In Daniel 7, four great world-ruling empires are described, which are seen by Daniel in a vision as four beasts. When Daniel saw the vision, only the first empire was in existence—the Babylonian Empire, which was symbolized as a lion (verse 4). It was to be followed by the Medo-Persian Empire, which was symbolized as a bear (verse 5). It, in turn, was to be replaced by the Greco-Macedonian Empire, which was symbolized by a leopard (verse 6). In his vision, Daniel also saw a fourth beast with ten horns (verse 7). Although not identified by name, it is unanimously accepted by biblical scholars and historians that the fourth empire, which subdued the third beast, represents the Roman Empire. It was to exist until the return of Jesus Christ and the establishment of the Kingdom of God here on earth (verses 19-27).

We know from Revelation 13 that after its fall, the Roman Empire would be revived ten times.

Again, quoting from our free booklet, “The Mysteries of the Book of Revelation”:

“The beast with the seven heads and ten horns was like a leopard, with feet of a bear and a mouth of a lion (Revelation 13:2). In the book of Daniel, chapters 2, 5, 7 and 8, we are told that, beginning with the ancient Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, there would arise four world-ruling empires on this earth—the Babylonian Empire (Daniel 2:36), the Medo-Persian Empire under Cyrus, Xerxes and others (Daniel 5:28), the Greco-Macedonian Empire under Alexander the Great and his generals (Daniel 8:20–21), and finally, a fourth Empire (Daniel 2:33; 7:7). In Daniel 7:3–24, these four empires or kingdoms are compared with a lion, a bear, a leopard with four heads, and a terrible beast with ten horns (Daniel 7:7).

“Comparing these four beasts in the book of Daniel with the one beast in Revelation 13, we can see that the beast in Revelation is a conglomeration of those four beasts in Daniel. It has seven heads, because it combines the head of the lion, the head of the bear, the four heads of the leopard, and the head of the fourth beast with ten horns. Virtually all Bible scholars confirm the historical fact that this fourth beast was the Roman Empire…

“According to Daniel 7:24, ten kings were to arise out of the Roman Empire… the beast or the Roman Empire would have ten successive resurrections or revivals… The first three resurrections or revivals of the Roman Empire after its fall occurred under Geiseric of the Vandals; Odoacer of the Heruli; and Theodoric of the Ostrogoths… The actual ‘healing’ of the deadly wound [compare Revelation 13:3] signifies the fourth resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire, which occurred in 554 A.D., when Justinian, who was heavily influenced by his Roman Catholic wife, defeated the Ostrogoths and marched into Rome. He united the Eastern and Western parts of the ancient Roman Empire and restored the entire Empire… The fifth resurrection occurred under Charlemagne in 800 A.D.; the sixth under Otto the Great in 962 A.D.; the seventh under Charles V of Hapsburg in 1530 A.D.; and the eighth under Napoleon (which lasted from 1804 A.D. until 1814 A.D., when Napoleon abdicated at the battle of Leipzig).

“Following Napoleon, two more resurrections were to occur, as the fourth beast in Daniel 7 and the beast in Revelation 13 had TEN horns. The ninth resurrection happened under Mussolini and Hitler. We are observing right now the beginning of the tenth and final resurrection of the ancient Roman Empire in continental Europe…”

The last seven revivals of the ancient Roman empire would be a unification between church and state (compare Revelation 17). The last revival, under the beast and the false prophet, will only last for a very short time, and it and its leaders will be destroyed by the returning Jesus Christ “and given to the burning flame” (Daniel 7:11). For more information on these startling prophesies, please read also our free booklets, “Germany in Prophecy,” “Europe in Prophecy,” “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord,” and “The Book of Zechariah.”

Again, quoting form our free booklet “The Mysteries of the Book of Revelation”:

“In chapter 17 [of the book of Revelation], a woman is described, riding a scarlet beast with seven heads and ten horns (verse 3)… The seven heads of the beast, which are also identified as kings or kingdoms, are the seven LAST resurrections of the Roman Empire… Six of those seven last resurrections, under the influence of the woman, have already happened… They were:

“…The Imperial Restoration in 554 A.D. under Justinian. This occurred at the behest of the Roman pontiff or pope, especially Pope Pelagius and, to a lesser extent, previous Pope Vigilius;

“…The Carolingian Empire under Charlemagne. He was crowned in 800 A.D. by Pope Leo III. His empire was called the ‘Holy Roman Empire’;

“…The German Empire under Otto the Great. He was crowned in 962 A.D. by Pope John X. His empire was called the ‘Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation’;

“…The German-Austrian Empire under Charles V. of Hapsburg. He was crowned in 1530 by Pope Clemens VII;

“…The French Empire under Napoleon the Great. He was crowned in 1804 by Pope Pius VII; and

“…The comparatively insignificant Italian-German resurrection under Mussolini and Hitler (compare Revelation 17:10–11)… Neither Mussolini nor Hitler were crowned by a Pope (as Justinian had not been, either); nevertheless, a close partnership existed between the Catholic Church under Pope Pius XII and Italy and Germany. This partnership can be seen by Mussolini’s signing the Lateran Treaty with the papacy in 1929, establishing papal sovereignty of the Vatican City, affirming Roman Catholicism as the only religion of Italy and, in turn, having the papacy officially recognize Mussolini as the rightful Italian governor. Further, the Vatican signed a concordat with Hitler in 1933, protecting the rights of the Church under Nazi regime and giving Hitler’s government an outward semblance of legitimacy.

“…The last or tenth resurrection of the Roman Empire, or the seventh resurrection of the ‘Holy’ Roman Empire under religious control, is still ahead of us. It will consist of ten European nations—ten core nations of a United States of Europe. It will be short-lived…”

When Christ returns, the final revival of the Roman Empire (the fourth beast of Daniel 7) , which is also called “Babylon,” will be burned with fire (Revelation 17:16; 18:8-9)—as will be the human leaders (Revelation 19:20).

But how are we to understand, in this context, Daniel 7:12, referring to the three beasts in existence prior to the Roman Empire. Even though they had long disappeared by the time of the destruction of the final revival of the Roman Empire—which is even now still in the future—we read: “As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominions taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.”

While the modern Roman Empire—the coming United States of Europe under the leadership of ten core nations–will be suddenly and quickly burned with fire at the time of Christ’s return (Daniel 7:11), the prior three empires were swallowed up, gradually, by the Roman Empire. When John saw the beast in Revelation 13, it described the Roman Empire which was in existence at his time, which had absorbed the characteristics of the previous three beasts (the lion, the bear and the leopard, compare verse 2). The three beasts—the former kingdoms—“survived as nations, but without power” (“The One Volume Bible Commentary” by Dummelow). Or, as the Nelson Study Bible puts it, “Though these nations [Babylon, Persia and Greece] passed away, their ‘dominion’ was inherited by their respective successors.”

Barnes’ Notes on the Bible explains that the three beasts “…were not cut down, destroyed, and consumed as the fourth beast was… They were superseded, or they no longer exercised power. They no more appeared exerting a control over the nations. They still existed, but they were subdued and quiet. It was possible to discern them, but they no longer acted the conspicuous part which they had done in the days of their greatness and grandeur. Their power had passed away. This cannot be difficult of interpretation. We should naturally look for the fulfillment of this in the fact that the nations referred to by these first three beasts were still in being, and could be recognized as nations, in their boundaries, or customs, or languages; but that the power which they had wielded had passed into other hands.

“Yet their lives were prolonged [or] ‘a prolonging in life was given them.’ That is, they were not utterly destroyed and consumed as the power of the fourth beast [will be] after the solemn judgment. The meaning is, that in these kingdoms there would be energy for a time. They had life still; and the difference between them and the kingdom represented by the fourth beast was what would exist between wild animals subdued but still living, and a wild animal killed and burned…”

This is the correct understanding of Daniel 7:11-12, which is also shared by other commentators.

For instance, Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible adds:

“As concerning the rest of the beasts….. The other three which represent the Babylonian, Persian and Grecian monarchies: they had their dominion taken away; not at this time when the fourth beast, or Roman empire, is destroyed, but long ago; and not together, but successively; the dominion was taken away from the Babylonians, and given to the Persians; and then their dominion was taken away, and given to the Grecians; and after that the dominion of the Grecians was taken away from them, and given to the Romans: the prophet having observed what became of the fourth beast, he was most intent upon, just in a few words takes notice of the fate of the other three, before this:

“yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time: these monarchies did not at once become extinct, as the fourth beast or monarchy will, but by degrees… whereas, when the fourth monarchy is destroyed, all rule and authority will be put down, and the kingdom be given to Christ and his saints…”

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament states:

“The ‘remaining [three] beasts’ are… the first three beasts which arose out of the sea before the fourth… the four world-kingdoms symbolized by those beasts follow each other in actual history, so that the earlier is always overthrown by that which comes after it, yet the dominion of the one is transferred to the other… the statement of Daniel 7:12 is that the first three beasts also had their dominion taken away one after another, each at its appointed time; for to each God gave its duration of life, extending to the season and time appointed by Him…”

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary agrees, but adds a few more striking comments to show that true Christians today are not to concentrate on ruling in this world today, but rather, on preparing to rule in the Kingdom of God, during the Millennium, after Christ’s return:

“… the rest of the beasts-that is, the [first[ three, had passed away not by direct destroying judgments, such as consumed… the fourth beast. They had continued to exist but their ‘dominion was taken away’; whereas the fourth beast shall cease utterly, superseded by Messiah’s kingdom… It is striking, the fourth monarchy, though Christianized for fifteen hundred years past, is not distinguished from the previous heathen monarchies, or from its own heathen portion. Nay, it is represented as the most God-opposed of all, and culminating at last in blasphemous Antichrist [better: the beast and the false prophet]. The reason is: Christ’s kingdom now is not of this world…

“Rome was worldly while heathen, and remains worldly, though Christianized. So the New Testament views the present æon or age of the world as essentially heathenish, which we cannot love without forsaking Christ… The object of Christianity is… to rule with Him in His millennium… This is to be our hope, not to reign in the present world course… There must be a ‘regeneration’ of the world, as of the individual, a death previous to a resurrection, a destruction of the world kingdoms…”

We also need to focus on the statement in Daniel 7:12 that the lives of the three beasts were “prolonged for a season and a time.” According to the Nelson Study Bible, this phrase is “an idiom for an indefinite period.” The Soncino Commentary explains in more detail that the words “a season and a time” are “synonymous terms signifying an unspecified period known only to God.”

In our free booklet, “Are You Predestined to Be Saved?”, we state:

“We are told in Acts 17:26-28, that God has decreed, in advance, the times of nations, prior to their existence: ‘And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being…’

“The Bible emphasizes God’s foreknowledge in regard to the life span of certain nations and their leaders. For instance, we read in Genesis 15:13, 16, that God told Abraham that the children of Israel (not yet in existence) would be afflicted in Egypt for ‘four hundred years,’ and that in the ‘fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites [which were possessing the land at the time] is not yet complete.’ God allotted a certain time to the Amorites to live in the land, but when that time had expired, Israel would drive them out and possess the land.

“We are also told, in Daniel 7:12, that certain world-ruling empires would exist for a certain, pre-determined time. In that prophecy, these Gentile empires are described as ‘beasts.’ We read: ‘As for the rest of the beasts…, their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.’ Other translations make the intended meaning clearer. The Menge Bible says: ‘Their duration of life was fixed for time and hour.’ Die Grosse Bibel states: ‘They kept their lives until a determined time.’ The Elberfelder Bible translates: ‘Duration of life was given to them until the time and hour’… The Bible tells us, in Revelation 13:5, that the revived Roman Empire would exist exactly for ‘forty-two months’ since the healing of its deadly wound (compare verse 3). History confirms that it did in fact reign for 1,260 years (42 prophetic months consist of 1,260 prophetic days or years), from the healing of the ‘deadly wound,’ under Justinian, in AD 554, until the fall of Napoleon I, in AD 1814. After Napoleon’s fall, two more resurrections of the ancient Roman Empire were to occur. One has already occurred—the last and final one is shaping up right now in Europe.”

And so, we see how accurately Bible prophecy was fulfilled—and we can be assured that the prophecies for the future will be fulfilled in God’s due time. We do not know the exact times or seasons and the day or the hour of Christ’s return and the end of this present evil age, but judging from the signs of the time, we know that it must be near.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

In the previous Q&A, we answered the question as to what was in the ark of the covenant—just the tablets with the Ten Commandments, or also the pot with manna and Aaron’s rod? We pointed out that the latter two items could have been placed inside the ark at one time, but were later removed, perhaps through the Philistines or the men of Beth Shemesh. The question might be asked how this would be possible. Isn’t it true that no one could touch the ark without being killed—as the example with Uzzah is supposed to prove? If so, would not anyone be killed immediately, when touching the ark, before being able to remove items from the ark?

It is important to note God’s instructions pertaining to the ark, and why Uzzah was punished and killed on the spot.

It is correct that only the Levites could carry the ark in a very specified way, and that they were not allowed to touch any of the holy things (Numbers 4:15,19-20; Exodus 25:13-16). When David had the ark transported, but not in the prescribed way (compare 1 Chronicles 13:7), Uzzah saw how the ark started to slip, and he “put his hand to the ark” (1 Chronicles 13:9-10) and was killed. 

At the same time, we read that the Philistines (non-Levites) took the ark and placed it in the temple of Dagon, and that they sent it later to other cities, but they were not killed in the process (1 Samuel 5). They clearly moved the ark without being authorized to do so, and even touched it (1 Samuel 6:8, 11). As a consequence, they were plagued by God, but not killed.

Why then was Uzzah killed?

Note the following explanation by the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary:

“Fearing that the ark was in danger of being overturned, Uzzah, under the impulse of momentary feeling, laid hold of it to keep it steady. Whether it fell and crushed him, or some sudden disease attacked him, he fell dead upon the spot… It is of importance to observe the proportionate severity of the punishments attending the profanation of the ark. The Philistines suffered by diseases, from which they were relieved by their oblations, because the law had not been given to them [1Sa 5:8-12]… But Uzzah, who was a Levite, and well instructed, suffered death for his breach of the law. The severity of Uzzah’s fate may seem to us too great for the nature and degree of the offense. But it does not become us to sit in judgment on the dispensations of God; and, besides, it is apparent that the divine purpose was to inspire awe of His majesty, a submission to His law, and a profound veneration for the symbols and ordinances of His worship.”

Note also Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary:

“Uzzah was struck dead for touching the ark. God saw presumption and irreverence in Uzzah’s heart. Familiarity, even with that which is most awful, is apt to breed contempt.”

To add to this, note the disturbing account in 1 Samuel 6:15, 19, when God struck the men of Beth Shemesh of Israel for looking into the ark, after it had been returned to the Israelites by the Philistines:

“The Levites took down the ark of the LORD and the chest that was with it, in which were the articles of gold, and put them on a large stone. Then the men of Beth Shemesh offered burnt offerings and made sacrifices the same day to the LORD… Then He struck the men of Beth Shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD. He struck fifty thousand and seventy men of the people (or, as the margin has it, “He struck seventy men of the people and fifty oxen of men”), and the people lamented because the LORD had struck the people with a great slaughter.”

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible writes:

“And he smote the men of Bethshemesh,…. That is, God smote them, though they had received the ark with such expressions of joy, and had offered sacrifices on account of it; yet sinning in one particular after mentioned, which was highly resented, they were smitten by him… because they had looked into the ark of the Lord; which was forbidden the Levites, Numbers 4:20. [O]ut of curiosity these men opened the ark, to see whether the Philistines had taken anything out of it, or put anything into it; and this, when in the tabernacle, being only to be seen by the high priest; and supposing they should never have the like opportunity again, to look upon the tables of the law which were in it, took it; and the rather they might be emboldened to this action, since it had been in the hands of the uncircumcised Philistines, who had profaned it; and as yet not restored to its pristine purity, holiness, and place: even he smote of the people fifty thousand and seventy men…”

The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary writes:

“… he smote the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark-In the ecstasy of delight at seeing the return of the ark, the Beth-shemesh reapers pried into it beneath the wagon cover; and instead of covering it up again, as a sacred utensil, they let it remain exposed to common inspection, wishing it to be seen, in order that all might enjoy the triumph of seeing the votive offerings presented to it, and gratify curiosity with the sight of the sacred shrine. This was the offense of those Israelites (Levites, as well as common people), who had treated the ark with less reverence than the Philistines themselves.”

The Nelson Study Bible adds:

“The Lord brought judgment upon certain men of Beth Shemesh who were guilty of the presumptuous sin of gazing into the ark. They had shown a lack of reverence for the holy things of God and had directly violated Mosaic Law (Num 4:20).”

In the case of the people of Beth-Shemesh, God acted forcefully because of their presumptuous discontent for His instructions, which were clearly spelled out for them. But we don’t read that God killed them immediately when they touched the ark, nor was their death an automatic consequence of their touching the ark—an additional action of God was of course required; and so it appears that He reacted when they opened the ark and perhaps even removed the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod from it, as some commentaries suggest. Note that 1 Samuel 6:19 states that God struck the men AFTER they had looked into the ark—requiring of course that they first touched and opened it.

God is not a respecter of person, and His spiritual law (including the Ten Commandments) is valid and universal and must be obeyed by everyone. That was also true for temporary ritual laws which were given to Israel (but not to Gentiles), but at the same time, God inflicts punishment and varying penalties by considering all circumstances, including motives and a lack of understanding and repentance—which should prove to true Christians, among many reasons, why they could not possibly be involved in the judicial systems of this world, by serving as judges or jurors, as they would not be allowed to take these spiritual aspects into consideration.

Whether the men of Beth-Shemesh removed the pot with manna and Aaron’s rod, before being struck, or whether the Philistines had done so, or whether it occurred during another unrecorded event, it is entirely possible that at one time, these items were in the ark, while at the time of the dedication of the second temple, there was nothing in the ark except the tablets with the Ten Commandments (Hebrews 9:4; 1 Kings 8:9). At the same time, as explained in the previous Q&A, it is also possible that the pot with manna and Aaron’s rod were never IN the ark of the covenant, but simply close to, before or BESIDE it.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

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