The Ark of the Covenant is well-known because of the popular Indiana Jones movie, Raiders of the Lost Ark. That pop culture film offers just one of over a dozen theories on what happened to the Ark of the Covenant. The question arises because the ark is not one of the artifacts taken to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar in the biblical account of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in 586 BC, nor is it listed among the temple treasures returned to Israel in Ezra 1, the account of the release of the captive Judeans. This episode surveys the more interesting and important theories as to the fate of the ark.
The episode is now live.
Dr. Heiser examines the many theories proposed about what happened to the Ark of the Covenant after the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple (586 B.C.). Because the biblical record never states explicitly what became of the Ark, Heiser surveys historical, textual, and speculative traditions — from ancient Jewish writings to modern pop‑culture claims — assessing their credibility and weaknesses.
Heiser divides the possibilities into nine major views, with one playful mention of a “tenth” (the Knights Templar theory). Each is analyzed for biblical, archaeological, and textual evidence (or lack thereof).
Main Theories Discussed
-
The Samaritan View – Claims the Ark never reached Jerusalem but was hidden on Mount Gerizim. Heiser dismisses this as lacking evidence or coherence.
-
The Shishak/Pharaoh Theory – The idea that Pharaoh Shishak (Shoshenq I) took the Ark to Egypt (popularized in Raiders of the Lost Ark). Heiser notes serious chronological and textual flaws in the correlation between Shishak and Shoshenq.
-
Jehoash Theory – Suggests the northern king Jehoash looted it around 800 B.C. Again, no mention of the Ark in the biblical record.
-
Faithful Priests/Josiah/Hezekiah Theory – Argues pious figures removed the Ark during Manasseh’s apostasy. Heiser shows the supporting texts do not say this explicitly.
-
Ethiopian Theory (Graham Hancock) – Claims the Ark was taken to Elephantine and then to Aksum, Ethiopia, where it remains in the Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion. Heiser critiques Hancock’s The Sign and the Seal for its speculative leaps, anachronisms, and misuse of sources.
-
Manasseh Himself Removed It – Rejected as improbable; apostates likely saw Asherah and Yahweh as a pair, not rivals.
-
Jeremiah Hid It – Based on late Second Temple literature (2 Maccabees 2; Lives of the Prophets 2). Heiser contrasts these accounts with Jeremiah 3:16 and Lamentations 2:1, which suggest the Ark was gone and no longer needed.
8–9. Taken or Destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar – The most plausible view, according to Heiser. The Ark is absent from biblical and post‑exilic temple inventories; Jeremiah’s and Lamentations’ language implies God allowed its destruction.
Heiser concludes that there is no compelling evidence for the Ark’s survival and that Jeremiah 3:16 theologically anticipates a time when the Ark will not even be remembered — its absence symbolizing the sufficiency of God’s presence without temple objects.
He also briefly critiques speculative modern theories involving the Knights Templar, Isaac Newton’s code theories, and “Bible Code” numerology, reaffirming his commitment to textual and historical grounding over sensational claims.
How did Jews of the Second Temple era deal with a Temple with nothing inside? What was the point of building a holy of holies room when they had nothing to put inside? Without an ark inside, is it still considered sacred ground?
With the altar and such they could still offer sacrifice. As for what they were thinking about the presence, I don’t know. It was still sacred to them, but I don’t know how that was justified.
古人日三省其身，我从博客里吸收养分！
Could it be possible that the references to The Lord “enthroned between the cherubim” are a reference not to the ark but rather the the cherubim in heaven. After all you explained that the Ezekiel’s vision was modeled on the temple so if the temple is modeled on the real throne room of God in heaven then the loss of the earthly Ark of the covenant might not change that. Not that this would change the rest of your points especially about Jeremiah inferring that the Ark was destroyed. Obviously Hezekiah predated Ezekiel but he might have been familiar with some of the ideas.
Hey Mike, just thought I’d bring up another piece of reading (two actually, one is difficult to find, one is relatively easy) that listeners can make note of regarding the correlation between Shishak and Shoshenq. The first being “Centuries of Darkness” by Peter James, et al. which goes into numerous problems with the Egyptian chronology throughout the entire ancient Near East, and the problems it causes within Greek history. and other chronologies as well. It’s incredibly difficult to find, but is a great read.
The other is Pierce Furlong’s PhD thesis, “Aspects of ancient Near Eastern chronology (c. 1600-700 BC)” which can easily be found here:
https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/39353#files-area
Interesting. I was thinking about your comment for a few days. It makes me question how much we really know of how ancient people thought of things and how they read, but more importantly, how they applied the bible to their daily life.
So on one hand, we have a bible that we believe we got it all figured out, but at a loss for how they justified something, via a theology we believe we perfectly figured out. Yet, apparently they DID justify it somehow.