Verse 10
THE ARK OF GOD ARRIVES AT BETH-SHEMESH
"The men did so, and took two milch cows and yoked them to the cart, and shut up their calves at home. And they put the ark of the Lord on the cart, and the box with the golden mice and the images of the tumors. And the cows went straight in the direction of Beth-shemesh along one highway, lowing as they went; they turned neither to the right nor to the left, and the lords of the Philistines went after them as far as the border of Beth-shemesh. Now the people of Beth-shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley; and when they lifted up their eyes and saw the ark, they rejoiced to see it. The cart came into the field of Joshua of Beth-shemesh, and stopped there..d great stone was there; and they split up the wood of the cart and offered the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord. And the Levites took down the ark of the Lord and the box which was beside it, in which were the golden figures and set them upon the great stone; and the men of Beth-shemesh offered burnt offerings and sacrifices on that day to the Lord. And when the five lords of the Philistines saw it, they returned that day to Ekron."
"And the Levites took down the ark of the Lord" (1 Samuel 6:15). "The mention of Levites here poses a problem. If there were Levites in Beth-shemesh, it is difficult to see why the men of Beth-shemesh offered sacrifices that day."[11] This is no problem at all. The men of Beth-shemesh were Levites, that city having been designated as a city of the Levites ever since the days of Joshua (Joshua 21:16). And, if the passage means that citizens of Beth-shemesh, other than Levites, offered burnt offerings and sacrifices, then their doing so consisted merely in their bringing the animals and other offerings and delivering them to the Levites who actually performed the sacrificial ceremonies. Scholars who are hunting problems and difficulties will have to find something more difficult than this!
Furthermore, this offering of sacrifices at Beth-shemesh was no offense against the commandment to make sacrifices to the Lord only at the place of his sanctuary. The ark of the covenant was the throne of the gracious presence of God, before whom the sacrifices were offered, even when offered in the tabernacle.[12] Also, another consideration in this connection is that, "As there was no central sanctuary, the law of Deuteronomy 12:10ff was temporarily suspended, as various Jewish commentators have stated."[13]
They split up the wood of the cart and offered the cows as a burnt offering to the Lord (1 Samuel 6:14). George DeHoff has a remarkably excellent comment on this: "Everything connected with the false method of transporting the ark of the covenant was destroyed."[14] The Lord's instructions for moving the ark were specific; "It was to be carried on poles resting upon the shoulders of priests (Deuteronomy 31:9)."[15] Later on in Jewish history, David himself tried to move the ark of the covenant on a new cart; but that also ended in a disaster.
Without any good reason whatever, most liberal scholars brand 1 Samuel 6:15 as "an interpolation," or as a "later insertion." This is done so on two pretext's. (1) "This verse is obviously an interpolation; the introduction of Levites is at variance with the text."[16] (2) "The second half of the verse merely repeats the sacrifice which had already been offered."[17] The first of these alleged reasons is invalid because the Levites were very much a part of Beth-shemesh. It was a Levite city (Joshua 21:16). It would have been strange indeed if they had not appeared in this narrative. The second so-called reason confuses the sacrifice of the cows, which was not provided by God's people at all, but by the Philistines, with the second sacrifice which was provided and offered by the Levites. There was even a third sacrifice, when all the citizens of Beth-shemesh gathered together and made burnt offerings and sacrifices, resulting in what might be called a feast to celebrate the happy occasion. Payne pointed out that the casual manner in which the Levites are mentioned here is a strong argument against the passage's being an interpolation.[18] Willis also declared, "That this verse originally belonged to this narrative cannot be conclusively disproved."[19]
Be the first to react on this!