Westminster Annotations, Notice
A Review and further Explication of the Annotations on Exod. 25. 16. and on Deut. 31. 26. For the better clearing of the seeming contradiction betwixt those places; as also of 1 Kings 8. 9. 2 Chro. 5. 10. compared with Heb. 9. 4.
WHen the Ark was made, commandement was given, that the Testimony should be put into it, Exod. 25. 26. By the testimony is meant the two Tables of Stone, written with the finger of God, Exod. 31. 18. called the Testimony, because by them was testified Gods will concerning their duty. Before the Ark, (wherein was the Testimony) and neer unto it, Aarons rod was laid and kept, Num. 17. 10. And the Book of Deuteron…my was to be put in the side of the Ark, Deut. 31. 26. that is, by the side of the Ark; for the proposition Hhjin there used, may be rendred by a, ab, de, e, and ex, which may note a difference from it, but withall a neer situation to it. Some Hebrew Writers say it was put into a case, or repository, placed close by it; for it is expressely said, Nothing was in it, save the two Tables of Stone which Moses put there at Horeb, 1 Kings 8 9. and the same is repeated, 2 Chron. 5. 10.
On the contrary (in appearance, the contrary not indeed) the Author to the Hebrews saith, After the second Vail was the Tabernacle, which is called the holiest of all, Heb. 9. 3. which had the Golden Censer, and the Ark of the Covenant overlaid round about with Gold, wherein was the Golden Pot that had Manna, and Aarons Rod that budded, and the Tables of the Covenant.
That which seems to be the difference (for the matter of it, as, Whether any thing but the Tables of the Law onelyonly were in the Ark, or Aarons Rod, and the Golden Pot of Manna also) is of no great moment in it self; yet some piously affected towards the Honourable estimation of the Law, think it advanceth the honour of it, that nothing should be thought worthy to be placed with it in the Ark; and therefore they cleave close to the negative Testimonies, forenoted out of 1 Kings 8. 9. 2 Chron. 5. 10. And some conceive it an impeachment of the Authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, if the words thence cited, be not taken to be literally true, as they seem to carry the sence at the first sight; and Cajetane (besides the Servatians and Anabaptists, Sixt. S… nens. Biblioth. Sanct. l. 7. p. 491.) took occasion to deny the authority of that Epistle, because (as he thought) it contradicted the two Testimonies forementioned, as some of his own side have observed of him, namely Bellarm. de Verbo Dei, l. 1. c. 17. Jacob Gordonius on the 1 Kings 8. 9.
Hence Commentators are divided, some resolving, that nothing was in the Ark but the two Tables of the Law; some, that Aarons Rod, and the Golden Pot of Manna, were there also. The reconciliation is made two wayes. 1. By Historical Narration. 2. By Grammatical Construction.
By Historical Narration, distinguishing the times, thus: While the Tabernacle stood, they were placed all in the Ark; but afterward, when the Temple was built, onelyonly the Tables of the Law were placed in the Ark, (and therefore it was so punctually noted as a new thing in those two forecited Testimonies) and the Rod and Pot of Manna were kept in some other part of the Temple; and they might be safer in the Temple without the Ark, then without it in the Tabernacle, &c. And yet some are of opinion, that they were not in the Ark, neither during the time of the Tabernacle, nor in the dayes of Solomon, but afterwards in the time of Jeremy; when by reason of the hostility of the Caldeans, Jerem. 49. the Jews, fearing the losse of such pretious things, put them all together in the Ark, and that Ark into an hole or cave of the Earth to be hid; and afterwards, when the Temple was repaired, the Ark was digged up, and placed in it again, and those three things in it before mentioned: And as Adrichom Delphus reports, when Jerusalem was taken by Titus, he had that, the Ark, and Pot, and Rod, and the Golden Table, and Shew-Bread, and the Golden Candlestick, and other U…nsils of the Temple, as a part of the spoils of that glorious Fabrick; Adrichom in Descrip. Jerus. p. 159. …. 77. And some hold that Paul might have the relation from Gamaliel, or by a Jewish Tradition, or by revelation from God, as he had the names of the chief enchanters of the Egyptians, Jannes and Jambres, 2 Tim. 3. 8.
Against this, viz. the placing of those other two things, besides the Law, in the Ark, Estius on Heb. 9. 4. objects, That Aarons Rod was too long to be lodged in the Ark, for that (saith he) was but two Cubits and an half long, Exod. 25. 10. And the Rod was a long Pastoral Staff, such a one as Moses used when he kept the Sheep of Jethro his Father in law. But that is but his fancy, which hath no ground; and two Cubits and a foot, being above a yard and a quarter, might be long enough for the Rod in respect of any use we finde that was made of it in the Scripture. And for the negative in the 1 Kings 8. 9. and 2 Chro. 5. 10. which saith, That there was nothing in the Ark but the Tables: The answer which some learned men give unto it, is, That there was nothing of that kinde, viz. Nothing of the whole Law in it, but the two Tables, wherein the Ten Commandments were written.
This Historical resolution reconciles the Epistle to the Hebrews, without varying a letter from the Text, or from the sense, which at the first blench the words import. The other Resolution is Grammatical, and that is twofold: 1. That, whereas it is said wherein, or in which, the original may be rendred with which; for in that sense we finde the proposition foreign often used; As there was a man with an unclean spirit, in the Greek it is, foreign, In an unclean spirit, Matth. 1. 23. His Word was with power, Luke 4 32. in Greek foreign in power; The first Commandement with promise, Eph. 6. 2. in Greek foreign, in Promise; That I may come unto you with joy, Rom. 15. 32. in Greek foreign, in joy. Secondly, If we take the words to be in which, and with which, as these examples shew, then the words foreign may be in construction referred not to the next Antecedent, which is foreign, the Ark, though that be of the Feminine gender; but to foreign, the Tabernacle, which is Feminine also; and so the sense is, wherein, or in which Tabernacle was the Manna, Aarons Rod, and the Tables of the Covenant (taking all three together) though the Tables of the Covenant were not onelyonly in the Tabernacle, but also in the Ark; and this construction hath warrant both by Rule, whereof see Sixt. Amama, Hebr. Gram. l. 2. c. 2. p. 152. and by many examples of the Scriptures, as Gen. 10. 12. 2 Sam. 21. 14. Psal. 99. 7. Mark 2. 3. 2 Thes. 2. 9. In this variety of Reconciliations, the judicious Reader may make his choice; but none can be so simple, as against so many probable Resolutions, to impute contradiction to the forealleadged Scriptures.
FINIS.