An interesting point in the
comparison of the ark with the ancient Near Eastern cultic images is the idea of
the divinization of the images. This made the image holy and able to represent
the deity. With respect to the ark, while it was not consubstantial with Yhwh,
something of the being of Yhwh dwelled there. The ark as a site for Yhwh’s
dwelling was consecrated and made holy in order to perform this function. This
made it more than just a box; it was Yhwh’s dwelling place and therefore required
reverence. The ark was not an image of Yhwh, nor was it coterminous with Yhwh;
but something of Yhwh’s being was present in the ark. This made what one did
with the ark important. (Mark Enemali, “Divine Presence in the Ark of the
Covenant in 1 Samuel 4:1b-7:1,” in God and Gods in the Deuteronomistic
History, ed. Corrine Carvalho and John McLaughlin [The Catholic Biblical
Quarterly Monograph Series 2; Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2020], 116)
Israel’s mishandling of the ark
leads to its defeat and the abandonment of the army. Without the one who sits
above the ark, the army does not exist. This idea points to the crucial role of
the ark and the need to care for it. A question that comes to mind immediately is,
What is the status of the ark? Is it a covenant repository or God’s throne? The
meaning of the ark is a problem based on the evidence from the Bible. The ark
is a tangible representation of divine presence. The nature of this presence is
understood in different ways by the different traditions in the Bible. In some traditions,
the ark is understood to be the physical manifestation of God’s presence, as it
is God’s throne or footstool. In other traditions, it only bears the name of
God or carries the tablets of the covenant.
Roland de Vaux sees no
contradiction between the views of the ark as God’s throne and as a covenant
repository, since both refer to some form of God’s presence. McCarter, however,
finds a contradiction based on Near Eastern materials. The view of the ark as
the visible representation of the divine presence is in line with the idea that
the presence of the ark was necessary in order for Israel to win any battle
(cf. Num 14:44). The ark is the guiding center (Num 10:33-36), and it precedes
the people in battle (Joshua 3-4). It plays a significant role in the siege of
Jericho (Joshua 6). The military role of the ark comes to the fore here. (Mark
Enemali, “Divine Presence in the Ark of the Covenant in 1 Samuel 4:1b-7:1,” in God
and Gods in the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Corrine Carvalho and John
McLaughlin [The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 2; Eugene, Oreg.:
Pickwick Publications, 2020], 118)
The idea of the ark as a
representation of the presence of the God of Israel can be seen in the role the
ark played in the priestly tabernacle or the temple of Solomon in comparison to
the role the image played in the ancient Near Eastern temple, which functioned
as the house of God. We can see this in several ways. The biblical accounts of
the construction and dedication of the Priestly tabernacle (Exodus 25-31;
35-40; Leviticus 8-10; Numbers 7) and the temple of Solomon (1 Kgs 5:15-9:25;
cf. 1 Chronicles 17-2 Chronicles 8) show a literary pattern that is common in
the ancient Near East.
. . .
There is, however, no
identification of the ark and Yhwh. The ark is “the incarnation of Yhwh’s
sovereign power and will,” an “extension” of Yhwh’s extraordinarily powerful Personality.”
. . .
There is a real presence of Yhwh
in the ark and the temple. It is important to point out, however, that even
though we see a close relation between the understanding of the cultic statue in
the ancient Near East as presence of the divinity and the ark as presence of
the divinity, there is some difference with the understanding in the Priestly
source. In the Pristly source there is a clear aniconic position. The ark is
not the image of Yhwh. It does not correspond to the form of Yhwh in the way
that the Mesopotamian statue may correspond to the form of the deity it represents.
The form or image of Yhwh cannot be represented in that sense (cf. Exod 20:4; Deut
5:8). The being of Yhwh is interwoven with the ark in the sense that it is the
tangible representation of the invisible deity.
Since the ark represents God, it
is a source of destructive and protective power and should be handled with
care. The Israelites are defeated because they failed to handle this presence
with care. The Philistines are plagued because they mishandle the divine
presence, and their god is defeated in the divine combat. As the ark returns to
the Israelites, the men of Beth-shemesh are smitten either because they looked
on the ark, which was taboo, as the MT might suggest, or because they were not
members of the priestly family, as the LXX and Josephus may suggest. The LXX says
that the sons of Jaconiah did not join with the people in celebration when they
saw the ark of Yhwh. As Josephus’s A.J. 6.16 shows, the sons of Jeconiah
were priests. That is why their absence is significant. The problem here is
that the Beth-shemeshites treat the ark with unclean hands. It remains uncertain
what they actually did. The only clear fact is that they fail to treat the ark
with the appropriate reverence. That is why they are smitten. At Perez-uzza,
Uzza is smitten for unlawfully touching the ark (2 Sam 6:6-7). In some sense or
other, the idea of the presence of God as being dangerous that developed in the
Priestly tradition of the Pentateuch is reflected here. The ark is the locus
for the physical manifestation of God, and what one does to this concreate objects
is a matter of highest concern because what is done to it is done to God. (Mark
Enemali, “Divine Presence in the Ark of the Covenant in 1 Samuel 4:1b-7:1,” in God
and Gods in the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Corrine Carvalho and John
McLaughlin [The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 2; Eugene, Oreg.:
Pickwick Publications, 2020], 122-23, 124-25)
