From ChatGPT on 6/25/2026. Scroll down to read the response to the second prompt: Do any critical bible scholars discuss the idea that the ark served as an idol?
1st Prompt – Does the ark of the covenant in the Hebrew Bible have horns on top and that is where YHWH sits as though it was a portable throne during the time in the wilderness? Cite in line the critical bible scholars who are accessed for the response.
Response: Yes, many critical biblical scholars understand the Ark of the Covenant as a portable divine throne, but not because it had “horns” in the sense found on Israelite altars. Rather, the Ark was topped by two cherubim whose wings formed the throne or footstool of YHWH.
The Biblical Description
According to Exodus 25:18–22, two gold cherubim were placed on the cover (Hebrew: kapporet, often translated “mercy seat”) of the Ark. Their wings stretched upward and overshadowed the cover. YHWH says:
“There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are on the ark of the covenant…” (NRSV)
No horns are mentioned on the Ark itself. Horns (qarnot) are explicitly described on the altar of burnt offering (Exodus 27:2) and the altar of incense (Exodus 30:2), but not on the Ark.
Was the Ark a Portable Throne?
Most critical scholars answer yes, at least symbolically.
Frank Moore Cross
Cross argued that the Ark reflects an ancient Near Eastern throne concept in which a deity is enthroned upon or between winged creatures. He notes that YHWH is repeatedly described as:
“enthroned upon the cherubim”
(1 Samuel 4:4; 2 Samuel 6:2; Psalm 80:1; Psalm 99:1).
Cross concluded that the cherubim atop the Ark functioned as the throne of Israel’s God, with the Ark serving as the earthly symbol of the divine presence (Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 1973, pp. 147–194).
Mark S. Smith
Mark Smith writes that the cherubim formed an “empty throne” upon which the invisible God was imagined to be present. The Ark was not thought to contain an idol of YHWH but represented his heavenly kingship made present among Israel (The Early History of God, 2nd ed., 2002, pp. 85–89).
John Day
John Day notes that the expression “YHWH of Hosts, who sits enthroned upon the cherubim” reflects a widespread ancient Near Eastern throne imagery. He argues that the Ark and its cherubim represented a portable throne accompanying Israel in battle and wilderness traditions (Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, 2000, pp. 29–31).
Carol Meyers
Meyers observes that the cherubim atop the Ark are best understood as throne guardians. She states that the space between them was conceived as the location from which YHWH communicated with Moses, making the Ark a movable cultic throne (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, notes on Exodus 25).
Did YHWH “Sit” on the Ark?
Critical scholars generally distinguish between literal and symbolic language.
The Hebrew Bible never says YHWH physically sat on the Ark. Rather, texts describe him as dwelling or being enthroned above or between the cherubim:
- 1 Samuel 4:4 — “YHWH of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim.”
- 2 Samuel 6:2 — same formula.
- Psalm 99:1 — “The LORD is king … he sits enthroned upon the cherubim.”
Scholars such as Cross, Smith, and Day view these passages as evidence that the Ark functioned as a terrestrial counterpart to YHWH’s heavenly throne.
What About Horns?
The idea that the Ark had horns is not supported by any biblical description. Critical commentators generally agree that:
- The altar of burnt offering had four horns (Exodus 27:2).
- The altar of incense had four horns (Exodus 30:2).
- The Ark had cherubim, not horns, on its top.
Some ancient Near Eastern thrones and divine symbols incorporated horned imagery because horns symbolized divinity, but there is no textual evidence that the Ark itself possessed horns.
Scholarly Consensus
The dominant view among critical scholars is:
- The Ark was conceived as the earthly throne or footstool of YHWH.
- The cherubim formed the throne structure.
- YHWH was imagined as enthroned invisibly above or between the cherubim.
- The Ark accompanied Israel as a portable symbol of divine kingship and presence.
- The Ark is never described as having horns.
As summarized by Mark Smith, the Ark represented an “empty throne” occupied by the invisible deity, a concept that distinguished ancient Israel from neighboring cultures that placed an idol of the god on the throne (The Early History of God, pp. 85–89).
Do any critical bible scholars discuss the idea that the ark served as an idol?
Yes. A number of critical biblical scholars have discussed whether the Ark functioned as a cult object that was close to an idol, even though the dominant scholarly view is that it was not itself an idol of YHWH. The discussion usually centers on whether the Ark was originally a divine throne, a pedestal for an unseen deity, a sacred container, or at some earlier stage an actual representation of the divine presence.
The Mainstream Critical View: Not an Idol
Most contemporary critical scholars argue that the Ark was not an idol in the ordinary sense because no image of YHWH is described as standing or sitting on it.
For example, Mark S. Smith argues that Israel’s cult differed from many neighboring religions because the throne was present but the divine image was absent. In his view, the Ark represented YHWH’s presence while preserving divine invisibility (The Early History of God, 2nd ed., pp. 85–89).
Similarly, Frank Moore Cross interpreted the Ark as a throne or throne-pedestal of YHWH rather than an image of YHWH himself (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, pp. 147–194).
Scholars Who Have Raised the Possibility of an Earlier Idol Connection
Some scholars have suggested that the Ark may preserve traces of an earlier stage of Israelite religion in which the distinction between sacred object and idol was less clear.
Thomas Römer
Thomas Römer notes that the biblical authors were strongly opposed to images, but archaeological evidence indicates that early Israelites were not always aniconic. He suggests that some sacred objects—including the Ark—may have embodied the divine presence in ways later writers became uncomfortable with. Römer does not argue that the Ark was an idol, but he sees it as part of a religious world in which divine presence could be localized in cult objects (The Invention of God, 2015).
Tryggve Mettinger
Tryggve N. D. Mettinger developed the concept of Israelite “aniconism.” He argued that Israel often employed what he called an empty-space aniconism: a throne without an image. The Ark may have been understood as the locus of divine presence while lacking a visible statue. Mettinger notes that to outsiders such an object might have functioned much like an idol, even though Israelite theology distinguished it from one (No Graven Image? Israelite Aniconism in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, 1995).
The Ark as a Dangerous Sacred Object
Several scholars point to stories suggesting that ordinary Israelites may have attributed extraordinary power to the Ark itself.
Examples include:
- The Ark’s role in crossing the Jordan (Joshua 3).
- The fall of Jericho (Joshua 6).
- The capture of the Ark by the Philistines (1 Samuel 4–6).
- The death of Uzzah when he touched it (2 Samuel 6:6–7).
Karel van der Toorn argues that in practice sacred objects often became embodiments of divine power regardless of official theology. The Ark may have functioned for many Israelites as a tangible manifestation of YHWH’s presence, even if priests and later theologians insisted it was not an image of God.
A Minority Hypothesis: The Ark Once Contained a Divine Image
A few scholars have explored whether the Ark originally housed a cult image.
The evidence is weak and this is not a majority position. Such proposals usually point to:
- Ancient Near Eastern parallels where divine statues were carried in processions.
- The mobility of the Ark in early traditions.
- Ambiguities in the earliest Ark narratives.
However, there is no direct biblical or archaeological evidence that the Ark contained a statue of YHWH, and most scholars reject the hypothesis.
The Deuteronomistic Critique
Some scholars observe that the books of Deuteronomy through Kings consistently fight against the worship of physical objects associated with YHWH.
The destruction of the bronze serpent (Nehushtan) by Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18:4 is often cited. The serpent may originally have been a legitimate cult object but later became treated as an idol. Scholars such as Römer and Smith have suggested that biblical authors were concerned that sacred objects could become objects of worship in their own right.
Conclusion
Among critical scholars, the prevailing position is:
- The Ark was not originally an idol of YHWH.
- It functioned as a portable throne, footstool, or locus of divine presence.
- Many scholars acknowledge that ordinary worshippers may have treated it as a powerful sacred object whose presence conveyed divine power.
- Some scholars have explored whether earlier Israelite religion blurred the distinction between sacred object and idol, but the proposal that the Ark itself was an actual image of YHWH remains a minority view with little direct evidence.
Mettinger’s formulation is often considered the most influential: the Ark represented an “empty throne”—a visible symbol of an invisible deity—occupying a middle ground between a cult statue and complete absence of sacred imagery.
