When was the Ark of the Covenant taken from the Temple?

Many would say the Templar Knights found it in their excavations. I don't think so. They may have found the San Graal, or more likely, the Sang Raal, but I don't think the Ark was there. If it was, it had been hidden since before the days of Hezikiah, King of Judah.

Others would say it was carried away in the Babylonian captivity by Nebuchadnezzar. Maybe that's what the US Army was looking for in all those archeological sites in Iraq. I don't think the Ark was there when the Babylonians came.

Hezikiah's son Mannessah filled the Temple with other gods and altars. There's no mention of the Ark. When the Philistines captured the Ark during the time of the Judges, they placed it in their temple next to Dagon. The Ark destroyed Dagon. I don't think it was there while Manessah was doing his dirty work.

The real proof for me it wasn't there comes when Hilkiah says, "I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD." 2 Kings 22:8b There is no mention of the Ark. Either it isn't there or it has already been hidden. King Josiah then goes on to consult a prophetess, Huldrah keeper of the wardrobe. (2 Kings 22:14) If the Ark was there, the high priest Hilkiah would would have gone into the Holy of Holies to inquire directly of the LORD.

The Ark isn't there. This is some 80-100 years before the Babylonian captivity. Now, the question is, where did it go?

Israel and Judah have run into significant problems with invading armies by this point in Biblical history. They have been forced to pay enormous tribute to Egypt and Assyria in order to maintain territorial integrity. Could the Ark have been given as part of this tribute? I don't think so. The Ark was of such value to the Israelites that it would never have been willingly surrendered. After what happened to the Philistines when they took it, other nations may have been reluctant even to consider putting their hands on it.

I think Israel took it from Judah. King Amaziah of Judah challenged King Jehoash of Israel to do battle. Jehoash told him to back off, but Amaziah wouldn't listen.

2 Kings 14
"13 Then Jehoash king of Israel captured Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash, the son of Ahaziah, at Beth Shemesh; and he went to Jerusalem, and broke down the wall of Jerusalem from the Gate of Ephraim to the Corner Gate—four hundred cubits. 14 And he took all the gold and silver, all the articles that were found in the house of the LORD and in the treasuries of the king’s house, and hostages, and returned to Samaria."

Jehoash took all the gold and silver, all the articles that were found in the house of the LORD....

I believe the Ark was captured from Judah by Israel and taken to Samaria. It is likely then, that it was captured with the Israelis who were taken by Shalmaneser king of Assyria to Halah and by the Habor, the River of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes. (2 Kings 17:5,6)

Was the Ark returned to Jerusalem with Ezra and Nehemiah? There's no mention of it.

Any esteemed members here care to comment?


[edit on 9-7-2010 by Icarus Rising]

reply to post by Icarus Rising


I thought it was found in AXIOM Ethiopia, AFRICANAZ. And Earlier this year they took it from that location!

[edit on 7/9/10 by Ophiuchus 13]

reply to post by Icarus Rising

An interesting theory.
But the RSV says "vessels" rather than "articles" in the relevant verse.
If you're convinced that the Ark wasn't there in the time of Josiah, then what about blaming it on Ahaz in 2 Kings ch16, when he was making everything conform to what the king of Assyria wanted? (I'm not committed to this theory- I've only just made it up)

reply to post by DISRAELI


Precisely because I don't believe Ahaz had the Ark to begin with. I think it was already gone and he was casting about, feeling abandoned, for a new god to serve. It seems logical that he would settle on the Assyrian gods as Assyria was ascendent at the time.

Ophiuchus 13 - The Ethiopian angle is intriguing. The Queen of Sheba, heir of Solomon story resonates. But how and when did the Ark travel there?

reply to post by Icarus Rising

All right, then, following through on the original theory.

If it was in Samaria at the time when the Assyrians captured Samaria, I think this would have been the cause of its destruction, one way or the other.
If it was not destroyed by the Assyrians, it would have been taken to Ninevah.
If it was taken to Ninevah, it would have been caught up in the general destruction of Ninevah during the fall of the Assyrian empire.

I don't think the Israelite exiles would have been allowed to take it with them. If they still had possession, it might have helped them to retain some sense of identity- the fact that they "disappeared" suggests to me that they simply lost any sense of separate identity and got absorbed into the local population.

If there was any faint chance that it was around in Ezra's time, it would have been miles away, in the far north, so he would probably not know about it.





[edit on 9-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

The Arc of the Covenant was a sizzler and a primitive prototype of the HAARP we have today.

Here is an interesting historical account of the Arc of the Covenant and what it really was and how it worked.

einhornpress.com...

reply to post by Alethea


I agree! I think the qualities of the original Ark tie in with HAARP, UFO propulsion, and some of what we would call paranormal activities today. It was an immensely powerful capacitor with anhydrous effects.

DISRAELI - I think the Assyrians would have needed the knowledge of the Israelis in order to operate the Ark safely. If it wasn't taken apart and melted down, and I don't think it very likely that it was given the power it wielded, it may have ended up with the Medes and been folded into the Medo-Persian Empire.

It sounds very interesting ,never thought about it. However there was no major temple in Samaria. There were two temples built by Israelite kingdom after division - one in Bet El and one in Dan. And they were erected to golden calf, according to rival Judea historical records (Kings book) of course.
Sorry that it does not clarify the picture but makes it even more obscure.
Info about Tel Dan (it is also very nice nature reserve)
teldan.wordpress.com...
Bet El (probably larger and more important one) is strangely much less known and i did not manage to find any detailed info. Maybe due to political reasons it is harder to conduct any research there.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
it may have ended up with the Medes and been folded into the Medo-Persian Empire.

I don't mind going along with this, for the moment.
Where might it have gone after that?
From the Persians to Alexander.
After Alexander's death, that part of his empire fell to the Seleucids.
And thus descended to Antiochus Epiphanes! If only the man had some sense, he could have given it back, instead of making the choice he did make (perhaps the worst public relations decision in human history).

If we assume the Ark was not destroyed, there's no obvious reason that it should ever have left Iran. Perhaps the new theory should be that it is still there.

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
It sounds very interesting ,never thought about it. However there was no major temple in Samaria. There were two temples built by Israelite kingdom after division - one in Bet El and one in Dan.

Ah, now here's a new speculative theory the OP might want to consider.
Jehoash takes the Ark, as originally suggested.
He then stores it in Bethel, as the nearest convenient location.

But after the fall of the northern kingdom to the power of the Assyrians, Josiah marches on Bethel and takes control of it, 2 Kings ch23. So if the Ark was there, that could have been the moment when he captured it back! (An additional motive for the invasion, perhaps).

So we end up with the possibility that the Ark was in Jerusalem when it was captured by the Babylonians, after all.


[edit on 9-7-2010 by DISRAELI]

reply to post by DISRAELI


Very interesting! I am still operating under the assumption that the Ark was already gone by the time Josiah marched on Beth-El, taken by the Assyrians as referenced in 2 Kings 17.

Alexander spared Jerusalem on his march of conquest to the East. Perhaps they had a deal involving the Ark...but that is really stretching it.

reply to post by Icarus Rising

All right then, are we going with the alternative theory that it's still in Iran?
May as well tie it in with current conspiracy theories.
Those Iranians do seem very confident, don't they?

Revelation 11:19 places the Ark in Heaven with God.

"Then the temple of God was opened in heaven, and the ark of His covenant was seen in His temple. And there were lightnings, noises, thunderings, an earthquake, and great hail."

This is said to be the heavenly reality of the Ark that the earthly copy is but a shadow of, though.

2 Chronicles 35:3 places the Ark back in Jerusalem during the time of Josiah, so maybe your previous theory of its recapture from Beth-El is correct.

"Then he said to the Levites who taught all Israel, who were holy to the LORD: “Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David, king of Israel, built. It shall no longer be a burden on your shoulders. Now serve the LORD your God and His people Israel."

This could have been a copy constructed from the instructions found in the Book of the Law dicovered in the Temple by Hilkiah, though.

I think, especially given the focus on Iran these days, that the Ark residing there is just as good a theory as any.

There are lots of interesting options for the location of the Ark discussed here.

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
2 Chronicles 35:3 places the Ark back in Jerusalem during the time of Josiah, so maybe your previous theory of its recapture from Beth-El is correct.

"Then he said to the Levites who taught all Israel, who were holy to the LORD: “Put the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David, king of Israel, built. It shall no longer be a burden on your shoulders. Now serve the LORD your God and His people Israel."

Well spotted, I didn't notice that.
In 2 Kings, the visit to Bethel comes between the finding of the book and the keeping of the new passover (all in the eighteenth year), so the theory might just work.

I wasn't aware of that passage and its relevance to our discussion here until I went to the site I linked in my last post. Lots of interesting leads there. Quite disparate, though.