1 Samuel 6 (2)

The Ark among the Philistines (1 Sam 5:1–7:1)

Section Introduction

The Philistines’ capture of the ark is not the only time in Israel’s history when sacred articles from the tabernacle or temple were carried off by pagan armies. Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon carried off the ark and sacred vessels of the temple in 600 BC, and the Roman general Titus carried off their equivalents in the Herodian temple in AD 70. The reliefs on the Arch of Titus in Jerusalem depict the later and show the golden Menorah as among the items carried off by the victors. In the former case we are shown how God punished the Babylonians for desecrating these items at Belshazar’s feast described in Dan 5:22–31. We have no idea what happened to the items Titus brought to Rome.

In a sense, a god who is invisible and has no cult* statue would seem to be protected against enemies carrying him off after defeating his people in battle. Military annals, such as that of the Hittite king Ḫattušili I, list among the plunder the cult* statues of the deities worshiped by peoples whom they conquered. Sometimes these statues were returned or recovered years later, as was the case in several instances, including: the famous statue of the god Marduk carried off from Babylon to Ḫana by the Hittite king Muršili I (r. 1556–1526 BC) and recovered by Agum II of Babylonia (c. 1450 BC), the statues of Marduk and his divine entourage carried off to Assyria by Tukulti-Ninurta I and returned many years later by Esarhaddon,497 and the statue of Marduk recovered by Nebuchadnezzar I from its exile in Elam. But even an invisible god like Yahweh eventually had a temple that could be plundered and cult* furniture that could be carried off by enemies—including Yahweh’s principal item of “furniture,” the ark of the covenant. Thus, the “exile” of the ark forms a kind of parallel to the various exiles of the statue of Marduk.

In this case, the “exile” was part of Yahweh’s plan: He chose to leave Shiloh and see it eventually razed to the ground because of the wickedness of his people and the family of their high priest. The ark’s “exile” was ended because of Yahweh’s punitive judgments on the Philistines and their god Dagon, not simply because it was recaptured by Israel’s armies. The period of its “exile” was also much shorter than that of Marduk’s statue.

Furthermore, the ark among the Philistines produces God’s wrath upon them, as did the presence of married Sarah in the harem of the pharaoh (Gen 12), of married Rebekah in the harem of King Abimelech (Gen 26), and of enslaved Israel in the land of Egypt (Exod 1–12). Viewed in this light, the ark represents God’s people in captivity, and the humiliation of the Philistine captors becomes part of a new exodus theme, which will be repeated centuries later in the Babylonian captivity of Israel.

The following quote from Bodner’s commentary describes well the scene in chap. 6, where the Philistines return the ark:

Since the heavy hand of the LORD has shown no signs of abating, the situation of the ark’s captivity is becoming increasingly desperate for the Philistines. Both Eli and his daughter-in-law have severe reactions to the news of the ark’s captivity, and the news induces premature death. The ark, however, has been rather unfazed during its Philistine “exile.” Less happy, no doubt, are the Philistine captors, as all their people “from the smallest to the greatest” are struck with panic and agonizing tumors. Furthermore, the strategy of simply sending the ark to another (Philistine) city is completely ineffective. Not only is each successive city struck with the same posterior malady, the Philistines are probably running out of cities as well. 1 Samuel 6 brings the ark’s sojourn outside of Israel to a close, and this chapter is structured in two parts. The first part of the chapter deals with the question of how best to the return the ark to its place, and indeed, to determine if it is itself the cause of all this calamity. To that end, a test is devised for determining such, and returning the ark. The second part of the chapter culminates in the return of the ark to Israelite territory. All is not pacific once it returns, however, and there is further damage caused by the ark within the boundaries of Israel.

Outline

I. Eli and Samuel (1 Sam 1:1–7:17)

E. The Ark among the Philistines (1 Sam 5:1–7:17)

1. Yahweh’s Judgment on the Philistine Cities (1 Sam 5:1–12)

2. What Guilt Offering? (1 Sam 6:1–9)

3. The Ark Sent Back (1 Sam 6:10–18)

4. From Beth-Shemesh to Kiriath-Jearim (1 Sam 6:19–21; 7:1)

5. Samuel Leads Israel to Victory at Ebenezer (1 Sam 7:2–17)

Selected Bibliography

Ackerman, J. S. “Who Can Stand Before YHWH, This Holy God? A Reading of I Samuel 1–15.” Proof 2 (1991): 1–24.

Blenkinsopp, J. “Kiriath-Jearim and the Ark.” JBL 88 (1969): 143–56.

Brentjes, B. “Zur ‘Beulen’-Epidemie bei den Philistern in 1. Samuel 5–6.” Das Altertum 15 (1969): 67–74.

Brueggemann, W. Ichabod Toward Home: The Journey of God’s Glory. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Campbell, A. F. The Ark Narrative, 1 Sam 4–6, 2 Sam 6: A Form-critical and Traditio-historical Study. SBLDS 16. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.

Firth, D. G. “Parallelismus Membrorum in Prose Narrative: The Function of Repetition in 1 Samuel 5–6.” Old Testament Essays 15 (2003): 647–56.

Fouts, D. M. “Added Support for Reading ‘70 Men’ in 1 Samuel vi 19.” VT 42 (1992): 394.

Hanson, K. C. “When the King Crosses the Line: Royal Deviance and Restitution in Levantine Ideologies.” BTB 26 (1996): 11–25.

Maier, J. Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum. BZAW 93. Berlin: A. Töpelmann, 1965.

Mayer-Opificius, R. “Götterreisen im Alten Orient.” In Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux, ed. O. Loretz et al., 369–88. AOAT 281. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002.

Miller, P. D., and J. J. M. Roberts. The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the “Ark Narrative” of 1 Samuel. JHNES. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.

Porzig, P. Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer. BZAW 397. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.

Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. “Beobachtungen zur Ladegeschichte und zur Komposition der Samuelbücher.” In Freiheit und Recht: Festschrift für Frank Crüsemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Christof Hardmeier et al. Gütersloh: Kaiser/Gütersloher, 2003.

Schicklberger, F. Die Ladeerzählungen des ersten Samuel-Buches: eine literaturwissenschaftliche u. theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung. FB 7. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1973.

Timm, H. “Die Ladeerzählung I Sam 4–6; II Sam 6 und das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes.” EvT 26 (1966): 505–26.

Wilkinson, J. “The Philistine Epidemic of I Samuel 5 and 6.” ExpTim 88 (1977): 137–41.

Yahweh’s Judgment on Philistine Cities (1 Sam 5:1–12)

Original Text

1 וּפְלִשְׁתִּים לָקְחוּ אֵת אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים aוַיְבִאֻהוּ מֵאֶבֶן הָעֵזֶר אַשְׁדּוֹדָה׃ 2 b וַיִּקְחוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֶת־אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים aוַיָּבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ בֵּית דָּגוֹן וַיַּצִּיגוּ אֹתוֹ אֵצֶל דָּגוֹן׃ 3 וַיַּשְׁכִּמוּ אַשְׁדּוֹדִים מִמָּחֳרָת aוְהִנֵּה דָגוֹן נֹפֵל לְפָנָיו bאַרְצָה לִפְנֵי אֲרוֹן יְהוָה cוַיִּקְחוּ dאֶת־דָּגוֹן וַיָּשִׁבוּ אֹתוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ׃ 4 e וַיַּשְׁכִּמוּ בַבֹּקֶר מִמָּחֳרָת וְהִנֵּה דָגוֹן נֹפֵל לְפָנָיו אַרְצָה לִפְנֵי אֲרוֹן יְהוָה aוְרֹאשׁ דָּגוֹן וּשְׁתֵּי כַּפּוֹת יָדָיו כְּרֻתוֹת bאֶל־הַמִּפְתָּן רַק דָּגוֹן cנִשְׁאַר עָלָיו׃ 5 עַל־כֵּן לֹא־יִדְרְכוּ כֹהֲנֵי דָגוֹן וְכָל־הַבָּאִים בֵּית־דָּגוֹן עַל־מִפְתַּן דָּגוֹן בְּאַשְׁדּוֹד עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה a׃ ס 6 וַתִּכְבַּד יַד־יְהוָה אֶל־הָאַשְׁדּוֹדִים וַיְשִׁמֵּם וַיַּךְ אֹתָם בָּעֳפָלִים [בַּ][טְּחֹרִים] אֶת־אַשְׁדּוֹד וְאֶת־גְּבוּלֶיהָ׃ 7 a וַיִּרְאוּ אַנְשֵׁי־אַשְׁדּוֹד כִּי־כֵן וְאָמְרוּ לֹא־יֵשֵׁב אֲרוֹן אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עִמָּנוּ כִּי־קָשְׁתָה יָדוֹ עָלֵינוּ וְעַל דָּגוֹן אֱלֹהֵינוּ׃ 8 וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ וַיַּאַסְפוּ אֶת־כָּל־סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים אֲלֵיהֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ מַה־נַּעֲשֶׂה לַאֲרוֹן אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמְרוּ גַּת יִסֹּב aאֲרוֹן אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל bוַיַּסֵּבּוּ אֶת־אֲרוֹן אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל c׃ס 9 וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי הֵסַבּוּ אֹתוֹ aוַתְּהִי יַד־יְהוָה בָּעִיר מְהוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד וַיַּךְ אֶת־אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר מִקָּטֹן וְעַד־גָּדוֹל וַיִּשָּׂתְרוּ לָהֶם עֳפָלִים [טְחֹרִים׃]b 10 וַיְשַׁלְּחוּ אֶת־אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים aעֶקְרוֹן bוַיְהִי כְּבוֹא אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים עֶקְרוֹן וַיִּזְעֲקוּ הָעֶקְרֹנִים לֵאמֹר הֵסַבּוּ אֵלַי אֶת־אֲרוֹן אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַהֲמִיתֵנִי וְאֶת־עַמִּי׃ 11 וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ וַיַּאַסְפוּ אֶת־כָּל־סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיֹּאמְרוּ שַׁלְּחוּ אֶת־אֲרוֹן אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיָשֹׁב לִמְקֹמוֹ aוְלֹא־יָמִית אֹתִי וְאֶת־עַמִּי כִּי־הָיְתָה מְהוּמַת־מָוֶת בְּכָל־הָעִיר כָּבְדָה מְאֹד יַד הָאֱלֹהִים שָׁם׃ 12 b וְהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר aלֹא־מֵתוּ הֻכּוּ בָּעֳפָלִים [בַּ][טְּחֹרִים] וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעַת הָעִיר הַשָּׁמָיִם׃

Textual Notes

There is a great amount of divergence between the Heb. Vorlage* of the LXX and the MT here. 4QSamA does not always align with the LXX here, as demonstrated by the notes below. Only three of the variants from the MT have any real significance: (1) the mention of ships and mice in v. 6, the latter relevant to the eventual propitiatory gift in 1 Sam 6:3–5; (2) the mention of an earlier attempt to expel the plague by making images of the hemorrhoid (v. 9); and (3) the curious substitution of Ashkelon for Ekron in v. 10, which is not supported by 4QSamA.

1.a. So also the LXX reading τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ (tēn kibōton tou theou); Tg. reads דְיְיָ אְרוֹנָא יָת (deyya erona' yath) (“the ark of Yahweh”)

1.b. For the writing of this ancient city’s name, see Y. Elitzur, Ancient Place Names (2004), 103–19. It is written ʾaḏdd (*ʾaḏdādu, Akkadographically as ′Áš-da-du/i) in Ugaritic (DULAT 24), and Asdudu in Neo-Assyrian. Heb. אַשְׁדּוֹד (ashdod) (“Ashdod”) is variously spelled by the Greek translators of the Bible. Indeclinable forms include Ασεδωθ (Asedōth) (Josh 11:22); Ασηδωθ (Asēdōth) (Josh 15:46); Ασιεδωθ (Asiedōth) (Josh 15:47). Declinable forms include Ἄζωτον (Azōton) (1 Sam 5:1, 3), Ἀζώτῳ (Azōtō) (1 Sam 5:5), Ἀζώτου (Azōtou) (1 Sam 5:7). The declinable forms are the most common ones and the only ones used outside of Joshua in the OT, Second Temple literature (Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus), and the NT (Acts 8:40). The ζ (z) here reflects the original pronunciation of the letter, [zd]/[sd], instead of its later pronunciations [dz] and [z].

2.a. The LXX reading τὴν κιβωτὸν κυρίου (tēn kibōton kyriou) reflects “the ark of Yahweh,” as in the MT of vv. 3–4.

3.a. The LXX adds “and entered the temple of Dagon, they saw that.”

3.b. So the LXX reading ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ (epi prosōpon autou), presuming פָּנַיו עַל (panaiw al)‎ instead of the MT’S לְפָנָיו (lephanaiw).

3.c. The LXX reads “the ark of God.”

3.d. The LXX reads “lifted up.”

3.e. The LXX adds “and the hand of Yahweh was heavy on the men of Ashdod, and he plagued them and afflicted them with hemorrhoids, (in) Ashdod and its borders.”

4.a. The LXX reads “the ark of the covenant of Yahweh.”

4.b. The LXX reads “each on the front parts of αμαφεθ (amapheth), and both wrists of his hands fallen on the threshold; only the spine of Dagon was left.”

4.c. The LXX reads “only the trunk of Dagon”; the MT reads “only Dagon.” Wellhausen (59) deleted the final ן (n) and read דָּגוֹ (dago): “Only his fish part was left on him” (cf. Long, 292). Driver (51) rejected Wellhausen’s theory and supposed some short term for “trunk,” such as גֵּו (gew), was accidentally omitted before “Dagon.”

5.a. The LXX adds “For they carefully step over (it).” The Greek tautological participle reflects the Heb. tautological inf. (inf. abs.).500

6.a. The LXX reads “and brought trouble on them, and it broke out upon them into the ships, and in the midst of its territory mice grew up, and there was great confusion of death in the city.”

8.a. So also LXXBO, Tg., Syr., and Vg.; but 4QSam reads, “Let them transfer the ark.”

8.b. 4QSamA reads “[the ark] of the [g]od(s) of Isra[el]”; the LXX reads “the ark of the god(s).” These words are intended to reflect the attitudes of the pagan Philistines, not those of informed Israelites.

8.c. So also 4QSamA; the LXX reads “the ark of the god.” Both the MT and LXX make sense in the distribution of variants in this verse. The MT has “the god of Israel” in all places, while the LXX has the full form in the leaders’ question and an abbreviated form in the two clauses following. The short form in LXX may assume a Heb. form with the definite article: האלהים ארון (h'lhym 'rwn)‎. The LXX (εις Γεθθα, eis Geththa) and 4QSamA (גתה, gth) read “to Gath,” which is lacking in the MT, Tg., Syr., and Vg.

9.a. So Tg., Vg., and Syr. The 4QSam reading גתה סבו אחרי ויהי (gth sbw 'chry wyhy) is supported by LXX (καὶ ἐγενήθη μετὰ τὸ μετελθεῖν αὐτὴν, kai egenēthē meta to metelthein autēn), although LXX lacks εις Γεθθα (eis Geththa) as an equivalent of גתה (gth) (“to Gath”), which is supplied by L (some mss πρὸς τοὺς Γεθθαίους, pros tous Geththaious, others προς Γεθ, pros Geth).

9.b. The LXX reads “and he struck them with hemorrhoids. Then the men of Gath made for themselves (images of the) hemorrhoids.”

10.a. So LXXBO, Syr., and Vg. But 4QSamA and L read “the ark of the god(s) or Israel” with the MT reading in v. 8. The MT reading makes a proper distinction between the mode of speaking characteristic of the pagan Philistines and the Israelite narrator.

10.b. The LXX reads “Ashkelon.”

11.a. The LXX reads “dwell in.”

11.b. The LXX reads “when the ark of the God of Israel arrived there.”

12.a. The LXX adds οἱ ζῶντες καὶ (hoi zōntes kai) (“who lived [i.e., survived] and”).

Translation

1 Now the Philistines captured the ark of God and brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. 2 Then the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it into the temple of Dagon and placed it next to Dagon. 3 When the people of Ashdod rose early the next day, there was Dagon, fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of Yahweh. So they took Dagon and put him back in his place. 4 But when they rose early on the next morning, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of Yahweh, and the head of Dagon and both palms of his hands were lying cut off upon the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left to him. 5 This is why the priests of Dagon and all who enter the temple of Dagon do not step on the threshold of Dagon-in-Ashdod to this day. 6 The hand of Yahweh was heavy upon the people of Ashdod, and he terrified and struck them with hemorrhoids, both in Ashdod and in its territory. 7 And when the inhabitants of Ashdod saw how things were, they said, “The ark of the God of Israel must not remain with us; for his hand is heavy on us and on our god Dagon.” 8 So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines and said, “What shall we do with the ark of the god of Israel?” The inhabitants of Gath replied, “Let the ark of the god of Israel be transferred to us.” So they transferred the ark of the God of Israel to Gath. 9 But after they had brought it to Gath, the hand of Yahweh was against the city, causing a very great panic; he struck the inhabitants of the city, both young and old, so that hemorrhoids broke out on them. 10 So they sent the ark of the God of Israel to Ekron. But when the ark of God came to Ekron, the people of Ekron cried out, “Why have they transferred to us the ark of the god of Israel to kill us and our people?” 11 They sent therefore and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, “Send away the ark of the god of Israel, and let it return to its home, that it may not kill us and our people”—for there was a deathly panic throughout the whole city. The hand of God was very heavy there. 12 And the people who did not die were stricken with tumors, and the cry of the city went up to heaven.

Commentary

Three out of the five cities of the Philistine pentapolis felt Yahweh’s judgment because they allowed the ark to be kept there instead of returning it to Israel. The judgment on each of the three was the same. The form of the judgment has always seemed remarkable. Clearly it was the most demeaning type of plague that could be conceived. The common translation “tumors” is euphemistic. The translation of the LXX in v. 9, ἕδρας (hedras) (“seats”), is already indicative of the type of painful growth that is intended. While these are not fatal injuries, they are so painful as to be completely debilitating. No one could function normally while afflicted with them. Yet it is possible that “buboes” (swollen lymph nodes caused by bubonic plague) is meant:

Piles or hemorrhoids are always uncomfortable and embarrassing, and the biblical term supposed to designate this condition has troubled translators. In Deut 28:27 the word (ʿŏpōlîm, cognate with Akkadian uplu) occurs along with other chronic ailments which the Lord threatens to lay on his elect if they are disobedient. Among these maladies, variously diagnosed, only the term ʿplym is euphemized with the vowels of the word ṭĕhōrîm (clean/pure [things]) and the consonants of the substitute word are given in the margin. LXX interprets bʿplym as localizing the preceding pox of Egypt “in the seat.” KJV rendered emerods, i.e., hemorrhoids, which RSV changed to ulcers. However, in 1 Sam 5:6, 9, 12; 6:4, RSV rendered the same term “tumors” (but misgivings have been registered that this suggests cancer (a tumor [swelling] could, of course, be benign). The connection of these swellings with rodents suggests bubonic plague. The LXX of 1 Sam 5:6 mentions an outbreak of plague on ships and increase of mice in the country. The protuberances thus were probably “buboes” (swollen and sore lymph nodes of the groin and armpits) and not anal hemorrhoids (which are caused commonly by constipation). Buboes can be much worse than hemorrhoids, but separation of the tumors from the anal aperture would obviate the need to euphemize.

Yahweh allowed his ark to come into Philistine hands to show his own people that they could not use it as a good luck charm, and to humiliate the Philistine enemies for presuming to make it and him a trophy. Yahweh would not be used by either group in this way. The Philistines may in all sincerity have intended to give him worship and honor alongside of their god Dagon (see the use of אֵצֶל, etsel, “alongside of, next to [Dagon]”). But Yahweh was not the “god of the Philistines,” nor would he accept worship alongside any other deity. His ark belonged among the people he had chosen and redeemed from Egypt and brought into the land he had promised to Abraham. The only way the Philistines would release the ark was by Yahweh’s unleashing his punitive power and judgment on them for kidnapping his ark.

The entire story is intended to show the helplessness of the worshipers of Dagon and their god in the face of the judgment of Yahweh, the God of Israel. Often, and in all three major text witnesses to this section, Yahweh is called “the God of Israel”—usually, but not exclusively, in the mouths of the Philistines themselves. This phenomenon attests to Yahweh’s unique relationship with the people of Israel. He is not one of the gods venerated by the peoples surrounding Israel. Therefore he will not serve foreign armies who kidnap his ark and seek to adopt him in their pantheon and use his power against his people Israel. There is no tolerant “multi-culturalism” here, nor can there be. Yahweh is not one god among many: He is the one and only God, who allows no one to adopt him alongside other gods. This was the import of the first commandment. The punishment by means of a debilitating and utterly demeaning form such as hemorrhoids was also probably to the Israelite readers a means of laughing the enemy to scorn, a form of punitive humor (see “Humor” in the introduction). 5:1 Bar-Efrat (117) sees the active verbal expression “the Philistines captured the ark” (1 Sam 5:1) versus “the ark of Yahweh was captured” (1 Sam 4:11, 17, 19, 22) as changing the focus from the sovereign action of God—expressed by the pass. form—to the culpability of the Philistines and paving the way for their judgment by Yahweh.

In view of the confusing array of variants in the MT, Qumran, and LXX registered in the apparatus above, it is stretching credibility to accept the view of Bar-Efrat (118) that הָאֱלֹהִים אֲרוֹן (ha'elohim aron) names the ark from the Philistine perspective.

The ark was brought first to Ashdod, perhaps because there was a prominent temple of Dagon there. Judges 16:21–30 attests that there was also a temple of Dagon in Gath.

5:2 Capturing an enemy’s gods after a victory and carrying them back to the homeland, to the temples of one’s own gods, was common in the ANE. Excerpts from the military annals of the Hittite king Ḫattušili I (c. 1650 BC) illustrate this point:

(From the defeated city of Ḫaššuwa in North Syria) I carried off three chariots to the (temple of) the sungoddess of the city Arinna, I carried off one silver (statue of a) bull (representing a deity) to the temple of the storm-god, (the cult* objects) that remained I carried off to the temple of Mezzulla.… I carried off seven (statues of) deities to the temple of the sun-goddess of Arinna … (the statues of) deities that remained I carried off to the temple of Mezzulla; … one (altar-) table inlaid with gold, three (altar-) tables [inlaid with] silver, … these items belonging to the deities of Ḫaššuwa I carried off to the (temple of) the sun-goddess of Arinna; (an image of) the daughter of the goddess Allatu, the goddess Hebat, three silver statues, and three gold statues I carried off to the temple of Mezzulla.

Unlike in 1 Samuel, these items were captured from the enemy’s city after the military victory; they were not captured on the battlefield itself. Yet this passage illustrates a general custom of capturing, confiscating a defeated enemy’s gods (or the cult* implements representing those gods), and taking them back to the temples of one’s own gods, where they were cared for and worshiped like the local deities. Captured items may also have served as a gifts of gratitude to the god in whose temple they were placed and who brought about the victory. In that sense, they were like giving to the gods who had brought the king victory a preferential share in the plunder.

Putting Yahweh’s ark in Dagon’s temple was therefore in all likelihood also a sign of thanks to Dagon for the victory over Israel. This makes what happens next to the statue of Dagon particularly relevant. For in these events it becomes apparent that the ark came into Philistine hands not because of the power of Dagon, but because of Yahweh’s displeasure with his own people—some of whom may themselves have been worshiping Dagon alongside Yahweh.

The fact that the ark was placed “alongside, next to” (אֵצֶל, etsel, LXX παρὰ Δαγων, para Dagōn) the image of Dagon might suggest that the initial intention was not to demean Yahweh by bringing his ark into Dagon’s temple and placing it in an inferior position, but to enlist the future help of Yahweh by offering him equal status to Dagon in Dagon’s temple. The term אֵצֶל (etsel) has this specific idea in Jer 35:4, where chambers on the same level are אֵצֶל (etsel), in contrast to one that is מִמַּעַל לְ (mimma'al l) (“above”) another. This accords with what we have just written above about the practices of the Hittites, Babylonians, and Assyrians, who captured the cult* images of peoples with whom they fought in order to give them a place in their own temples or in temples shared with other native deities. I. Singer confirms this picture of Hittite practice, but he misses the significance of the word “alongside” in this verse and therefore mistakenly assumes that the biblical picture was of the Philistines’ intention to make Yahweh’s ark merely a “trophy.”

Although the text portrays the Philistines’ intention to honor Yahweh and solicit his help against Israel, such “honor” would never satisfy Yahweh, who refuses to be worshiped alongside other so-called gods. There are several other occurrences of אֵצֶלֹ (etselo) (“next to”) that suggest also that God will not allow the sacred symbols of himself to be associated with evil and idolatry. For instance, Deut 16:21 states, “You shall not plant any tree as a sacred pole beside (אֵצֶל, etsel) the altar that you make for Yahweh your God” (Deut 16:21). Ezekiel 43:7–8 further illustrates God’s unwillingness to allow his sacred symbols to be associated with those of other deities:

“He said to me: Mortal, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet, where I will reside among the people of Israel forever. The house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, … When they placed their threshold by my threshold and their doorposts beside (אֵצֶל) my doorposts, with only a wall between me and them, they were defiling my holy name by their abominations that they committed; therefore I have consumed them in my anger.

The direct juxtaposition of the image of the pagan god Dagon to the sacred ark of Yahweh defiled it. This could no more be tolerated than Uzzah’s looking into the ark after it returned to Israel.

5:3–4 Dietrich sees irony in the details given here: “The statue of the god fell down overnight, breaking its neck, quite the same as Eli shortly before, except that Eli fell backward, whereas Dagon fell forward—as if bowing in worship (1 Sam 5:4; see 4:18).”

The “god” Dagon is Yahweh’s enemy, whose worshipers had recently killed Yahweh’s people in battle. In this scene, Yahweh shows his power over Dagon by mutilating his statue in the same manner as the Philistines would later mutilate the body of Yahweh’s king, Saul.

5:5 This verse was not included just to explain a bit of folklore. What happened to Dagon’s statue was sacrilege—a matter quite serious for a people who worshiped and depended upon him. It represented both an occasion for his punishment of Yahweh and his own people for not protecting his statue, and it was a demonstration of his powerlessness against Yahweh, the God of Israel. Ridding the town of the ark was one step toward appeasing Dagon. The other was to show contrition for the injury by making the threshold where the severed limbs lay a sacred and taboo place: It was not to be stepped upon when entering the shrine. That such a gesture could be misunderstood by a later generation of Israelites and mimicked unthinkingly (Zeph 1:9) is not surprising.

Klein’s explanation of the significance of the threshold in this passage assumes far too much that we cannot demonstrate. More cautious and credible are the views of other commentators. For instance, Hertzberg (54) writes: “Religious ideas concerning the thresholds both of temples and of houses occur throughout the history of religion in a number of contexts. In the Old Testament, cf. in addition to this passage 1 Kgs 16:34, Zeph 1:9; all three passages show the negative attitude of the Old Testament to this thought-world.” McCarter1 (122) writes: “As the passageway into a sacred region the door and especially the threshold of a temple may be accorded a special character, and the history of religions records many instances of rites and customs associated with thresholds. (A modern bridegroom may still lift his new wife over the threshold.)” R. P. Gordon (99) states: “Sanctuary thresholds were commonly treated with respect in the ancient world because they marked the boundary dividing sacred from profane.” Lastly, Bodner (52) notes: “The hands and head of the decapitated Dagon seem to have made it as far as the threshold of the temple. It is as though Dagon was attempting to flee (from his own house!), yet the torso is pulled back, but the hands remain—because the ‘hand’ of the LORD is heavy on the hands of Dagon.”

Leithart writes regarding this passage:

[Yahweh] humiliated the god of the Philistines, forcing Dagon to bow before His throne (5:3). The priests of Dagon found him fallen before the ark in worship, incapable of getting himself up without help (5:3). Like other idols, Dagon might have had arms and legs, but he could not stand. He had fallen and he could not get up. This discovery occurred “early the next morning,” about the time of Israel’s morning sacrifice, and Dagon apparently was joining with Israel in prostrating himself before the throne of the God of gods. Early in the morning, the Philistines went to Dagon’s temple expecting to find the defeated God, but He was not there. He had risen; Yahweh lives! And the day that the Philistines hoped would be the day of Dagon turned out to be the Day of Yahweh.

On the import of the phrase “until this day,” see Tsumura on 1 Sam 8:8–19 and his “Introduction” (Section III, B, I); see also Bodner, 52.

5:6 The “hand” (יָד, yad) of Yahweh was powerful in judgment, in contrast to the hands of Dagon, which were cut off (Bar-Efrat, 119).

The LXX additions refer here for the first time to the plague of mice. The Heb. term עַכְבָּר (akhbar) (HALOT, BDB, DCH) and the LXX rendering μῦς (mys) (LSJ) refer to a mouse, not a rat, as some modern translations (NIV, NLT, NKJV, CEV) give it. No distinction is made in BH between a house mouse and a field mouse. Both mice and rats are potential carriers of disease, although the theory that the “tumors” were signs of bubonic plague would require that the carriers were rats. In 1 Samuel 6:5 the LXX refers to these rodents as “destroying the land,” which would fit field mice as a source of crop damage. Yahweh could have struck the Philistines with a “double whammy”: a fatal disease and disastrous crop damage. Given this reason for the gold mice images, it may not be necessary to conclude with Alter (28) and others that the “tumors” were bubonic plague or that the mice were the carriers.

5:7 Since the Philistines call it “the ark of the god of Israel,” they cannot consider the ark itself to be Israel’s god (contra Bar-Efrat, 118). Actually, they said “a god has come into the camp,” and they considered the ark a god.

The Philistines recognized that the ark had to go. After the first night’s incident, it was only necessary to stand the image back up. But after the head and hands of Dagon were cut off, it was not such a simple matter to “glue them back on,” quite apart from considerations of sacrilege to Dagon caused by the incident.

We have access to Hittite oracular inquiries to determine how to appease the gods when there has been even a minor damage to part of a divine image. One such inquiry suggests reasons for the god’s anger, including: a storage vessel belonging to the storm-god was not kept full of grain; a festival of the god had been neglected; some of the silver plating on the mountain on which the god’s statue stood was chipped off; the “good” symbol that was in the hand of the statue of the god had fallen off and was missing; some of the plating on his animal-shaped drinking vessel had worn off and was not re-plated. If such minor damages could cause the god to punish the Hittite king and his kingdom, how much greater would be Dagon’s wrath here. His worshipers had permitted the head and hands of his cult* statue to be cut off and the statue to fall face down on the floor!

5:8 The ark was transferred to Gath, a Philistine city whose ruins are probably located at Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi (MR 135123). This site is located on the south bank of the Wadi Elah, ca. five miles northwest of Beit Guvrin and ten miles to the southeast of Tel Miqne/Khirbet el-muqannaʿ/Ekron.512 The ark was now approaching the territory of Judah.

The citizens of Gath were quite confident that Yahweh’s victory over Dagon-in-Ashdod (1 Sam 5:5) would not be repeated in their city. Such over-confidence seems fitting for the home of the giant warrior Goliath, who was later to be felled by Yahweh’s chosen shepherd-king with just five smooth stones and a sling (see “David Kills Goliath and Israel Routes the Philistines [1 Sam 17:48–54]”). Probably Goliath had already witnessed the felling of his city’s god by the ark of Yahweh before he faced David in single combat. But like his fellow citizens, his memory was short when it came to learning to fear the true God.

5:9 For other examples of the formula represented by “young and old” (merism*), see Gen 19:11; 1 Sam 30:2; 2 Kgs 23:2; 25:26; Jer 8:10; 42:1, 8; 44:12; 2 Chr 15:13. Outside the Bible it occurs in Akkadian: ṣeḫrī u rabâ anassaḫ ašakkan (“I [Ishtar] uproot [and] plant/establish [both] small and great,” CAD Ṣ 180 sub ṣiḫru), which shows two merisms, since nasāḫu and šakānu are also polar opposites. The sequence is not fixed in Akkadian or Hittite: One finds both “small and great” and “great and small.”514

5:10–12 The reference to the threat of death here was not due simply to the tumors/hemorrhoids, which were not in themselves fatal (see Bar-Efrat, 119), but to the possible long-term consequences of trying to hold the ark captive and anger Yahweh. The plague of mice in itself, given enough crop destruction, might produce deaths and humiliate Dagon, who was a grain god. But fears are always ultimately irrational. One should not base one’s interpretation of the “tumors” on such fragile evidence.

Selected Bibliography

Ackerman, J. S. “Who Can Stand Before YHWH, This Holy God? A Reading of I Samuel 1–15.” Proof 2 (1991): 1–24.

Bentzen, A. “The Cultic Use of the Ark in Samuel.” JBL 67 (1948): 37–56.

Brentjes, B. “Zur ‘Beulen’-Epidemie bei den Philistern in 1. Samuel 5–6.” Das Altertum 15 (1969): 67–74.

Cross, F. M., and D. N. Freedman. “The Name of Ashdod.” BASOR 175 (1964): 48–50.

Delcor, M. “Jahweh et Dagon: Ou le Jahwisme face à la religion des Philistins, d’après I Sam. v.” VT 14 (1964): 136–54.

Donner, H. “Die Schwellenhüpfer: Beobachtungen zur Zephanja 1, 8f.” JSS 15 (1970): 42–55.

Driver, G. R. “The Plague of the Philistines (1 Samuel v, 6–vi, 16).” JRAS 1–2 (1950): 50–51.

Geyer, J. B. “Mice and Rites in 1 Samuel v–vi.” VT 31 (1981): 293–304.

Herbert, E. D. “2 Samuel V 6: An Interpretative Crux Reconsidered in the Light of 4QSamA.” VT 44 (1994): 340–48.

Lemos, T. M. “Shame and Mutilation of Enemies in the Hebrew Bible.” JBL 125 (2006): 225–41.

Margalith, O. “The Meaning of ʿPLYM in 1 Samuel V–VI.” VT 33 (1983): 339–41.

Timm, H. “Die Ladeerzählung I Sam 4–6; II Sam 6 und das Kerygma des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerkes.” EvT 26 (1966): 505–26.

Wilkinson, John. “The Philistine Epidemic of I Samuel 5 and 6.” ExpTim 88 (1977): 137–41.

What Guilt Offering? (1 Sam 6:1–9)

Original Text

1 וַיְהִי אֲרוֹן־יְהוָה aבִּשְׂדֵה פְלִשְׁתִּים שִׁבְעָה חֳדָשִׁיםb׃ 2 וַיִּקְרְאוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים לַכֹּהֲנִים וְלַקֹּסְמִים aלֵאמֹר מַה־נַּעֲשֶׂה לַאֲרוֹן יְהוָה הוֹדִעֻנוּ בַּמֶּה נְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ לִמְקוֹמוֹ׃ 3 וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִם־מְשַׁלְּחִים aאֶת־אֲרוֹן אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל bאַל־תְּשַׁלְּחוּ אֹתוֹ רֵיקָם כִּי־הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיבוּ לוֹ cאָשָׁם dאָז תֵּרָפְאוּ וְנוֹדַע eלָכֶם לָמָּה לֹא־תָסוּר יָדוֹ מִכֶּם׃ 4 וַיֹּאמְרוּ מָה הָאָשָׁם אֲשֶׁר נָשִׁיב לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ מִסְפַּר סַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים חֲמִשָּׁה עָפְלֵי [טְחֹרֵי] זָהָב וַחֲמִשָּׁה עַכְבְּרֵי זָהָב aכִּי־מַגֵּפָה אַחַת לְכֻלָּם וּלְסַרְנֵיכֶם׃ c5 וַעֲשִׂיתֶם צַלְמֵי עָפְלֵיכֶם [טְחֹרֵיכֶם] וְצַלְמֵי עַכְבְּרֵיכֶם aהַמַּשְׁחִיתִם אֶת־הָאָרֶץ bוּנְתַתֶּם לֵאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל cכָּבוֹד אוּלַי יָקֵל אֶת־יָדוֹ מֵעֲלֵיכֶם וּמֵעַל אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וּמֵעַל אַרְצְכֶם׃ 6 וְלָמָּה תְכַבְּדוּ אֶת־לְבַבְכֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר כִּבְּדוּ מִצְרַיִם וּפַרְעֹה אֶת־לִבָּם הֲלוֹא כַּאֲשֶׁר הִתְעַלֵּל בָּהֶם וַיְשַׁלְּחוּם וַיֵּלֵכוּ׃ 7 וְעַתָּה קְחוּ וַעֲשׂוּ עֲגָלָה חֲדָשָׁה אֶחָת וּשְׁתֵּי פָרוֹת עָלוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה עֲלֵיהֶם עֹל aוַאֲסַרְתֶּם אֶת־הַפָּרוֹת בָּעֲגָלָה וַהֲשֵׁיבֹתֶם בְּנֵיהֶם מֵאַחֲרֵיהֶם הַבָּיְתָה׃ 8 וּלְקַחְתֶּם אֶת־אֲרוֹן יְהוָה וּנְתַתֶּם אֹתוֹ אֶל־הָעֲגָלָה וְאֵת כְּלֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר הֲשֵׁבֹתֶם לוֹ אָשָׁם תָּשִׂימוּ בָאַרְגַּז aמִצִּדּוֹ וְשִׁלַּחְתֶּם אֹתוֹ וְהָלָךְ׃ 9 וּרְאִיתֶם אִם־דֶּרֶךְ גְּבוּלוֹ abיַעֲלֶה בֵּית שֶׁמֶשׁ הוּא עָשָׂה לָנוּ אֶת־הָרָעָה הַגְּדוֹלָה הַזֹּאת וְאִם־לֹא וְיָדַעְנוּ כִּי לֹא יָדוֹ נָגְעָה בָּנוּ מִקְרֶה הוּא הָיָה לָנוּ׃

Textual Notes

1.a. The LXX reads ἡ κιβωτὸς (hē kibōtos) (“the ark”), omitting “of Yahweh.”

1.b. So also 4QSamA, Tg., Syr., and Vg. The LXX adds καὶ ἐξέζεσεν ἡ γῆ αὐτῶν μύας (kai exezesen hē gē autōn myas) (“and their land swarmed with mice”), implying a Vorlage* ותשרץ ארצם עכברים (wtshrts 'rtsm 'kbrym).

2.a. So also LXX, Tg., Syr., and Vg. 4QSamA adds: ם[ני]ולמעונ֯ (m[ny]wlm'wn) (“and the soothsayers”; HALOT 2:857). Cf. Deut 18:10, וּמְכַשֵּֽׁף וּמְנַחֵ֖שׁ מְעוֹנֵ֥ן קְסָמִ֔ים קֹסֵ֣ם (umekhashsheph umenachesh me'onen qesamim qosem), where a slightly different foursome of mantic professionals is given. The LXX in 1 Sam 6:2 gives a threesome, τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ τοὺς μάντεις καὶ τοὺς ἐπαοιδοὺς (tous hiereis kai tous manteis kai tous epaoidous), and adds the possessive αὐτῶν (autōn) (“their”).

3.a. McCarter1 (129) notes: “Reading ʾim mšlḥym ʾtm on the basis of LXX. MT has lost ʾtm through haplography before the following ʾt.”

3.b. 4QSamA and the LXX read “the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, the god of Israel.” Syr. reads “the ark of Yahweh.” Tg. and Vg. agree with the MT.

3.c. The LXX reading αὐτῇ (autē) (“to it [fem.]”; i.e., to the ark, τῇ κῑβωτῷ, tē kībōtō) implies the LXX-V reading לה (lh), which in Old Hebrew could reflect either a masc. or fem. object. See another occurrence in 1 Sam 6:9.

3.d. The LXX reads (τὸ, to) τῆς βασάνου (tēs basanou) (“[that] of the torment”); cf. LXX v. 4. For MT’S אָשָׁם (asham), LXX reads (τὸ, to) τῆς βασάνου (tēs basanou) (“[that] of the torment”); cf. LXX v. 4, referring either to (1) a payment to induce the god of the ark to cease the torment, or (2) symbols of what constituted the torment, i.e., hemorrhoids and mice. Since 4QSam reads ם̇[ש]א (ṁ[sh]'), agreeing with MT, it is probable that the LXX reading is simply a paraphrase translation of אָשָׁם (asham) and does not reflect a different Vorlage*.

3.e. The LXX reads καὶ ἐξιλασθήσεται ὑμῖν (kai exilasthēsetai hymin) (“there will be appeasement/propitiation for you”), confirmed by 4QSamA: נ̇כפר[ו] (ṅkpr[w]) (vocalized as וְנִכַּפֵּר, wenikkapper, a nithpael wĕ-qṭl; form [HALOT כפר, kpr; I]). Compare the same construction (לָהֶם וְנִכַּפֵּר, lahem wenikkapper) in Deut 21:8. The MT reads either “and it will become known to you” or “and he will make himself known to you.”

4.a. Lacking in the LXX.516

4.b. The LXX reads “you [pl., ὑμῖν (hymin)], and your lords, and the people,” influenced by the tripartite “you, your gods, and your land” (v. 5). Ackroyd (57) claims some mss read “them.”

5.a. For the MT reading עַכְבְּרֵיכֶם‎ … עָפְלֵיכֶם (akhbereikhem‎ … ophleikhem), 4QSamA reads ‎העכברים … ם[י]ל֯[העפ (h'kbrym … m[y]l[h'p).

5.b. The LXX reads “And a gold mouse, a likeness of your mice that are ravaging the land.”

5.c. The LXX reads τῷ κυρίῳ (tō kyriō) (= ליהוה, lyhwh, “to Yahweh”) 7.a. The LXX reads δύο βόας πρωτοτοκούσας ἄνευ τῶν τέκνων (dyo boas prōtotokousas aneu tōn teknōn) (“two cows which have calved for the first time, without [their] offspring”). McCarter1’s translation “firstborn cows” (129) would only be correct if the Greek were πρωτοτοκας (prōtotokas). In Jeremiah 4:31 the fem. participle πρωτοτοκούσα (prōtotokousa) translates the Heb. phrase מַבְכִּירָה (mavkirah) (“woman giving birth for the first time”). The LXX seems to have had a Heb. Vorlage* that contained (or appeared to have contained) the word “עוֹֹלֵל,עֹלֵל (olel,olel)” (HALOT 2:798), designating a suckling child or calf, perhaps אשר אין עליהן עוללים ('shr 'yn 'lyhn 'wllym) (“whose suckling calves are not with them”). The MT is suitable as it stands since the new cart (never used before) and the cows that had never been used for plowing make a symbolically apt pair.

8.a. The various Greek transcriptions in the LXX and L show that the translators didn’t know how to render בארגז (b'rgz).

9.a. The LXX reads αὐτῆς (autēs) (“its”). Cf. TN 1 Sam 6:3.c.

9.b. The LXX reading ὁρίων αὐτῆς (horiōn autēs) reflects a pl. noun גבוליה (gbwlyh) (“its [fem.] borders”). 4QSam reads לו[גבו (lw[gbw).

Translation

1 The ark of Yahweh remained in Philistine territory seven months. 2 Then the Philistines summoned the priests and the diviners519 and asked, “What shall we do for the ark of Yahweh? Instruct us with what we shall send it off to its own place.” 3 They answered, “If you are going to send away the ark of the god of Israel, do not send it away without anything; you must also pay an indemnity to him. Then you will be healed, and it will be forgiven to you. Why would his hand not turn away from you then?” 4 They asked, “What is the indemnity that we should pay to him?” They answered, “Five gold hemorrhoids and five gold mice, corresponding to the number of the Philistine lords; for the same plague struck all of them and your lords. 5 You shall make figures of your hemorrhoids and of your mice that are ravaging the land; thus you shall give honor to the god of Israel. Perhaps he will remove his heavy hand (that is) upon you and your gods and your land. 6 Why should you be stubborn as the Egyptians and Pharaoh were stubborn? As you know, after he made fools of them, they had to send the Israelites off to go their way. 7 So, get one new cart ready and two milch cows that have not borne a yoke; harness the cows to the cart, but take back indoors the calves that follow them. 8 Take the ark of Yahweh and place it on the cart, and put next to it in a chest the gold objects you are paying as indemnity to him,524 and send it off to go its own way. 9 Then watch: If it goes up the road to Beth-shemesh, to its own territory, it was he who has inflicted this great disaster on us. But if not, we shall know that it was not his hand that struck us; it just happened to us by chance.”

Commentary

In ancient times outbreaks of plague were regularly attributed to the anger of a god or goddess because of some cultic infraction or other religious offense. During the reign of the Hittite king Mursili II, a plague ravaged the kingdom for twenty years, during which time the king instituted repeated oracular inquiries to determine what infraction caused the plague and how they might appease the angry deity. When plagues broke out in their army, the Hittites used rituals to remove the offending impurity and assuage the anger of the deity.

6:1 The use of the Heb. phrase שְׂדֵה פְלִשְׁתִּים (sedeh phelishtim) (rendered “Philistine territory”; elsewhere only in 1 Sam 27:7, 11) here is an intertextual clue that the narrator wishes us to compare David’s exile with the ark’s. Both David and the ark represent the centers of Yahweh’s rule and power for Israel. Both eventually brought Israel victories against these enemies. Both were abused by Israel: the ark by being treated as a good-luck charm (1 Sam 4), and David by being persecuted by Saul (1 Sam 18–31). Both were lost for a time to the Philistines. Both were eventually given back to Israel and received the honor they deserved in Jerusalem, Israel’s new capital.

The period of the ark’s “exile” is given as seven months, the first of three time references (cf. 1 Sam 7:2; 2 Sam 6:11) emphasizing the enormity of the loss suffered by Israel when the ark was taken (Gordon, 100). Some take the number non-literally, as symbolic of maximum duration (e.g., Tsumura, 213). But since the temporal duration of Egyptian suffering during the ten plagues in Exodus is unspecified, and the parallel between the two events is obvious, some justification should be given for the selection of the specific “seven months” as opposed to other common numbers symbolizing completion or maximum limits (e.g., the number forty).

Is the period to be seen with reference to Philistine or Israelite suffering? Tsumura opts for the former: “The seven implies that the suffering of the Philistines had reached the maximum limit” (213). There is support for this view in the indication in v. 2 that only after seven months of suffering did the Philistines give up trying to detain the ark and seek professional advice on how to return it to Israel and assuage the god’s anger. But there is also reason to include the latter view. Although Yahweh was judging the Philistines and their god, he was also disciplining his own people Israel. During this period the Israelites could not perform rituals involving the ark prescribed by the laws of Moses.

6:2 The first question should not be translated “What shall we do with the ark” but “What should we do for the ark?” The decision to send it back to Israel is already assumed. The absence of the Philistine rulers in this scene, now exclusively dominated by the diviners, shows that the advice needed has to do with how the ark is to be sent off.

Since it is unknown whether the Philistines distinguished “diviners” as a distinct and separate category from “priests,” it is best to leave open the option of taking לַכֹּהֲנִים וְלַקֹּסְמִים (lakkohanim welaqqosemim) as nominal hendiadys*. In any case, the group speaks as one: There are not two opinions. And there appear not to have been two separate methods employed to determine the identical solution. As Gordon (100–101) correctly remarks, the biblical writers were uninterested in the details of such procedures and regularly suppressed them lest they provoke an unhealthy curiosity in the Israelite hearers/readers.

The word מָקוֹם (maqom) (“place”) in connection with the ark refers to its proper shrine or temple. This question contains a tacit admission that the Philistines have deprived the ark of its proper home. A מָקוֹם (maqom) can be a city (Gen 18:24) or an individual person’s “home” (Gen 18:33). But usually when it is modified by a god’s name or a personal pronoun (e.g., “his”) referring to a god, it means his “sacred site” or shrine. There may even be a reference to a sacred location within a shrine, as is referred to in Hittite pedan = Akkad. ašru (“sacred locus”).

6:3 “They said” (וַיֹּאמְרוּ, wayyomeru) introduces the the priest-diviners’ verdict after their oracular inquiries. This begins a series of verbal exchanges, each introduced by וַיֹּאמְרוּ (wayyomeru). The biblical narrator is uninterested in the mechanics of how these diviners arrived at their answer. By suppressing that aspect, he gives the impression of an immediate answer, as if it were “off the cuff.” The question already assumed the first part of their answer: There was no thought of sending the ark back without a gift. But what should that gift be? The essence of their answer is “Send a אָשָׁם (asham) along with it.”

The word “if” (אִם, im) is not intended to introduce an uncertainty. Instead it presumes the decision to return the ark (as the final clauses in v. 2 do also) and merely confirms what the final clause in v. 2 implies: that the ark must not be returned without an accompanying gift. The word רֵיקָם (reiqam) (literally “empty-handed”) means “without an accompanying gift.” Since the report of this incident is modeled on the exodus from Egypt, it is important to note that the Israelites departing Egypt did not leave empty-handed but were urged to do so and given a kind of אָשָׁם (asham) by the Egyptians (see Exod 12:33–36).

The “guilt offering” (אָשָׁם, asham) is known in Leviticus (e.g., Lev 5:6–25; 6:10; 7:1–2, 5, 7) as one of the offerings required by Yahweh. But here it is simply a term used among many of the surrounding nations for a gift to appease the anger of gods. I have followed others in rendering אָשָׁם (asham) here as “indemnity.” This English term denotes a payment of reparations to make up for damages incurred.530 Ironically, the significant physical damages in this case were actually incurred by the Philistines, who now are required to pay the indemnity anyway. The thought behind the Philistine diviners’ choice of this term is that Yahweh’s ark was forcibly detained and placed in another god’s temple, which could have been perceived by Yahweh as a sign of his subjugation to Dagon. This insult brought upon the Philistine cities the wrath of Yahweh, which now must be assuaged. The indemnity is intended to be propitiatory and appeasing so that Yahweh would remove the plagues from the affected cities. Thus, the gifts sent by the Philistines were not to pacify Israel, but her god Yahweh.

The LXX’s fem. αὐτῇ (autē) here indicates that the translator understood the Heb. term לוֹ (lo) to refer to the ark (masc. Heb. אֲרוֹן, aron, but fem. in Greek ἡ κιβωτός, hē kibōtos) instead of Yahweh. One can understand the LXX interpretation in at least two ways: (1) the pagan Philistines considered the ark itself the embodiment of a god, to whom a gift could be offered, or (2) the gift was a payment not “to” the ark, but “for” it—i.e., in reparations for detaining it. As the only visible representation of Yahweh, the ark was analogous in the Philistines’ minds to a cult* image.

The Philistines diviners’ solution is intended to contrast bribery, which was the pagan response to divine punishment, with the prescribed Israelite one: repentance (seen in chap. 7).

6:5 One gives “honor” (כָּבוֹד, kavod) to a person or a deity by bestowing gifts (see 1 Kgs 3:13 = 2 Chr 1:12; Eccl 6:2; 2 Chr 17:5). It is the stated intention of the Philistine leaders to give honor to Yahweh, the god of Israel. In fact, כָּבוֹד (kavod) often means “wealth, riches” in the OT (Gen 31:1; Isa 10:3; 61:6; 66:12; Psa 49:17 [ET 16]; HALOT, 2:457, A 2 a). But the Philistines’ giving “honor” in this way in no way implies their acknowledgement of Yahweh as the one and only God, or even a god whom they will henceforth venerate. It was a cheap “honor.” This is important to remember, since otherwise one might too glibly make the contrast: “Foreign priests and diviners are directing their citizens to give honor to God, which is exactly what their clerical counterparts in Israel are not doing” (Bodner, 57).

The word אלהים ('lhym), when referring to Israel’s God, is naturally sg. in reference despite the word’s pl. form. When it refers to other people’s deities, however, it can no longer be assumed to have a sg. reference. Although in the present narrative the only Philistine deity mentioned is Dagon, there is some extrabiblical evidence to suggest they had at least one other deity, a female consort to Dagon.531

6:5–6 The advice of the diviners in 1 Sam 6:5–6 implies that in addition to the hemorrhoids, the Philistines were plagued by rodents who destroyed the country, probably by damaging the grain crops. Since in their natural habitat rats scavenge for their food and will eat almost anything, but need protein to keep them in good condition, while mice are primarily herbivores and feed on seeds and grain, the occasional translation of עַכְבָּר (akhbar) (LXX μῦς, mys) as “rat” (so NIV) is less likely than “mouse” (so most other English translations).

6:6 In this chapter the ark has an itinerary, which reminds readers of the wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness on their way to the promised land. Here the final destination is Kiriath-Jearim, which is just a waiting place until David captures Jerusalem and the ark finds its real home. That eventuality is described in 2 Sam 6.

Since some may have remained reluctant to return the ark (so Bar-Efrat, 125), the diviners used as an argument the precedent of the Egyptian pharaoh’s release of Israel from bondage. Bar-Efrat (125) renders בָּהֶם הִתְעַלֵּל (bahem hith'allel) (see also Exod 10:2) as “had punished/chastised them.” But the meaning of הִתְעַלֵּל ב (hith'allel v) is either “mocked, made fools of” (see Num 22:29, where Balaam’s donkey made a fool of him) or “abused” (Judg 19:25, where a helpless woman is raped by a gang of men). Although the ten plagues in Egypt were no laughing matter to the Egyptians, they were Yahweh’s way of making fools of the Egyptian gods. And one can hardly doubt that the great Philistine warriors limping around in pain from hemorrhoids was a foolish sight. Surely Yahweh “abused” them, but he also “made fools of” them.

6:7–9 The term וְעַתָּה (we'attah) marks a change of topic in the same way as the Ugaritic wʿt and the Hittite kinuna. In the Hittite instances it commonly marks—as here—the transition from conveying information to giving orders or suggestions. But in BH it often introduces a logical inference, something like “therefore” For other examples in 1 Samuel of וְעַתָּה (we'attah) followed by an impv., see 1 Sam 2:30; 6:7; 8:9; 9:13; 10:19; 12:2, 7, 10, 13; 13:14; 15:1, 25; 18:22; 19:2; 20:29, 31; 21:4; 23:20; 24:21–22; 25:7, 17, 26–27; 26:8, 11, 16, 19–20; 28:22; 29:7, 10. In all cases the וְעַתָּה (we'attah) stresses the logical connection (“now therefore”) of the preceding remark(s) to the command.

Most probably the MT’S description of the cows is to be preferred. As in the case of the young colt upon whom no one has yet sat (i.e., an unbroken colt), which was brought for Jesus to mount (Mark 11:2 and parallels), here the miracle is that cows unbroken to draw a cart are able to do so and to travel unerringly to Yahweh’s homeland (1 Sam 6:12). The diviners’ instructions are designed to exclude all chance: From a human point of view, they make the eventual outcome extremely unlikely. Cows that have just borne their first calves are unlikely to cooperate when separated from them. Cows that have never been broken as draft animals are unlikely to pull a cart or to pull it in a predetermined direction without a human driver.

The Philistines refer to what Yahweh has done to them as a “great disaster” (הַגְּדוֹלָ֖ההָרָעָ֥ה, haggedolohhara'ah). The phrase occurs in the Hebrew Bible in two senses: (1) a very serious sin, often sexual in nature, such as adultery (Gen 39:9), incest (2 Sam 13:16), or intermarrying with pagans (Neh 13:27); and (2) a catastrophic judgment from God (Jer 16:10; 32:42). Here it is the second meaning.

Application and Devotional Implications

God is always an unwelcome disruption in the lives of people who have not yet discovered his forgiveness and grace. Like the hemorrhoids, he is a “pain.” He interferes with their freedom and their fun. We may laugh at the crudity of the conception of the Philistines here, thinking that they could pacify him with gold gifts symbolizing the plagues by which he judged them. But we do the same kind of things ourselves, do we not? We flatter him with eulogies to the value of religion, any religion—so long as no one religion is claimed to be the truth or insists on the right to require a God-honoring behavior. But the presence of a holy God in the midst of the Philistine cities provoked inevitable conflict, with consequences very painful to the citizens. The Philistines did not like this kind of conflict. Although they were able to win military conflicts with their human opponents, the Israelites, they could not resist the judgments of the invisible and all-powerful God, who had chosen Israel as his people.

At this point in the narrative, Israel itself still does not reflect the holiness of its God. Consequently, God does not execute his judgments on the worshipers of Dagon through Israel’s arms. A time will come when a repentant Israel will again be God’s instrument (1 Sam 7, see “Samuel Leads Israel to Victory at Ebenezer [1 Sam 7:2–17]”). But for the time being, the unavailability of a human instrument does not deter God from acting.

Sometimes we wonder why the Church is not more successful in winning more people to faith, or why the numbers of confessing believers are not growing in a country where it once flourished. The answer may lie in believers’ unwillingness to truly repent of their unbiblical lifestyles. God still acts in the world. He will not be limited by our unfaithfulness. But how much greater would be the glory to his name if his people would show themselves to be usable instruments.

Selected Bibliography

Williams, J. G. “Sacrifice and the Beginning of Kingship.” Semeia 67 (1994): 73–92.

The Ark Sent Back (1 Sam 6:10–18)

Original Text

10 וַיַּעֲשׂוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים aכֵּן וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁתֵּי פָרוֹת עָלוֹת bוַיַּאַסְרוּם בָּעֲגָלָה וְאֶת־בְּנֵיהֶם כָּלוּ בַבָּיִת׃ 11 וַיָּשִׂמוּ אֶת־אֲרוֹן יְהוָה aאֶל־הָעֲגָלָה וְאֵת הָאַרְגַּז וְאֵת עַכְבְּרֵי הַזָּהָב וְאֵת צַלְמֵי טְחֹרֵיהֶםb׃ 12 וַיִשַּׁרְנָה הַפָּרוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ עַל־דֶּרֶךְ בֵּית שֶׁמֶשׁ בִּמְסִלָּה aאַחַת הָלְכוּ הָלֹךְ וְגָעוֹ bוְלֹא־סָרוּ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול וְסַרְנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים הֹלְכִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם cעַד־גְּבוּל בֵּית שָׁמֶשׁ׃ 13 וּבֵית שֶׁמֶשׁ קֹצְרִים קְצִיר־חִטִּים בָּעֵמֶק וַיִּשְׂאוּ אֶת־עֵינֵיהֶם וַיִּרְאוּ אֶת־הָאָרוֹן aוַיִּשְׂמְחוּ לִרְאוֹתb׃ 14 וְהָעֲגָלָה בָּאָה אֶל־שְׂדֵה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֵּית־הַשִּׁמְשִׁי aוַתַּעֲמֹד שָׁם וְשָׁם אֶבֶן גְּדוֹלָה bוַיְבַקְּעוּ אֶת־עֲצֵי הָעֲגָלָה וְאֶת־הַפָּרוֹת הֶעֱלוּ עֹלָה לַיהוָה׃ ס 15 וְהַלְוִיִּם הוֹרִידוּ aאֶת־אֲרוֹן יְהוָה וְאֶת־הָאַרְגַּז אֲשֶׁר־אִתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ כְלֵי־זָהָב וַיָּשִׂמוּ אֶל־הָאֶבֶן הַגְּדוֹלָה וְאַנְשֵׁי בֵית־שֶׁמֶשׁ הֶעֱלוּ עֹלוֹת וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לַיהוָה׃ 16 וַחֲמִשָּׁה סַרְנֵי־פְלִשְׁתִּים רָאוּ וַיָּשֻׁבוּ עֶקְרוֹן aבַּיּוֹם הַהוּא׃ ס 17 וְאֵלֶּה טְחֹרֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר הֵשִׁיבוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אָשָׁם aלַיהוָה לְאַשְׁדּוֹד אֶחָד לְעַזָּה אֶחָד לְאַשְׁקְלוֹן אֶחָד לְגַת אֶחָד לְעֶקְרוֹן bאֶחָד׃ ס 18 וְעַכְבְּרֵי הַזָּהָב מִסְפַּר כָּל־עָרֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים לַחֲמֵשֶׁת הַסְּרָנִים מֵעִיר מִבְצָר וְעַד כֹּפֶר הַפְּרָזִי aוְעַד אָבֵל bהַגְּדוֹלָה cאֲשֶׁר הִנִּיחוּ עָלֶיהָ אֵת אֲרוֹן יְהוָה עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה בִּשְׂדֵה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֵּית־הַשִּׁמְשִׁי׃

Textual Notes

10.a. The LXX reads “The foreigners” (reflecting a Vorlage* of פלשׁתים, plshtym, “the Philistines”).

10.b. The LXX reads δύο βόας πρωτοτοκούσας (dyo boas prōtotokousas) (“two cows which have calved for the first time”; see TN 1 Sam 6:7.c.).

11.a. The LXX omits “of Yahweh.”

11.b. Omitted in the LXX.

12.a. Since τρίβος (tribos) (“beaten track, roadway”) translates at least nine Heb. nouns in the LXX, its use here is no indication of a Hebrew Vorlage* different from the MT’S מְסִלָּה (mesillah).

12.b. The LXX has ἐκοπίων (ekopiōn) (“they were working hard”), reading יָגוֹעַ (yagoa') instead of the MT’S גָעוֹ (ga'o).

12.c. The LXX reads ὀπίσω αὐτῆς (opisō autēs) (“behind it [i.e., the ark]”), reflecting אַחֲרֵיהָ (achareiha).

13.a. The LXX adds “of Yahweh.”

13.b. The LXX reading εἰς ἀπάντησιν αὐτῆς (eis apantēsin autēs) (“to meet it”) reflects לִקְרָאתוֹ (liqratho).

14.a. The LXX reads ἀγρὸν … τὸν ἐν Βαιθσαμυς (agron … ton en Baithsamys) (“field … which was in Beth-Shemesh”).

14.b. The LXX reads “and they set up a large stone there next to it,” reflecting גדולה אבן שׁם ויעמידו (gdwlh 'bn shm wy'mydw).

15.a. The LXX reads ἀνήνεγκαν (anēnenkan) (“lifted”), reflecting וישאוּ (wysh'u).

16.a. The LXX reads “to Ashkelon.”

17.a. The LXX reads τῆς βασάνου (tēs basanou).

17.b. The LXX reads τῆς Ακκαρων (tēs Akkarōn) (“for Akkarôn”). The toponym עקרון ('qrwn) was read ʿAqqarôn (not ʿEqrôn) into Second Temple times. In the Neo-Assyrian annals it is spelled Amqaruna.

18.a. The LXX reads “village of the Perizzites.”

18.b. Reading הָאֶבֶן (ha'even) (with v. 15, most modern versions, and with HALOT 1:7) instead of the MT’S אָבֵל (avel) (“watercourse”).

18.c. So also LXX, NJPS, NET. Some interpreters repoint the MT’S וְעַד (we'ad) to וְעֵד (we'ed) and read “and the great stone … is witness” (e.g., NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NLT). Others read עוֹד (od) and translate “the great stone is still” (NAB, CEV; perhaps also NKJV, HCSB).

Translation

10 The men did so. They took two cows that have recently calved for the first time and hitched them to the cart, and confined their calves indoors. 11 They placed the ark of Yahweh on the cart together with the chest, the gold mice, and the images of their hemorrhoids. 12 The cows went straight ahead along the road to Beth-shemesh. They went along a single highroad, lowing as they went, and turning off neither to the right nor to the left; and the lords of the Philistines walked behind them as far as the border of Beth-shemesh. 13 The people of Beth-shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley. They looked up and saw the ark, and they rejoiced when they saw [it]. 14 The cart came into the field of Joshua of Beth-shemesh and it stopped there. A large stone was there; so they split up the wood of the cart and offered the cows as a burnt offering to Yahweh. 15 And the Levites took down the ark of Yahweh and the chest beside it containing the gold objects and placed them on the large stone. Then the men of Beth-shemesh presented burnt offerings and other sacrifices to Yahweh that same day. 16 The five lords of the Philistines saw this and returned that same day to Ekron. 17 The following were the gold hemorrhoids that the Philistines paid as an indemnity to Yahweh: For Ashdod, one; for Gaza, one; for Ashkelon, one; for Gath, one; for Ekron, one. 18 As for the gold mice, their number was the total of all the Philistine cities that belonged to the five lords—both fortified cities and unwalled villages, as far as the great stone on which the ark of Yahweh was set down, to this day, in the field of Joshua of Beth-shemesh.

Commentary

As Garsiel (52–53) has observed, “In this section of Samuel appears a number of alien phrases which do not seem appropriate in context. Encountering them, the reader is taken aback; and realizing that he cannot integrate them into the text, he must reflect on their particular meaning and intention. This device is known in literary research as ‘estrangement.’ ” Among the phrases and imagery he identifies as “estrangement” are “They have brought around the Ark of the God of Israel to kill me and my people” (1 Sam 5:10 [so MT, 4QSam vs. pl. in Gk Syr. Vg.]; cf. also v. 11). He takes this as an intertextual allusion to Exod 9:15 and with it to the exodus story, which the narrator wishes the reader to compare, and the allusion to the mice destroying the land, which he thinks alludes to one of the ten plagues on Egypt.

6:12 The cows obeyed not their own instincts, but Yahweh’s invisible guiding hand. Thus, they headed straight for Beth-Shemesh, not deviating once from the road. The only possible indication of a conflict with their own instincts was their lowing as they went, provided we choose the MT reading over the LXX (see TN 1 Sam 6:12.b.). The LXX reading would indicate that in spite of the hard work (יגע, yg', κόπος, kopos) the cows performed in pulling the wagon uphill from Ekron (Tel Miqneh, 101 m. elevation) to Beth-shemesh (average elevation 219 m.), they continued to do so because of Yahweh’s hand upon them. This was not the first time in the OT when Yahweh overruled an animal’s natural instincts in order to communicate his will (compare the extraordinary behavior of the donkey of the prophet Balaam in Num 22:21–35).

The Philistine rulers (‏פְלִשְׁתִּים סַרְנֵי, phelishtim sarney) accompanied the ark as it was transported on the cart up to the border of Beth-shemesh, which was also the effective border between Philistia and Judah at this time. They stopped before entering Judaean territory, so as not to provoke the Judaeans. They walked behind the ark because they did not wish to influence the direction the cows would take (like operating an Ouija board game). Additionally, walking before Yahweh might be offensive to him. By walking behind his ark, they hoped to show respect—another sign of the “honor” that was the stated aim of the gifts (see 1 Sam 6:5). In victory processions, the conquered foe likewise walked behind the litter of the victorious king.

When Israel crossed the Jordan on dry ground, the priests carried the ark in front of the people, who followed (Josh 3:6). But when the Israelites encircled Jericho for seven days before capturing the city, priests blowing trumpets marched in front of the ark (Josh 6:4), and armed men marched in front of the priests (Josh 6:7, 9). Later, when David attempted to bring the ark from the house of Amminadab to Jerusalem but was forced to stop at the house of Obed-Edom (2 Sam 6:1–11), Ahio walked in front of the ark (v. 4). In 1 Chronicles 15, when David brought the ark to Jerusalem from the house of Obed-Edom, seven named priests were to walk before it in procession, blowing their trumpets (1 Chr 15:11–15, 23–24).

6:13 The reference to wheat harvesting in the valley (v. 13) of Sorek (see Judg 16:4), in which Beth-Shemesh was located, shows that it was early summer (May–June; Gordon, 102).

Here the joy of the Israelites is expressed with the simple verb וַיִּשְׂמְחוּ (wayyismechu) (from שָמַח, shamach). Earlier, when the ark was brought from Shiloh to Ebenezer and entered the Israelite military encampment, there was ecstatic joy (‏גְדוֹלָה תְּרוּעָה, gedolah teru'ah, 1 Sam 4:5). But that joy turned to lamentation (‏כָּל־הָעִיר וַתִּזְעַק, kol-ha'ir wattiz'aq) and mourning (1 Sam 4:12–13) when Israel was defeated by the Philistines and the ark was captured by the enemy. Now a new cycle begins: Yahweh himself (without the aid of his people) has defeated the Philistines and enters the camp of Israel as the victor.

6:14 The stopping places of the ark recorded in 1 Sam and 1 Chr 15 are more specific than just the town or village: They are identified as the “field (or property) of PN.” Here it is a man named Joshua. The LXX takes the phrase “of Beth-Shemesh” as modifying the field, not the name Joshua. The difference is not great in terms of the identification of the location. If there were more than one Joshua in the town, each would have claim to the name “Joshua of Beth-Shemesh.” The mention of a specific man’s property as the place where the ark stopped lends an air of authenticity to the story. One wonders why Yahweh picked this particular man’s property to lodge the ark in. One is reminded of the story of Jesus entering Jericho and picking out Zacchaeus (Zakkai) as his host for the night (Luke 19:1–9). To host the ark of Yahweh was in a sense a great honor. It could be hazardous, as both the priests of Dagon and later an Israelite named Uzzah would learn (2 Sam 6:3–8), but it could also bring great blessing, as the family of Obed-Edom found out (2 Sam 6:9–11).

According to the LXX, the people of Beth-Shemesh set up a stone next to the ark. In contrast, the MT states that the stone was already there where the cart stopped. The MT’s version would indicate that Yahweh halted the cows and cart where he wanted a sacrifice on a rock altar. This seems more in keeping with the rest of the narrative than the villagers taking the initiative to roll a large stone there to serve as an altar. With the cart and cows, the Philistines had provided both the wood fuel for the fire and the offering, but from the standpoint of the Israelite villagers it was Yahweh who had provided them. If the two cows constituted the burnt offerings (עֹלוֹת, oloth, v. 15), the people were not operating according to the provisions of the law of Moses for burnt offerings at the central sanctuary, which stipulated male animals (תָּמִ֖ים זָכָ֥ר, tamim zakhar, Lev 1:3). But one did not question what Yahweh himself provided for his table (see Gen 22:7–8, 13–14).

6:15 Levites are mentioned here for the first time in the book. The text gives the impression that they were there when the ark arrived, as though the town was the home of one of the Levite clans. If so, then it provides another reason why Yahweh led the cows here and stopped them. According to the law of Moses, the Levites were the sole authorized custodians of the ark (Num 3:27–32; Deut 10:8). As Gordon (102) correctly notes, “it is certainly no embarrassment to the present reference to Levites that Beth-shemesh is listed among the Levitical cities in Joshua 21:16 (cf. 1 Chr 6:59), for it is unlikely that the Levites were introduced here merely because of the special status of Beth-shemesh.”

6:16 What was it that the Philistines saw? Are we to understand that they saw the entire ceremony of taking the ark from the cart and setting it up, and then the elaborate ritual of burnt offerings and additional sacrifices? The repetition of the identical phrase הַהוּא בַּיּוֹם (hahu' bayyom) (“that same day”) in vv. 15 and 16 might be interpreted that way. Still, it seems too restrictive of the intention of this verse to presume that they waited until the entire procedure was complete. It was enough that they saw the ark had arrived safely among the Israelites and was welcomed home with celebrations, which included the beginning of elaborate sacrifices. This assured them that Yahweh would not continue his judgments on their cities.

6:17–18 I see no reason from the text to view the explanation for sending five gold mice as presenting a contradiction within the text (so McCarter1, 137); both verses attribute the number five to cities: one to the five principal ones, the other to the five principal ones and their daughters). Nor do I regard the present state of the MT as a reason to assume that the “mice” are simply another description of the hemorrhoid models (so Tsumura, 223). The LXX translation of 1 Sam describes the mice as “ravaging the land” (τῶν διαφθειρόντων τὴν γῆν, tōn diaphtheirontōn tēn gēn), which is hardly a description of the plague of hemorrhoids. Although Tsumura generally rejects the LXX in favor of the MT, and Pisano thinks that this and other LXX additions in this episode had no basis in any early Heb. text used by the LXX translators,535 Pisano’s is an argument from silence, and he himself recognizes the tentative nature of his conclusion.

6:18 The various readings of ועד (w'd) result in different interpretations. The MT reading וְעַד (we'ad) (“as far as”) understands the five cities affected by the plague as being located on the ark’s circuitous route, which began at Aphek and ended at the large stone Ebenezer. Repointing to וְעֵד (we'ed) (“[is] a witness”) results in an additional observation: That the stone that was still in that area stands as a mute witness (עֵד, ed, “witness”) to what occurred. The presence of the phrase הַזֶּה הַיּוֹם עַד (hazzeh hayyom ad) (“unto this day”) argues for the reading וְעֵד (we'ed) (see Josh 4:9; 7:26; 8:28–29; Judg 6:24; 15:19; 1 Kgs 8:8). The witness was both the presence of the stone and the narrative tradition accompanying it. Judging this to be “aetiological” does not necessarily imply that it is “unhistorical.” It is going beyond the wording of the text to claim “we may assume that there was a sacrificial feast [in Beth-shemesh] of which this story formed the sacred legend” (Hertzberg, 60).

Application and Devotional Implications

The Philistines felt assured that they had seen the end of Yahweh’s judgments when they saw the joyous welcome of the ark in Israel. But temporal misfortunes are only the tip of the iceberg of God’s reckoning with men. Unbelievers are not usually relieved in their consciences when they see believers rejoicing in their Lord. Rather, as Paul put it so well, “We are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life” (2 Cor 2:15–16 ESV; notice the chiastic structure of these verses).

Today, believers in Jesus become lifelong hosts of the Savior, who dwells in their bodies by the Holy Spirit. This honor was not bestowed on believers in Old Testament times. In those days, the Spirit came upon people God chose in order to enable them for difficult acts of service that required special empowerment (e.g., Num 24:2; Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29). When the mission was over, the Spirit left. For instance, the Spirit left King Saul when it became clear that Saul was unwilling to carry out the responsibilities of kingship for which Yahweh had initially anointed him (1 Sam 16:13–15; cf. 1 Sam 10:1). And after David’s sin with Bathsheba, he prayed that Yahweh would forgive him and not take the Spirit from him (Psa 51, esp. v. 13: וְרוּחַ קָדְשְׁךָ אַל־תִּקַּח מִמֶּנִּי, weruach qodshekha al-tiqqach mimmenniy).

The permanent presence of the Holy Spirit in believers is both the inner witness to our salvation and the power for our external witness to the world. He is our ʾeben-ʿezer, our “Stone of Help”!

Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,

Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;

Streams of mercy, never ceasing,

Call for songs of loudest praise.

Teach me some melodious sonnet,

Sung by flaming tongues above.

Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,

Mount of Thy redeeming love.

Here I raise my Ebenezer;

Hither by Thy help I’ve come;

And I hope, by Thy good pleasure,

Safely to arrive at home.

From Beth-Shemesh to Kiriath-Jearim (1 Sam 6:19–7:1)

Original Text

19 וַיַּךְ בְּאַנְשֵׁי בֵית־שֶׁמֶשׁ כִּי רָאוּ בַּאֲרוֹן יְהוָה aוַיַּךְ בָּעָם שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ חֲמִשִּׁים אֶלֶף אִישׁ וַיִּתְאַבְּלוּ הָעָם כִּי־הִכָּה יְהוָה בָּעָם מַכָּה גְדוֹלָה b20 וַיֹּאמְרוּ אַנְשֵׁי בֵית־שֶׁמֶשׁ מִי יוּכַל לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי aיְהוָה הָאֱלֹהִים bהַקָּדוֹשׁ הַזֶּה וְאֶל־מִי cיַעֲלֶה מֵעָלֵינוּ׃ ס 21 וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ מַלְאָכִים אֶל־יוֹשְׁבֵי קִרְיַת־יְעָרִים לֵאמֹר הֵשִׁבוּ פְלִשְׁתִּים אֶת־אֲרוֹן יְהוָה רְדוּ הַעֲלוּ אֹתוֹ אֲלֵיכֶם׃ 7:1 וַיָּבֹאוּ אַנְשֵׁי קִרְיַת יְעָרִים וַיַּעֲלוּ אֶת־אֲרוֹן יְהוָה aוַיָּבִאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־בֵּית אֲבִינָדָב בַּגִּבְעָה וְאֶת־אֶלְעָזָר בְּנוֹ קִדְּשׁוּ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת־אֲרוֹן יְהוָה׃ פ

Textual Notes

19.a. The LXX reads Καὶ οὐκ ἠσμένισαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ιεχονιου ἐν τοῖς ἀνδράσιν Βαιθσαμυς, ὅτι εἶδαν κιβωτὸν κυρίου (Kai ouk ēsmenisan hoi huioi Iechoniou en tois andrasin Baithsamys, hoti eidan kibōton kyriou) (“The sons of Jeconiah were not pleased with the people of Beth-shemesh because they looked at the ark of Yahweh [and he struck down seventy men and fifty thousand men of them]”).

19.b. The LXX reads πληγὴν μεγάλην σφόδρα (plēgēn megalēn sphodra) (“a very great slaughter”), reflecting מְאֹד גְדוֹלָה מַכָּה (me'od gedolah makkah).

20.a. The LXX reads διελθεῖν ἐνώπιον (dielthein enōpion) (“to serve in the presence of”), reflecting either לפני להתהלך (lpny lhthlk) (cf. 1 Sam 2:30, 35) or לפני לעבור (lpny l'bwr).

20.b. The LXX reads “the LORD, this holy One,” omitting the word הָאֱלֹהִים (ha'elohim) (“God”).

20.c. The LXX reads “the ark of Yahweh.”

21.a. The LXX reads τὴν κιβωτὸν διαθήκης κυρίου (tēn kibōton diathēkēs kyriou) (“the ark of the covenant of Yahweh”), reflecting אֲרוֹן יהוה בְּרִית (aron yhwh berith).

Translation

19 And [Yahweh] struck down some of the men of Beth-Shemesh, because they looked into the ark of Yahweh. And he struck down among the people seventy men (and) fifty thousand men. The people mourned because Yahweh had made a great slaughter among the people. 20 Then the people of Beth-shemesh said, “Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God? Into whose care shall it go up from us?” 21 So they sent messengers to the inhabitants of Kiriath-Jearim, saying, “The Philistines have returned the ark of Yahweh. Come down and take it up to yourselves.” 7:1 And the people of Kiriath-Jearim came and took up the ark of Yahweh, and brought it to the house of Abinadab on the hill. They consecrated his son, Eleazar, to guard the ark of Yahweh.

Commentary

6:19 The LXX-HV differs considerably from the MT in this verse. The LXX injects “the sons of Jeconiah” here without apparent source. NRSV (also NAB, REB, NJB, and Miller539) uses the LXX text but translates: “The descendants of Jeconiah did not rejoice with the people of Beth-shemesh when they saw the ark of the LORD.” This translation of כִּי (kiy) as “when” instead of the LXX’s ὅτι (hoti) (“because”) is possible. But translating “look at/on” as “see (approaching at a distance), greet” is problematic since there is no other example of בְּ רָאָה (b ra'ah) with the meaning “see (approaching).” Furthermore, it shifts the reason for Yahweh’s anger from the violation of divine privacy to the sons of Jeconiah’s supposed failure to rejoice. The former reason fits ANE cultic prohibitions better than the latter. In addition, both LSJ and LEH render ἀσμενίζω ἔν τινι (asmenizō en tini) as “be pleased/satisfied with someone,” not “to rejoice with someone.” There are far too many problems with the interpretations of NRSV, NAB, REB, NJB, and Miller. For want of a better option, the MT (followed by the other English translations) is to be preferred.

Campbell’s objection is well taken:

Apart from the risk of basing the interpretation of the passage on a reconstructed verse, if the reason for the slaughter is attributed to clearly definable failure of the descendants of Jeconiah to join in the celebration, what have the other people of Beth-shemesh to fear? In this case, the answer to the question, “Who is able to stand before Yahweh?,” should not be, “No one can!,” but instead, “Those who rejoice, and who receive the ark correctly and piously can.”

In favor of the traditional understanding that the offense is looking at the ark, Milgrom writes:

[The Ark was not] taken into battle uncovered or unaccompanied by other sacred objects. In Israel’s wilderness battle against the Midianites, we are expressly told that “the sacred utensils [kĕlê haqqōdeš] and the trumpets” were brought by the priest Phinehas into the war camp (Num 31:6). Moreover, it is explicitly stated that the Ark was covered in David’s war camp (2 Sam 11:11). Finally, the Ark was probably housed in a tent in the war camp and concealed from view ([Num] 4:5–6), since the consequences of viewing it or touching it while exposed were regarded as fatal (cf. Num 4:15, 20; 1 Sam 6:19; 2 Sam 6:6–7) … In Israel, the issue of encroachment upon the sancta occurs in different literary genres. The narratives record the lethal power of the Ark. God punishes with death Uzzah, for touching the Ark (2 Sam 6:6–7), and the men of Beth-shemesh, for viewing it (1 Sam 6:19), both unpremeditated acts.

A Hittite oracular inquiry demonstrates that it was a serious infraction (Hittite maršaštarri-, “sacrilege”) for a person to look through a window in the temple and see the cult* image of the storm god. We suspect that there was a greater motive for looking upon the cult* image than mere curiosity. Although flattery is probably involved, a statement in an Assyrian letter to the king suggests a popular belief that there was healing power in the face of the king: “got well when I saw the king, my lord, face to face.”545 An Amarna letter from Adda-danu, ruler of Gezer, to the pharaoh, his lord, reflects a similar belief: “I looked this way, and I looked that way, and there was no light. Then I looked towards the king, my lord, and there was light.”

Regarding the large number, the NRSV, REB, NIV, ESV, NLT, CEV, NJB, NAB, and most commentators delete “and fifty thousand” (found in both MT and LXX) without being able to cite dissenting ancient textual evidence. They leave the casualty figure at seventy men. KJV, ASV, NJPS, NASB, and NKJV retain the full number of the MT. HCSB reads “70 men [out of] 50,000 men,” with no basis for this rendering but skepticism of the larger figure. The NLT footnote suggests: “Perhaps the text should be understood to read the Lord killed 70 men and 50 oxen,” taking the Heb. term אֶ֫לֶף (eleph) not as a number of persons but as “oxen.”

Tsumura (226–27) proposes several routes for obtaining a reasonable translation using the unaltered MT. Some may feel these solutions are somewhat forced and unlikely.547 Nevertheless, it is hard to visualize over fifty thousand men in the town of Beth-shemesh at the time; it is even more difficult to imagine that over fifty thousand men were able to look at the ark except at a great distance. Since early errors in transmission undoubtedly occurred before the period of the LXX, the current lack of a dissenting manuscript is not a serious objection to deleting the larger figure. The problem is in accounting for its origin. One plausible explanation was proposed by Wenham:

It has been suggested that the error arose at a time when Hebrew letters were being used for numerals and that ʿayin (70 = ע) was mistaken for nûn (50,000 = נ). At one stage of the history of Hebrew writing these letters were similar, and it seems possible that both readings were current and that 50,000 was a marginal gloss incorporated into the text. Though there is no direct evidence for a pre-Maccabean use of letters for numerals, G. R. Driver has demonstrated that its origin was earlier. He explains “Saul … reigned two years” (1 Sam 13:1) as a misreading of 20 (כ) as 2ב.

On the other hand, the text describes the loss of life as גְדוֹלָֽה מַכָּ֥ה (gedolah makkah), which implies casualties far in excess of seventy men. This phrase is used in Judg 11:33 to describe the death of the total inhabitants of twenty towns, and in 1 Sam 4:10 to describe the death of thirty thousand foot soldiers. It normally describes heavy casualties in entire armies (Josh 10:20; Judg 11:33; 15:8; 1 Sam 4:10; 6:19; 19:8; 23:5; 1 Kgs 20:21; 2 Chr 28:5). This points to casualties considerably larger than seventy men in our current passage.

On the number seventy for the casualties, Milgrom comments:

The number seventy is not accidental. There are seventy nations (cf. Gen 10), each having its guardian angel. The number seventy is also found in the following instances, among others: the descendants of Jacob (Exod 1:5; Deut 10:22), the elders of Israel (Exod 24:1; Ezek. 8:11), the submissive kings (Judg. 1:7), those struck by the Lord (1 Sam 6:19), the sons or brothers of a judge or king (Judg, 8:30; 12:14; 2 Kgs 10:1–7). As a symbolic number, like seven, it is not intended as an exact number but only as an approximation of a large group of people.

I have left my translation reflecting the MT, indicating my willingness to consider a much larger number than seventy. But the preceding discussion gives reason to consider a very early, pre-LXX error in textual transmission of the number.

We would be taking an altogether wrong approach if we were to leave this section of the book, which in its complete (reconstructed) form is called “the ark narrative,” with the impression that Scripture presents the ark as possessing some enormous supernatural power in itself, as in the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. This would be to replicate the first error of the Israelites at Ebenezer (1 Sam 4). Furthermore, it does not fit the typical conception of divine images among the other peoples of the ANE. A cult* image was treated with great respect not because it was a deity itself, but because it was the bearer and portrayer of a divinity. When such an image was lost—whether by being carried away by invaders or by some other accident—it could be and usually was replaced by a new image, although proper rituals needed to be performed on the replacement object in order to infuse it with the deity. In other words, the image—not being the deity itself—was by no means irreplaceable. The displays of awesome power reported in our narratives were due to Yahweh’s own reaction to the abuses of the symbol of his presence with his people.

The unspiritual and untaught nature of Israelite priests at this period is evident here: In a town whose inhabitants were all direct descendants of Aaron, seventy men didn’t know better than to look into the ark of God.

6:20 The MT’s “stand before,” when compared to Exod 9:11, suggests that the people were acknowledging the overwhelming power of God that no one can withstand (Gordon, 103, and Tsumura, 72, 227–28). On the other hand, the LXX, seeming to have a different Heb. text (see above), laments the absence of proper priestly supervision (so Josephus, McCarter1, etc.).

The question “To whom will the ark go up from here?” (1 Sam 6:20) may be more than a rhetorical question. It is possible that this too was part of a series of questions put to an oracle, perhaps even the Urim and Thummim. Compare their use in Saul’s day (1 Sam 14) and David’s (1 Sam 23:9–12). If so, then the choice of Kiriath-Jearim was the result of an oracular inquiry and may in fact rest upon a revelation from God.

P. Leithart has an interesting take on Israelites’ behavior in response to the ark:

Act like a Philistine and you can expect to be punished like a Philistine. The punishment of the Beth-shemesh—the striking of 50,070—was fitting (6:19), and the parallel with the judgment on Philistia is brought out by the fact that the word “stroke” (מַכָּה) is the same as the word for “plague” in 5:6. After committing sacrilege, the people of Beth-shemesh acted like Philistines again by trying to get rid of the ark. Instead of repenting of their sins, they sent the ark out of their country like the men who urged Jesus to leave them after He killed their swine. “Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God” they asked (6:20). Certainly not Dagon, certainly not Philistines, and certainly not Israelites who act no better than worshipers of Dagon. The Lord fights Philistines wherever they are; whether they are in Ashdod or Gath, Ekron or Beth-shemesh; whether they are in Beijing or Baghdad, Washington, D.C. or Wheaton.

6:21 Instead of repenting and following God’s law, the population of Aaron’s descendants “passed the buck.” Just as the Philistines who felt the judgment of God sent the ark on to another Philistine city, so here the men of Beth-shemesh pass it on to Kiritath-Jearim (“Town surrounded by Forests”). Klein notes regarding this passage (61):

Throughout, the ark expresses the sovereign freedom of God. Its arrival in the Israelite camp led the Philistines to expect defeat. Their surprising victory, however, was followed by the ark’s harrowing presence in their land for seven months. When the Philistines set up a divination attempt, Yahweh’s ark was taken straight to Beth-shemesh, proclaiming to the enemy leaders, who were present, that Yahweh was in control. Finally, what are we to make of the ark’s move from Beth-shemesh to Kiriath-jearim? Yahweh transcended the intentions of his Philistine captors who sent the ark back since his ark wound up in a city different from the one they intended. But over against Israel, too, he expressed his independence. The ark should not be taken for granted even by them. When the sons of Jeconiah did not respond appropriately to the ark’s return, death was their lot, but the wise citizens of Kiriath-jearim showed proper concern by installing Eleazar to watch the ark and carry on its services. The next, time the ark appears …, it is conveyed by David, himself the object of many a promise …, to the house in Jerusalem.

Kiritath-Jearim was a town in the territory of Benjamin that was settled by Shobal, a descendant of Caleb (1 Chr 2:50), the faithful witness among the twelve sent to spy out Canaan. Since Eli’s family was wiped out, the ark at Kiriath-jearim is put under the charge of Eleazar the son of Abinadab, who although “consecrated” (קִדְּשׁוּ, qiddeshu, 1 Sam 7:1) is not said to be of the descendants of Aaron. Another Levitical town was Aijalon, just northwest of Kiriath-Jearim, in the territory of Dan. But the men of Beth-shemesh did not send the ark there. Rainey (SacB 126) writes regarding Kiriath-Jearim:

Kiriath-jearim has sufficient evidence to place it at Tell Deir el-ʿAzhar in Qiryet el-ʿAnab (= Abu Ghosh today). Kiriath-jearim is also referred to as “Baalah” (Josh 15:9; 2 Sam 6:2) and as “Kiriath-baal” (Josh 15:60, 18:14). Its place in the sequence of the northern border of Judah and of the southwest border of Benjamin Gosh (15:9 and Josh 18:14, 18:28 respectively) is one of the most decisive pieces of evidence for the identification.

Tsumura (228) also comments on the location and variant names of Kiriath-jearim:

The modern site of Kiriath-jearim is Tel el-’Azhar, 8 miles northwest of Jerusalem and about 15 miles east-northeast of Beth-shemesh; it means “City of the Forests.” It was a strategic location, on a hill at the juncture of the boundaries of Judah, Dan, and Benjamin. On the basis of its alternative names Baalah (Josh. 15:9), Kiriath-baal (Josh. 15:60), and Baale-judah (2 Sam 6:2), one might conjecture that this city was formally connected with Baal worship.

Gehrke (61) claims that Kiriath-jearim was neither Philistine nor Israelite at this time, but “Canaanite” and “neutral.” Hertzberg (278) understands that in 2 Sam 6 David went to fetch the ark from Kiriath-jearim, where it was “kept under Philistine supervision.” Aharoni argues that in the early years of the Israelite settlement, the Canaanite cities were at border points of tribal territories and were not themselves part of those territories. Only later they were incorporated. Kiriath-jearim was one such city.

But since in 1 Sam 6:21 it is the Israelites of Beth-shemesh who ask the Israelites of Kiriath-jearim to take the ark into their care because of the need for holiness in the custodians, it seems very unlikely that they were sending it out of Israelite-controlled territory. If the Philistines could not endure the judgments of the God of the ark in their midst, how could Canaanites? Borgman (278) writes: “On its way back from the Philistines, the ark comes to rest at Kiriath-jearim (called Baʿalē-yĕhûdâ; here), just east of Philistine territory but west and south of Gibeon, where it conceivably would find a proper home” with no comment about whether Israel or the Canaanites controlled the city. Firth (101) comments on the care of the ark at Kiriath-jearim:

Kiriath Jearim is usually identified as Tell el’Azhar, about 8 miles west of Jerusalem, and the only Gibeonite city to have an Israelite population (J. Blenkinsopp, “Kiriath-Jearim”, 146–147).… The holiness of Yahweh that had so distressed the Beth Shemeshites is not a problem here, indicating that the ark’s treatment was acceptable.

Dietrich comments on the journeys of the ark during the monarchic period and the immediately preceding years:

In every case the ark goes on a journey. The picture is not one of an annual procession but of a one-time journey with a set itinerary (from the temple of Dagon in Ashdod [1 Sam 5:1ff.] to the various Philistine cities to the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-jearim [1 Sam 6:21; 7:1]; from the house of Abinadab in Baale-judah [2 Sam 6:2] to the house of the Gittite Obed-Edom [6:10–11] to the City of David [6:12]; from the City of David to Solomon’s temple [1 Kgs 8:1, 6]). In every case the leaders of the people initiate the transfer of the ark (the Philistine city kings in 1 Sam 5–6, David in 2 Sam 6, Solomon in 1 Kgs 8), but the general population is very involved in the events (in the case of the Philistine cities in 1 Sam 5–6, with great suffering; in the case of the house of Israel in 2 Sam 6 and the elders and men of Israel in 1 Kgs 8:1–3, with great joy); specific priests of the ark are responsible for the ark’s proper transfer (1 Sam 4:4; 7:1; 2 Sam 6:3; 1 Kgs 8:3b, 6 [the Levites of 1 Sam 6:15; 1 Kgs 8:4 are secondary additions]). The holiness of the ark must be respected, and punishment threatens any denial of this respect (1 Sam 5–6 passim; 2 Sam 6:6–7). For this reason also, the transfer of the ark is accompanied by a multitude of sacrifices (1 Sam 6:14; 2 Sam 6:13; 1 Kgs 8:5).

Selected Bibliography

George, A. “Fautes contre Yahweh dans les livres de Samuel.” RB 53 (1946): 161–84.

CHAP. 6

The Philistines send the ark back, ver. 1–12. The Israelites receive it, ver. 13–18. The people of Bethshemesh, smitten for looking into the ark, desire those of Kirjath-jearim to fetch it, ver. 19–21.

V. 1. Seven months—So long they kept it, as loath to lose so great a prize, and willing to try all ways to keep it.

V. 3. It shall be known—You shall understand, what is hitherto doubtful, whether he was the author of these calamities, and why they continued so long upon you.

V. 4. Emerods—Figures representing the disease. These they offered not in contempt of God, for they fought to gain his favour hereby; but in testimony of their humiliation, that by leaving this monument of their own shame and misery, they might obtain pity from God. Mice—Which marred their land by destroying the fruits thereof; as the other plague afflicted their Bodies.

V. 5. Give glory—The glory of his power in conquering you, who seemed to have conquered him; of his justice in punishing you, and of his goodness if he relieve you.

V. 6. Wherefore, &c.—They express themselves thus, either because some opposed the sending home the ark, though most had consented to it; or because they thought they would hardly send it away in the manner prescribed, by giving glory to God, and taking shame to themselves.

V. 7. Milch kine, &c.—In respect to the ark; and for the better discovery, because such untamed heifers are apt to wander, and keep no certain and constant paths, as oxen accustomed to the yoke do, and therefore were most unlikely to keep the direct road to Israel’s land. From them—Which would stir up natural affection in their dams, and cause them rather to return home, than to go to a strange country.

V. 9. His own coast—Or, Border, that is, the way that leadeth to his coast, or border, namely, the country to which it belongs. Then he, &c.—Which they might well conclude, if such heifers should against their common use, and natural instinct, go into a strange path, and regularly and constantly proceed in it, without any man’s conduct.

V. 12. Beth-shemesh—A city of the priests, who were by office to take care of it. Loving—Testifying at once both their natural and vehement inclination to their calves, and the supernatural power which over-ruled them to a contrary course. The lords went—To prevent all imposture, and to get assurance of the truth of the event. All which circumstances tended to the greater illustration of God’s glory.

V. 14. They—Not the lords of the Philistines, but the Beth-shemites, the priest that dwelt there. Offered the kine—There may seem to be a double error in this act. First, that they offered females for a burnt-offering, contrary to Levit. 1:3. Secondly, that they did it in a forbidden place, Deut. 12:5, 6. But this case being extraordinary may in some sort excuse it, if they did not proceed by ordinary rules.

V. 18. Villages—This is added for explication of that foregoing phrase, all the cities; either to shew, that under the name of the five cities were comprehended all the villages and territories belonging to them, in whose name, and at whose charge these presents were made; or to express the difference between this and the former present, the emerods being only five, according to the five cities mentioned, ver. 17 because it may seem, the cities only, or principally, were pestered with that disease; and the mice being many more according to the number of all the cities, as is here expressed: the word city being taken generally so, as to include not only fenced cities, but also the country villages, and the fields belonging to them. Abel—This is mentioned as the utmost border of the Philistines territory, to which the plague of mice extended. And this place is here called Abel, by anticipation from the great mourning mentioned in the following verse. It is desirable, to see the ark in its habitation, in all the circumstances of solemnity. But it is better to have it on a great stone, and in the fields of the wood, than to be without it. The intrinsic grandeur of divine ordinances ought not to be diminished in our eyes, by the meanness and poverty of the place, where they are administered.

V. 19. Had looked—Having now an opportunity which they never yet had, it is not strange they had a vehement curiosity to see the contents of the ark. Of the people—In and near Beth-shemesh, and coming from all parts on this occasion.

V. 20. Who is able, &c.—That is, to minister before the ark where the Lord is present. Since God is so severe to mark what is amiss in his servants, who is sufficient to serve him? It seems to be a complaint, or expostulation with God, concerning this great instance of his severity. And to whom, &c.—Who will dare to receive the ark with so much hazard to themselves. Thus when the word of God works with terror on men’s consciences, instead of taking the blame to themselves, they frequently quarrel with the word, and endeavour to put it from them.

V. 21. Kirjath-jearim—Whither they sent, either because the place was not far off from them, and so it might soon be removed: or because it was a place of eminency and strength, and somewhat farther distant from the Philistines, where therefore it was likely to be better preserved from any new attempts of the Philistines, and to be better attended by the Israelites, who would more freely and frequently come to it at such a place, than in Beth-shemesh, which was upon the border of their enemies land.