RELIGION OF ISRAEL
RELIGION OF ISRAEL 629
again, there are numerous indications that the Ark primarily represented Jahweh as the war- God. On the one hand, there is the fact that down to the time of David the Ark (cf. 2S 72: °) was as a rule kept in a tent, the natural place of abode in war [even in the temple at Shiloh it may have stood in a tent, as, according to 28 6”, it did in the citadel of David]; and, on the other hand, the fact that in the historical books it is brought with remarkable frequency into connexion with the name Jahweh Zeb éth, the designation of the war-God (see the following section, p. 636f.). Moreover, we have direct evidence of this sense being attributed to the Ark in Nu 10°: (see above, p. 628") 142" (see above, p. 628°), Jos 6° (where the Ark brings about the downfall of the walls of Jericho), 1S 4° (see above, p. 628%), 2S 11" (where the Ark has its place in the camp at Rabbath-ammon) 154 (where the priests imagine that the presence of the Ark will ensure victory over Absalom).
It cannot be decided with certainty whether the Ark was from the first the sacred shrine of al/ the tribes, or only (so Stade, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, i, 458) the war palladiwm of the Josephites or the Josephite tribe of Ephraim [in 18 1 ff. we meet with it as giving its character to the tribal sanc- tuary of Shiloh]. Its original connexion with al/ the tribes is favoured, however, not only by its construction being attributed to Moses—a tradi- tion which it is very difficult to set aside—but by the narrative of 18 4, and very specially by the evident importance which David attaches to the introduction of the Ark into his newly captured residence, Jerusalem (2S 6). Had the Ark been the palladiwm of an alien tribe, would he not have been afraid of giving them the most serious offence by appropriating it? On the other hand, if the Ark was well known to have been the representa- tive of the God of Israel in the ‘ wars of Jahweh,’ it was pre-eminently suited to be established at the residence of the monarch as the symbol of the now closely united tribes.
It may be as well to note here once for all what is necessary regarding the subsequent fortunes of the Ark. After its transference to the dark inner sanctuary of Solomon’s temple (1 K 8* ®*-) there is no mention of its ever again leaving this place, down to the destruction of the temple in B.C. 586. [In Ps 247*-, then, where the doors of the temple are already addressed as ‘primeval gates,’ there must be preserved an allusion to the war-God Jahweh Zéba@ oth, v.%, returning in the company of the Ark from a campaign]. ‘That the Ark even in Solomon’s temple continued for a long time to be regarded as representing the presence of Jahweh, is shown not only by the ancient verses contained in 1 K 82, which can yefer only to the place of the Ark in the dark inner sanctuary of the temple, but by the Ark’s being placed under the wings of two huge cherub forms (1 K 8%), Here, as elsewhere, the cherubim denote the near presence of Deity. But, as the conception of God came to be increasingly spiritualized in the Pro- phetic period, it became impossible to hold to the ancient, grossly material view of the Ark. In place of an actual representation of the presence of Jahweh it came to be a mere symbol of His presence. Nay, in the Deuteronomistic state- ments on the subject we see the Ark almost robbed of any special significance of its own. | As the receptacle of the tables of the Law it 1s only a
such a name would not have been given to a throne. Even Reichel’s further exposition of his hypothesis (in Theologische ‘Arbeiten aus dem wissenschaftlichen Rheinischen Prediger- verein, Tiibingen, 1902, p. 28 ff.) has made no difference on this point. On the other hand, the strict defence of the Deuterono- mistic tradition by Lotz (Die Bundeslade, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1901 [from the ‘ Festschrift’ for the 80th birthday of the Prince Regent of Bavaria)) is a piece of wasted labour.
means to an end, and its place might have been taken equally well by any other vessel; for its only claim to veneration and sanctity rests upon its contents. The question may now be asked, Are we to assume that at some time or other the old stone fetishes, of which people were now ashamed, were really displaced by stone tables with a copy of the Decalogue? ‘This would be conceivable only if we could assume that there was a periodical opening of the Ark: for instance, upon the occasion of a particular festival. But even Dt 31° speaks merely of a depositing of the Book of the Law beside the Ark. Or, again, do the Deuteronomistic statements involve the recol- lection that, at any rate, stones were originally kept in the Ark? This is a question we cannot answer.
On the other hand, the closest attention is due to the circumstance that in the theories of the Priests’ Code so important a rdle is assigned to the Ark both as a centre of revelation (Kx 25”, Ly 16°, Nu 7®) and in connexion with the process of sacrifice (Lv 1614), although even according to this source (Ex 251° *!) the Ark is, properly speak- ing, nothing more than the receptacle of the ‘testimony,’ which means the tables of the Law. But, as in so many other instances, even the Priests’ Code cannot shake off entirely the old conception of the Ark. It is no longer, indeed, identical with Jahweh, but it is a very holy centre of revelations from Him. This is still indicated by the cherub forms, only that these no longer stand, as in Solomon’s temple, on each side of the Ark, but, made of pure gold, are placed (Ex 251") on the ends of the lid (the kapporeth). Here, accord- ing to Lev 16", the blood of the most important guilt-offerings of the whole year had to be sprinkled in order to bring Jahweh as near as possible.