Loading...
Lo, we heard of it at Ephratah - Most probably this is the language of the contemporaries of David; or this is what they might be supposed to say; or this is what tradition reports that they did say. David‘s purpose, as referred to in the previous verses, is not recorded in the history, and the memory of the whole transaction may have been handed down by tradition. Or, this may be merely poetic language, expressing the feelings of those who, when sent out by David, or accompanying him, found the ark. Much difficulty has been felt in regard to this verse. There is no mention in the history of the fact that the ark was “heard of” at Ephrata, or that it was ever there. The name Ephrata - אפרתה 'ephrâthâh - is applied
(1) to a region of country to which was subsequently given the name Bethlehem, Genesis 35:16-19; Rth 4:11 .
(2) Properly to Bethlehem, a city of Judah, the full name of which was Bethlehem-Ephratah, Genesis 48:7; Micah 5:2.
(3) It is a proper name, 1 Chronicles 2:19, 1 Chronicles 2:50; 1 Chronicles 4:4.
(4) It may perhaps be the same as Ephraim.
Compare Judges 12:5; 1 Samuel 1:1; 1 Kings 11:26. Some have supposed the meaning to be, that they found it within the limits of the tribe of Ephraim, and that the word Ephratah is used here with reference to that; but this is a forced construction. It may have been indeed true that the ark was found within the limits of that tribe, but the word Ephratah would not naturally denote this; and, besides, the tribe of Ephraim was so large, and covered such an extent of territory, that this would convey no distinct information; and it cannot be supposed that the writer meant to say merely that they found it within the limits of a tribe. Nor can it mean that they actually found the ark at Ephrata, or Bethlehem, for this would not be true. A simple and natural interpretation of the passage has been suggested, which seems to make it plain: that, in their search for the ark, it was at Ephratah or Bethlehem that they first heard of it, but that they actually found it in the fields of the wood. It may seem strange that there should have been so much uncertainty about the ark as is here implied; that David did not know where it was; and that none of the priests knew. But, while it must be admitted that it seems to be strange, and that the fact is not of easy explanation, it is to he remembered that the ark was at one time in the possession of the Philistines; that when it was retaken it seems to have had no very permanent resting place; that it may have been removed from one spot to another as circumstances required; that it may have been committed now to one, and now to another, for safe keeping; and thus it might have occurred, in the unsettled and agitated state of affairs, that its exact situation might be unknown, and that a somewhat diligent search was necessary in order to find it We know too little of the times to enable us to pronounce upon the subject with much confidence.
We found it in the fields of the wood - Continuing our search, we found it there. Perhaps Kirjath-jearim, 1 Samuel 7:1; 1 Chronicles 13:5. It was to Kirjath-jearim that the ark was carried after it had been taken by the Philistines 1 Samuel 6:21. The literal meaning of the passage here is, “The fields of the wood” - or of Jear, where the word in Hebrew is the same as in Kirjath-jearim. The name Kirjath-jearim means Forest Town, or, city of the woods; and the allusion here is the same as in 1 Samuel 7:1. The interpretation, then, seems to be that they heard of the ark, or learned where it was, when they were at Ephrata or Bethlehem; but that they actually found it in the vicinity of Kirjath-jearim. The ignorance in the case may have been merely in regard to the exact place or house where it was at that time kept. Bethlehem was the home or city of David, and the idea is, that, when there, and when it was contemplated to remove the ark to Mount Zion, information or intelligence was brought there of its exact locality, and they went forth to bring it to its new abode or its permanent resting place.