1 Samuel 4:1

THE ARK OF THE COVENANT WAS CAPTURED BY THE PHILISTINES

"And the word of Samuel came to all Israel" (1 Samuel 4:1a). This statement actually belongs to the preceding chapter where it appears in a number of ancient versions.[1] We believe that C. F. Keil was mistaken in his interpretation that these words were a summons by Samuel for all Israel to go to war against the Philistines. God's true prophet would not have led Israel into such a disastrous defeat.

THE PRELIMINARY BATTLE AT APHEK AND EBENEZER

"Now Israel went out to battle against the Philistines; they encamped at Ebenezer, and the Philistines encamped at Aphek. The Philistines drew up in line against Israel, and when the battle spread, Israel was defeated by the Philistines, who slew about four thousand men on the field of battle. And when the troops came to the camp, the elders of Israel said, "Why has the Lord put us to rout today before the Philistines? Let us bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord here from Shiloh, that he may come among us and save us from the power of our enemies." So the people sent to Shiloh, and brought from there the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God."

"Ebenezer ... Aphek" (1 Samuel 4:1). There were a number of Apheks in Palestine, but the mention of nearby Ebenezer indicates that this one was in the south near the entrance of Beth-horon near the Philistine border.[2] The mention of "field of battle" (1 Samuel 4:2) appears to indicate that the skirmish was on relatively level ground, thus enabling the Philistines to use their chariots of iron to their great advantage.

This conflict with the Philistines was no new thing at all; it had been going on for centuries. For a brief history of the Philistines, we refer to my dissertation on this subject in the Book of Judges.

"The Philistines slew about four thousand men" (1 Samuel 4:2). We reject the fulminations of critics charging that the figures concerning casualties in Samuel are "grossly exaggerated." If the critics know what the casualties actually were, why do they never tell us what they were?

"The ark of the covenant of the Lord" (1 Samuel 4:3). This, like countless other instances of the same phenomenon, indicates a complete familiarity on the part of the elders of Israel with the appearance and utility of the ark of the covenant as revealed in the Pentateuch. The cherubim were symbolical representations of supernatural creatures adorning the top of the mercy seat located as a covering for the ark of the covenant; and the conception that God was "enthroned above the cherubim" was derived from the Mosaic revelation that the Presence of God Himself was associated with the ark of the covenant. The ark of the covenant here is exactly the same as "the ark of God "mentioned in 1 Samuel 3:3.

The notion advanced by the elders of Israel that the presence of the ark of the covenant in their midst would assure them of victory could not possibly have been derived from any other source than the earlier Book of Moses (the Pentateuch) and that of Joshua. Their fatal mistake in this was that God was leading Israel in those earlier victories, but, in this case, they were not following any divine commandment. They had consulted no prophet. They merely decided to utilize the ark of the covenant as a talisman or fetish in exactly the same superstitious manner that the pagans used similar devices supposed to represent their pagan deities. It is no wonder that it proved to be a futile maneuver.

"So the people brought ... the ark of the covenant; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God" (1 Samuel 4:4)! The exclamation point here is our own. The passage certainly deserves it. There could not possibly have been any more incongruous and contradictory elements than: (1) the sacred ark of the covenant and (2) the scandalous reprobate sons of Eli serving there as its custodians. There could not have been anything accidental about the manner in which the inspired author placed these two OPPOSITE elements in such an eloquent juxtaposition.