Outline of Chapter 5:

       vv.    1–7        The Ark of God Is Placed Next to the Idol Dagon in Dagon’s Temple

       vv.    8–9        The Ark of God in Gath

       vv.   10–12      The Ark of God in Ekron

Charts and Maps:

       Introduction    Movement of the Ark

       v.      6           What Can We Say for Certain about 1Samuel 5:6?

       v.     10           The Contemporary English Version of 1Sam. 5:8–10

I ntroduction: This is going to be a very unusual chapter. We are going to follow the Ark of God through the cities inhabited by the Philistines, and as the Ark moves, great disaster comes upon each city that it is transferred to. What is so unusual about this chapter is the fact that all of it takes place in Philistine cities apart from any reference to any believer. In other words, it does not appear, at first, that this was written by an eyewitness/believer, which is most often the case with Scripture (by the way, the idea that Scripture was handed down verbally for thousands of years and then written down is an highly unlikely theory). There are many places throughout Scripture where is seems apparent that the writer was also an eyewitness, or that he copied from the manuscript of an eyewitness. My favorite illustration is Jacob—we have incidents in Jacob’s life that only he would know—such as his wrestling match with Jesus Christ (Gen. 32:24–32) or his dream (Gen. 28:10–16); these were things more likely to be recorded by Jacob rather than stories to be passed down. However, the clincher is his feelings about Rachel, his wife. He had an agreement with Rachel’s father, his Uncle Laban, that he would work for Laban for seven years and then be given Rachel’s hand in marriage. Jacob sums up those seven years with: So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her (Gen. 29:20). That was simply written by a man in love. Given Jacob’s less than exemplary life combined with the details of said life, indicates further that this was all recorded by Jacob (or, at least by one of his sons to whom Jacob confided). That tends to be the case with Scripture—a believer who is also an eyewitness to the events recorded is the most likely person to write the information down that we find in Scripture. So, what happened here? Who is the believe/eyewitness who authored the record of the events of this chapter? I want you to keep that question in the back of your mind as we examine the next chapter and a half. This question helps to explain why God allowed the Ark to be captured and taken.

Recall from the previous chapter that the Philistines were camped in Ebenezer prior to their successfully confrontation with Israel. Edersheim explains God’s plan to us at this point: Although such heavy judgment had come upon Israel, it was not intended that Philistia should triumph. More than that, in the hour of their victory the heathen must learn that their gods were not only wholly powerless before Jehovah, but merely idols, the work of men’s hands.

This is a perfect example of God taking that which is messtup and making good of it. We have the army of Israel and their spiritual leaders Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, going into battle against the Philistines bearing the Ark of God as some kind of good luck charm. Given the fact that Eli’s sons were not even believers and that the Ark of God was not simply to be taken along on any excursion as good luck, means that we are beginning with a situation that is messtup. We might think, this is the Ark of God, the most sacred object in all of Israel—God cannot allow its capture, no matter what the circumstance. Wrong; and the key is the quote from Edersheim. The Philistines will first bring the Ark of God to Ashdod and place it next to their god, Dagon (who is a statue, by the way). When they awake the next day, there are problems with Dagon. The first day, he is fallen over. On the next, the Philistines awoke to find his head and hands were cut off. God reveals to the Philistines that their pagan god Dagon is simply a meaningless statue which is completely vulnerable to attack. So, even though the elements in this event all would seem to add up to a bad result, God took these events and, in His graciousness, showed the Philistines that their idol was powerless before the God of Israel. The end result of all this is twofold: (1) the Philistines will remove a cancerous element in Israel’s population and (2) the Philistines will be completely convinced of God’s great power apart from any direct association with Israel. In addition, we may reasonably assert that God removed a cancerous element in the Philistine population as well.

Simultaneous to this demonstration, the inhabitants of Ashdod were struck with severe skin diseases. After the Philistine leaders from throughout the Philistine region meet, they decide to move the Ark to Gath, another Philistine city. In Gath, the people were struck with confusion, and tumors again became prominent on the inhabitants of Gath. Then the Ark was moved to Ekron, whose people protested against this—still, when it was left there, they experienced what their neighbors in Gath had experienced—great confusion and a quick spreading of deadly tumors. We stop in the middle of this and move to the next chapter from here.

The movement of the Ark might be of some interest. The territory of the Philistines included four cities near the

This map gives you a rough idea as to the movement of the Ark of God throughout Israel and Philistia.

coast, in the territories of Judah and Dan. Starting in the south and working to the north, we have Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod and Joppa, Joppa being the only city in Dan. Joppa also changed hands several times, so it was not always a city of the Philistines. Generally speaking, when referring to the five cities of the Philistines, Joppa is not on that list. Due west of Ashkelon was Gath, a Philistine city about a third of the way into Judah. North of Gath and northeast of Ashdod was Ekron, a Philistine city which was near the border between Dan and Judah. The Ark was taken in Shiloh, which is northeast of the central portion of Ephraim. The Ark would have been taken a little over forty miles southwest (as the crow flies) to Ashdod, which is not on the coast, but very near the coast of the Mediterranean. Given the ancient world and its lack of roads, there was no doubt a circuitous route which was traveled. Then the Ark was taken to Gath, which is about 20 miles southeast of Ashdod (so we are moving more inland again). From Gath, the Ark was taken about 30 miles due north to Ekron. Although these are the only three cities mentioned with regards to the Ark, this does not mean that these were the only cities that the Ark was taken to. Taking its final Philistine rest at Ekron does make a great deal of sense. The Ark is closer to Israel territory in Ekron than anywhere else (which they may have assumed would placate the God of Israel) and Ekron is very near Beth-shemesh, the Israel city to where the Ark will be shuttled in the next chapter.

Some of us do not understand the will and purpose of God because we do not recognize the careful tightrope that He walks. We have, in the previous chapter, Israelites who treat the Ark as if it were an idol or a hostage. God was not going to bless their endeavors because they had the Ark with them in battle, treating it as an idol or a good luck charm. This is not the kind of precedent which God needs to set. However, on the other hand, their enemies are a nation of (mostly) godless heathen (there were exceptions, as we will see). God cannot condone Israel’s crass behavior nor can He bless the Philistines for attacking His people. Furthermore, since there is some positive volition in Philistia, God must respond to them as well. Bearing these things in mind, what God allowed with respect to the Ark makes a great deal of sense.

From the standpoint of the Hebrew, for the first half of this chapter, we have no new vocabulary words whatsoever. Every word used is found elsewhere in the previous four chapters of 1Samuel. Although the sentence structure is not quite as simple as it was in the first chapter, it is still relatively simple. Now, part way through, we do introduce some new words and the sentence structure becomes a little more complex.

To help set us up for this chapter: in the previous chapter, the Israelites went to battle against the Philistines and they were soundly defeated. The Israelite army retreated, grabbed the Ark of God for good luck, and re-engaged. Not only did the Philistines defeat them a second time, but the Philistines captured the Ark of God. That is where we pick up our narrative.

The Ark of God Is Placed Next to the Idol Dagon in Dagon’s Temple

First, here are how others handled this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And Philistines took an Ark of the Elohim and so they carried him from the Ebenezer Ashdod-ward.

Septuagint                             And the Philistines took the Ark of God and brought it from Ebenezer to Azotus.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        When the Philistines captured the Ark of God, they brought it from Eben-ezer to Ashdod.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Now the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod.

Young's Updated LT              And the Philistines have taken the ark of God, and bring it in from Eben-Ezer to Ashdod,...

What is the gist of this verse? The Philistines sized the Ark and took it to Ashdod, a Philistine city.

Translation: The Philistines seized the Ark of God... In the previous chapter, we saw this from the side of Israel. That is, the messenger came to Shiloh and told Eli and the residents there that Israel had been beaten and the Ark had been taken. In this chapter, we will see this from the viewpoint of the Philistines.

Translation: ...and carried it from Ebenezer to Ashdod. Then we have the min preposition followed by the Ebenezer, which means Stone of Help. This was simply where the Israelites were encamped prior to the battles with the Philistines (1Sam. 4:1). The Philistines apparently captured the Ark of God in the camp of the Israelites and then took it to Ashdod. Affixed to Ashdod is the directional hê. Suffice it to say that Ashdod is one of the five main Philistine cities. In fact, we should cover the Doctrine of Ashdod at this point.

Ashdod is the northernmost city on the coast of the Philistine cities. Although It is possible the Ark was hauled there for no other reason than many of the soldiers and commanding offices came from that city and that was to where they first reported when returned from their defeat of Israel, I think the more likely reason is that this is where the temple of Dagon was. The Philistines saw this as a defeat of the God of the Israelites by their god, Dagon; therefore, placing the Ark of God in the temple of Dagon symbolized this defeat.

Don’t panic by the use of the word him in this verse in the ultra literal portion. The Hebrew does not have a neuter gender, so the Ark of God is referred to by a masculine singular gender (which would be properly rendered it by the English). Let’s see what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so took Philistines an Ark of the Elohim and so they brought him [into] a house of Dagon and so they set up him beside Dagon.

Septuagint                             And the Philistines took the Ark of the Lord and brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon.

Significant differences:          No significant differences; it is the Ark of Elohim in the Hebrew and the Ark of the Lord in the Greek.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

Keil and Delitzsch (revised)   The Philistines took the Ark of God and brought it into the temple of Dagon and they set it up beside Dagon.

NASB                                     Then the Philistines took the ark of God and brought it to the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon.

Young's Updated LT              ...and the Philistines take the ark of God and bring it into the house of Dagon, and set it near Dagon.

What is the gist of this verse? The Philistines set up the Ark of God in the Temple of Dagon, and placed it near their idol Dagon.

Translation: So the Philistines took the Ark of God... The vocabulary in this second verse is almost identical to the vocabulary from the first. And so [the] Philistines seize [Qal imperfect] the Ark of Elohim and bring [Hiphil imperfect]... It is very simple and repetitive Hebrew.

Translation: ...and brought it into the house of Dagon... Then we have the first new word of these two verses, the sign of the direct object with a masculine singular suffix (literally, him, but more reasonably it). Then we have a house of Dagon, which referred to the temple of their god Dagon. We briefly mentioned Dagon in Judges 16:31, and we will examine The Doctrine of the Pagan God Dagon at the end of this section. However, it is of some interest that the gods of the Philistines—Dagon, Ashtoreth and Baal-zebub—are all Semitic gods whose origins are not found with the Philistine people. The reason this is of some interest is that the Philistines and the Israelites moved into the Land of Promise at roughly the same time. The Philistines were apparently not pre-disposed to their own gods and religion, and could have placed their faith in the God of the Universe just as easily as they could have adopted the gods of the surrounding heathen. The key difference was positive volition. When a person is negative toward God, this does not mean that they are negative toward religion. The religious unbeliever will often try on several different religions and choose the one that seems to fit the best.

Translation: ...and set it up beside Dagon. This gives us: Then the Philistines took the Ark of Elohim and brought it [into] the house of Dagan and set it up beside Dagon. The whole idea here is that their god Dagon just defeated the venerated God of Israel in battle, and bringing the Ark into their temple of Dagon was their way of gloating. According to Gordon, it was common practice in the near east for victorious armies to carry off enemy idols and install them in the temple of their chief god in symbol of the latter’s sovereignty over the subject people and its gods. No doubt, the Ark was set in some place of subjugation to the idol Dagon.

First, what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Septuagint                             And the people of Azotus rose early, and entered into the house of Dagon and looked, and behold, Dagon had fallen on his face before the ark of the Lord; and they lifted Dagon up and set him in his place.

Significant differences: 

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        Early the next day, the Ashdodites found Dagon lying face down on the ground in front of the Ark of the Lord. They picked Dagon up and put him back in his place;...

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

The Emphasized Bible           And <when they of Ashdod rose early on the morrow and entered into the house of Dagon> they looked and lo! ║Dagon║ was lying prostrate on his face to the earth, before the ark of Yahweh, —so they took Dagon and restored him to his place.

NASB                                     When the Ashdodites arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord. So they took Dagon and set him in his place again.

Young's Updated LT              Now the Ashdodites rise early on the morrow, and lo, Dagon is fallen on its face to the earth, before the ark of Jehovah; and they take Dagon, and put it back to its place.

What is the gist of this verse? The Ashdodites open their temple early in the morning and they find the statue of Dagon laying face down. They right the idol.

Translation: The Ashdodites arose early on the next day... The Ashdodites open up their temple early in the morning, probably with the rising of the sun. They open up their temple and go inside.

Translation: ...and, observe, Dagon had fallen on his face on the ground before the Ark of Y^ehowah. This gives us: And the Ashdodites arose early on the following day and, behold, Dagon falling to his face to the ground before the face of the Ark of Y^ehowah. You will note that in the Septuagint, they insert that the Ashdodites enter into the House of Dagon and look; the reading which Rotherham prefers. There is some significance to referring to the Ark as the Ark of Jehovah here (and in v. 4), but I won’t discuss that further until 1Sam. 6:8. In any case, the Philistines go into their temple first thing in the morning and the idol statue of Dagon is laying face first on the ground, which is obviously unusual.

Translation: Then they took Dagon and caused him to return to his place. The verb is the 3^rd person masculine plural, Qal imperfect of to take, to take from, to take in marriage, to seize. We have then the direct object notation followed by Dagon. Then they took Dagon... This means that they grab a hold of him. We do not know the size of this idol, but it must be large, as this is a masculine plural verb, indicating that more than one person grabbed the idol.

We then have the wâw consecutive and the 3^rd person masculine plural, Hiphil imperfect of to be caused to return, to bring, to be caused to turn back mentally, reminisce, to return something, to restore, to bring back, to regain, to recover, to make restitution, reconsider, think again, or to be caused to return. The second half of this portion reads: ...so they caused to return him to his place. The Bible always enjoys poking fun at idols. This is the god of the Philistines, the god that they worship and do obeisance to, and now they (plural) are lifting him up and setting him upright. From the language, it appears that Dagon did more than simply fall over. It sounds as though the idol had been moved and knocked over because there is a word in the Hebrew meaning to set upright and it is not used here. Here, it appears as though Dagon had been knocked over and moved, and therefore, they had to take him and return him to his proper place.

The NIV Study Bible: The ark was placed next to the image of Dagon by the Philistines in order to demonstrate Dagon’s superiority over the God of Israel, but the symbolism was reversed when Dagon was toppled to a position of homage before the ark of the Lord.

In Isaiah, chapter 46 is devoted to the heathen idols, and v. 7 reads: “They lift it [the idol] upon the shoulder and carry it; they set it in its place that it may stand. It does not move from its place. Though one may cry to it, it cannot answer; it cannot deliver him from his distress.”

First, what others have done.

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so they arise early in the morning from a next day and, behold, Dagon falling to his faces ground-ward to faces of an Ark of Y^ehowah; and a head of Dagon and two of [the] palms of his hands cut off toward the threshold; only his trunk [or, only Dagon] [or, only the trunk of Dagon] remained to him.

Septuagint                             And it came to pass when they rose early in the morning, behold, Dagon had fallen on his face before the ark of the covenant of the Lord; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off each before the threshold, and both the wrists of his hands had fallen on the floor of the porch; only the stump of Dagon was left.

Significant differences:          No significant differences. The final phrase is uncertain, although the Greek, the Latin and the Syriac tell us that only the torso or stump of Dagon remained.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NAB                                       But the next morning early, when they arose, Dagon lay prone n the ground before the ark of the Lord, his head and hands broken off and lying on the threshold, his trunk alone intact.

NJB                                        But when they got up on the following morning, there lay Dagon face down on the ground before the ark of Yahweh, and Dagon’s head and two hands lay severed on the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon was left in its place.

NLT                                        But the next morning the same thing happened—the idol had fallen face down before the Ark of the Lord again. This time his head and hands had broken off and were lying in the doorway. Only the trunk of his body was left intact.

TEV                                       Early the following morning they saw that the statue had again fallen down in front of the Covenant Box. This time its head and both its arms were broken off and were lying in the doorway; only the body was left.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         But the next morning they saw that Dagon had [again] fallen forward on the ground in front of the Lord‘s ark. Dagon’s head and his two hands were cut off [and were lying] on the temple’s threshold. The rest of Dagon’s body was intact.

JPS (Tanakh)                        ...but early the next morning, Dagon was again lying prone on the ground in front of the Ark of the . The head and both hands of Dagon were cut off, lying on the threshold; only Dagon’s trunk was left intact. [The meaning of the Hebrew for that last phrase is uncertain].

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     But when they arose early the next morning, behold, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of the . And the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off on the threshold; only the trunk of Dagon [so with ancient versions; Heb., only Dagon] was left to him.

NKJV                                     And when they arose early the next morning, there was Dagon, fallen on its face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord. The head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were broken off on the threshold; only Dagon’s torso was left of it. [Dagon’s torso: so with LXX, Syriac, Targum, Vulgate; MT Dagon].

Young's Updated LT              And they rise early in the morning on the morrow, and lo, Dagon is fallen on its face to the earth, before the ark of Jehovah, and the head of Dagon, and the two palms of his hands are cut off at the threshold, only the fishy part has been left to him;...

What is the gist of this verse? The next morning, the temple of Dagon is opened and the idol of Dagon had fallen on the floor. The head and hands had broken off and apparently laying on the threshold (?).

Translation: And they arose early in the morning the next day and, observe, Dagon had fallen on his face on the ground before the Ark of Y^ehowah. On the second day, the temple of Dagon is opened up, and again, the idol had fallen on its face before the Ark of Jehovah.

Translation: Furthermore [lit., and so], the head and two of the hands of Dagon [lit., two of the palms of the hands of Dagon] had been cut off... If you have read much of what I have written, you know that I tend toward a fairly naturalistic interpretation of most miracles; and, if you read carefully, you realize that such an understanding reveals a greater God than a simple miracle. However, here, where this occurrence appears to be much less majestic than, say, the fall of Jericho or the turning of the water of Egypt into blood; this is probably an out and out miracle. That is, there is no indication in the wording here that the statue of Dagon simply fell forward and broken into pieces, but that God had actually severed the extremities of this idol as a sign against Dagon and against the Philistines. This does not mean that a naturalistic interpretation can be given to this.

I do have a problem with the next phrase, however.

Translation: ...near the threshold;... We have preposition el (ל∵א) [pronounced el], which denotes direction and means in, into, toward, unto, to, regarding, against. This is followed by the masculine singular noun threshold. This gives us: ...toward the threshold... Our problem is, just what exactly does this mean? Are the hands and the head of Dagon lying at the threshold? Are they lying against the threshold? Is the torso on the threshold? I believe the idea is, the idol fell, and the hands and head broke off and rolled to the threshold of the temple.

There are a couple of instances where prepositions are either left out or seem to be used incorrectly in this chapter and the next. This is a rather small number; however, I have noticed that, when a person speaks in a language that is not his own, one area where they are often weak is the use of prepositions. I do not want to unequivocally suggest that this was written by a Philistine who wrote these things in Hebrew; however, that is a possibility.

Translation: ...only his trunk remained to him. At this point, we have what I believe to be the biggest problem with the NRSV—its all too brief and misleading footnotes. Its footnote here is Hebrew lacks “the trunk of.” According to Owen, that is not necessarily the case. In most Hebrew manuscripts, we have the proper noun Dagon; however, in some manuscripts, we have the masculine singular noun gêv (ו̤) [pronounced gayv] instead, which means back, trunk. In the Greek, Latin and Syriac, we have both Dagon and his trunk (or, body). The problem is that the Greek word I find next to Dagon in the Greek is not one from my Greek dictionaries so I have to go along with Brenton. Therefore, with the masculine singular suffix, this gives us: ...only Dagon... or ...only his trunk... or ...only the trunk of Dagon... According to the NKJV, trunk of Dagon is found in the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Aramaic paraphrase and in the Syriac translation.

One of the rules of textual criticism (the science of determining what was actually in the autographs and what was not) is that, when given two or more alternate readings, one would choose the reading which makes the least sense. The reason for such a rule, which seemed to me at first to be counter-intuitive, is that, it would be human nature of a copyist to write what makes the most sense and sometimes inadvertently (or intentionally) make a change from something difficult to understand to something which is easy to understand. The reading here could very well be only Dagon was left to him, even though, of all the readings, that seems to make the least sense. The idea would be that Dagon is simply a powerless, meaningless god. Even if he is representative of a demon, still, he has no real power, guidance, or involvement apart from what God allows; and the idol has absolutely no power whatsoever. Dagon is, in fact, nothing more than a useless trunk. The lack of hands and head do not make him less powerful, because the idol had no power to begin with—so removing the head and hands, while symbolic, leaves Dagon with that which is essentially Dagon—a powerless trunk. In either case, the general idea is still conveyed.

Now, although we ran into some rocky area in this verse, and even into a couple of words not found already in the book of Samuel, still, the idea is clear. Dagon had fallen face forward, and had possibly been moved; his head and hands were cut off as well—not simply broken off, as that verb is not used here—and they lay upon the threshold of the temple. Now, in case you do not grasp the symbology here, it is this: the first time Dagon fell before the Ark, it placed him in an inferior position to the God of Israel, as though he were worshiping the God of Israel. This was not understood by the men of Ashdod, as they simply set the idol upright again (the statue would now be towering over the Ark). The second time Dagon was prostrate before the Ark, it again indicated obeisance; but, the severing of the hands indicated that Dagon was absolutely powerless before God. Hands are indicative of power, and Dagon’s hands lay upon the threshold, where anyone could step upon them. His head was off, indicating a lack of influence.

Now, a bit less symbolically: the first time that the idol Dagon was found fallen before the Ark, one might have thought perhaps the idol had simply fallen over for some reason—an accident of sorts. However, the second time, with the severed hands laying on the threshold, could not be an accident. No heavy wind, no earthquake or any other accident could have caused that. Furthermore, the hands and head of one’s enemy were often taken in battle to indicate that the enemy had been completely defeated. In 1Sam. 17:54, David brings Goliath’s head to Jerusalem (also compare 1Sam. 31:9–10). This gives us a clear contrast between the powerless, severed hands of Dagon and the oppressive hand of Jehovah as seen in the next 8 verses.

In noting this, no doubt at least one Philistine was moved to believe in Jehovah God of Israel (which would explain this account which we have).

First, what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                         And only the stump of Dagon remained in its place. For this cause neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that go into the temple, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Azotus unto this day.

Masoretic Text                       Regarding so, do not tread priests of Dagon and all the entering ones [into] a house of Dagon upon a threshold of Dagon in Ashdod as far as the day the this.

Septuagint                             Therefore the priests of Dagon, and everyone that enters into the house of Dagon, do not tread upon the threshold of the house of Dagon in Azotus until this day, for they step over.

Significant differences:          The additional text found in the LXX may have been unreadable at some point in time in the manuscripts which were used by the Masoretes. Also, this phrase is missing from the Syriac and the Latin as well (as we would expect).

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

TEV                                       (That is why even today the priests of Dagon and all his worshipers in Ashdod step over that place and do not walk on it.)

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         This is why the priests of Dagon and everyone else who comes into Dagon’s temple in Ashdod still don’t step on the temple’s threshold.

JPS (Tanakh)                        That is why, to this day, the priests of Dagon and all who enter the temple of Dagon do not tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Therefore, neither the priests of Dagon nor all who enter Dagon’s house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to this day.

Young's Updated LT              ...therefore the priests of Dagon, and all those coming into the house of Dagon, tread not on the threshold of Dagon, in Ashdod, till this day.

What is the gist of this verse? From that point on (at least until the time that this narrative was written), the priests of Dagon and all of those who go into Dagon’s temple do not step on the threshold.

Translation: Therefore, the priests of Dagon and all those entering the house of Dagon do not tread on the threshold of Dagon... This concerned the Philistines greatly that Dagon’s head and hands were laying on the threshold of the temple; for these reason, they would not step on the threshold when entering into the temple. It is somewhat humorous that they would still go into Dagon’s temple, and yet avoid the threshold. This is pure negative volition to the truth.

Translation: ...in Ashdod, even to this day. Altogether, this gives us: Therefore, the priests of Dagon and all those entering the house of Dagon do not tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod, even to this day.

This last little phrase, even to this day, indicates three things: (1) this portion of Scripture was written (or edited) sometime after the Dagon incident and, (2) this remark was added, indicating that a considerable period of time had gone by (that is, if an eyewitness wrote this, then he wrote this particular draft several years (or several decades) after this incident occurred); and, (3) there was some way for the writer to confirm this. In other words, an Israelite would not have written this chapter. Or, if an Israelite wrote this, then it would have been based upon someone else’s eyewitness account.

This incident, obviously, had a profound affect upon the citizenry of Ashdod for years to come. The Ark of Jehovah, for all intents and purposes, was on a missionary tour. There were some in Philistia who believed in Jehovah, the God of Israel. There were some who moved to Israel (which we are inferring) and some who allied themselves with Israel (David had 600 men under him from Gath—any one of them could have known about this incident, and, in fact, probably most of them were very familiar with it).

The reference to the threshold indicates that, in the ancient world, the threshold was more than something that one steps over. The NIV Study Bible suggests that there was something supernatural about it, e.g., spirits dwelt at the threshold. Gordon says to the thresholds of the temples in the ancient world were normally treated with respect, as they represent the transition from the secular to the religious; they mark the boundary dividing sacred from profane. In the alternate, possibly they believed gods guarded the temple at that point and that these gods had been overpowered the Jehovah, making the threshold itself a place of bad luck. Or, even more likely, the hands (and possibly head) of their deity had lain upon the threshold. For them to step upon the threshold showed him great disrespect. In my trip to Thailand, I recall that some of the older homes had thresholds that one must step over; some perhaps 12 inches high. The idea was, according to those I spoke with, to keep out evil spirits (however, who knows; maybe the kept out varmints as well).

First, what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                         And the hand of the Lord was heavy upon the Azotians, and he destroyed them, and afflicted Azotus and the coasts thereof with emerods. And in the villages and fields in the midst of that country, there came forth a multitude of mice, and there was the confusion of a great mortality in the city.

Masoretic Text                       And so was heavy a hand of Y^ehowah toward the Ashdodites and so He caused them to be awestruck and appalled and so He struck them in tumors, Ashdod and her borders [or, territories].

Peshitta                                 But he hand of the Lord was heavy upon the inhabitants of Ashdod, and He destroyed them and afflicted them with boils, both Ashdod and the territory thereof.

Septuagint                             And the hand of the Lord was heavy upon Azotus, and He brought [evil] upon them, and He burst out upon them into the ships, and mice sprang up in the midst of their country, and great rioting became death in the city.

Significant differences:          I want you to notice that we have some of the greatest differences in this verse; and yet, the overall meaning is unchanged—God brought horrible things upon the people of Ashdod as a result of the capture of the Ark of God. We will discuss what belongs here and what does not in the text itself.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NLT                                        Then the Lord began to afflict the people of Ashdod and the nearby villages with a plague of tumors. Greek version and Latin Vulgate read ...tumors. And rats appeared in their land, and death and destruction were throughout the city.

REB                                       The Lord’s hand oppressed the people of Ashdod. He threw them into despair; he plagued them with tumors, and their territory swarmed with rats. There was death and destruction all through the city.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The Lord dealt harshly with the people of Ashdod. He destroyed them by striking the people in the vicinity of Ashdod with tumors.

JPS (Tanakh)                        The hand of the lay heavy upon the Ashdodites, and He wrought havoc among them: He struck Ashdod and its territory with hemorrhoids.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

The Amplified Bible                But the hand of the Lord was heavy upon the people of Ashdod, and he caused [mice to spring up and there was] very deadly destruction, and He smote the people with [very painful] tumors or boils, both Ashdod and its territory.

NASB                                     Now the hand of the was heavy on the Ashdodites, and He ravages them and smote them with tumors, both Ashdod and its territories.

NKJV                                     But the hand of the Lord was heavy on the people of Ashdod, and He ravaged them and struck them with tumors, both Ashdod and its territory. [tumors probably refer to the bubonic plague; LXX and Vg. add And in the midst of their land rats sprang up, and there was a great death panic in the city]

Young's Updated LT              And the hand of Jehovah is heavy on the Ashdodites, and He makes them desolate, and strikes them with hemorrhoids, Ashdod and its borders.

What is the gist of this verse? God greatly judged Ashdod and struck them with cancers and rats.

Translation: So the hand of Y^ehowah was heavy against the Ashdodites... As you see, what happened to the Ashdodites in the Septuagint is quite a different story than what happened to them in the Hebrew. We have a mice invasion in the Greek and a striking with tumors or hemorrhoids in the Hebrew. We will examine the Hebrew, of course, with a careful eye to the Greek. We have the preposition el (ל∵א) [pronounced el], which denotes direction and means in, into, toward, unto, to, regarding, against. Strong's #413 BDB #39. We would probably prefer to think of this as being upon the people of Ashdod, but the idea is that we have motion and direction—God’s hand being heavy on [or, against] the Ashdodites is a matter of something which proceeds from Him to them. Essentially the Greek and Hebrew are in agreement here with this first phrase.

The phrase, the hand of the Lord, often refers to God’s judgment upon a person or a nation. We find it so used in Ex. 9:3, which reads: “Behold, the hand of Jehovah will come with very severe pestilence on your livestock which are in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the herds, and on the flocks.

Translation: ...and He devastated them;... Then we have the 3^rd person masculine singular (with a 3^rd person masculine plural suffix), Hiphil imperfect of shâmêm (ם ̤מ ָש) [pronounced shaw-MAIM], which means, in the Hiphil, caused to be appalled and awestruck. BDB gives the meanings as to devastate, to ravage in the Hiphil. And he caused them to be appalled and awestruck... or And He devastated them... Still, the Greek and Hebrew are in relatively close agreement. God’s hand was heavy against these Ashdodites—He ravaged them; He caused them to become awestruck.

What follows is exactly how God’s hand was heavy against the people of Ashdod.

Translation: ...He struck them...with tumors. At this point, the two Greek and Hebrew diverge substantially. The masculine plural noun here means growth, tumor, a swelling up, a cancerous growth. Given that the related verb means to swell up, I would think that a tumor which is easy to see would be the more likely meaning. This does not have to be miraculous. Just a month or so ago, I had a lump appear on my ankle, almost out of nowhere. I did not see it grow, but it got to the size of a grape. About a month later, its size decreased to almost nothing over a period of a few weeks. So, from personal experience, I know that these things can occur suddenly. How many were struck and how quickly this occurred and the effect that these tumors had is unknown to us. What we do know if, it was enough to cause the Ashdodites to rethink keeping the Ark of God.

Translation: ...—Ashdod and her territories—[with tumors]. This phrase simply tells us who God struck. In the Greek, Ashdod is not named in this final phrase, but it simply reads throughout all the city. When Ashdod was given over to Judah in Joshua 15:46–47, there is an indication that there were several villages and settlements which were a part of Ashdod. Therefore, it would make sense that God would strike Ashdod and her territories. It is at 1Sam. 5:6b where the Greek diverges considerably; therefore, let me give you the Greek beginning from that point:

Translation: And He brings [evil] for them:... We do not actually find the word evil here. God brings something for the people of Ashdod, and this will be laid out in the remainder of this verse.

Translation: ...and He burst out [against] them unto the ship... Ashdod was a city close to the Mediterranean Sea, and it appears that God attacked them either from the ship or as far as the ship. Exactly how God burst out (or seethed) against Ashdod will be covered in the final portion of this verse (from the Septuagint).

Translation: ...and mice [or rats] sprang up in the midst of her land. Although it is not completely clear here, let me conjecture that they brought on this large vessel a huge number of mice and rats. These vermin completely overran everything from the ship to the land where they lived, including the city and the land around there. I once caused a minor rat infestation where I lived. I left some bird seed out in a coffee can with a plastic lid. I did not think much of it when I noticed that the plastic lid had been eaten through. A week or so later, I knew that I had rats. I never saw any until I found some dead ones; but, it was a gross feeling to know that somewhere in your house there are rats. This is far more gruesome. These people of Ashdod saw rats and mice everywhere they looked. They could not do anything to get rid of them. Whether their tumors were a result of being bitten by these rodents or whether the tumors were a separate curse is unknown. There may have not been any tumors (my version of the Septuagint does not mention tumors). In any case, life for those in Ashdod was extremely unpleasant while the Ark of God was in their midst.

Translation: ...and great rioting became death in the city [or, [there] was a great confusion of death in the city]. The problems in Ashdod were great and the people were set off. I think that there was more than confusion, but the city became lawless and that people behaved despicably. Others were scapegoated and probably many were attacked and died during this.

The entire rendering from the LXX: And the hand of the Lord was heavy upon Azotus, and he brought [evil] upon them, and He burst out upon them unto the ships; and, in the midst of their land, rats sprang up and great rioting became death in the city. There is some disagreement with the Septuagint which I use and what the NKJV quoted. What appears to be the case, at least from my version, is that the mice (or rats) are related to the merchant ships of Ashdod. Tumors are not mentioned in my Septuagint. Now, you may at first wonder why the two different versions of the Septuagint? Just as there are many Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts, there are also many Old Testament Greek manuscripts. There is no version of the Septuagint that we can unequivocally acclaim as the correct first version of the Septuagint. It was put together and then copies were made of it. In fact, there were apparently enough copies made that some, if not all, of the disciples had access to the Septuagint. Now, obviously the LXX was not as plentiful as the Bible is today; but it was available. My assumption is that it would be found in synagogues and libraries (I assume that there were definitely private libraries and organizational libraries; I do not recall whether there were public libraries, but it seems that there must have been in some major cities). Every time a handwritten copy of the Septuagint was made, there would be some errors; and there might even be an occasional revision made by a copyist, although that is much less likely. Our books today are often revised and updated. There is no reason to think that the same was not true of the Septuagint. Our knowledge of the Septuagint, even to its exact date and commission, is lacking. However, given that a translation was made in the first place would certainly suggest that a revision would be a reasonable possibility. Given the fact that there were many copies of the Septuagint, no doubt differing in places due to scribal error; and reasonably assuming that some revision occurred, there are going to be different versions of the Septuagint. Like Hebrew Scripture, the disagreements can be unimportant and others only moderately important. Here, we have versions which disagree considerably.

A reasonable question is why is there so much lacking in the Masoretic text? We already know just how ephemeral the manuscripts of the Hebrew Old Testament were. The oldest manuscripts which we have come from the Dead Sea Scrolls, some dating as far back as 100 b.c. (which is quite incredible). This means, however, we do not have a single portion of a manuscript from the Hebrew which dates before this because the materials used at that time were very biodegradable. They often used skins to write on. So, given all of the persecution of the Jews and the attacks of the Scriptures, there are going to be times when there are very few manuscripts available to a copyist or a translator and some of these manuscripts will be lacking. That is, it is not out of the question for a copyist or a translator to have a manuscript which has some unreadable text. Now, 100 miles away, might be another copyist or translator with a better manuscript. So, what we will have occasionally are passages where text probably was dropped out. It is less likely that text was added as most of the copyists and translators treated Scriptures with great respect. If the text was unreadable, rather than make it up, they probably left it out.

Personally, I put more stock in the Septuagint version at this point, because it makes little sense for the Philistines to make gold likenesses of tumors and mice (1Sam. 6:4) if they were only plagued by tumors. What I would go with is the NKJV with the addition of the portion found in the Septuagint and the Vulgate (which, again, does not agree with my version of the Septuagint): But the hand of the Lord was heavy on the people of Ashdod, and He ravaged them and struck them with tumors, both Ashdod and its territory. And in the midst of their land rats sprang up, and there was a great death panic in the city.

Now, I can offer two suggestions as to the reasons for the differences between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text. (1) Our Hebrew text is corrupted and the short passage concerning the rats were dropped out. A scribe who skipped a line of text could have reasonably done this. (2) A later copyist, seeing what was to come in 1Sam. 6, reasonably inserted that rat plague into chapter 5. The second scenario is the least likely. Here’s why: if a scribe is concerned about the Word of God and its accuracy and its continuity, that is a result of a great respect for God’s Word and reasonably a belief in its divine inspiration (although he may differ with us on the particulars). Given this respect, he is not going to want to revise Scripture. Such a thing would be blasphemous to him. On the other hand, a Scribe who has no real regard for God’s Word (and certainly there would be some of them), might not have any qualms about changing this verse or that; however, he would have less motivation to do so. He does not necessarily care if Scripture holds together. He has got a job to do, and that is to copy the Bible to a new parchment. Why make his job tougher and add a line here or there? The result is that he could lose this gig. Now, you could no doubt come up with a scenario of a man who did not see the Bible as God’s Word and who would be willing to change a verse here or there so that there was a better narrative flow; and certainly there could be the devout scribe who saw no problem with helping God keep His Word accurate—however, these would be far less likely scenarios. Scholars have come up with a list of the various types of scribal errors, and I would think that 90% (if not 99%) of manuscript differences could be attributed to these errors.

is, the Ark of God was brought into Ashdod

The notes in the NKJV suggests that bubonic plague, which is a very reasonable possibility. The bubonic plague is one of the worst of the epidemic diseases, and a form of it was known as Black death in the middle ages when a fourth of the European population died from it. The disease is often remains for a short period of time in a population, but carries with it a very high death rate. Infected rats often bring the disease to that population. It is typical for blood spots under the skin to turn black, for lymph glands to swell (in the groin, armpit and neck areas), and these swellings often become open sores. These symptoms would be the tumors spoken of in this verse. An attack of the bubonic plague is sudden and begins with chills, fever, headache and body pains. Although recorded case histories of this disease only go back as far as 430 b.c. in Athens, this may be even an earlier outbreak of the plague. Furthermore, Edersheim points out that a hoard of field rats could wipe out an entire harvest in one night and drive an entire tribe from its village. Given what we find in the next chapter, and given the reasonableness of the Septuagint’s version of events, I think we can safely assume that God prepared an incredible number of rats which attacked the Philistines.

One of the problems which I run into when I offer a scenario as this is, some believers think that God’s hand in the affairs of mankind must be absolutely supernatural. When He struck the Ashdodites with mice and with tumors, God did not necessarily make thousands of mice with the bubonic plague materialize out of nothing. A situation like this requires far greater planning on the part of God. God, being omnipotent, can, with a snap of His fingers, do or cause anything. There’s nothing to it. It is easier for Him to perform a miracle as it is for us to put our hands in our pockets. What involves forethought and preplanning which boggles the imagination is for God to design, from eternity past, a series of events which would result in an invasion of Ashdod by infected rats at exactly the same time that the Ark of God is brought into the temple of Dagon. And He set these things in motion from the creation of the world. A hundred million events must fall exactly into place for this to occur, and God put all of these things into motion, knowing exactly what the end result would be. That God is able to do such a thing is a far greater miracle than any sudden and individual suspension of the natural order of things.

The NIV Study Bible comment here is outstanding: God would not be manipulated by his own people...nor would he permit the Philistines to think that their victory over the Israelites and the capture of the ark demonstrated the superiority of their god over the God of Israel.

In all of this, I want you to bear in mind, someone from Philistia believed in Jesus Christ because of the testimony of the Ark. This Ark was the gospel coming to Philistia. I think it is very reasonable to conclude that one or more Philistines became believers in Jesus Christ based upon these events, and that their record of the events is how we know all of this occurred. That seems to be far more likely than the idea that some writer of Scripture in Israel was moved by God the Holy Spirit to record events in Philistia which he did not know anything about.

First, we will see what others have done with this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so would see men of Ashdod that [things were] so and said, “Will not remain an Ark of Elohim of Israel with us for has been heavy His hand upon us and upon Dagon our Elohim.”

Septuagint                             And the men of Azotus saw that it was so, and they said, “The Ark of the God of Israel will not abide with us, for His hand is heavy upon us and upon Dagon our God.”

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Finally, they said, “The God of Israel did this. He is the one who caused all this trouble for us and our god Dagon. We’ve got to get rid of this chest.”

NLT                                        When the people realized what was happening, they cried out, “We can’t keep the Ark of the God of Israel here any longer! He is against us! We will all be destroyed long with our god Dagon.”

TEV                                       When they saw what was happening, they said, “The God of Israel is punishing us for our god Dagon. We Can’t let the Covenant Box stay here any longer.”

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        When the men of Ashdod saw how matters stood, they said, “The ark of the God of Israel must not remain with us, for His hand has dealt harshly with us and with our god Dagon.”

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     When the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, “The ark of the God of Israel must not remain with us, for His hand is severe on us and on Dagon our god.”

Young's Updated LT              And the men of Ashdod see that it is so, and have said, ‘The ark of the God of Israel does not abide with us, for hard has been His hand upon us, and upon Dagon our god.’

What is the gist of this verse? The men of Ashdod realize that the horrible problems which had befallen them were because of the Ark of God and they call for its removal.

Translation: And the men of Ashdod saw how [the matter] stands,... We are not given an exact time frame here we know that the Ark was in Philistia for a total of seven months (1Sam. 6:1); so we would think that they determined that their problems were the Ark after 4–5 months. This tells us that they realized just what the problem was.

Translation: ...they said, “The Ark of the God of Israel will not remain with us,... The men of Ashdod understood clearly that the problem was the Ark of the God of Israel. Their problems were more than out of the ordinary, and it was clear by what happened that the capture of the Ark of God had caused all of this.

Translation: ...for His hand has been heavy upon us... It is not really clear whether the Philistines saw the Ark as being God or enough of a manifestation of God; or if they had any idea that it was a representation of God, a shadow form of Him. It is clear that the Israelites, as a whole, did not really grasp what the Ark was. However,

Translation: ...and upon Dagon our god.” The entire verse reads: “The Ark of the God of Israel will not remain with us for His hand is heavy upon [or, against] us and against our elohim, Dagon.” Here is where we find the plural of God used with reference to a heathen God.

This particular verse solves one question that we had earlier. The Philistines had earlier referred to the God of Israel as Elohim, which brought up the question, did they know something about the Trinity? However, in this verse, they also refer to Dagon as elohim. What we should know about Satan and his works is that he is the great imitator. So, even though in Genesis, when the use of the name Elohim is significant, at this point in time, it is no longer meaningful, as many of the ancient civilizations referred to their god in the plural, even in reference to a singular god, as we have here. We might call this the plural of intensity, where the thing in the plural is not in the plural in all actuality, but is found grammatically in the plural to emphasize its greatness or grandeur.

Now would be a good time to examine the Doctrine of the Pagan God Dagon.

Gordon: As the Ark moves on to Gath and then to Ekron...the story begins to read like a parody of a victory tour, in which the roles of victor and vanquished are reversed.

Let’s see what others have done with this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so they send and so they gather together all lords of Philistines unto them and say, “What will we do to an Ark of Elohim of Israel?” And so, they say, “Gath—let transfer over an Ark of Elohim of Israel.” And so they cause to bring around an Ark of Elohim of Israel.

Septuagint                             And they send and gather the lords of the Philistines to them, and say, “What will we do to the ark of the God of Israel? And the Gittites say, “Let the Ark of God come over to us.” And the ark of the God of Israel came to Geth.

Significant differences:          No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NLT                                        So they called together the rulers of the five Philistine cities and asked, “What should we do with the Ark of the God of Israel?” The rulers discussed it and replied, “Move it to the city of Gath.” So they moved the Ark of the God of Israel to Gath.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         The people of Ashdod called together all the Philistine rulers. “What should we do with the ark of the God of Israel?” they asked. “The ark of the God of Israel must be taken to Gath,” the rulers said [Dead Sea Scrolls, Greek read, “The citizens of Gath said, ‘Let the ark of God be brought to us.’ ”]. So the people took the ark of the God of Israel there.

JPS (Tanakh)                        They sent messengers and assembled all the lords of the Philistines and asked, “What shall we do with the Ark of the God of Israel?: They answered, “Let the Ark of the God of Israel be removed to Gath.” So they moved the Ark of the God of Israel [to Gath].

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     So they sent and gathered all the lords of the Philistines to them and said, “What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel?” And they said, “Let the ark of the God of Israel be brought around to Gath.” And they brought the ark of the God of Israel around.

NRSV                                    So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, “What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel?” The inhabitants of Gath replied, “Let the ark of God be moved on to us.” So they moved the ark of the God of Israel to Gath.

Young's Updated LT              And they send and gather all the princes of the Philistines unto them, and say, ‘What do we do to the ark of the God of Israel?’ and they say, ‘To Gath let the ark of the God of Israel be brought round;’ and they bring round the ark of the God of Israel;...

What is the gist of this verse? It is decided to then take the Ark to Gath—a demand from the people of Ashdod placed upon the rulers of the Philistines.

Translation: So they sent for the rulers of the Philistines and gathered them together unto them,... Again, the Hebrew and the Greek diverge. So that there is no confusion, the Hebrew is generally going to be closest to the autographs (the autographs are perfect copies of the original). It is the autographs which are completely and fully inspired by God (or, God-breathed). Textual criticism is the science of taking the manuscripts that we have today and arriving at a finished product which is as close to the autographs as possible. In this exegesis of God’s Word, what I attempt to do is to arrive at an English translation based as closely upon what I believe to be the autographs as possible. There are so many factors involved, that this is a slow, arduous process at times. The Greek Septuagint is an early translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (circa 100 b.c.). It was based upon manuscripts which are about 1000 years older than any Hebrew manuscripts which we have today (apart from that which is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls). The problem with the Septuagint is that it is an uneven translation. Parts of it are carefully translated, and other parts appear as though the translators read the Hebrew passage on Monday, then constructed the Greek translation on Tuesday from memory. Here, it is difficult to determine whether the information found in the Greek is a clarification or from the manuscripts that they used. In the Greek, those who suggest that the Ark be moved to Gath are Gittites (men of Gath). In the Hebrew manuscripts which we have, those who suggest that the Ark be moved to Gath are not named.

It is unclear as to exactly the type of government that these Philistines had and the interrelationship between the various Philistine cities, including their relative independence. I suspect that each city had a say in policy and that they were a federation of united cities. Here, the Philistines acted in concert, trying to devise a solution which was mutually agreeable to all. What is likely is that the five heads of the five Philistine cities gathered for this meeting. 1Sam. 6:4 tells us that five golden tumor images and five golden mouse images were sent back to Israel with the Ark, which would confirm that we are speaking of the five leaders in this meeting (see also Joshua 13:3 Judges 3:3 1Sam. 6:16–18). Each leader may have arrived with an entourage; but each apparently had one vote.

That the Ark of God was captured and placed in Ashdod appeared to be a unilateral decision. However, given the problems which erupted because of the Ark being kept in Ashdod, the Philistines gather together their various rulers to come to a consensus as to where the Ark should be placed.

Translation: ...and asked, “What will we do with the Ark of the God of Israel?” This defined the exact topic of discussion of these rulers: just what exactly must be done with the Ark of the God of Israel.

Translation: And they answered, “Let us transfer the Ark of the God of Israel to Gath.” In the Greek, it is clear that the lords of Gath propose this. Furthermore, they say, “Let the Ark of the God of Israel be moved over to us.” One of the unfortunate aspects of the Greek translation is that it is uneven. We cannot point to a change like this and say, unequivocally, that the Greek is slightly different because it was based upon better and older manuscripts than we have today. However, we do not know if the translator simply chose to make the translation a bit more readable, as we cannot depend upon the Septuagint to be a literal rendering. However, this does make sense for a city to volunteer to take the Ark, as opposed to several of them imposing the Ark on one of their cities. Also, it would make sense for one of the leaders to think, “Poppycock; they are not having these problems because of the Ark.” This is just conjecture, but it presents a reasonable possibility as to the dynamics of this situation.

Of course, the Philistine leaders were not about to simply let go of the Ark and send it back to Israel. They had captured the Ark of Israel, and supposed that they had gained some advantage over the power of Jehovah God in this way. The disasters which occurred in Ashdod, although severe, were certainly seen by most as coincidence. After all, vermin and tumors were things which all had natural and explainable origins. Furthermore, as Barnes explains: [These Philistine] lords...were very unwilling to give up their triumph, and, with the common heathen superstition, imagined that some local bad luck was against them at Ashdod. Therefore, moving the Ark to another Philistine location seemed to be the best decision. Get it out of Ashdod, to placate the Ashdodites, but keep it under Philistine control. Now, the city of Gath was not some arbitrary choice. Gath was much farther inland and a simultaneous invasion by rats and mice from a trading vessel would have been much less likely. In other words, they did not just pick any city in Philistia, but they took the one which was least likely to have an influx of vermin. Furthermore, as I suggested, the King of Gath probably suggested his city.

As a side note, this is interesting, as, several decades from now, David will run to Gath, on two occasions, and each time, he will be accepted by the King of Gath. This would indicate that what is happening here might be preparing the king of Gath (of David’s time) to treat David with respect.