We know that the Bible does not contradict itself, as God’s Word cannot be broken (John 10:35). When we come across a seeming contradiction, it is only because of a misunderstanding of certain passages, or because of an inaccurate or misleading translation.

In Hebrews 9:4 we read regarding the ark of the covenant or Testimony, that “in [it] were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant…”

However, in 1 Kings 8:9, we read: “There was nothing in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb…”

Several explanations are possible which would shed light on these passages, without attempting to create a contradiction.

Some refer to Exodus 16:32-34, saying that a pot with an omer of manna was laid up before the Testimony or the ark of the covenant, and they also refer to Numbers 17:10, stating that Aaron’s rod was placed before the Testimony. In addition, they point at Deuteronomy 31:26, which says that the Book of the Law was to be put “beside” the ark of the covenant (the Authorized Version says, “in the side of”).  The explanation goes on to say that the Book of the Law, as well as the manna and Aaron’s rod, were not “in” the ark of the covenant, but “before” or “beside” it.

In that context, Hebrews 9:4 is understood as not stating that the manna and Aaron’s rod were “in” the ark of the covenant or Testimony. It is pointed out that the Greek word for “in” in Hebrews 9:4 literally means, “at which place,” describing the “same location.” The conclusion is that the manna and Aaron’s rod, as well as the Book of the Law of Moses, were kept before or by the side of the ark of the covenant; they were in the same location or the same place as the ark, but they were not in it.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible states the following:

“… how this pot [with manna], as well as Aaron’s rod, can be said to be in the ark, when it is asserted, at the bringing of the ark into the temple, at the dedication of it by Solomon, that there was nothing in it but two tables of stone, 1 Kings 8:9, and both the pot of ‘manna’, and Aaron’s rod, are said to be before the testimony, Exodus 16:34 and not in it, is a difficulty. Some… have taken notice, that the preposition [“in”] sometimes signifies ‘at’, or ‘with’, as in Colossians 3:1 and so the sense is, that these were near unto it in the most holy place, and might be in the sides of it, though not within it; for there were places in the sides of the ark to put things into, Deuteronomy 31:26. And certain it is from the above account from Scripture, that they were near it; and so, by the Jewish writers, they are always mentioned along with it: when that was carried away, and hid, they were hid with it…”

This has also been the explanation of the Personal Correspondence Department of the Worldwide Church of God, which wrote in a letter:

“The original Greek word translated ‘wherein’ in Hebrew 9:4 is hou. From Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible and other sources, we find that hou means ‘at which place.’ Hou is a general word which does not necessarily mean ‘wherein,’ ‘within,’ or ‘in.’ It simply means ‘in the same location as’… The book of the law, along with the pot of manna… and Aaron’s rod, was kept by the side of the ark, not in it. All of these items could properly be described as being hou–in the same place as—the ark.”

This is most certainly a valid and convincing explanation. But there is also another way of understanding the passages in question.

While concluding that the manna and Aaron’s rod were not in the ark, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary discusses the following two possibilities:

“In 1Ki 8:9; 2Ch 5:10, it is said there was nothing in the ark of Solomon’s temple save the two stone tables of the law put in by Moses. But the expression that there was nothing THEN therein save the two tables, leaves the inference to be drawn that formerly there were the other things mentioned by the Rabbis and by Paul here, the pot of manna (the memorial of God’s providential care of Israel) and the rod of Aaron, the memorial of the lawful priesthood (Nu 17:3, 5, 7, 10). The expressions ‘before the Lord’ (Ex 16:32), and ‘before the testimony’ (Nu 17:10) thus mean, ‘IN the ark.’ ‘In,’ however, may be used here (as the corresponding Hebrew word) as to things attached to the ark as appendages, as the book of the law was put ‘in the side of the ark,’ and so the golden jewels offered by the Philistines (1Sa 6:8).”

Others follow the rabbinical tradition that the pot of manna and the rod were inside the ark.

The commentary of Barnes’ Notes on the Bible writes regarding Hebrews 9:4:

“In 1 Kings 8:9, it is said that there was nothing in the ark, ‘save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb,’ and it has been supposed by some that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were not in the ark, but that they were in capsules, or ledges made on its sides for their safe keeping, and that this should be rendered ‘by the ark.’ But the apostle uses the same language respecting the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron which he does about the two tables of stone, and as they were certainly in the ark, the fair construction here is that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were in it also.

“The account in Exodus 16:32-34; Numbers 17:10, is, that they were laid up in the most holy place, ‘before the testimony,’ and there is no improbability whatever in the supposition that they were in the ark. Indeed, that would be the most safe place to keep them, as the tabernacle was often taken down and removed from place to place. It is clear from the passage in 1 Kings 8:9, that they were not in the ark in the temple, but there is no improbability in the supposition that before the temple was built they might have been removed from the ark and lost. When the ark was carried from place to place, or during its captivity by the Philistines, it is probable that they were lost, as we never hear of them afterward.”

J.H. Blunt, The Annotated Bible, agrees, offering these additional thoughts:

“It is expressly mentioned, in the account of the dedication of Solomon’s Temple, that at that time ‘there was nothing in the ark save the two tablets of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt [1 Kings viii. 9]. But this does not prove that the memorial pot of manna [Exod. xvi. 33,34] and the memorial rod [Numb. xvii. 10,11] were not in the ark at the time of which the apostle is writing, and Jewish commentators make the same statement as St. Paul respecting them. It rather expresses surprise that nothing was found there but the two tables, and that the priests had expected to find the manna and the rod of Aaron inside the ark.

“Probably both were taken out of it by ‘the men of Beth-shemesh’ when they ‘looked into the ark of the Lord’ while it was in captivity among the Philistines [1 Sam. vi. 19]. They were not of so sacred a character as the tables of the Law, and it may have been after their removal, and when the two tables were about to be removed also, that the men of Beth-shemesh were smitten.”

So, it is entirely possible that the pot with manna and Aaron’s rod were “near” or “beside” the ark of the covenant, but not in it, while it is also conceivable that they were in the ark at one time, but that they were subsequently removed, so that only the tables of stone were in the ark at the time when Solomon’s Temple was dedicated. In neither case would there be a contradiction between Hebrews 9:4 and 1 Kings 8:9.

Whatever the correct explanation, it is true that even in technical details, the Bible does not contradict itself, but we are called upon to search the Scriptures (Acts 17:11; Isaiah 34:16; Luke 24:27; and John 5:39 in the Authorized Version), “precept upon precept… Line upon line… Here a little, there a little” (Isaiah 28:10), in order to grow in the understanding of the entire Word of God (2 Timothy 2:7; Matthew 4:4; 5:18). We are to study and get to know the Scriptures (compare Matthew 22:29), “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, Authorized Version).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In the previous Q&A, we explained, among other things, that a Christian is not to get involved in political campaigns or vote in governmental elections, and that he is not to participate or support rebellious uprisings. This fact will be discussed further in this Q&A as well. The question may arise then as to when human authority is established in God’s eyes; in other words, when do successful rebels constitute such authority which we must be subject to?

The commentary of Blunt, “The Annotated Bible,” addresses this issue in the following manner:

“… ‘be subject unto’ [as stated in Romans 13:1]: This word… means literally, ‘to range oneself under,’ and is opposed to the word rendered ‘resisteth’… which means, ‘to range oneself against in battle array.’ The one indicates loyalty on the part of citizens of a country to the sovereign authority of that country, the other indicates rebellion against it.

“… even when kings and their subordinates seem to be acting most independently [from God], they are but exercising so much power as they are permitted to exercise, working out within appointed limits such results as are in accordance with the general plan and purpose of God.

“… if we could see history mapped out before us, we should know how even the wars and misgovernments of the world are permitted… and not left to run their course without any control from above. Thus the cruel wars and tyrannical conquests out of which the universal empire of Rome grew [as well as its subsequent ten revivals in Europe] was a preparation of the [coming] universal kingdom of God…

“These existing powers were those of the Roman Empire, at the head of which was the Emperor Nero, one of the most unworthy and wicked sovereigns that ever sat upon a throne. The fact that such a sovereign is spoken of in this manner is very significant, for it shows that whatever the personal character of a ruler may be, his official position constitutes him a delegate of the Divine Ruler of all…”

This brings up the thorny issue of rebellion against and assassination of wicked rulers. Even though humanly understandable, it must be said that the Bible does not support the killing of an evil ruler through subjects and citizens, however noble the motives might be. To give an example of recent history, the attempts to assassinate Adolf Hitler or the killing of Muammar Gadhafi would not be justified by biblical injunctions. (Of course, a true Christian is not to participate in any violent action against others in the first place, including in war. See our Q&A on the issue of “Christian warfare”)

Even more to the point, when does a movement of rebels cease to be against constituted government?

The commentary continues:

“The independence of the great American republic was constitutionally acknowledged by the sovereign to whom it had previously been subject; the emperor Napoleon seated himself upon a throne which had been practically vacated before he came upon the scene of strife… But it is evident that a willing submission to successful rebels cannot be a duty until that success is established … by the practical extinction of opposition on the part of those against whom the rebellion has been raised.”

Both in the case of the American Revolution and Napoleon’s usurpation of the throne, godly providence can clearly be seen in action, based on biblical prophecies which had to be fulfilled. A good example of wrongful submission to a rebel would be the uprising of Absalom against his father, King David. Even though King David fled temporarily from Jerusalem, he was still the godly ordained and established king, and any loyalty to Absalom against David would have been misplaced. At the same time, we must realize that Absalom’s uprising was in direct consequence of David’s sins of adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband Uriah, and thus constituted God’s punishment (compare 2 Samuel 12:9-12).

We must also realize that God will sometimes use rebellious uprisings to displace an evil ruler. However, this fact does not justify actively supporting such uprisings or voting for rebels, nor would it justify voting for the evil king whom God wants to replace. The Christian role is to be one of an observer and announcer, not one of a participant. Note, for example, the violent and rebellious uprising, pursuant to God’s Will, in 1 Kings 11:9-11, 26-40; 12:1-24. However, the rebels led by Solomon’s servant Jeroboam against King Solomon and Solomon’s son, King Rehoboam, were in no way more righteous than the ones against whom they rebelled. In fact, when Jeroboam became king over the house of Israel (while Rehoboam remained king over the house of Judah), he instituted idolatry and, according to many records, abolished the observance of the Sabbath and replaced it with Sunday worship. Compare our Q&A on Sunday worship in the house of Israel.

In addition, it must be said that even in the context of illegal actions by duly constituted governments or rebels, a true Christian is to avoid resorting to violence, as Christ explains in Matthew 5:38-41. (This is not to say that Christians cannot resort to legal non-violent means to defend against illegal conduct.) In our Q&A on “an eye for an eye,” we pointed out the following regarding the “extra mile”:

“… in Matthew 5:41, when encouraging His followers to go the ‘extra mile,’ Jesus referred to the Roman practice that ‘obliged the people not only to furnish horses and carriages [for government dispatches], but to give personal attendance, often at great inconvenience, when required. But the thing here demanded is a readiness to submit to unreasonable demands of whatever kind, rather than raise quarrels, with all the evils resulting from them’ (Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible).”

When addressing Paul’s comment that “rulers are not terrors to good works” (Romans 13:3), Blunt’s commentary points out:

“The Apostle is obviously speaking of rulers as they ought to be, not finding it necessary for the purpose of his argument to speak of them otherwise, by taking into account the infirmities and the wickedness which have sometimes made them a terror to others than evil-doers.”

This should be self-evident, but gullible and ignorant readers, or even deceitful teachers of the Bible, have far too often missed or misrepresented this obvious caveat. The commentary continues, when speaking of Paul’s phraseology of “God’s ministers” (twice in verse 4):

“Literally, ‘the deacon of God,’ meaning obviously, in this case, the delegated agent by whom the authority of the Divine Ruler is administered and enforced. This is the only place in the New Testament where the phrase is not used in its ecclesiastical sense… ‘for good’ being the object for which God has instituted governmental and judicial authority…”

Again, as pointed out before, God is against anarchy. At the same time, the present ruler of this world—Satan the devil—will be replaced by Jesus Christ at the time of His Second Coming. In the meantime, for the sake of God’s plan and His people, rulers of this world can be influenced by God to carry out His purposes and to do good for His true servants, and they can thereby become, at least temporarily, God’s “tools” or “servants” or “ministers.”

The commentary also points out that the words “God’s ministers” in verse 6 are different from the words in verse 4 and describe “an officer engaged in the civil service of the state. It is not elsewhere used in a secular sense in the New Testament.”

It must be admitted that Paul’s statements in Romans 13:1-7 belong to some of his sayings which “are hard to understand” (2 Peter 3:16), and predictably, some “untaught and unstable people”—even some in God’s Church—have twisted them “to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” (same verse). But it is clear what Paul is NOT saying:

He is NOT saying that we should participate in violent rebellions against constituted government. Nor is he saying that we should obey human governments in matters which are against God’s laws. He is most certainly not saying that true Christians should participate in political campaigns and vote for any of the political candidates.

Those who conclude the opposite and become engaged with and entangled in the affairs of this world are twisting Paul’s words to their own disappointment and destruction. Rather than concentrating on the physical affairs of this present evil age, which will pass away, they should concentrate on God’s Kingdom and do everything in their power and ability to “hasten” the coming of the Day of the Lord (2 Peter 3:12).

Lead Writer: Norbert Link