I have been asked several times about "biblical inaccuracies" in Dahveed 3, referring to the presence of the ark with David during his fugitive years. The question is actually one of interpretation, not accuracy. In the Bible, when David is fleeing from Saul, he has with him and inquires of, "the ephod." The difficulty is in determining what this "ephod" was. I addressed the subject in brief in the "A Word About . . . the Ark" in the Dahveed 3 book and in a footnote in the book. (See the "A Word About . . ." page on this site.) However, it is clear people would appreciate a more detailed reply. So, get settled and dig in! You're about to engage in a word study of the Hebrew word "ephod!" (What follows is my personal word study after reading the article on this subject by Karel van der Toorn, "David and the Ark," in the Journal of Biblical Literature, v. 113 (Sum 1994): 209-231. For more information about Dr. Van der Toorn click here.)

"Ephod," in all its forms, appears 40 times in the Old Testament. (All the references are listed again at the end of this article.) Don't let the long list frighten you! Most of it will be eliminated the very first thing!

In the texts from Exodus 25:7 through Lev 8:7, the ephod is clearly the woven linen mounting for the breastplate which the High Priest wore. These texts have nothing to do with what we are interested in, except to note that the ephod and breastplate, although two separate articles, were meant to be fastened together, and that the ephod had no other purpose than to hold the breastplate. Thus, these texts can be taken from the list immediately. In Numbers 34:23, "Ephod" is a name, so that text can be deleted also.

Of the remaining texts, in 1 Sam 2:18, 2 Sam 6:14, 1 Chr 15:27 ‘ephod’ has the adjective ‘linen’ attached to it, and logically refers to a garment. In 1 Sam 2:28, 1 Sam 14:3 and 1 Sam 22:18, ‘ephod’ is said to be a garment, or the verse specifies that it is worn/carried and that it is an identifying marker of a priest. All of which point to the word meaning a garment worn by the priesthood.

Eleven verses remain from the original 40. And in these verses, an "ephod" appears to be something very different from a garment. Let's look at the verses in Judges first.

Judges 8:27: This ephod which Gideon made is fashioned entirely of gold. There is no mention of cloth/thread/yarn, etc., and Israel played the harlot after it. "Playing the harlot" refers to worshipping other gods - idolatry, indicating this ephod is representing a god and/or is being worshipped as one.

Judges 17:5 to 18:20: Micah’s ephod is listed in Judges 17 with a molten idol and teraphim and belongs to a shrine for idols. Again there is no mention of cloth or garments. In the next chapter, some Danites steal these things from Micah, and the ephod is listed on par with a graven image, a molten image, and teraphim. (Judges 18:14, 17, 18, 20) In v. 24, the entire collection is called by Micah “my gods which I made.”

Usage of the word "ephod" in Judges clearly indicates that there is a second meaning for the word. Here "ephod" is the same thing as an idol, and is worshipped as such. Are there other examples of the word being used in this manner? Yes. In Hosea.

Hosea 4:3 lists "ephod" and "teraphim" as synonyms and they are grouped together as the same thing. In the Hebrew, the words for ‘king’, ‘prince,’ ‘sacrifice,’ and ‘standing/memorial stone’ are separated by the Hebrew preposition meaning “there is no” but ‘ephod’ and ‘teraphim’ are put together as one. As teraphim are gods being worshipped, so is an ephod.

Therefore, usage of the word shows an alternate meaning for "ephod" which should be understood as something which is worshipped, something which represents a god.

This brings us to the four verses left from the list. They are the critical verses we must pay attention to for the David story.

1 Sa 21:9 The ephod in this text cannot refer to the ephod of the breastplate for the high priest would not be carrying Goliath’s sword across his chest between the ephod and his robe! There is no other ephod mentioned in the Bible in connection with the sanctuary/high priest. In the Hebrew, the definite article is attached to the word. It is "THE ephod." (The definite article is also used three times in Judges when referring to the ephod Micah had.) Also, the word is not modified in any way to indicate a garment of any sort. We are thrown back on the alternate definition for ephod, which is an object which represents a god. The only other piece of furniture in the sanctuary which fills this role is the ark. And Goliath’s sword, since it was apparently presented as a war trophy to Yahweh, could likely have been kept behind the ark somewhere, an appropriate place for it. If the ephod does not refer to the ark, then we are left with the fact that some other representation of God (or a god) was at Nob, in direct disobedience to God’s command.

1 Sa 23:6 Again, "ephod" is not associated with the adjective "linen." And here the Hebrew gets very interesting. The literal translation of the Hebrew is: "Ephod came down by the hand of him.” ‘Him’ refers to Abiathar. Note that the subject of the active verb "came down" is not Abiathar (despite the way it was translated into English!). It is ‘ephod.’ It was common in the Ancient Near Eastern cultures to assume that images/representations of the gods could, and did, effect actions. This idea is reflected in the manner in which the Philistines talk about the ark as they are discussing how to get rid of it during Eli’s time. In 1 Sam 5:11 and 6:8-9, the ark is the subject of active verbs, just as the ephod is in 1 Sam 23:6.

Note also that it would be very difficult for the ephod Abiathar brought to David to be the one associated with the breastplate, because Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, would have been wearing that when he went to Gibeah at Saul's summons. That ephod would have been on Ahimelech's body. Even if Abiathar did somehow get to his father’s body before he fled to David, why would he separate the breastplate from the ephod, leave the breastplate and the Urim the Thumim with it, and take only the linen mounting? In 1 Sam 28:6 it states specifically that the Lord did not reply to Saul by Urim, and presumably Thumim with it, which were kept in the breastplate, indicating that Saul has it. Logically, the ephod was with it, since it was attached, and the two are one unit.

Also, if the ephod in this verse is a linen garment, one has to ask why Abiathar, running for his life, would bother bringing a linen garment to David. He was serving at the tabernacle. He would have been wearing a linen ephod. David is not a priest. What possible use could David have for a garment only a priest was able to wear?

1 Sa 23:9 and 1 Sa 30:7 In these two verses, there is, again, no association of "linen" with this ephod. It is not stated that it is worn. Abiathar doesn't have it on, since David asks for the ephod to be brought when Abiathar is with him. Instead, David inquires of it. The ephod of Exodus is a base for the breastplate and to inquire of it makes no sense, aside from the problems of how it might have gotten to David. In the Ancient Near East, one inquires of a god, or the representation of the god. If we take the alternate meaning for "ephod," this verse makes perfect sense. What object in the tabernacle represented God? The ark. In addition, in Exodus 25:22 and Exodus 30:6 God states that he will come down to meet with men at the ark. The only other way God allowed for inquiry of Him, aside from the ark, was by the Urim and Thumim, and we know already from 1 Sam 28:6 that Saul has them.

If the ephod is not the ark, what, then, is David inquiring of? A piece of cloth? Some other representation of a god, which would mean David is inquiring of an idol? Of all the available choices, equating the ephod with the ark seemed the most logical, the most consistent, and the most conducive to keeping David in God's will.

That left the question of whether the ark could have been with David, given what we know of its whereabouts.

1 Sam 7:1,2 states that during the time of Eli, the ark stayed at Kiriath-jearim after it was captured by the Philistines and subsequently returned to Israel. However, it could not have stayed there, for in 1 Sam 14:18, Saul has the ark of God brought to him, apparently to explain what is happening in the camp of the Philistines. He is inquiring of it. The text goes on to state specifically that the ark was with the children of Israel at this time. However, this is the only time on record that Saul inquired of the ark, which would enable David to state in 1 Chron 13: 3 that “we did not seek it in the days of Saul.” Saul reigned a long time, and apparently only inquired of the ark this once.

We know that by the time David brought the ark back to Jerusalem, it was again at Kiriath-jearim, (1 Chron 13:6) but when did it get there after Saul used it, and when was it separated from the tabernacle which ended up at Gibeon? (2 Chron 1:3 tells us specifically where the tabernacle was in Solomon's time.) The most logical time for the moving of the tabenacle to Gibeon and the separation of the ark from the tabernacle was the destruction of Nob by Doeg, but the Bible simply doesn't tell us this unless the word "ephod" in the David narrative, when not modified by "linen," does indeed refer to the ark. Then part of the mystery is solved. The ark was separated from the tabernacle when Abiathar took it to David when he fled Nob. That leaves the question as to when the ark again returned to Kiriath-jearim. And on that subject the Bible is completely silent.

It was then quite possible for David to have the ark with him during his fugitive years. Equating the ephod with the ark made the most sense of the biblical text to me and I adopted it for my book.

Here again are all 40 references to the word "ephod" in the Old Testament: