they were in possession of the ark up to this time.
VI. The Significance of the Ark
According to many investigators the ark was originally a war sanctuary. In favor of this it can be urged that Israel took it into their camp, in order that they might receive the help of Yahweh in the battle with the Philistines (1 Sam 4); and further that also in the time of David the ark was again taken along into battle (2Sa_11:11; compare Psa_24:1-10); note also the word of Moses, which he spoke when the ark was taken up to be carried: ?Rise up, O Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered? (Num_10:35). However, nothing of what we know or presuppose concerning the form and the contents of the ark points to an original military purpose of the same; and in the other statements that are found elsewhere concerning the ark, a much more general significance is assigned to it. The significance which the ark had for the Israelites in connection with their wars is only the outcome of its signification as the symbol of the presence of Yahweh, who was not at all a God of war, but when His people were compelled to fight was their helper in the struggle.
A Symbol of the Divine Presence
That the ark was designed to be a symbol of the presence of God in the midst of His people is the common teaching of the Old Testament. According to the Elohist the ark was made to serve as a comfort to the people for this, that they were to leave the mountain where God had caused them to realize His presence (Exo_30:6). According to the Priestly Code (P), God purposed to speak with Moses from the place between the cherubim upon the ark. According to Jdg_2:1, the angel of Yahweh spoke in Bethel (Bochim) in reproof and exhortation to the people, after the ark of the covenant had been brought to that place; for the comparison of Num_10:33 and Exo_23:20 shows that Jdg_2:1 is to be understood as speaking of the transfer of the ark to Bethel. When Israel in the time of Eli was overpowered by the Philistines, the Israelites sent for the ark, in order that Yahweh should come into the camp of Israel, and this was also believed to be the case by the Philistines (1Sa_4:3). After the ark had come to Bethshemesh and a pestilence had broken out there, the people did not want to keep the ark, because no one could live in the presence of Yahweh, this holy God (1Sa_6:20); and Jeremiah says (Jer_3:16, Jer_3:17) that an ark of the covenant would not be again made after the restoration of Israel, but then Jerusalem would be called the ?throne of Yahweh,? i.e. it would so manifestly be the city of God that it would guarantee the presence of God at least just as much as the ark formerly did.
In olden times these things appeared more realistic to the people than they do to us; and when the ark was considered the visible representation of the presence of Yahweh, and as guaranteeing His presence, a close material connection was thought to exist between the ark and Yahweh, by virtue of which Divine powers were also thought to be present in the ark. The people at Bethshemesh were not willing to keep the ark any longer in their midst, because they could not live in its near presence. David's dancing before the ark is regarded by him and by the narrator of the event as a dancing before the Lord (2Sa_6:5, 2Sa_6:14, 2Sa_6:21), and in 2Sa_7:5 God says, through Nathan, that He had wandered around in a tent since He had led the Israelites out of Egypt.
But the view advocated by some of the modern critics, that the Israelites had thought that the ark was the dwelling-place or the throne-seat of Yahweh, is nevertheless not correct. This opinion cannot be harmonized with this fact, that in the sources, dating from the same olden times, mention is made of His dwelling in many places in Canaan and outside of Canaan, so that the idea that His presence or even He Himself is confined to the ark is impossible. The statement of Moses, ?Rise up, O Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered? (Num_10:35), is not the command addressed to those who carry the ark to lift it up and thereby to lift Yahweh up for the journey, but is a demand made upon Yahweh, in accordance with His promise, to go ahead of Israel as the ark does. According to 1Sa_4:3 the Israelites did not say ?We want to go and get Yahweh,? but ?We want to go and get the ark of Yahweh, so that He may come into our midst.? They accordingly only wanted to induce Him to come by getting the ark. This, too, the priests and the soothsayers of the Philistines say: ?Do not permit the ark of the God of the Israelites to depart without sending a gift along,? but they do not speak thus of Yahweh. That Samuel, who slept near the ark, when he was addressed by Yahweh, did not at all at first think that Yahweh was addressing him, proves that at that time the view did not prevail that He was in the ark or had His seat upon it. Ancient Israel was accordingly evidently of the conviction that the ark was closely connected with Yahweh, that something of His power was inherent in the ark; consequently the feeling prevailed that when near the ark they were in a special way in the presence of and near to the Lord. But this is something altogether different from the opinion that the ark was the seat or the dwelling-place of Yahweh. Even if the old Israelites, on account of the crudeness of antique methods of thought, were not conscious of the greatness of this difference, the fact that this difference was felt is not a matter of doubt. That the ark was built to embody the presence of God among His people is just as clear from the statements of the Elohist, and probably also of the Jahwist, as it is from those of the Priestly Code (P); and if these have accordingly regarded the tables of the law as constituting the contents of the ark, then this is in perfect harmony with their views of this purpose, and we too must cling to these same views. For what would have been better adapted to make the instrument which represents the presence of God more suitable for this than the stone tables with the Ten Words, through which Yahweh had made known to His people His ethical character? For this very purpose it had to be an ark. The words on these tables were a kind of a spiritual portrait of the God of Israel, who could not be pictured in a bodily form. In this shape nobody in ancient Israel has formulated this thought, but that this thought was present is certain.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
The word here used for ark is, as already explained, different from that which is applied to the ark of Noah. It is the common name for a chest or coffer, whether applied to the ark in the tabernacle, to a coffin, to a mummy-chest (Gen_50:26), or to a chest for money (2Ki_12:9-10). Our word ark has the same meaning, being derived from the Latin arca, a chest. The distinction between aron and the present word has already been suggested. The sacred chest is distinguished from others as the 'ark of God' (1Sa_3:3); 'ark of the covenant' (Jos_3:6); and 'ark of the law' (Exo_25:22). This ark was a kind of chest, of an oblong shape, made of shittim (acacia) wood, a cubit and a half broad and high, two cubits long, and covered on all sides with the purest gold. It was ornamented on its upper surface with a border or rim of gold; and on each of the two sides, at equal distances from the top, were two gold rings, in which were placed (to remain there perpetually) the gold-covered poles by which the ark was carried, and which continued with it after it was deposited in the tabernacle. The lid or cover of the ark was of the same length and breadth, and made of the purest gold. Over it, at the two extremities, were two cherubim, with their faces turned towards each other, and inclined a little towards the lid (otherwise called the mercy seat). Their wings, which were spread out over the top of the ark, formed the throne of God, the King of Israel, while the ark itself was his footstool (Exo_25:10-22; Exo_37:1-9).
This ark was the most sacred object among the Israelites: it was deposited in the innermost and holiest part of the tabernacle, called 'the holy of holies' (and afterwards in the corresponding apartment of the Temple), where it stood so that one end of each of the poles by which it was carried (which were drawn out so far as to allow the ark to be placed against the back wall), touched the veil which separated the two apartments of the tabernacle (1Ki_8:8). In the ark were deposited the tables of the law (Exo_25:16). A quantity of manna was laid up beside the ark in a vase of gold (Exo_16:32; Exo_16:36; 1Ki_8:9); as were also the rod of Aaron (Num_17:10), and a copy of the book of the law (Deu_31:26).
Nothing is more apparent throughout the historical Scriptures than the extreme sanctity which attached to the ark, as the material symbol of the Divine presence. During the marches of the Israelites it was covered with a purple pall, and borne by the priests, with great reverence and care, in advance of the host (Num_4:5-6; Num_10:33). It was before the ark, thus in advance, that the waters of the Jordan separated; and it remained in the bed of the river, with the attendant priests, until the whole host had passed over; and no sooner was it also brought up than the waters resumed their course (Joshua 3; Jos_4:7; Jos_4:10-11; Jos_4:17-18). The ark was similarly conspicuous in the grand procession round Jericho (Jos_6:4; Jos_6:6; Jos_6:8; Jos_6:11-12). It is not wonderful therefore that the neighboring nations, who had no notion of spiritual worship, looked upon it as the God of the Israelites (1Sa_4:6-7), a delusion which may have been strengthened by the figures of the cherubim on it. After the settlement of the Jews in Palestine, the ark remained in the tabernacle at Shiloh, until, in the time of Eli, it was carried along with the army in the war against the Philistines, under the superstitious notion that it would secure the victory to the Hebrews. They were, however, not only beaten, but the ark itself was taken by the Philistines (1Sa_4:3-11), whose triumph was, however, very short lived, as they were so oppressed by the hand of God, that, after seven months, they were glad to send it back again (1Sa_5:7). After that it remained apart from the tabernacle, at Kirjath-jearim (1Sa_7:1-2), where it continued until the time of David, who purposed to remove it to Jerusalem; but the old prescribed mode of removing it from place to place was so much neglected as to cause the death of Uzzah, in consequence of which it was left in the house of Obededom (2Sa_6:1-11); but after three months David took courage, and succeeded in effecting its safe removal, in grand procession, to Mount Zion (2Sa_6:12-19). When the Temple of Solomon was completed, the ark was deposited in the sanctuary (1Ki_8:6-9). The passage in 2Ch_35:3, in which Josiah directs the Levites to restore the ark to the holy place, is understood by some to imply that it had either been removed by Amon, who put an idol in its place, which is assumed to have been the 'trespass' of which he is said to have been guilty (2Ch_33:23); or that the priests themselves had withdrawn it during idolatrous times, and preserved it in some secret place, or had removed it from one place to another. But it seems more likely that it had been taken from the holy of holies during the purification and repairs of the temple by this same Josiah, and that he, in this passage, merely directs it to be again set in its place. What became of the ark when the Temple was plundered and destroyed by the Babylonians is not known, and all conjecture is useless. It is certain, however, from the consent of all the Jewish writers, that the old ark was not contained in the second temple, and there is no evidence that any new one was made. Indeed the absence of the ark is one of the important particulars in which this temple was held to be inferior to that of Solomon. The most holy place is therefore generally considered to have been empty in the second temple.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.
The mercy-seat supporting the cherubim, one at each end, was on the lid, with a crown or raised border, and was Jehovah's mystical throne. It had rings at the four grainers for the two staves to pass through, wherewith the Kohathite Levites or priests carried it. The staves were permanently in the rings. Within e veil was its proper place, the ends of the staves, however, being visible, in Solomon's temple, in the outer holy place. When carried about, the ark was wrapped in the veil, the badger's skin, and blue cloth. Its title, "the ark of the testimony," implies its purpose, namely, to keep intact God's "covenant" written by God on the two stone tables (Exo_34:28), as the sacred deposit of the Israelite church (Exo_25:22; Num_10:33).
The outward keeping taught symbolically the moral and spiritual keeping of God's commandments. In the wilderness "the ark of the covenant of the Lord went before them in the three days' journey to search out a resting place for them; and when the ark set forward, Moses said, Rise up, Lord, and let Thine enemies be scattered, and let them that hate Thee flee before Thee. And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel" (Num_10:33-36; Psa_68:1; Psa_132:8). At the passage of the Jordan it was when the ark was borne by the priests and their feet had touched the water, that an open way was made for Israel. Only when the material ark, apart from obedience, was expected to give that favor of God which only obedience to the law contained within the ark could ensure, did God "deliver His strength" (the pledge of God's strengthening His people) "into captivity and His glory into the enemy's hands" (Psa_78:61; 1Sa_4:11).
When the ark was taken the "glory" was departed (1Sa_4:21-22). The ark and the sanctuary were "the beauty of Israel" (Lam_2:1). The antitype, Messiah, goes before His redeemed, exploring their way through the wilderness, making clear passage through death's waters into the heavenly Canaan. Like the ark with the Philistines Messiah was the captive of the grave for a brief space, but with triumph He rose again; and as when the ark went up to the tabernacle reared for it by David on Zion, so on Christ's ascending the heavenly mount the glorious anthem arose: "Lift up your heads, O ye gates, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in" (Psalm 24). Every Dagon must fall before Him now; for even in His temporary captivity in death the powers of darkness were crushed before Him (Col_2:14-15; Mat_27:50-54). As the ark blessed the house of Obed Edom, so Christ is the true bestower of blessings (Act_3:20).
The restriction of the ark's contents to the decalogue implies that this is the central core of all the various precepts, the moral end for which the positive precepts were given. They were in the innermost shrine, to mark their perpetually obligatory nature and the holiness of God; in the ark, the type of Christ, to mark that in Him alone, "the Lord our righteousness," they find their perfect realization. 1Ki_8:9 states there was nothing in the ark of Solomon's temple save the two stone tables of the law; but Heb_9:4 states there were also the golden pot of manna (the memorial of God's providential care of Israel), and Aaron's rod that budded (the memorial of the lawful priesthood, Num_17:3-10). Probably by the time of Solomon the other two relics had been lost, perhaps when the ark was in the hands of the Philistines. "Before the Lord" and "before the testimony" was where they were directed to be laid up (Exo_16:32-36).
The mercy-seat was not merely regarded as the lid of the ark, but as the most important feature in the holiest place (Exo_25:17; Exo_26:34; Lev_16:2), the only meeting place between God and man. It was the (caporeth) or covering, not merely of the ark. but (when sprinkled with the sacrificial blood once a year on the great day of atonement) of Israel's sins against the law contained within the ark. Hence it is called in the Septuagint "the propitiatory" (hilasterion); and Christ, the true mercy-seat (Psa_85:10) and place of meeting between the holy God and guilty man, is called the very same (Rom_3:25), "propitiation," lit. propitiatory. In 1Ch_28:11 the holiest is called" the place of the mercy-seat," so prominent was the latter in symbolical significance.
The ark was never seen save by the high priest; symbol of God whom no man can see, and whose likeness is only to be seen in Christ (Joh_1:18; Heb_1:3), the true Ark, and our High Priest with the Father. Thus every tendency to idolatry was excluded, an ark occupying the central place of holiness, and that seen only once a year by the one religious representative of the people. Even it is to be superseded in the coming temple at. Jerusalem, when "they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord, neither shall it come to mind, neither shall they re. member it"; for Jehovah Jesus, the Antitype, will be there, "at that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord, and all the nations shall be gathered unto it" (Jer_3:16). The absence of the ark after its capture by the Philistines possibly impaired the reverential awe felt toward it (1Ch_13:3; 1Ch_13:9). But the stroke on Uzza, and the rearing of the tabernacle for it in Zion by David, after its long abode of 20 years in Kirjath Jearim, in Abinadab's house, recovered for it all its sanctity.
The altar of burnt offering where the sacrifices were offered continued separate from it at Gibeon, the "great high place" (1Ki_3:4) (in the tabernacle of the ark on Zion the service was song and praise alone) until the two were reunited in the temple of Solomon, a type of the gospel separation of the spiritual service of prayer and praise going on here below, from the priestly intercession being carried on above by our Lord Jesus. The spiritual and the literal priestly services will perhaps be reunited in Ezekiel's millennial temple at Jerusalem, one antitype to Solomon's temple. Compare Act_15:16-17. Manasseh set up an idol, a carved image, instead of the ark which contained the testimony against him. Josiah restored it to its place in the house of God (2Ch_33:7; 2Ch_35:3).
The ark was wanting in the second temple, having been probably burnt with the temple (2Ch_36:19); compare (apocryphal) 2 Esdras 10:22, "the ark of our covenant is spoiled." Its absence was one of the points wherein the second was inferior to the first temple. (See ALTAR.) There must have been some substitute for it, on which to sprinkle the blood, in the holiest, on the great day of atonement; the Jews mention an altar stone, slightly raised from the floor. Pagan nations too had their mystic arks (whence arcanum is the term for a mystery), but so distinct in use from the Mosaic that the differences are more prominent than the resemblances.
The Egyptian arks (on their monuments) were, like the Hebrew ark, carried by poles on men's shoulders. Some had too on the cover two winged figures like cherubim; but between these was the material symbol of a deity, and the arks were carried about in procession to make a show before the people. The ark of the covenant on the contrary was marked by the absence of any symbol of God. It was never carried in procession. When moved it was carefully covered up from the eyes even of the Levites who bore it (Num_4:5-6; Num_4:19-20): "they shall not go in to see when the holy things are covered, lest they die." Compare 1Sa_6:19. In the tabernacle the ark was withdrawn from view in the mysterious holy of holies.
It was not moved from its "rest" (Psa_132:8; Psa_132:14) when once Jerusalem became the fixed capital, and the hill of Zion God's chosen seat, until its forcible removal under Nebuchadnezzar; God giving up the apostate Jews to the pagan world power. Previously it had a few times accompanied the army (1Sa_4:3; 1Sa_14:18; 2Sa_11:11). But from the first rest was appointed as its final condition, and under David it obtained that "rest" (Deu_12:10-11; 1Ch_6:31; 1Ch_16:1). Its simple and grand purpose was to be the casket containing the precious tables of stone written with the moral law by God Himself. The originality of the tabernacle furniture and arrangements is more striking than the superficial resemblances which have been traced to pagan usages.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.
Ark of the Covenant. The first piece of the Tabernacle's furniture, for which precise directions were delivered. Exodus 25.
I. Description. It appears to have been an oblong chest of shittim (acacia) wood, 2 1/2 cubits long by 1 1/2 broad and deep. Within and without, gold was overlaid on the wood, and on the upper side or lid, which was edged round about with gold, the Mercy-Seat was placed. The Ark was fitted with rings, one at each of the four corners, and through these were passed staves of the same wood similarly overlaid, by which it was carried by the Kohathites. Num_7:9; Num_10:21. The ends of the staves were visible without the veil in the Holy Place of the Temple of Solomon. 1Ki_8:8. The ark, when transported, was enveloped in the "veil" of the dismantled Tabernacle, in the curtain of badgers' skins and in a blue cloth over all, and was therefore not seen. Num_4:5; Num_4:20.
II. Its purpose was to contain inviolate the divine autograph of the two tables, that "covenant" from which it derived its title. It was also probably a reliquary for the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron.
III. History. Before David's time, its abode was frequently shifted. It sojourned among several, probably Levitical, families, 1Sa_7:1; 2Sa_6:3; 2Sa_6:11; 1Ch_13:13; 1Ch_15:24-25, in the border villages of eastern Judah; and did not take its place in the Tabernacle, but dwelt in curtains, that is, in a separate tent pitched for it in Jerusalem by David. Subsequently the Temple, when completed, received, in the installation of the Ark in its shrine, the signal of its inauguration by the effulgence of divine glory instantly manifested. It was probably taken captive or destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, 2Es_10:22, so that there was no Ark in the second Temple.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863
a small chest or coffer, three feet nine inches in length, two feet three inches in breadth, and two feet three inches in height; in which were contained the golden pot that had manna, Aaron's rod, and the tables of the covenant, Num_17:10; Heb_9:4. This coffer was made of shittim wood, and was covered with a lid, called the mercy seat, Exo_25:17-22, &c, which was of solid gold, at the two ends whereof were two figures, called cherubim, looking toward each other with expanded wings, which, embracing the whole circumference of the mercy seat, met in the middle. The whole, according to the rabbins, was made out of the same mass, without any of the parts being joined by solder. Over this it was that the Shechinah, or visible display of the divine presence in a luminous cloud rested, both in the tabernacle, and in the temple,
Lev_16:2; and from hence the divine oracles were given forth by an audible voice, as often as God was consulted in behalf of his people. Hence it is that God is said in Scripture to dwell between the cherubim, on the mercy seat, because there was the seat or throne of the visible appearance of his glory among them, 2Ki_19:15; 1Ch_13:6; Psa_80:1, &c; and for this reason the high priest appeared before the mercy seat once every year, on the great day of expiation, at which time he was to make his nearest approach to the divine presence, to mediate and make atonement for the whole people of Israel.
On the two sides of the ark there were four rings of gold, two on each side, through which staves, overlaid with gold, were put, by means whereof they carried it as they marched through the wilderness, &c, on the shoulders of the Levites, Exo_25:13-14; Exo_27:5. After the passage of the Jordan, the ark continued for some time at Gilgal, from whence it was removed to Shiloh. From this place the Israelites carried it to their camp, where, in an engagement with the Philistines, it fell into their hands. The Philistines, having gotten possession of the ark, carried it in triumph to one of their principal cities, named Ashdod, and placed it in the temple of Dagon, whose image fell to the ground and was broken. The Philistines also were so afflicted with emerods, that they afterward returned the ark with various presents; and it was lodged at Kirjath-Jearim, and afterward at Nob. David conveyed it to the house of Obededom, and from thence to his palace at Zion; and lastly, Solomon brought in into the temple which he had built at Jerusalem. It remained in the temple till the times of the last kings of Judah, who gave themselves up to idolatry, and even dared to place their idols in the holy temple itself. The priests, being unable to bear this profanation, took the ark and carried it from place to place, to preserve it from the hands of those impious princes. Josiah commanded them to bring it back to the sanctuary, and it was accordingly replaced, 2Ch_35:3. What became of the ark at the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, is a dispute among the rabbins. Had it been carried to Babylon with the other vessels of the temple, it would, in all probability, have been brought back with them at the close of the captivity. But that this was not the case, is agreed on all hands; whence it is probable that it was destroyed with the temple.
The ark of the covenant was, as it were, the centre of worship to all those of the Hebrew nation who served God according to the Levitical law; and not only in the temple, when they came thither to worship, but every where else in their dispersions through the whole world; whenever they prayed, they turned their faces toward the place where the ark stood, and directed all their devotions that way, Dan_6:10. Whence the author of the book of Cosri, justly says, that the ark, with the mercy seat and cherubim, were the foundation, root, heart, and marrow of the whole temple, and all the Levitical worship performed therein; and, therefore, had there been nothing else wanting in the second temple but the ark only, this alone would have been a sufficient reason for the old men to have wept when they remembered the first temple in which it stood; and for the saying of Hag_2:3, that the second temple was as nothing compared with the first; so great a share had the ark of the covenant in the glory of Solomon's temple. However, the defect was supplied as to the outward form, for in the second temple there was also an ark of the same dimensions with the first, and put in the same place; but it wanted the tables of the law, Aaron's rod, and the pot of manna; nor was there any appearance of the divine glory over it; nor any oracles delivered from it. The only use that was made of it was to be a representation of the former on the great day of expiation, and to be a repository of the Holy Scriptures, that is, of the original copy of that collection of them made by Ezra after the captivity; in imitation of which the Jews, in all their synagogues, have a like ark or coffer in which they keep their Scriptures.
For the temple of Solomon a new ark was not made; but he constructed cherubim in the most holy place, which were designed to give additional state to this most sacred symbol of God's grace and mercy. These cherubim were fifteen feet high, and were placed at equal distance from the centre of the ark and from each side of the wall, so that their wings being expanded, the two wings which were extended behind touched the wall, and the other two met over the ark and so overshadowed it. When these magnificent cherubim were finished, the ark was brought in and placed under their wings, 2Ch_5:7-10.
The ark was called the ark of the covenant, because it was a symbol of the covenant between God and his people. It was also named the ark of the testimony, because the two tables which were deposited in it were witnesses against every transgression.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.
kuv?e-nant (ארון הבּרית, 'ărōn ha-berı̄th):
I. The Statements of the Old Testament Concerning the Ark of The
Covenant.
1. Pentateuch
In Exo_25:10, Moses receives the command to build an ark of acacia wood. Within this ark were to be placed the tables of the law which God was about to give to Moses. Upon the top of the ark, probably not as a lid but above the lid, the כּפּרת, kappōreth, in the New Testament τὸ ἱλαστήριον, tó hilastḗrion (Heb_9:5), is to be placed, which was a golden plate upon which two cherubim, with raised wings and facing each other, covered the ark. From the place between the two cherubim God promises to speak to Moses, as often as He shall give him commands in reference to the Israelites.
The portion of the Pentateuch in which this is recorded is taken from the so-called Priest Codex (P). The reports of the Elohist (E) and the Jahwist (Jahwist) on this subject are wanting; but both of these sources report concerning the important role which the ark played in the entrance of Israel into Canaan, and these documents too must have contained the information that the people had received this ark. It can further with certainty be stated concerning the Elohist, and with some probability concerning the Jahwist, in what part of these documents these accounts were to be found. For Elohist reports in Exo_33:6 that the Israelites, in order to demonstrate their repentance on account of the golden calf, had at God's command laid aside their ornaments. In Exo_33:7-10 there follows a statement concerning the erection of the sacred tent; but this is explained only by the fact that between Exo_33:6 and Exo_33:7 a report concerning the erection of the ark of the covenant must have been found, which the R of the Pentateuch (since before this he had already made use of the much more exhaustive account of the Priest Codex) was compelled to omit. But that at this place the Elohist must have reported not only concerning the erection of the sacred tent but also of the construction of the ark of the covenant, is in itself probable, and can too be concluded from this, that according to the Deuteronomist, the composition of which is also conditioned upon that of the Elohist and the Jahwist, the ark was built on this occasion. We further conclude that it was not so much the tabernacle which could serve as a consolation to the people, something that at that time they needed, but rather the ark, which was to symbolize to them that God was on the march with them. In the Jahwist we do not indeed find at this place any statement concerning this sacred structure, but we do find the statement that the Israelites, out of sorrow because of the bad news brought by Moses, discarded their ornaments. For Exo_33:4 is taken from the Jahwist, since the Elohist contains the command to discard the ornaments later on, and hence could not have written Exo_33:4. Now it is a justifiable surmise that the Jahwist has also reported what use was made of the ornaments that had been discarded; and as this author, just as is the case with the Elohist, must have at some place contained a report concerning the construction of the ark, he certainly must have given this just at this place. The corresponding account in the Deuteronomist is found in Deu_10:1-5. Accordingly, then, all the four Pentateuch documents reported that Moses had built the ark at Sinai. The Deuteronomist, like the Priestly Code (P), says, that it was built of acacia wood. In the Elohistic narrative the subject is mentioned again in Num_10:33, where we read that the ark had preceded the people as they broke camp and marched from Sinai. At this place too the words are found which Moses was accustomed to speak when the ark began to move out and when it arrived at a halting-place.
2. Joshua
According to the narrative in Josh 3 the ark cooperated at the crossing of the Jordan in such a way that the waters of the river ceased to continue flowing as soon as the feet of the priests who were carrying the ark entered the water, and that it stood still above until these priests, after the people had crossed over, again left the bed of the river with the ark. In the account of the solemn march around Jericho, which according to Josh 6 caused the walls of the city to fall, the carrying of the ark around the city is regarded as an essential feature in Jos_6:4, Jos_6:7, Jos_6:11. In chapter 7 it is narrated that Joshua, after the defeat of the army before Ai, lamented and prayed before the ark. In chapter 8 this is mentioned in connection with Mount Ebal.
3. Other Historical Books
At the time of Eli the ark stood in the sanctuary at Shiloh (1Sa_3:3). From this place it was taken after Israel had been defeated by the Philistines at Ebenezer, in order to assure the help of Yahweh to the people; but, instead of this, the ark fell into the hands of the Philistines (1 Sam 4). But the various misfortunes that now afflicted the Philistines induced these to regard the possession of the ark as a calamity (1Sa_5:1-12) and they sent it back to Israel (1 Sam 6). It was brought first to Bethshemesh in the tribe of Judah, near the borders of the Philistines, and soon after to Kiriath-jearim, about 7.5 miles Northwest of Jerusalem. There the ark remained for years in the house of a man by the name of Abinadab, whose son was its guardian (1Sa_7:1), until David brought it to Mount Zion, after he had established his camp and court there. He there placed it in a tent prepared for it (2 Sam 6; 1Ch_13:1-14; 15). In David's time again the ark was taken along into battle (2Sa_11:11). When David fled from the presence of Absalom, the priests wanted to accompany him with the ark, but he sent it back (2Sa_15:24 f). David had also intended to build a temple, in which the ark was to find its place, since before this it had always found its resting-place in a tent. But God forbade this through Nathan, because He was willing to build a house for David, but was not willing that David should build one for Him (2 Sam 7). Solomon then built the temple and placed the ark of the covenant in the Holy of Holies of this temple, where it was placed under the wings of two mighty cherubim images (1 Ki 8; 2Ch_5:1-14).
4. Prophetical and Poetical Books
Jeremiah in the passage Jer_3:16, which certainly was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, states that in the future new Jerusalem nobody will any more concern himself about the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, and no one will again build such a one. In the post-exilic Ps 132 (Psa_132:8), Yahweh is petitioned to occupy together with the ark, the symbol of His omnipotent presence, also the sanctuary that has been erected for Him, the poet describing himself and those who sing this psalm as participants in the home-bringing of the ark by David. No further mention is made of the ark of the covenant in the Psalter or the prophetical books.
5. The New Testament
In the New Testament the ark of the covenant is mentioned only in Heb_9:4 in the description of the Solomonic temple.
II. The Form of the Ark of the Covenant
According to the statements in the Priestly Code (P), the ark of the covenant was a chest made out of acacia wood, 2 1/2 cubits (about equal to 4 ft.) long, 1 1/2 cubits wide and 1 1/2 high. That it was made out of acacia wood is also stated by the Deuteronomist in Deu_10:3. According to P it was covered with gold within and without, and was ornamented with a moulding of gold running all around it. At its four feet rings were added, through which the gold-covered carrying-staves were put. These staves are also mentioned in 1Ki_8:7, 1Ki_8:8; 2Ch_5:8, 2Ch_5:9, and mention is often made of those who carried the ark (2Sa_6:13; 2Sa_15:24). The correctness of these statements cannot be proved, but yet there is no reason to doubt them. Rather we might have reason to hesitate in clinging to the view that on the old ark there was really a golden kappōreth, but only because in olden times the possession of such valuables and their use for such a purpose would be doubtful. But on the basis of such reasons we could at most doubt whether the lid with its cherubim consisted of solid gold. That the cherubim were attached to or above the ark is not at all improbable. That Solomon placed the ark in the Holy of Holies between two massive cherubim figures (1Ki_6:19, 1Ki_6:23; 1Ki_8:6) does not prove that there were no cherubim figures on the ark itself, or even that those cherubim figures, which according to Exo_25:19 were found on the ark, were nothing else than those of Solomon's days in imagination transferred back to an earlier period (Vatke, Biblische Theologie, 1835, 333; Popper, Der biblische Bericht ?ber die Stiftsh?tte, 1862). In recent times the view has been maintained that the ark in reality was no ark at all but an empty throne. It was Reichel, in his work Vorhellenische G?tterkulte, who first expressed this view, and then Meinhold, Die Lade Jahwes, T?bingen, 1910, and Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1901, 593-617, who developed this view in the following manner. It is claimed that in the days of Moses a throne-like rock at Mount Sinai was regarded as the seat of Yahweh, and when the Israelites departed from Sinai they made for themselves a portable throne, and Yahweh was regarded as sitting visibly enthroned upon this and accompanying His people. In the main the same view was maintained by Martin Dibellius (Die Lade Jahwes, G?ttingen, 1906; Hermann Gunkel, Die Lade Jahwes ein Thronsitz, reprinted from the Zeitschrift f?r Missionskunde und Religionswissenschaft, Heidelberg, 1906). The occasion for this view was given by the fact that among the Persians and other people there were empty thrones of the gods, which were carried or hauled around in processions. The reasons for finding in the ark of the covenant such an empty throne are found chiefly in this, that the passages in the Old Testament, in which it seems that the presence of God is made conditional on the presence of the ark (compare Num_14:42-44), can be explained if the ark is regarded as a throne of Yahweh. However, empty thrones of the gods are found only among the Aryan people, and all of the passages of the Old Testament which refer to the ark can be easily explained without such a supposition. This view is to be rejected particularly for this reason, that in the Old Testament the ark is always described as an ark, and never as a throne or a seat; and because it is absolutely impossible to see what reason would have existed at a later period to state that it was an ark if it had originally been a throne. Dibelius and Gunkel appeal also particularly to this, that in several passages, of which 1Sa_4:4; 2Sa_6:2 are the oldest, Yahweh is declared to be enthroned on the cherubim. But this proves nothing, because He is not called ?He who is enthroned on the ark,? and the cherubim and the ark are two different things, even if there were cherubim on the lid of the ark. Compare the refutation of Meinhold and Dibelius by Budde (ZATW, 1901, 193-200, and Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1906, 489-507).
III. The Contents of the Ark of the Covenant
According to the Priestly Code the two tables of the law constituted the contents of the ark. In Exo_25:16; Exo_40:20, as also Deu_10:5, and, too, in 1Ki_8:9, we have the same testimony. The majority of the modern critics regard this as an unhistorical statement first concocted by.the so-called ?Deuteronomistic school.? Their reasons for this are the following: (1) The critics deny that the existence of the Mosaic tables of the law is a historical fact; (2) The critics declare that if these tables had really been in possession of the Israelites, they would not have been so foolish as to put them into a box which it was forbidden to open; (3) The critics declare that the views entertained in olden times on the importance of the ark cannot be reconciled with the presence of the tables in the ark. But we reply: (1) that the actual existence of the two tables of the law is denied without sufficient reasons; that the ten principal formulas of the Decalogue, as these are given in Ex 20 and Dt 5, come from Moses, must be insisted upon, and that according to Ex 34 other ten commandments had been written on these tables is incorrect. The laws in Exo_34:17-26 are not at all declared there to be the ten words which God intended to write upon the tables. But if Moses had prepared the tables for the commandments, then it is (2) only probable that he caused to be made a suitable chest for their preservation and their transportation through the desert. Now it might be thought that the view that the ark was so holy that it dared not be opened had originated only after the time of Moses. However, it is just as easily possible, that that importance had already been assigned by Moses to the tables in the ark which the sealed and carefully preserved copy of a business agreement would have and which is to be opened only in case of necessity (Jer_32:11-14). Such a case of necessity never afterward materialized, because the Israelites were never in doubt as to what was written on these tables. On a verbatim reading no stress was laid in olden times. (3) With regard to the importance of the ark according to the estimate placed upon it in the earlier period of Israel, we shall see later that the traditions in reference to the tables harmonize fully with this importance.
Of the modern critics who have rejected this tradition, some have thought that the ark was empty, and that the Israelites thought that Yahweh dwelt in it (Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 39), or that the empty chest was a kind of fetish (Schwally, Semitische Kriegsaltert?mer, 1901, I, 10). As a rule they believe that a stone image of Yahweh or two stones had been placed in the ark, these being possibly meteor stones, in which it was thought that some divine power was dwelling (Stade, Geschichte Israels, I, 458); or possibly stones that in some battle or other had been hurled and through which a victory had been won (Couard, ZATW, XII, 76); or possibly they were the stones which at the alliance of the tribes that dwelt about Mount Sinai were first set up as testimonials of this covenant (Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im Alten Testament, 216). Of these views only the one which declares that the ark contained meteor stones deserves any notice, because it could indeed be thought possible that Israel would have taken with them on their journey through the desert such stones which they could have regarded as pledges of the Divine Presence fallen from heaven and could have preserved these in a sacred ark. But it is impossible to show that this view is probable, not to speak of proving it to be correct. The only extant tradition says that the ark contained the tables of the law, and this is the only view that is in harmony with what we must think of the whole work of Moses. Finally we must again remember that it is probable that Elohist and Jahwist, who speak both of the ark and also of the tables of the law, in the portions of these documents which have not been preserved, reported also that the tables were placed in the ark.
IV. The Names of the Ark of the Covenant
The name ?ark of the covenant of Yahweh? was not originally found everywhere where it now stands, but in many places the words ?of the covenant? were added later. However, the expression ?ark of the covenant? is found in the oldest source of the Book of Sam (2Sa_15:24), and in 1Ki_3:15 in the old source for the history of Solomon, of which the Deuteronomistic author of the Book of Kings made use; in 1Ki_8:1, a very old account of the building of the temple; and the genuineness of the expression ?ark of the covenant? in these passages is not with any good reasons to be called into question. Further the expression is found in the books of Numbers and Joshua, in a number of passages (Num_10:33; Num_14:44; Jos_3:3, Jos_3:6, Jos_3:8; Jos_4:9, Jos_4:18; Jos_6:6, Jos_6:8), which in all probability belong to the document of Elohist. It appears that the Elohist designates the ark as the ?ark of the covenant of God,? or more briefly; as the ?ark of the covenant,? unless in a connected narrative he writes only ?the ark,? while in the Jahwist the principal appellation was ?ark of Yahweh, the Lord of the whole earth? (compare Lotz, Die Bundeslade, 1901, 30-36). From this we must conclude that the appellation ?ark of the covenant of Yahweh? must go back to very ancient times, and we must reject the view that this term took the place of the term ?ark of Yahweh? in consequence of a change of views with reference to the ark, brought about through Deuteronomy. Indeed, since the name ?ark of the covenant,? as is proved by the Elohist, was nowhere mor e in use than in Ephraim, where they did not possess the ark and accordingly would have had the least occasion to introduce a new name for it, it can be accepted that the name originated in the oldest times, namely those of Moses. The other expression ?ark of Yahweh? may be just as old and need not be an abbreviation of the other. It was possible to designate the ark as ?ark of Yahweh? because it was a sanctuary belonging to Yahweh; and it was possible to call it also ?the ark of the covenant of Yahweh,? because it was a monument and evidence of the covenant which Yahweh had made with Israel. It is for this reason not correct to translate the expression 'arōn berı̄th Yahweh by ?the ark of the law of Yahweh,? as equivalent to ?the ark which served as a place for preserving the law of the covenant.? For berı̄th does not signify ?law,? even if it was possible under certain circumstances to call a covenant ?law? figuratively and synecdochically the ?covenant?; and when 1Ki_8:21 speaks of ?the ark wherein is the covenant of Yahweh,? the next words, ?which he made with our fathers,? show that covenant does not here mean ?law,? but rather the covenant relationship which in a certain sense is embodied in the tables.
In P the ark is also called ?the ark of the testimony,? and this too does not signify ?ark of the law.? For not already in P but only in later documents did the word ‛ēdhūth receive the meaning of ?law? (Lotz, Die Bundeslade, 40). P means by ?testimony? the Ten Words, through the proclamation of which the true God has given evidence of His real essence. But where this testimony is found engraved in the handwriting of God on the tables of stone, just there also is the place where He too is to be regarded as locally present.
V. The History of the Ark of the Covenant
According to the tradition contained in the Pentateuch the sacred ark was built at Mount Sinai and was taken by the Israelites along with them to Canaan. This must be accepted as absolutely correct. The supposition is groundless, that it was a shrine that the Israelites had taken over from the Canaanites. This view is refuted by the high estimate in which in Eli's time the ark was held by all Israel (1 Sam 1ff; 1Ki_2:22); and especially by the fact that the ark was at that time regarded as the property of that God who had brought Israel out of Egypt, and accordingly had through this ark caused the Canaanites to be conquered (1Sa_4:8; 1Sa_6:6; 2Sa_7:6; 1Ki_12:28). The opinion also that the ark was an ancient palladium of the tribe of Ephraim or of the descendants of Joseph and was only at a later period recognized by all Israel (Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, I, 458) is not tenable, for we hear nothing to the effect that the descendants of Joseph concerned themselves more for the ark than the other tribes did. In the time of Eli the ark stood in the sanctuary at Shiloh. When Israel had been conquered by the Philistines, the ark was taken from Shiloh in order that Yahweh should aid His people. But notwithstanding this the Philistines yet conquered and captured the ark (1Sa_5:1-12). But the many misfortunes that overtook them made them think that the possession of the ark was destructive to them and they sent it back (1 Sam 6). The ark first came to Bethshemesh, in the tribe of Judah, and then to Kiriath-jearim (or Baale-judah, 2Sa_6:2), about 7.5 miles Northwest of Jerusalem. There the ark remained for many years until David, after he had taken possession of Mount Zion, took it there (2 Sam 6) and deposited it in a tent. Solomon brought it into the Holy of Holies in the temple (1Ki_8:3-8), where in all probability it remained until the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar; for Jer_3:16 proves that the Israelites felt that they were in possession of the ark up to this time.
VI. The Significance of the Ark
According to many investigators the ark was originally a war sanctuary. In favor of this it can be urged that Israel took it into their camp, in order that they might receive the help of Yahweh in the battle with the Philistines (1 Sam 4); and further that also in the time of David the ark was again taken along into battle (2Sa_11:11; compare Psa_24:1-10); note also the word of Moses, which he spoke when the ark was taken up to be carried: ?Rise up, O Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered? (Num_10:35). However, nothing of what we know or presuppose concerning the form and the contents of the ark points to an original military purpose of the same; and in the other statements that are found elsewhere concerning the ark, a much more general significance is assigned to it. The significance which the ark had for the Israelites in connection with their wars is only the outcome of its signification as the symbol of the presence of Yahweh, who was not at all a God of war, but when His people were compelled to fight was their helper in the struggle.
A Symbol of the Divine Presence
That the ark was designed to be a symbol of the presence of God in the midst of His people is the common teaching of the Old Testament. According to the Elohist the ark was made to serve as a comfort to the people for this, that they were to leave the mountain where God had caused them to realize His presence (Exo_30:6). According to the Priestly Code (P), God purposed to speak with Moses from the place between the cherubim upon the ark. According to Jdg_2:1, the angel of Yahweh spoke in Bethel (Bochim) in reproof and exhortation to the people, after the ark of the covenant had been brought to that place; for the comparison of Num_10:33 and Exo_23:20 shows that Jdg_2:1 is to be understood as speaking of the transfer of the ark to Bethel. When Israel in the time of Eli was overpowered by the Philistines, the Israelites sent for the ark, in order that Yahweh should come into the camp of Israel, and this was also believed to be the case by the Philistines (1Sa_4:3). After the ark had come to Bethshemesh and a pestilence had broken out there, the people did not want to keep the ark, because no one could live in the presence of Yahweh, this holy God (1Sa_6:20); and Jeremiah says (Jer_3:16, Jer_3:17) that an ark of the covenant would not be again made after the restoration of Israel, but then Jerusalem would be called the ?throne of Yahweh,? i.e. it would so manifestly be the city of God that it would guarantee the presence of God at least just as much as the ark formerly did.
In olden times these things appeared more realistic to the people than they do to us; and when the ark was considered the visible representation of the presence of Yahweh, and as guaranteeing His presence, a close material connection was thought to exist between the ark and Yahweh, by virtue of which Divine powers were also thought to be present in the ark. The people at Bethshemesh were not willing to keep the ark any longer in their midst, because they could not live in its near presence. David's dancing before the ark is regarded by him and by the narrator of the event as a dancing before the Lord (2Sa_6:5, 2Sa_6:14, 2Sa_6:21), and in 2Sa_7:5 God says, through Nathan, that He had wandered around in a tent since He had led the Israelites out of Egypt.
But the view advocated by some of the modern critics, that the Israelites had thought that the ark was the dwelling-place or the throne-seat of Yahweh, is nevertheless not correct. This opinion cannot be harmonized with this fact, that in the sources, dating from the same olden times, mention is made of His dwelling in many places in Canaan and outside of Canaan, so that the idea that His presence or even He Himself is confined to the ark is impossible. The statement of Moses, ?Rise up, O Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered? (Num_10:35), is not the command addressed to those who carry the ark to lift it up and thereby to lift Yahweh up for the journey, but is a demand made upon Yahweh, in accordance with His promise, to go ahead of Israel as the ark does. According to 1Sa_4:3 the Israelites did not say ?We want to go and get Yahweh,? but ?We want to go and get the ark of Yahweh, so that He may come into our midst.? They accordingly only wanted to induce Him to come by getting the ark. This, too, the priests and the soothsayers of the Philistines say: ?Do not permit the ark of the God of the Israelites to depart without sending a gift along,? but they do not speak thus of Yahweh. That Samuel, who slept near the ark, when he was addressed by Yahweh, did not at all at first think that Yahweh was addressing him, proves that at that time the view did not prevail that He was in the ark or had His seat upon it. Ancient Israel was accordingly evidently of the conviction that the ark was closely connected with Yahweh, that something of His power was inherent in the ark; consequently the feeling prevailed that when near the ark they were in a special way in the presence of and near to the Lord. But this is something altogether different from the opinion that the ark was the seat or the dwelling-place of Yahweh. Even if the old Israelites, on account of the crudeness of antique methods of thought, were not conscious of the greatness of this difference, the fact that this difference was felt is not a matter of doubt. That the ark was built to embody the presence of God among His people is just as clear from the statements of the Elohist, and probably also of the Jahwist, as it is from those of the Priestly Code (P); and if these have accordingly regarded the tables of the law as constituting the contents of the ark, then this is in perfect harmony with their views of this purpose, and we too must cling to these same views. For what would have been better adapted to make the instrument which represents the presence of God more suitable for this than the stone tables with the Ten Words, through which Yahweh had made known to His people His ethical character? For this very purpose it had to be an ark. The words on these tables were a kind of a spiritual portrait of the God of Israel, who could not be pictured in a bodily form. In this shape nobody in ancient Israel has formulated this thought, but that this thought was present is certain.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.
The word here used for ark is, as already explained, different from that which is applied to the ark of Noah. It is the common name for a chest or coffer, whether applied to the ark in the tabernacle, to a coffin, to a mummy-chest (Gen_50:26), or to a chest for money (2Ki_12:9-10). Our word ark has the same meaning, being derived from the Latin arca, a chest. The distinction between aron and the present word has already been suggested. The sacred chest is distinguished from others as the 'ark of God' (1Sa_3:3); 'ark of the covenant' (Jos_3:6); and 'ark of the law' (Exo_25:22). This ark was a kind of chest, of an oblong shape, made of shittim (acacia) wood, a cubit and a half broad and high, two cubits long, and covered on all sides with the purest gold. It was ornamented on its upper surface with a border or rim of gold; and on each of the two sides, at equal distances from the top, were two gold rings, in which were placed (to remain there perpetually) the gold-covered poles by which the ark was carried, and which continued with it after it was deposited in the tabernacle. The lid or cover of the ark was of the same length and breadth, and made of the purest gold. Over it, at the two extremities, were two cherubim, with their faces turned towards each other, and inclined a little towards the lid (otherwise called the mercy seat). Their wings, which were spread out over the top of the ark, formed the throne of God, the King of Israel, while the ark itself was his footstool (Exo_25:10-22; Exo_37:1-9).
This ark was the most sacred object among the Israelites: it was deposited in the innermost and holiest part of the tabernacle, called 'the holy of holies' (and afterwards in the corresponding apartment of the Temple), where it stood so that one end of each of the poles by which it was carried (which were drawn out so far as to allow the ark to be placed against the back wall), touched the veil which separated the two apartments of the tabernacle (1Ki_8:8). In the ark were deposited the tables of the law (Exo_25:16). A quantity of manna was laid up beside the ark in a vase of gold (Exo_16:32; Exo_16:36; 1Ki_8:9); as were also the rod of Aaron (Num_17:10), and a copy of the book of the law (Deu_31:26).
Nothing is more apparent throughout the historical Scriptures than the extreme sanctity which attached to the ark, as the material symbol of the Divine presence. During the marches of the Israelites it was covered with a purple pall, and borne by the priests, with great reverence and care, in advance of the host (Num_4:5-6; Num_10:33). It was before the ark, thus in advance, that the waters of the Jordan separated; and it remained in the bed of the river, with the attendant priests, until the whole host had passed over; and no sooner was it also brought up than the waters resumed their course (Joshua 3; Jos_4:7; Jos_4:10-11; Jos_4:17-18). The ark was similarly conspicuous in the grand procession round Jericho (Jos_6:4; Jos_6:6; Jos_6:8; Jos_6:11-12). It is not wonderful therefore that the neighboring nations, who had no notion of spiritual worship, looked upon it as the God of the Israelites (1Sa_4:6-7), a delusion which may have been strengthened by the figures of the cherubim on it. After the settlement of the Jews in Palestine, the ark remained in the tabernacle at Shiloh, until, in the time of Eli, it was carried along with the army in the war against the Philistines, under the superstitious notion that it would secure the victory to the Hebrews. They were, however, not only beaten, but the ark itself was taken by the Philistines (1Sa_4:3-11), whose triumph was, however, very short lived, as they were so oppressed by the hand of God, that, after seven months, they were glad to send it back again (1Sa_5:7). After that it remained apart from the tabernacle, at Kirjath-jearim (1Sa_7:1-2), where it continued until the time of David, who purposed to remove it to Jerusalem; but the old prescribed mode of removing it from place to place was so much neglected as to cause the death of Uzzah, in consequence of which it was left in the house of Obededom (2Sa_6:1-11); but after three months David took courage, and succeeded in effecting its safe removal, in grand procession, to Mount Zion (2Sa_6:12-19). When the Temple of Solomon was completed, the ark was deposited in the sanctuary (1Ki_8:6-9). The passage in 2Ch_35:3, in which Josiah directs the Levites to restore the ark to the holy place, is understood by some to imply that it had either been removed by Amon, who put an idol in its place, which is assumed to have been the 'trespass' of which he is said to have been guilty (2Ch_33:23); or that the priests themselves had withdrawn it during idolatrous times, and preserved it in some secret place, or had removed it from one place to another. But it seems more likely that it had been taken from the holy of holies during the purification and repairs of the temple by this same Josiah, and that he, in this passage, merely directs it to be again set in its place. What became of the ark when the Temple was plundered and destroyed by the Babylonians is not known, and all conjecture is useless. It is certain, however, from the consent of all the Jewish writers, that the old ark was not contained in the second temple, and there is no evidence that any new one was made. Indeed the absence of the ark is one of the important particulars in which this temple was held to be inferior to that of Solomon. The most holy place is therefore generally considered to have been empty in the second temple.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.
BUSCADAVERDADE
Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!
Saiba Mais
-
Nutrição
Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12 -
Receita
Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada -
Arqueologia
Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
Tags