Annual Operating Instructions. Tent Mountain C&H (On Off) And Herder Creek: Fill & Download for Free

The Ark of the Covenant (Heb. ארון הברית, ʾarôn habəríṯ), also known as the Ark of the Testimony, was an ornate gilded wooden chest with lid cover and two cherubim depicted above the mercy seat. The Ark is described in the Book of Exodus as containing the two stone tablets of the Ten Commandments. According to the Epistle to the Hebrews, it also contained Aaron's rod and a pot of manna. The Ark rested in the Holy of Holies inside the Tabernacle of the ancient Temple in Jerusalem which was built under King Solomon's reign (970-931 B.C.E) and was seen only by the high priest of the Israelites on Yom Kippur, i.e. the Day of Atonement.The Holy of Holies was the innermost and most sacred area of the ancient Temple of Jerusalem, accessible only to the Israelite high priest. Once a year, on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, he was permitted to enter the square, windowless enclosure to burn incense and sprinkle sacrificial animal blood. By this act, the most solemn of the religious year, the high priest atoned for his own sins and those of the priesthood. It was was located at the west end of the Temple, and in Solomon’s Temple it enshrined the Ark of the Covenant, a symbol of Israel’s special relationship with God. At the entrance to the Holy of Holies stood a small cedar altar overlaid with gold. After his conquest of Jerusalem in 63 B.C., Pompey desecrated the Temple by daring to enter the Holy of Holies.The Levites carried the Ark with them during the Hebrews’ wanderings in the wilderness. Following the conquest of Canaan, the Promised Land, the Ark resided at Shiloh, but from time to time it was carried into battle by the Israelites. Taken to Jerusalem by King David, it was eventually placed in the Temple by King Solomon. The Tabernacle (Heb. משכַן‎, miškān, lit. "dwelling"), also referred to as the Tent of the Congregation (אהל מועד, ʾōhel mōʿeḏ), in Jewish history, is the portable sanctuary constructed by Moses as a place of worship for the Hebrew tribes during the period of wandering that preceded their arrival in the Promised Land. The Tabernacle no longer served a purpose after the erection of Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem in 950 B.C.Israel’s earliest sanctuary was a simple tent within which, it was believed, God manifested his presence and communicated his will. The elaborate description of the Tabernacle in Exodus is believed by some to be anachronistic, for many scholars consider the narrative as having been written during or after the Babylonian Exile (586–538 B.C.—i.e., after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple). The entire Tabernacle complex—whose specifications were dictated by God, according to the biblical account—consisted of a large court surrounding a comparatively small building that was the Tabernacle proper. The court, enclosed by linen hangings, had the shape of two adjacent squares. In the centre of the eastern square stood the altar of sacrifice for burnt offerings; nearby stood a basin holding water used by the priests for ritual ablutions. The corresponding position in the western square was occupied by the ark of the Law situated in the inner sanctuary of the Tabernacle.Solomon was reputed to be a magician who could turn lead into gold, conjure demons, or make himself invisible. According to the Testament of Solomon, a pseudepigraphical composite text written during the Hellenistic era, King Solomon possessed a signet-ring which he utilized in order to marshal the demons as a labor-force for the construction of the Jerusalem Temple. The erection of the First Temple was the crown achievement of his reign. His father, King David, had wanted to build the great Temple a generation earlier, as a permanent resting place for the Ark of the Covenant which contained the Ten Commandments. A divine edict, however, had forbidden him from doing so:“You will not build a house for My name," God said to David, "for you are a man of battles and have shed blood.” (I Chronicles 28:3)The Bible's description of Solomon's Temple (also called The First Temple) suggests that the inside ceiling was was 180 feet long, 90 feet wide, and 50 feet high. The highest point on the Temple that King Solomon built was actually 120 cubits tall (about 20 stories or about 207 feet).Solomon spared no expense for the building's creation. He ordered vast quantities of cedar wood from King Hiram of Tyre (1 Kings 5:20­25), had huge blocks of the choicest stone quarried, and commanded that the building's foundation be laid with hewn stone. To complete the massive project, he imposed forced labor on all his subjects, drafting people for work shifts that sometimes lasted a month at a time. Some 3,300 officials were appointed to oversee the Temple's erection (5:27­30). Solomon assumed such heavy debts in building the Temple that he is forced to pay off King Hiram by handing over twenty towns in the Galilee (1 Kings 9:11).When the Temple was completed, Solomon inaugurated it with prayer and sacrifice, and even invited gentiles to come and pray there. He urged God to pay particular heed to their prayers: "Thus all the peoples of the earth will know Your name and revere You, as does Your people Israel; and they will recognize that Your name is attached to this House that I have built" (I Kings 8:43). Sacrifice was the predominant mode of divine service in the Temple until it was destroyed by the Babylonians some four hundred years later, in 586 B.C.E. Seventy years later, after the story of Purim, a number of Jews returned to Israel—led by the prophets Ezra and Nehemiah—and the Second Temple was built on the same site. Sacrifices to God were once again resumed. During the first century B.C.E., Herod, the Roman appointed head of Judea, made substantial modifications to the Temple and the surrounding mountain, enlargening and expanding the Temple. The Second Temple, however, met the same fate as the first and was destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E., following the failure of the Great Revolt.It was this Temple which housed the Ark of the Covenant. In the Holy Temple, the ark’s home was the most sacred chamber, the Holy of Holies. Only the High Priest was allowed inside, and only once a year, on the awesome day of Yom Kippur, when he would enter the Holy of Holies and perform the annual service before the ark. When King Solomon constructed the first Temple, he built an alcove deep within the Temple Mount for concealing the ark.Toward the end of the first Temple period, King Josiah, divining the Temple's destruction, had the ark hidden there it remains hidden until today, and when Moshiach comes and rebuilds the third, everlasting Temple, he will uncover the ark and bring it home. In the Temple, the ark rested directly on the Foundation Stone (Heb. אבן השתייה, ʾeḇen hašətiyyah), which is the rock at the centre of the Dome in Jerusalem. The spiritual significance of the stone extends far beyond it being regarded as the place from whence the world was created. The Talmud states that this was also the location where God gathered dust that was made into Adam, and that Adam, Cain, Abel, and Noah offered sacrifices to God. Modern Jewish scholars identify the rock with references with Mount Moriah in the Bible, as the Temple Mount was thought to have been built over this natural hill, the tallest in the Old City of Jerusalem. Other Jewish scholars also consider the rock to be where Abraham almost sacrificed his son Isaac. It is also known as the Pierced Stone because it has a small hole on the southeastern corner that enters into a cavern known as the Well of Souls.As a general rule, Judaism rejects physical manifestations of spirituality, preferring instead to focus on actions and beliefs. Indeed, the story of Judaism begins with Abraham who, according to ancient sources, shattered the idols that were the conventional method of religious observance at the time. Worship of graven images is harshly condemned throughout the Torah, and perhaps the greatest sin the Israelites collectively committed was the construction of the Golden Calf (in Ex. 32), intended to serve as a physical intermediary between them and God. Today, Jews do not venerate any holy relics or man-made symbols. However, that Ark of the Covenant was one exception to this rule.The construction of the Ark is commanded by God to Moses while the Jews were still camped at Sinai (Ex. 25:10-22; 37:1-9). The Ark was a box with the dimensions of two-and-a-half cubits in length, by one-and-a-half cubits in height, by one-and-a-half cubits in width (a cubit is about 18 inches). It was constructed of acacia wood, and was plated with pure gold, inside and out. On the bottom of the box, four gold rings were attached, through which two poles, also made of acacia and coated in gold, were put. The family of Kehath, of the tribe of Levi, would carry the ark on their shoulders using these poles.Covering the box was the kapporet, a pure gold covering that was two-and-a-half by one-and-a-half cubits. Attached to the kapporet were two sculpted Cherubim, also made of pure gold. The two Cherubim faced one another, and their wings, which wrapped around their bodies, touched between them.The Ark was built by Bezalel, son of Uri, son of Hur, who constructed the entire Tabernacle – the portable Temple used in the desert and during the conquest of the land of Israel. The Tabernacle was the resting place for the Ark, and also contained other vessels that were used in the physical worship of God. The Biblical commentators argue over why God commanded Moses to build a Tabernacle in the first place: According to Rashi (Ex. 31:18), God realized after the sin of the Golden Calf that the Israelites needed an outlet for physical worship, and commanded that they build the Tabernacle as a way of expressing their own need for physical representation of God. According to Nachmanides (Ex. 25:1), however, the Jews were commanded to build the Tabernacle even before the sin of the Golden Calf; rather than filling a human need, the Tabernacle was God's method of achieving continuous revelation in the Israelites' camp. These two opinions as to whether the Tabernacles, and the Temples that followed them, were an a priori necessity or a necessary evil demonstrate the controversial role of physical worship in Judaism as a whole.Also see:Let's discuss what the Ark of the Covenant may have looked like. The description of what is to be done with the Ark's carrying poles (Heb. בדים, barím) seems to differ between Exodus 25 and Numbers 4. Medieval Jewish commentators offered many different solutions to this contradiction, but the best answer lies in what we learn from the construction of ancient Egyptian portable chests. Note: This academic devar torah is based on research that is presented in greater detail in my article, “The Poles of the Ark: On the Ins and Outs of a Textual Contradiction,” Journal of Biblical Literature 135.4 (2016): 733–741.The ark is designed to be carried by poles. The text specifies that these are to be inserted into four gold rings at each of the ark’s four feet (vv. 12–14); it adds that the poles should always stay in the ark’s rings (v. 15):ᴱˣᵒᵈ ²⁵ ¹⁵ The poles shall remain in the rings of the ark: they shall not be removed from it.This is consistent with the description of the Solomonic Temple in 1 Kings 8:7–8 (=2 Chron. 5:8–9):¹ ᴷᶦⁿᵍˢ ⁸ ⁸ The poles projected so that the ends of the poles were visible in the sanctuary in front of the Shrine, but they could not be seen outside; and there they remain to this day.The table (25:26-27), the bronze altar (27:4, 7), and the incense altar (30:4-5) are also described as having rings for poles when they are carried, but the text does not say that the poles should stay in those rings permanently.Carrying Poles That Can Be Inserted Whenever They Are RequiredNumbers 4, however, as part of the instructions regarding the preparation of the tabernacle for transport from place to place in the wilderness, states that in the course of preparing the ark for carriage, its carrying poles should be inserted by Aaron and his sons (v. 6):…and they shall put its poles in place.But if the poles of the ark are always “in,” how can they be “put in” when preparing the ark for transport? This contradiction so bothered some medieval commentators, that they felt forced to explain one or the other verse against its simple meaning.The same action, with the same words, is prescribed for the table (v. 8), the incense altar (v. 11), and the bronze altar (v. 14), though these three objects pose no problem since nowhere does the Torah require the poles to remain in the rings at all times. It is highly unlikely that the author of Numbers 4 was adhering heedlessly to a rigid formula, however. On the contrary, he included two peculiarities in the instructions for the ark vis-à-vis the other objects, suggesting that the use of …ושמו בדיו is not formulaic here: it was to be wrapped in the tabernacle’s own screening curtain (v. 5), as opposed to a generic dyed cloth (vv. 7, 9, 11, 12, 13), and its leather covering was to be wrapped again in a “pure blue” cloth (v. 6).Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra (c. 1089-1167)“Place its poles” – for they would need to remove them temporarily when they covered the ark.Alternatively, “place its poles” – on the shoulders of the carriers.Hezekiah ben Manoah (c. 1250-1310)“Place its poles” – and regarding that which it says “do not remove them,” there were four poles. Two of them were attached permanently to it, and regarding these it says “do not remove them.” The two others are the ones about which it says “place its poles.”He continues on with no further suggestions. Each of these solutions runs counter to the simple meaning of one of the verses or invents new facts.Two Priestly Texts?Some modern scholars have addressed the contradiction by contending that the two verses belong to different strata of priestly writings. See:George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Numbers (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903), 2–3, 34–35; Martin Noth, Numbers: A Commentary (OTL; trans. James D. Martin; London: SCM Press, 1968), 41–42.Both Exodus 25:15 and Numbers 4:6 belong to the Priestly source. But even if we accept this proposition, the difficulty is not lessened. The tabernacle pericopae as a whole display remarkable consistency; whoever authored the later stratum, if there was one, made an effort to avoid contradictions in other places with the earlier stratum—so why would he have allowed a contradiction here? The verb ושמו｜wəśāmû｜ in Numbers 4:6, 8, 11, and 14 is typically understood in the sense of “put in”—this is the origin of the apparent contradiction between Exodus and Numbers. But this sense of the verb requires the indirect object (e.g., *וְשָׂמוּ עָלָיו בַּדָּיו), which is absent here. Every other time the verb שים｜śîm｜ appears in the tabernacle pericopae without an indirect object, it conveys the broader sense of “set up” rather than “insert.” These occurrences can be seen here:Exodus 40:8—וְשַׂמְתָּ אֶת הֶחָצֵר סָבִיב—“set up the enclosure round about,”Exodus 40:16—וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת קְרָשָׁיו—“setting up its planks,”Exodus 40:21—וַיָּשֶׂם אֵת פָּרֹכֶת הַמָּסָך—“he set up the curtain for screening,”These data suggest that the four occurrences of ושמו בדיו in Numbers 4 do not mean “and they shall insert its poles,” but rather “and they shall set up its poles.” Indeed, these occurrences of שִׂים are listed in BDB under the definition “put in position,” and in DCH they appear under “set, put in position.”In other words, Aaron and his sons should perform whatever actions are necessary so that the poles of each object are in the proper position for their use, i.e., for transporting the objects, just as in Exodus 40 Moses is to perform whatever actions are required for the various parts of the tabernacle to be in the proper position for their use, i.e. for enshrining the Shekhinah, i.e. the divine presence. Numbers 4 does not imply that the precise physical operations involved in “setting up” the poles is identical in all cases. See:Pace Jacob Milgrom, The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers (Philadephia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990), 301 n. 8.The poles of the table and the altars might very well need to be inserted into their rings, while “setting up” those of the ark might only involve positioning them correctly within the rings. Indeed, a general solution along these lines is what was envisioned by many of the medieval commentators. Of greatest interest to us are two comments, neither of them entirely clear. See:R. Saadia b. Joseph Gaon, in Mordechai L. Katzenelnbogen (ed.), Torat Chaim: Numbers(Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1991; Hebrew), 22; R. Eliakim b. Meshullam of Speyer, in Dov Genachowski (ed.), Commentarius in Tractatum Yoma: Auctore R. Eliaqim (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1964; Hebrew), 222; Rashi, in a gloss published in Menachem Cohen (ed.), Mikra’ot Gedolot ‘Haketer’: Numbers (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press 2011; Hebrew), 18–19; Ramban, in ibid., 19; R. Meir of Rothenburg, in Tosafot on b. Yoma 72a, s.v. כתיב, published e.g. in Gellis, Tosafot, 41–43 par. 6; R. Isaac b. Judah Halevi, ibid., 41 par. 5; anonymous tosafist, ibid., 43–44 par. 10; R. Menachem Meiri, in Haim B. Ravitz (ed.), Beit Habhira on Tractate Yoma (Bnei Brak: Ktavim, 1969–1970; Hebrew), 214–5; R. Hezekiah b. Manoah, in Chaim D. Chavel (ed.), Hizkuni: The Torah Commentaries of Hezekiah b.R. Manoah (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1981–1982; Hebrew), 289, 431.R. Eliakim ben Meshullam (c. 1030-1199)They are not removed entirely from between the rings, rather they are extended through the rings, but, nevertheless, they remain attached to the ark, similar to our door hinges which are attached to the wall.Ramban, R. Moses ben Nahman (c. 1194-1270)The correct interpretation of ושמו is that they should be adjusted to protrude so that it can be carried, for the rings were wide and the poles could be extended (alluding to 1 Kings 8:8) as much as was wanted, as long as they were not removed entirely.What precise mechanism might the priestly writer have had in mind, though? Here archeological evidence that the medievalists did not have offers the key.Portable Egyptian ChestsThe best non-Israelite parallel to the Ark of the Covenant comes not from Mesopotamia or Arabia, but from Egypt. The sacred bark was a ritual object deeply embedded in the Egyptian ritual and mythological landscapes. It was carried aloft in processions or pulled in a sledge or a wagon; its purpose was to transport a god or a mummy and sometimes to dispense oracles. The Israelite conception of the Ark probably originated under Egyptian influence in the Late Bronze Age.The ark is a portable wooden chest made in typical Egyptian style, and extant chests from the ancient Near East, particularly Egypt, reveal parallels to almost every detail of the ark as described in priestly and other biblical texts. This is spoken of in Raanan Eichler, The Ark and the Cherubim (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2016). Indeed, a gable-lidded chest found in the tomb of the fourteenth century Pharaoh Tutankhamun is equipped with carrying poles. Object no. 32 in Howard Carter’s system. See: Jaromir Malek (dir.), Tutankhamun: Anatomy of an Excavation, n.p. [cited 15 February 2017]; online: Griffith Institute: Carter Archives.This chest exhibits general similarities to the ark as described in the priestly account:Dimensions – All three of its dimensions are based on the cubit and its width equals its height, as is the case with the ark (Exod 25:10 = 37:1).Zer – The chest is also crowned with a cavetto cornice, a feature that I have identified with the זֵר that adorns the ark in the priestly account (Exod 25:11 = 37:2).Wood – Like the ark, the chest is made of wood (cf. Exod 25:10 = 37:1; also Deut 10:1, 3).Four Poles – A British Museum catalogue entry on the chest displays a photograph of its polesL and includes the following description:Unlike the other chests found in the tomb this chest, no doubt because of its size and weight when full, was provided with four poles so that it could be carried by bearers on their shoulders. Each pole slides backwards and forwards through two bronze rings, attached to boards which are fixed at the bottom of the box. A collar at the back end of the pole, greater in circumference than the ring, prevents the pole from slipping forward through the inner ring.How Many Poles on the Ark?The priestly account has usually been understood to mean that the ark had two poles, each of which was fitted through two rings at different corners and was long enough to protrude both in front of the ark and in back. However, neither this account nor any other text in the Bible actually states how many poles the ark (or the table and altars) had.Oddly, the question of how many poles the ark and the other objects of the tabernacle have is almost never directly addressed by commentators. Meiri (Ravitz, Beit Habhira, 214–5) explicitly wrote that the ark had two poles as described above. Other medieval Jewish scholars did not say so explicitly, but it can be inferred from their comments that they thought the same.In light of the meticulous and number-loving character of the tabernacle pericopae, the absence is understandable only if the priestly author assumed that the number of poles would be obvious to the reader. The fact that in his account the golden altar has poles (in the general plural), though it only has two rings (Exod 30:4–5 = 37:27–28), reveals that he envisioned – and expected the reader to envision – that each pole is held by only one ring. This indicates that the priestly author, who gave the ark four rings, meant to portray it as having four poles, like the Tutankhamun chest. The Tutankhamun chest actually has a pair of adjacent rings at each corner, eight rings in all. In this feature it differs from the ark, which, according to any view of its poles, has one functioning ring at each of its four corners. The purpose of the ring doubling is presumably to keep the poles straight. This aim could be achieved using only one ring for each pole either by ensuring a tight fit or by giving the bands that form the rings substantial width.Comparing Poles: Bible and TutankhamunThe photograph and description express several other details of similarity between the poles of the Tutankhamun chest and the poles of the ark as described in Exodus:They are made of wood (cf. Exod 25:13 = 37:4);They are slid through metal rings near each of the chest’s four feet (cf. 25:12 = 37:3);They are aligned along the chest’s long sides (cf. 25:14 = 37:5).They are also fashioned and positioned in a way that would make it difficult to slide them out of the rings and remove them entirely from the chest (cf. Exod 25:15).Egyptian Style Retractable PolesMost significantly for our discussion, the carrying poles of the Tutankhamun chest are retractable: “When the chest was not being carried, the poles could be pushed back until the collars of two axially opposite poles were touching each other and the poles were then entirely concealed from view.” (Treasures, Exhibit 14.) In other words, the poles could be slid under the chest, in the space between its underside and the bottoms of its feet, while still held by the metal rings. When the chest was to be carried, the poles could be drawn out again in preparation, still held by the rings.This is not an innovation of the New Kingdom. Some earlier depictions of chests equipped with carrying poles from Old Kingdom Egypt show poles that slid through rings like those of the Tutankhamun chest, demonstrating, in the judgment of Geoffrey Killen, that the poles were designed to slide underneath the chests in the same manner. See:Geoffrey Killen, Ancient Egyptian Furniture II: Boxes, Chests and Footstools(Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1994), 20, fig. 40.If carrying poles on ancient Egyptian-type chests were normally retractable. Henry Fischer comes to this conclusion from the evidence adduced above. See, Henry G. Fischer, “Möbel,” Lexikon der Ägyptologie 4:180–9 at 182. Either that or at least if this was the practice with which the author of Numbers 4:6 was acquainted, then both he and his audience would most naturally expect that the ark’s permanent poles would need to be “set up” in preparation for transport: i.e., they would still need to be drawn out from underneath it so that they could be grasped by its porters.The requirement that the carrying poles remain affixed applies to the ark, but not to the table and the altars because chests’ feet create a low, narrow space between their lower surface and the ground and therefore, the carrying poles can be hidden from sight. Thus, only in the case of the ark would such a requirement be compatible with the goal of an aesthetic tabernacle. The carrying poles of the table and altars would presumably need to be removed and stowed elsewhere. The most attractive explanation for the requirement in the first place is that it is a measure to prevent people from touching the body of the ark, an action which, according to a tradition in 2 Sam 6:6–7, is fatal (See Bekhor Shor on Exod 25:15, in Cohen, Exodus, 73). However, the priestly Num 4:15 indicates that it would be fatal even for a designated porter to touch the body of any of the major tabernacle objects; so, by the same token, the table and altars should have permanently attached poles as well.The observation that the biblical ark is described as a portable wooden chest, aided by an investigation of actual and depicted objects of that type from the ancient Near East, can help solve a seeming contradiction in the biblical text. It also adds an important element to the image of the ark that the priestly writer apparently intended to convey, one which those familiar with ancient Near Eastern crafts would have understood unaided.The Depiction of the CherubimTradition has interpreted the Cherubim depicted above the Mercy seat to represent anything from a child to a man, woman to an angel, from a bird to a Torah scholar. There are many different images which have become associated with the two winged anointing cherubim flanking the throne of God (which is what the mercy seat represents). However, when we study the Bible in it's Ancient Near Eastern context we can begin to see an entirely different picture…The most intriguing and surprising aspect of the Ark, and possibly the whole Mishkan, are the cherubim on the Ark’s gold-plated cover. What are cherubim? The Torah describes them in detail in Exodus 25:Make two cherubim of gold—make them of hammered work—at the two ends of the cover. Make one cherub at one end and the other cherub at the other end; of one piece with the cover shall you make the cherubim at its two ends. The cherubim shall have their wings spread out above, shielding the cover with their wings. They shall confront each other, the faces of the cherubim being turned toward the cover. Place the cover on top of the Ark, after depositing inside the Ark the Pact that I will give you. There I will meet with you, and I will impart to you—from above the cover, from between the two cherubim that are on top of the Ark of the Covenant…According to this description, cherubs have faces and wings, and God speaks from in between them. What do the cherubs represent? Why are they placed on top of the ark? Modern scholarship approaches the topic of cherubim both by looking at the contextual clues from the biblical stories (similar to what ibn Ezra and Bekhor Shor did) and by looking at the ancient Near Eastern evidence.The name כְּרוּב｜kərûv｜seems to be a loanword from the Akkadian 𒅗𒊒𒁍 ｜karābu｜, which means “bless,” or 𒅗𒊑𒁍｜kāribu｜, meaning “one who blesses/is blessed”. It is most probably a loan word and not a Hebrew word since the Hebrew word for blessing (b-r-k) and the Akkadian word for blessing (k-r-b) are a metathesis of each other. In other words, these are two versions of the same proto-Semitic root. If the kerubim would have originated as an Israelite or even Canaanite concept, they might have been called the berukhim.The karibu are the intercessory beings; they were genies or lower level divine beings who function as supplicants, standing before the god and praying on behalf of others. Such terms were applied to mythological protective beings associated with the stars called lamassu or shedu, which had composite form, with human head, ox or lion body, and eagle’s wings—thus, sphinxes or winged bulls. It’s especially striking how similar these mythological creatures are to the biblical descriptions of cherubim, which also have parts that appear like human beings, lions, oxen and eagles. The karibu in particular were generally pictured as colossal bulls. Curiously, Ezekiel 1:10 and Ezekiel 10:14 do in fact seem to imply that bull (שור) and cherub (כרוב) have the same face. Apparently, the Torah incorporates the Akkadian concept of karibu in the Hebraicized cherub. But was their function there same as their Mesopotamian antecedents? Biblical accounts offer a variety of answers. For a similar review of the materiel, see Walter Mattfeld’s article, “Cherub Thrones.”Some contend that the Hebrew כרוב or a related Near Eastern term is the origin of the similar sounding Greek γρύψ｜grū́ps｜, whence derives the term gryphon or griffin—an eagle-headed lion. It’s been pointed out that “the human-bodied Hittite griffin . . . unlike other griffins, appear[s] almost always not as a fierce bird of prey, but seated in calm dignity, like an irresistible guardian of holy things.”The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible notes parallels between the biblical cherubim and “the gigantic composite creatures well known in Assyrian and Babylonian iconographic and glyptic art. These hybrid creatures protected the entrance into temples or palaces. The colossal Assyrian composite creatures unearthed during archaeological excavations provide a fitting example. They have been excavated at the site of ancient Nimrud, where they guarded the doorways to the palace of Ashurbanipal II (883-859 BC). One of these is a winged bull with a human head; another has the body of a lion” (note on Ezekiel 1:5).The same study Bible noted on the cherubim atop the Ark of the Covenant in Exodus 25: “These sculpted creatures are most likely winged sphinxes known from a number of other sites throughout the ancient Near East . . . Such composite creatures have been found in temples and shrines and are often arranged as if guarding the entrance. Their purpose seems to have been protective—to prevent, perhaps only symbolically, unauthorized individuals from entering space where they were not allowed.Divine GuardiansAs noted earlier, Genesis 3:24 suggests that God stations Cherubim outside the garden of Eden to prevent Adam and Eve from trying to re-enter.He drove the man out, and stationed east of the garden of Eden the cherubim and the fiery ever-turning sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.From this source, it appears that cherubs are a kind of divine guard. This fits in with the description of the cherubs in Solomon’s Temple as well (1 Kings 6:23-28), which were ten cubits (approximately twenty two feet) high. Unlike the cherubs of the Ark, they were gigantic in size and instead of facing each other they both faced the door. The effect of such a display would be to intimidate people, forcing those who enter the room to be somber and frightening off unauthorized people who might be curious. Solomon’s daunting cherubs (as well as the cherubs outside the garden of Eden) are highly reminiscent of the Ancient Near Eastern practice of placing giant statues of heavenly beasts, called karibu, apkallu (from Sumerian Abgal), lamassu, sheddu, or alad-lammu outside of palaces.Although this is true for Solomon’s cherubs, the cherubs on the Ark, however, do not seem to be guards, since they face each other not the outside, and are small and hardly intimidating.Drawers of the Divine ChariotA number of biblical texts describe the cherubs as beings that haul God’s chariot. This concept seems related to the idea of the divine chariot, which God is said to ride. Psalms 18:11 and 2 Samuel 22:11 describe God as riding a cherub, but the most famous description of God riding a chariot is in Ezekiel. In truth, the term chariot (מרכבה) doesn’t actually appear in the chapters where the cherubs appear, but since God is described as riding the cherubs, with the cherubs apparently carrying God up into the sky (Ezek. 10:15-20), it seems clear that they are carrying or functioning as God’s chariot. In the opening of the book, Ezekiel describes God appearing to him while riding a divine chariot pulled by creatures with four faces and wings. Ezekiel calls these creatures cherubs (9:3, 10:1, etc.).The idea of a god or a king riding a chariot pulled by fantastic creatures exists in the Ancient Near East. Phoenician art depicts sphinx driven war chariots, for instance.The idea is most developed, and well known, in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, where many different gods and goddesses are picture with their own chariots. Apollo rides a gryphon, Poseidon a pair of Hippokampi (horse-fish). Helios’ chariot is carried by winged horses, Saturn by serpents, and Dionysius by centaurs. When seen in this context, the imagery of God riding a chariot in the Bible seems in keeping with ancient conceptions and poetic norms.Nevertheless, this image as well does not provide a helpful analogy to the Cherubs function in the Mishkan. Although some biblical texts describe the ark as something brought out for battle, to bring God and God’s wrath down upon the enemy (e.g. Numbers 10:35; 1Sam 4:4-9), these never describe the ark as being pulled by the Cherubs. Additionally, the cherubs are on top of the ark, not underneath it. Furthermore, the ark as described in Mishkan parshiyot is primarily stationary, hidden in the Holy of Holies in the Mishkan. It moves with the Mishkan but otherwise it stays where it is, since God dwells upon the cherubs and the Mishkan is God’s home.The Divine ThroneIn a number of places in Tanach (1 Sam. 4:4, 2 Sam. 6:2, 2 Kings 19:15, Isa. 37:16) we find that God is referred to as “the one who sits upon cherubs (יושב הכרובים). Although this description is not found directly in the Torah, we do read that God is said to dwell in the midst of the Tabernacle, and speak from above cherubs. Accordingly many scholars, understand the cherubs are, likely, part of the divine throne, a kind of platform upon which God will sit or stand and from which God will speak.The image of cherubs—making up part of a throne appears in the ancient near eastern iconography. An excellent example of this comes from the carving on the sarcophagus of Ahiram, king of Byblos (a Phoenecian city that is culturally close to Israel) in which Ahiram is depicted sitting upon his throne, designed with a winged gryphon-like creature.Ahiram’s throne follows Egyptian artistic conventions. In King Tut’s tomb a winged throne was found.A Buffer for the Divine Podium?In his excellent essay on the cherubs, Raanan Eichler argues against the idea of the cherubs being a divine throne. He notes a few problems with this suggestion. First, it is generally the ark itself that is emphasized as being synonymous with God’s presence, not the cherubs. Second, the cherubs spread their wings over the ark—this is how they are described, implying that they function as cover for what is below them, not support for what is above them. Third, there is no seat described, and sitting on the edges of the wings would be uncomfortable. Fourth, unlike with ancient Near Eastern thrones, the cherubs are facing each other not forward. This is problematic for the throne theory since the cherubs would be staring at God in a less than modest angle.Eichler suggests that while the Ark, is the podium or footstool of God, the wings of the cherubs which were standing on two feet rather than all fours, were spread in a protective capacity. The image of wings above a king or even a god serving as protection was a popular image in the ancient Near East, especially in Egypt where the winged sun-disc was a standard iconographic feature.Eichler further suggests that the wings need not have been above the head of God, but could be envisioned as surrounding God. The benefit of this suggestion is that it dovetails with a motif in Egypt and the Levant, where winged beings spread their wings on either side of a king or deity. Sometimes these beings are facing each other.This explanation seems to fit biblical and archaeological evidence well. Eichler ends his article by arguing that the term “who sits upon the cherubs” could be translated as “dwells beneath the cherubs” or some similar locution. This is possible, but it also seems possible that there is no one biblical image of God’s relationship with the cherubs and that some biblical texts may imagine God riding them or sitting upon them.Fiery SerpentsClosely related to the cherubim are the seraphim (שָׂרָף śārāf, pl. שרפים śərāfîm), in fact, a cherub may have been considered a class of seraph. The meaning of the Hebrew term שרף is uncertain. Most suggest that it is derived from the verb śārāph, which means “to burn completely.” The noun śārāph would then mean “the burning/fiery one.” The seraphim are angelic beings associated with the prophet Isaiah’s vision of God in the Temple when God called him to his prophetic ministry. In the Book of Isaiah we are given a description:“Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. And the posts of the door moved at the voice of him that cried, and the house was filled with smoke“ (Isaiah 6:1-4).Many believe that the term designates a serpentlike creature, but this is far from certain. We'll have to go over the evidence for this.A number of passages associate śerāphîm with serpents. As a result of the Israelites’ rebellion in the wilderness the Lord sent “venomous [שרפים] snakes among them” (Num. 21:6). After the people confessed their sin, the Lord ordered Moses “to make a snake [שרף] and put it up on a pole” (v. 8). In this last verse the term seraph refers back to the full phrase “venomous [שרפים] snakes.” In Deuteronomy 8:15 the wilderness is described as a “thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes [נחש שרף, nāḥāš śārāph, literally, “seraph snake”] and scorpions.”In Isaiah 6 the term שרף is applied to heavenly beings. We should keep some details in mind. First, the term snake is not used in this chapter. Second, the term is used as a noun. Third, the form of this being is fundamentally human. The two seraphim had faces, hands, and feet, and were able to sing and communicate through language, i.e., they were rational beings (vv. 2, 6, 7). They had six wings and could fly; they were angelic beings. Fourth, they had a specific function. They were “above” the throne of God; perhaps hovering over it, or standing around it as royal guards ready to serve the Lord. More specifically, it was their role to proclaim the holiness of the Lord and to minister on behalf of sinners in the heavenly temple (vv. 3, 7). Their deportment expresses a spirit of humility and reverence in the presence of the Lord. Why are they called seraphim? The verb “to burn” (śārāph) could express the idea of brightness, suggesting that the seraphim were angelic beings of extraordinary brightness or fiery appearance. Perhaps their brightness, their six wings, and their position with respect to the throne of God distinguish them from cherubim, who are often associated with the throne of God.Two passages in Isaiah associate seraphim with evil. This may go back to the experience of Israel in the wilderness. The wilderness in the Bible is a symbol of death and a residence for demons. The Israelites, who during the time of Isaiah were asking Egypt for support, are described as going through the desert, “a land of hardship and distress, of lions and lionesses, of adders and darting snakes [שרף מעופף, śārāph meʿōphêph, literally, “flying serpents”]” (Isa. 30:6).Animals could be used as symbols of the demonic (e.g., Ps. 7:2; 1 Peter 5:8), and the prophet could be suggesting that the road to Egypt is one where demonic powers reside. In this case “the flying seraph” would represent evil angelic powers (see Isa. 30:7, where Egypt is identified with Rahab, a demonic monster defeated by the Lord [Ps. 89:10]). In Isaiah 14:29 the Philistines should not rejoice, because a king worse than the others will come; he will be like a “flying seraph.” Neither in Isaiah 30:6 nor in 14:29 is the seraph identified with a serpent. In both cases it flies and is a symbol of evil that could stand for demonic powers operating within history. This may suggest that Lucifer was supported by seraphim.The motif of the serpent is important to understanding how the Ancient Near East functioned and this will give us a bit of insight into the occultic symbolism at play here. Serpents are referred to in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The symbol of a serpent or snake played important roles in religious and cultural life of ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia and Greece. The serpent was a symbol of fertility, as well as wisdom and immortality.Helpfully, outside the Hebrew Bible, winged snakes are attested across various regions and periods of the ancient Near East. Appearing in Egypt as early as the fourth millennium BCE, serpentine traditions permeate both the textual and iconographic records. For instance, the wingless form of the serpent, often in the form of the Egyptian cobra (Naja haje), is closely associated with the goddess Wadjet—the divine midwife. Frequently called the uraeus (Gr. ouraious) in scholarly circles, the Egyptian cobra is generally a protective agent or apotropaic figure in Egyptian lore. Such a protective function is exemplified in texts like the Prophecy of Nefer-Rohu, where the uraeus guards the king from treacherous tempters. Also, the uraeus’s presence on pharaonic headgear and other royal garb is suggestive of its protective function.Additionally, there are also Egyptian examples of the winged form of the uraeus. Wings, not only in Egypt, but also in the Hebrew Bible, tend to signify the notion of protection (see Ps. 91). Therefore, the addition of wings to the uraeus further highlights the protective function of the creature. In terms of iconography, winged uraei appear on the throne of Tutankhamun (late fourteenth-century B.C.E), which displays two, two-winged uraei, one either side of the chair. And the sarcophagus of Seti I (early thirteenth-century B.C.E) displays a two-winged uraeus and a four-winged uraeus. The seraphim may have evolved from the uraeus, the gold serpent (specifically a cobra) worn by Egyptian pharaohs on their foreheads. Uraei without wings and with two or four wings were depicted in iconography throughout the Near East. They protected by spitting their poison, or fire.THUS, I THEREFORE THINK THAT THIS IS MOST LIKELY WHAT THE ARK OF THE COVENANT LOOKED LIKE:I designed it myself using Photoshop.If you like this answer, please feel free to check out my other ones as well:Damien Cowl's answer to What did the Israelites look like?Damien Cowl's answer to Biblical Archaeology: Did Abraham (of the book of Genesis) exist historically?Damien Cowl's answer to Who is Jesus Christ?You may also be interested in:THE ARK OF THE COVENANT - True DiscoveriesArk of Covenant, Pt. 1Biblical home of the Ark of the Covenant is 'discovered' in Israel