Dr Paul Allen

What was the ark of the covenant? You’ve heard of it. You’ve read of it. Maybe you even saw it in Raiders of the Lost  Ark,  but  what was it really? What did it look like? And why was it so important? In the desert, after the Exodus from Egypt, the Lord told Moses to make a ceremonial ark or aron – a wooden chest – as a sign of the covenant made at Mount Sinai.[1] The ark was made of acacia wood—a box within a box within a box—a metre long, and overlaid with gold.[2] On top was a solid-gold cover called the kapporet , where two golden keruvim or ‘cherubim’ faced each other, wing-tips touching. WHAT IS A KERUV? The keruv or cherub is a being whose general type is well known to us from ancient eastern iconography. It was not a winged man; much less a little flying putto or baby boy . Rather it was a being combining human characteristics with those of fierce animals and birds, and representing a solar or stellar deity. The best-known example is the great man-headed lion t...

We’ve answered the question, “ What was the ark of the covenant? ” The next question we must ask is “What happened to the ark of the covenant?” Specifically, what happened to it from the time it was made until the time it disappeared. As we have seen, from the day of its construction, the ark was the central object of Israel’s faith. The second commandment prohibited Israel from having images of the deity, as other nations had. Instead, Israel had the ark, the invisible deity’s footstool. But what was its story in Israel’s national life? And what happened to the ark of the covenant in the end? FROM TABERNACLE TO ZION TENT Where the ark went, the Lord went (Num. 10.34); its presence ensured his (1 Sam. 4.3). He spoke from between the keruvim on the ark, amidst a glowing cloud (Exod. 25.22; 30.6; 40.35). The honour due him was paid to the ark. When the ark appeared in public, sacrifices were offered before it, people bowed to it and cried on every side, Yehovah Ts’vaot! Yehovah Ts’vaot!...

What happened to the ark of the covenant? There are theories galore. Here’s a quick rundown.  Let’s start with Egypt. After Solomon died, his son Rehoboam became king, and Pharaoh Shishak invaded Jerusalem. He carried off treasures from the temple (1 Kings 14). That theory, of course, lies behind Raiders of the Lost Ark. Others think that when King Jehoash from the northern kingdom invaded Jerusalem and plundered the temple treasury, he took the ark as spoils of war (2 Kings 14). Both theories run into a snag. There is evidence that the ark was restored to (or still present in) Jerusalem generations later during the reign of Josiah ( 2 Chronicles 35:3). That brings us to the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC. Nebuchadnezzar razed the temple and carried many sacred objects away to Babylon. Some think the ark was destroyed then or taken into exile. Here’s the problem: Jeremiah 52, which we read today in Bible in One Year, gives a long inventory of temple items taken by th...

Modalism (also called Sabellianism or Modalistic Monarchianism) teaches that God is one Person who reveals himself in different modes or roles. It strictly affirms one God but completely denies three distinct Persons. A Modalist believes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the exact same Person, only wearing different masks. According to this ancient heresy, the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three co-existing divine Persons, but a single God with no threeness, only oneness. In contrast, Trinitarianism says God eternally co-exists as three Persons of one nature. Modalism holds that God is a single being who sometimes appears as the Father, the Son, or the Spirit. The big distinction here is that Modalism rejects three Persons. In Modalism, there’s one God, one essence, one Person. These three manifestations of God are not co-eternal or co-existing. According to Modalism, God reveals Himself in the Old Testament as the Father. God in the Old Testament does not reveal himself as the So...

Did Paul Silence Women? The Greeks say it’s More Complicated Than That.  What If Paul Never Said What We Think He Said About Women? Before you stop reading, let me be clear: This is not an attack on Scripture. Or even another denomination.  This is not an attack on the King James Version.  And this is not an attempt to make the Bible fit modern culture.  This is a challenge to do what faithful Christians have always been called to do: Go back to the text. Go back to the languages. Go back to the context. Some refuse to do so.  The Reformers called it ad fontes—“back to the sources.”  Ironically, some of the same Christians who celebrate the Reformation’s return to the original languages become uncomfortable when those original languages challenge long-held assumptions. Yet returning to the Greek and Hebrew is not liberalism.  It is Reformation Christianity at its best.  Translation matters. Not because Scripture changes. But our understanding of S...