Commentary on 1 Chronicles 13:5–8 (Summary)

Up to this point, no information has been provided as to the exact location of the ark. 1 Samuel 4:1–6:21 records that the ark was situated at Kiriath-Jearim, which was located on the Philistine-Judean border about seventeen miles west of Jerusalem. The site was also known as Kiriath-baal and Baalah (Joshua 15:9; Joshua 18:14–15; 2 Samuel 6:2). The differences from the earlier account are revealing. Instead of using the word gathered, the Chronicler employs his favourite term, assembled.

The all Israel motif of 1 Chronicles 13:1–4 continues into this section but is applied specifically to the moving of the ark. The Chronicler’s elaboration on the extent to which this multitude represents the breadth of the territory of Israel is noteworthy. Typically, the Old Testament boundaries or geographical poles for the land of Israel are Dan in the north and Beersheba in the south (1 Chronicles 21:2).¹ To underline the all-inclusive support of all Israel and the widespread extent of popular opinion, the Chronicler remarkably describes the assembly as all Israel from the Nile of Egypt to Lebo-hamath (1 Chronicles 13:5), representing the geographical extent of Israelite territory at the climactic moment of the David-Solomon era. (2 Chronicles 7:8). All that Samuel says is that David gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand (2 Samuel 6:1).²

Shihor is a brook in the south and Lebo-hamath a town in the north. Joshua 13:3 says that Shihor is east of Egypt. In Isaiah 23:3 and Jeremiah 2:18 it is closely associated, if not equated, with the Nile. In 1 Kings 8:65 the assembly that is drawn to the temple dedication came from Lebo-hamath in the north and the Brook of Egypt in the south. This evidence suggests that the various terms Shihor, Brook of Egypt, and Nile are closely associated, if not identical, and represent the ideal southern boundary of Israel’s land (see Genesis 15:18). Lebo-hamath, which means entrance of Hamath, is on the northern frontier of Syria on the eastern side of the Orontes River, probably modern Lebweh at the watershed of the Beqa Valley,³ some 80 kilometres north of Damascus. This city was the promised northern boundary of Israel (Numbers 13:21; Joshua 13:5; Ezekiel 47:15, Ezekiel 47:20).⁴ Uniquely, the Chronicler always works from north to south, as from Beersheba to Dan, and not vice versa (1 Chronicles 21:2; 2 Chronicles 30:5; 1 Samuel 3:20; 2 Samuel 3:10).⁵

When all was ready, David led the people to Baalah (Baale-Judah, 2 Samuel 6:2) where the ark had been abandoned. This seems to be an alternative name for Kiriath-jearim (the City of Forests), on the basis of Joshua 15:9 (Joshua 15:60; Joshua 18:14). The Chronicler specifies that Kiriath-jearim belongs to Judah (1 Chronicles 13:6). Joshua 15:9 also places Kiriath-jearim in Judahite territory, but Joshua 18:14 locates it on the border between the tribal area of Benjamin and Jerusalem. The rivalry between the Benjaminites and Judahites within Yehud might have been the background to this ambiguity about where the place was situated (1 Chronicles 10:1–14; 1 Chronicles 21:1–30).⁶ The purpose of the whole procession was to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the Lord who sits enthroned above the cherubim (1 Chronicles 13:6).

Two contrasting views of the ark of the covenant are presented in these verses:

1. It symbolized the Lord's majestic presence as evidenced by the rare expression enthroned above the cherubim (1 Chronicles 13:6).⁷ This is an infrequent yet powerful depiction of the God of the Hebrews (1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Kings 19:15). This mysterious and majestic presence of the Lord enthroned between the cherubim of the ark of the covenant is founded on the understanding that this is where he meets with his people (Exodus 25:22). This meeting with his people can be likened to an earthly king holding audience with his subjects. The ark was viewed as God's throne on earth. The psalmist associates God’s enthronement between the cherubim as his sovereign rule over the nations (Psalm 99:1). So, the God of Israel is no local little deity who can be manipulated by the whim of man but the One who holds an all-encompassing sway over the entire universe. Then the expression, the ark that is called by the name of the Lord is interpretive because the phrase in the original is rather cryptic (where [the] name is called). The probable meaning is that the ark and place where it was housed were local manifestations of the divine presence-the house or the residence of the Lorf, as it were (Deuteronomy 12:11; 1 Kings 8:29).⁸

2. The awareness of divine majesty was diminished due to the absence of the ark from its rightful place in the tabernacle (still at nearby Gibeon; 1 Chronicles 16:39; 1 Chronicles 21:29–30). The ark was brought from the house of Abinadab and his two sons, Uzzah and Ahio, who had established a shrine for the ark (2 Samuel 6:3). To transport the ark, however, the people appeared to follow the precedent set by the Philistine priests, placing the ark again on a new cart (1 Chronicles 13:7; 1 Samuel 6:7–8). Uzzah and Ahio were tasked with driving the cart (1 Chronicles 13:7).

   The use of this inadequate and, frankly, forbidden form of transport suggests that David might still have been impacted by pagan practices or that he was unthinking in his actions. It may seem logical and natural to transport the ark on a new cart, one that had not beforehand been polluted through previous use. This is exactly what the Philistines had done when they returned the ark, and there were no repercussions then (1 Samuel 6:7); but it must be remembered that they were pagans.

   It is stated in the parallel passage in 2 Samuel 6:2–11 that they carried the ark of God, meaning that they put or placed the ark on a new wagon. But the Chronicler employs the verb to cause to ride or to be moved instead of to lift or to carry to indicate that this was the inappropriate way to transport the ark (Deuteronomy 10:8; Numbers 3:31; 1 Chronicles 15:2, 1 Chronicles 15:15).⁹ Ironically, David tells the people that the ark must be brought back, for we did not seek it in the days of Saul. But now in the matter of its mode of transport, he fails to seek God himself. God had shown that the ark was not to be handled as an ordinary object might be. It was to be carried on poles by the Levites (Exodus 25:12–15).¹⁰ The tragedy is that had the priests and Levites been aware of what the Mosaic law clearly stipulated, they would have alerted David as to the correct procedure.

This points to the danger facing them (and us), that ignorance of God’s Word results in costly, grievous error that could have been avoided. This incident also illustrates for us how easy it is for portions of God’s Word to be so neglected that in time they are forgotten.¹¹