Items in the Ark of the Covenant

[Darryl_B]

My friend, we have only met here, your join date was just before mine, I just have an unfortunate memory that I wish I didn’t have. Sometimes I drive through Putaruru, and remember all the people I know from Putaruru. The place has certainly become nice over the last little while. God bless you my friend. And I apologize for the digression.

Apologies to my friend Cyberseeker. When I say I have an unfortunate memory, you are not the unfortunate memory, you are a good memory. I mean I have an ability to remember which for me is often times unfortunate, memory is not a blessing.

 

[Cyberseeker]

Thanks everybody. I put this same question on a number of Christian forums and got some interesting answers. I’m pleased to say, most people agreed on the ‘manna’. Aarons staff and the tablets were quite a potpourri though. Anyway, here is a summary of how New Testament folk described the Old Testament symbols:

MANNA – Jesus the Bread of Life from Heaven. (as opposed to temporary sustenance)
Others thought the manna represented: the Eucharist (specifically), God’s provision (generally), or the Word of God.

AARONS STAFF – Christ’s Eternal Priesthood. (as opposed to a priesthood that died)
Others thought the staff represented: God’s authority (as in ruling with a rod of iron), guidance and comfort, resurrection (from dead wood to life) and the ‘Way.’

TABLETS OF STONE – The Law and Righteousness of God. (in its fullest sense)
Others thought the tablets represented: The New Covenant, God’s will, Moses law fulfilled (but not annulled), God’s government, the Word of God, the Word made flesh, the ‘Truth.’

Ive tried to express the gist of how the majority of replies understand it. Personally, I agree with the bolded statements above, but tell me if you think it can be said better.

Thanks again,
Cyber

 

[mikekle]

Interestingly there is a claim made that there is an ark of the covenant located at Aksum in Ethiopia. When the Jews went to Egypt they built a complete new temple Onias. Jeremiah 42. They built a brand new Ark for their brand new temple. It is this which ended up in Ethiopia when the people were pushed further south.

But there are actually some who believe this to be the real thing, and it was this replica story which was probably woven into the Indiana Jones story.

Ive heard about that very tiny chapel in Africa that supposedly houses the ark, but I kind of doubt that, from what I saw, the building is very small, rural, and only a few guys guarding it…by some the arc is said to hold extreme power and the person who has it, will able to do all kinds of things, conquest, etc…what is stopping someone like this from just attacking that small chapel and taking it by force?

Maybe they have a fake one, and this semi secret location is only mentioned to keep people away from the location of the real arc…think about it, if it truly housed the arc, why would they allow media cameras to film the location and inform everyone there is only a couple guys guarding it? lol

 

[rcwitness]

Thanks everybody. I put this same question on a number of Christian forums and got some interesting answers. I’m pleased to say, most people agreed on the ‘manna’…

MANNA – Jesus the Bread of Life from Heaven. (as opposed to temporary sustenance)
Others thought the manna represented: the Eucharist (specifically), God’s provision (generally), or the Word of God.

I always wondered why some believe His Eucharist to be another symbol.

AARONS STAFF – Christ’s Eternal Priesthood. (as opposed to a priesthood that died)
Others thought the staff represented: God’s authority (as in ruling with a rod of iron), guidance and comfort, resurrection (from dead wood to life) and the ‘Way.’

TABLETS OF STONE – The Law and Righteousness of God. (in its fullest sense)
Others thought the tablets represented: The New Covenant, God’s will, Moses law fulfilled (but not annulled), God’s government, the Word of God, the Word made flesh, the ‘Truth.’[/INDENT]

I think the New Covenant is correct, though broad. Specifically, isnt it the Law of Christ written on our hearts? Charity from above/God’s grace and justice. And the New Commandment: Love one another, as I have loved you.

 

[Darryl_B]

Ive heard about that very tiny chapel in Africa that supposedly houses the ark, but I kind of doubt that, from what I saw, the building is very small, rural, and only a few guys guarding it…by some the arc is said to hold extreme power and the person who has it, will able to do all kinds of things, conquest, etc…what is stopping someone like this from just attacking that small chapel and taking it by force?

Maybe they have a fake one, and this semi secret location is only mentioned to keep people away from the location of the real arc…think about it, if it truly housed the arc, why would they allow media cameras to film the location and inform everyone there is only a couple guys guarding it? lol

It’s a dilemma because if one believes it to be a replica, it is useless, and if one believes it to be the real thing, they don’t want to go near it else they will be struck dead.

 

[mikekle]

It’s a dilemma because if one believes it to be a replica, it is useless, and if one believes it to be the real thing, they don’t want to go near it else they will be struck dead.

I think there are people who believe simply possessing such an item would give them great power and they could defeat anyone in battle, If Im not mistaken, this is why Hitler was said to be obsessed with finding the spear of destiny, although Im not sure if the ark would give them this power or kill them on the spot…but I guess if you are a ruthless and power hungry enough person, the chance alone would be worth it!

Id like to see it but at a distance.

 

[patrick457]

Interestingly there is a claim made that there is an ark of the covenant located at Aksum in Ethiopia. When the Jews went to Egypt they built a complete new temple Onias. Jeremiah 42. They built a brand new Ark for their brand new temple. It is this which ended up in Ethiopia when the people were pushed further south.

But there are actually some who believe this to be the real thing, and it was this replica story which was probably woven into the Indiana Jones story.

Oh yeah, that.

The thing about the Ark in Ethiopia is that it’s probably caused by a mistranslation/misunderstanding of the Ethiopian word tabot. A tabot (plural: tabotat) is essentially the Ethiopian Christian equivalent of portable altars or altar stones. A tabot can either be a box-shaped mini-table that served as an altar or (the more current meaning of the term) a slab of wood or stone, upon which the Eucharist was celebrated.

Symbolically the tabot represented the Tablet(s) of the Law, Our Lady, and by extension, the Ark of the Covenant. (Y’know, just like how the old Ark (tabot) carried the presence of God, so did Mary carry God in her womb, and so does the altar (tabot) now carry the presence of God in the form of the Eucharist, that kind of thing.) That’s probably where the confusion arose, because the word tabot encompassed all of these meanings and more.

We know that there is an ancient tabot in Aksum (the tabota Seyon, the “tabot of Zion”), but in our earliest sources it wasn’t identified with the Ark yet - in fact they apparently describe it as being a stone slab (one medieval legend even claimed that the Aksumite tabot was once owned by the apostles and was used by them for the Eucharist!) It was only around the late 16th century onwards IIRC that references to the tabota Seyon in Aksum was taken to mean that the ‘Ark of Zion’ (the literal box) was in Aksum.

My post from a while back: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13285351&postcount=24

 

[mikekle]

Oh yeah, that.

The thing about the Ark in Ethiopia is that it’s probably caused by a mistranslation/misunderstanding of the Ethiopian word tabot. A tabot (plural: tabotat) is essentially the Ethiopian Christian equivalent of portable altars or altar stones. A tabot can either be a box-shaped mini-table that served as an altar or (the more current meaning of the term) a slab of wood or stone, upon which the Eucharist was celebrated.

Symbolically the tabot represented the Tablet(s) of the Law, Our Lady, and by extension, the Ark of the Covenant. (Y’know, just like how the old Ark (tabot) carried the presence of God, so did Mary carry God in her womb, and so does the altar (tabot) now carry the presence of God in the form of the Eucharist, that kind of thing.) That’s probably where the confusion arose, because the word tabot encompassed all of these meanings and more.

We know that there is an ancient tabot in Aksum (the tabota Seyon, the “tabot of Zion”), but in our earliest sources it wasn’t identified with the Ark yet - in fact they apparently describe it as being a stone slab (one medieval legend even claimed that the Aksumite tabot was once owned by the apostles and was used by them for the Eucharist!) It was only around the late 16th century onwards IIRC that references to the tabota Seyon in Aksum was taken to mean that the ‘Ark of Zion’ (the literal box) was in Aksum.

My post from a while back: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13285351&postcount=24

Hmm that is interesting, but I remember when I watched that special about the ark, and they went to this tiny chapel in Africa, they were interviewing a guy who is in charge of the place, they showed the guards standing in front with AK47s too…I remember the host showed this guy a picture of what the ark looks like, and asks him if this is indeed what they are guarding (a gold box, with 2 angels on top, 2 long poles with it for carrying), and they man agreed, this is what they have here, so who knows whats truly in there.

Im doubtful the real ark is there though, I mean, this is africa, 2 guys with AKs is not that much of a deterrent, especially to someone who believes simply possessing the ark would suddenly bring them great power and supernatural abilities to conquer, if this was true, anyone could just send a armed mob to storm the place and forcefully take it.

 

[patrick457]

Hmm that is interesting, but I remember when I watched that special about the ark, and they went to this tiny chapel in Africa, they were interviewing a guy who is in charge of the place, they showed the guards standing in front with AK47s too…I remember the host showed this guy a picture of what the ark looks like, and asks him if this is indeed what they are guarding (a gold box, with 2 angels on top, 2 long poles with it for carrying), and they man agreed, this is what they have here, so who knows whats truly in there.

Im doubtful the real ark is there though, I mean, this is africa, 2 guys with AKs is not that much of a deterrent, especially to someone who believes simply possessing the ark would suddenly bring them great power and supernatural abilities to conquer, if this was true, anyone could just send a armed mob to storm the place and forcefully take it.

To be frank, IMHO you can chalk it up to the importance of the belief that the tabota Seyon is the actual, literal Ark now has in Ethiopian culture. See, the belief in the literal Ark in Aksum is tied in with the idea of the Ethiopian emperor being literally descended from King Solomon via the Queen of Sheba and their son Menelik (who supposedly smuggled the Ark out of Jerusalem to Ethiopia), as told in the 14th-century work Kebra Negast. The belief that the Ark is in Aksum was important for the Ethiopian monarchy because it supposedly represented God’s mandate to the Ethiopians as the new Israel, His sign of favor over the dynasty and the country. Even today, it still occupies an important position in the lives of many people.

The belief in the Solomonic descent was so enshrined in the Ethiopian consciousness that it was even used as a political manifesto back when the monarchy still ruled the country (cf. 1955 Ethiopian Constitution: “The Imperial dignity shall remain perpetually attached to the line of Haile Selassie I, descendant of King Sahle Selassie, whose line descends without interruption from the dynasty of Menelik I, son of the Queen of Ethiopia, the Queen of Sheba, and King Solomon of Jerusalem.”)

In other words, politics and national pride is sort of involved in the issue of the Ethiopian ‘Ark’ - hence, denying it can be and is a very touchy matter, especially in Ethiopia. (Yeah, I realize I’m treading on sensitive ground here.) I might sound rather dry and cynical, but given that, I doubt that the interviewee will deny or say no, even if the Aksum tabot was actually a different item. For those who choose to see it, there is an Ark in Aksum.

 

[patrick457]

Interestingly there is a claim made that there is an ark of the covenant located at Aksum in Ethiopia. When the Jews went to Egypt they built a complete new temple Onias. Jeremiah 42. They built a brand new Ark for their brand new temple. It is this which ended up in Ethiopia when the people were pushed further south.

Okay, about the Oniad temple.

Onias III was the son of Simon II (219-199 BC), one of the high priests of the Jerusalem Temple. Onias was of the Zadokite line, the lineage that had traditionally held the high priesthood. He was renowned as a pious man who staunchly opposed the Hellenization of Judea that was occurring at the time under the Seleucids. When Antiochus Epiphanes became king, he forced Onias to yield to his own brother, Jason, a Hellenizer, who was in turn succeeded by another Hellenizer, Menelaus. He was later assassinated by Andronicus, one of Antiochus’ nobles, at Menelaus’ behest. (You can read about this in 2 Maccabees 4.)

Onias III had a son, also named Onias (we’ll call him Onias IV). This Onias, for all intents and purposes, should have been the legitimate heir to the high priesthood. He might have hoped Judah Maccabee’s rebellion against the Seleucids would give him the office denied him, but the tide did not really turn in his favor. (After Menelaus, another high priest, Alcimus, was elected; eventually Jonathan Maccabee appropriated the high priesthood for himself - the Maccabees were priests, but they were not Zadokite, which kind of makes their high priesthood questionable from a traditional perspective - and founded the Hasmonean dynasty.)

So what Onias IV did was that he went to Egypt, which was ruled by the Ptolemies (the enemies of the Seleucids). He grew in favor among Ptolemy’s court, and was granted the possession of a region (the Land of Onias) where he built a temple, which he apparently intended to be a replacement for the temple of Jerusalem. (Hey, after all, he was supposed to be the legitimate high priest.) However, it never really caught on; most Jews still held to the Jerusalem temple. Even Jews in Egypt - who thought the presence of a sanctuary so close to home convenient - only considered the sanctuary to be secondary to that in Jerusalem. Eventually, Onias’ temple fell into obscurity.

Was an Ark present in Onias’ temple? I doubt that, since this is already the time of the second Temple - there was apparently no longer any Ark in Jerusalem in the first place.

Was Onias connected with Ethiopian Jews? Again, probably unlikely. We know that there were Jews in both Egypt and Yemen (both close to Ethiopia) since antiquity, but we don’t exactly know how Jews ended up in Ethiopia, and both Egypt and Yemen, despite their proximity, seem to be unlikely candidates. (For example, Yemenite Jews practice ‘standard’ rabbinic Judaism and use Hebrew and Aramaic as liturgical languages, whereas Ethiopian Jews have very distinctive customs and do not use both languages.)

There is in fact actually a theory that the Ethiopian Jewish community were originally Christians who converted to a form of Judaism or Judaizing Christians who broke away from the Church to establish a ‘Jewish’ group of their own. (One interesting facet about Ethiopian Judaism and Ethiopian Christianity is that there is a lot of interchange and overlap with each other, especially in regard to customs. Ethiopian Jews might be the only Jewish community in the world that has a concept of monasticism, for one.)

 

[sirach2v4]

Interestingly there is a claim made that there is an ark of the covenant located at Aksum in Ethiopia. When the Jews went to Egypt they built a complete new temple Onias. Jeremiah 42. They built a brand new Ark for their brand new temple. It is this which ended up in Ethiopia when the people were pushed further south.

But there are actually some who believe this to be the real thing, and it was this replica story which was probably woven into the Indiana Jones story.

I would like to believe that the ark still exists, for selfish reasons, I suppose. But, it seems to me that the tradition is simply too strong that the original ark is g-o-n-e. Lacking the second Temple, Judaism would be incredibly rejuvenated if some credible evidence existed that the original ark still existed.

There are historical circumstances for the disappearance of the ark, but the spiritual significance seems to be the passing of the first (old) covenant.

A priest in my area studied scripture at the Vatican, and took a trip or two to the Holy Land. I inquired about the second temple, and he said that the Holy of Holies would have been empty (no ark) but still highly revered (with all the animal sacrifices etc) at the altar of the Temple. The space itself was considered a sacred one.

(Aside: that’s a keen observation when you read Canon Law 1205 -1210 about sacred places.)

 

[sirach2v4]

I agree with all the posters above, but I have read that the items in the Ark are to remind us of our sin:

–The manna fell because God was angry with the Israelites’ complaints
–The rod of Aaron budded after God was angered due to the people’s doubt of the priesthood succession which God himself had chosen.
–The tablets of the law, because we have broken his law.

All of these items are placed in the Ark and are covered by the Mercy Seat, because God has mercy on us, and has covered over and forgiven our sin by the blood of Christ.

Hi Simca. thanks for these observations. I’ve been tempted by that book you referred to. I’m about 10 thick books behind in my reading as it is.

 

[patrick457]

Oh yeah, that.

The thing about the Ark in Ethiopia is that it’s probably caused by a mistranslation/misunderstanding of the Ethiopian word tabot. A tabot (plural: tabotat) is essentially the Ethiopian Christian equivalent of portable altars or altar stones. A tabot can either be a box-shaped mini-table that served as an altar or (the more current meaning of the term) a slab of wood or stone, upon which the Eucharist was celebrated.

I’m elaborating on my last post.

For us Latin Christians, we have the altar stone and the corporal, over which the Mass is celebrated and the Eucharist laid. Byzantine Rite Christians have the so-called antimension or antimins. For Syrian, Coptic and Ethiopian Christians, meanwhile, their analogue to these is a consecrated slab or tablet of wood or stone. The Syrians call such an ‘altar-board’ thablitho, the Copts call theirs maqta’, while the Ethiopians call theirs tabot. Given the historical connection between Egyptian Christianity and Ethiopian Christianity, the Ethiopian tabot is more than likely derived from the Coptic maqta’. (However, unlike the tabot, the Coptic maqta’ did not adopt the Ark symbolism; for Copts, the ‘ark’ refers to another item - the wooden container for the chalice.)

The thing is, the word tabot - which means ‘container’ or ‘receptacle’ - apparently originally referred to another item: the so-called ‘throne/seat of the tabot’ or the manbara tabot (plural: manabert tabot), nowadays a cabinet-like receptacle with shelves for the tabot and other liturgical instruments, but earlier also a kind of low, legged cube-like chest, on which the tabot is contained.

Tabotat can either be square or rectangular in shape; most are small enough to be carried by a single priest. (There are occasions in Ethiopia where the tabot is taken out of the church in a procession, resting on the head of the priest.) In Ethiopia, it is not the church building itself, but the tabot that is consecrated and dedicated; the tabot gives its name to the church building. A church can (some say even should) own more than one tabot, although only one is the main tabot and gives the church its title. In fact, the tabot is so holy an item that it can never be seen by a layman’s eye; it is always kept under wraps (just like the biblical Ark), even when in use. Should a lay person or a non-Christian touch the tabot, it must be reconsecrated.

 

[patrick457]

We know that there is an ancient tabot in Aksum (the tabota Seyon, the “tabot of Zion”), but in our earliest sources it wasn’t identified with the Ark yet - in fact they apparently describe it as being a stone slab (one medieval legend even claimed that the Aksumite tabot was once owned by the apostles and was used by them for the Eucharist!) It was only around the late 16th century onwards IIRC that references to the tabota Seyon in Aksum was taken to mean that the ‘Ark of Zion’ (the literal box) was in Aksum.

A 13th century Coptic priest named Abu al-Makarim (aka ‘Abu Salih’) gives the following description of the ‘Ark’, which at the time was supposedly in the royal palace at Lalibela (ancient Adefa/Roha). According to him, it contained

the two tables of stone, inscribed by the finger of God with the commandments which he ordained for the children of Israel. The Ark of the Covenant is placed upon the altar, but is not so wide as the altar; it is as high as the knee of a man, and is overlaid with gold; and upon its lid there are crosses of gold; and there are five precious stones upon it, one at each of the four corners, and one in the middle. The liturgy is celebrated upon the Ark four times in the year, within the palace of the king; and a canopy is spread over it when it is taken out from [its own] church to the church which is in the palace of the king.

You might notice that this doesn’t exactly sound like the biblical Ark at all; however the description fits in with the Ethiopian tabot (the ‘tablets’?) and manbara tabot (the golden case with the lid and the crosses?): its being used in the Liturgy and being taken out in procession.

Ethiopian tradition asserts that the tabota Seyon has long reposed at Aksum; it is uncertain however when first the cathedral of Maryam Seyon (‘St. Mary of Zion’ - I told you the tabot gave the church its name) came to be regarded as housing the Aksum tabot. It seems that this was certainly the case by the 16th century. The chaplain of the first Portuguese embassy to Ethiopia, Francisco Alvares, writing in the 1520s, gives the following description of the church:

It is named St. Mary of Syon… because its altar stone came from Sion. In this country (as they say) they have the custom always to name the churches by the altar stone, because on it is written the name of the patron saint. This stone which they have in this church, they say that the Apostles sent it from Mount Sion.

There is no description of the Ark of the Covenant (the box), but there is a description of the church’s altar stone (= tabot). Alvares claims that the name of the church came from its tabot, which was supposedly once sent by the apostles from Mount Zion in Jerusalem to Ethiopia.

During the same century (1529-1543), the Ethiopian Empire and the Muslim Adal Sultanate (located in the Horn of Africa), led by Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Ghazi, fought a series of wars against each other. Faced with the threat of Aksum being invaded, the Ethiopian emperor supposedly had the ‘idol’ (the tabot?) of Aksum taken out of the church for safekeeping.

[Ahmad] returned to march against the town of Aksum, which is said to be an ancient town… (The king of Abyssinia) brought forth the great idol from the church of Aksum; this was a white stone encrusted with gold, so large that it could not go out of the door; a hole had to be pierced in the church because of its size; they took it away and it was carried by four hundred men in the fortress of the country of Shire called Tabr, where it was left.

It was only from the 17th century onwards that the Aksum tabot came to be definitively described as the Ark of the Covenant.