Dagon

1Sa_5:1-5

The history of the ark in the hands of the victorious Philistines, offers several circumstances of striking and peculiar interest.

They had been permitted by the Lord thus far to triumph, for the accomplishment of his own high purposes. And it remained for Him now to vindicate the honor of his own great name, equally from the despair of the Israelites, and profane exultation of the Philistines. The latter, indeed, by making it a triumph of their own god over the God of Israel, rendered it inevitable that he should move his terrible right arm to redeem his name from reproach. It was the custom among the ancient idolaters to place among the captives, and to bear along in triumph, the idols adored by their enemies, and eventually to deposit them in the temples of their own idols, as memorials of their triumph. The prophet Isaiah predicts that the gods of Babylon should thus be treated by Cyrus. Instead of using the direct language of prophecy or description, he represents himself as seeing in vision the heavy laden animals and wagons. moving slowly along, pressed down by the weight of the captured gods that were to be borne to the distant land of the conqueror—“Bel boweth down, Nebo croucheth; their images are laid upon the beasts and upon the cattle. Your burdens are packed up as a load to the weary beast. They crouch, they bow down together they cannot rescue the burden; themselves into

captivity are gone.” Isa_46:1-2. It is very probable that in thus deriding the Babylonian idols for their inability to save themselves from captivity, he meant to glance back at the case before us, in which the ark of God came forth in triumph from captivity with the Philistines. Another prophet predicts that Ptolemy Euergetes should carry captive into Egypt the gods of the Syrians. Note: Dan_11:8. Jeremiah also foretold that Chemosh, the god of Moab, should be borne into captivity, to the shame and confusion of his worshippers. Note: Jer_48:7; Jer_48:13. There are several examples of this among the pagan writers.

Plutarch relates, that till the time of Marcellus, the Romans had been content with really warlike trophies; but he first brought fine Grecian images and pictures of the gods to adorn his triumph on his return from Syracuse. This, he says, pleased the multitude; but thoughtful men were dissatisfied, doubting whether he had not brought upon them the malice and hate of the gods he thus pretended to make captive. He adds, the old men liked better the conduct of Fabius Maximus, who, when he took Tarentum, brought away indeed much gold and other useful things, but left the images of the gods standing in their places, observing, “Let us leave to the Tarentines the gods offended with them.”

With the precedents before us, and with the result in view, we have no doubt that the ark was placed by the Philistines “in the house of Dagon their god,” at Ashdod, in order to give honor to their own idol, by exhibiting him as triumphant over Jehovah; although some have fancied,

that they placed the ark in this their sacred place, in order to render it honor, and even to adopt it as a god.

This people had reason to distrust the triumph of their idol, when, next morning, they found it lying on the floor, prostrate before the ark of God. But it might be an accident; so they set it up in its place. But the morning after it was not only fallen, but broken. The language in which this is related is remarkable. “The head of Dagon, and both the palms of his hands, were cut off upon the threshold; only the Dagon was left to him.” This raises a question as to the form of this idol, and what was “the Dagon” which remained after the head and hands were separated, and which gave name to the whole image. Dagan means “corn,” in Hebrew, whence some have thought that Dagon was the Philistine god of agriculture. There is nothing but the mere name to countenance this notion, and every other circumstance is against it. Then, again, Dag means “a fish;” whence, and from the incidents, it has been generally understood that the image was that of a kind of merman—the upper part human, with a fishy extremity. Certainly the expression in the text, that “the Dagon” remained after the head and hands were broken off, is greatly in favor of this conclusion. This is the opinion of the Jewish writers; and it is supported by analogies. We know, in fact, that the neighboring Phoenicians had an idol of this shape—essentially indeed the same, except that it bore a female form. This was called Derketo, otherwise Atergatis. The Babylonians had also a tradition, that in the beginning of their history, an extraordinary being, called Oannes, having the body of a fish, but the head, hands, feet, and

voice of a man, emerged from the Erythrean sea, appeared in Babylon, and taught the rude inhabitants the use of letters, arts, religion, law, and agriculture; that after long intervals, other similar beings appeared and communicated the same precious lore in detail, and that the last of these was called Odakon—the resemblance of which to Dagon is very clear. It is not difficult to recognize in these fables the distorted tradition of more civilized persons, who, in ancient times, came by sea or river, and taught useful arts to barbarous nations, by whom they were, after death, worshipped as gods. Having no memorials of the Philistines, no figure of their Dagon has been found; but representations of the corresponding Oannes or Odakon of the Babylonians, and Derketo of the Phoenicians, have been discovered, and answer to the general notion respecting the form this idol bore.

Babylonian Representation of Dagon and Derketo

One would suppose that this event would have convinced the Philistines of the impotency of the idol they worshipped. It seems, indeed, to have revived their former dread of the God of Israel; but it not lessen their

devotion to their own idolatry. Nay, rather, it engaged them in a new form of superstition; for “Therefore neither the priest of Dagon, not any that come into Dagon’s house, tread the threshold of Dagon’s house in Ashdod unto this day.” It may be doubtful whether this was in reverence of the threshold, since it had been touched by the superior parts of Dagon’s image, or in detestation of it, as having been instrumental in this mutilation of the idol. Henceforth, however, they were careful not to tread upon it, but stepped or leaped over it—a custom which, it seems, continued not only to the latter days of Samuel, the author of this book, but down to the time of Zephaniah, who seems to allude to it—“In the same day will I punish them that leap on [or over] the threshold.” Note: Zep_1:9. It is curious, that their very superstition led to the establishment of a custom which could not but serve as a standing memorial of the discomfiture of their idol in the presence of the ark of the Lord. Not unlike this in form, though different in principle, being a civil memorial of a thing done, and not a superstitions rite, is the ancient custom of the Jews in abstaining from the part, in the animals they use for food, corresponding to “the sinew that shrank” in the thigh of Jacob when the angel wrestled with him. Note: Gen_32:32.

Although this fact accounts for the reverence of the threshold among the Philistines, this kind of superstition was not peculiar to them. There are many traces of it with regard to other temples and among other nations. It comes before us, indeed, chiefly in the form of the votaries kneeling and kissing the threshold, in adoration or reverence. But this implies the not treading on it; for

votaries do not tread beneath their feet that which they thus venerate. The allusions to this in the Roman poets are well known. The early Christians adopted this custom of kissing the threshold, in regard to churches particularly venerated. It is indeed still in use among Roman Catholics; and old Christopher Ness remarks—“’Tis pity such reverencing of the thresholds of temples should be found as among Pagans, so among Papagans also, who kiss the threshold of St. Peter’s church at Rome to this day.”

This ancient reverence for the threshold was not limited to temples. A sort of superstitious regard for the threshold generally, may be detected among many nations. The threshold was sacred to Vesta among the Romans, who held this deity in so much respect, that a bride, in entering for the first time the house of her husband, was not allowed to touch the threshold of the door; Note: Lucan, lib. ii. 359. and we learn from Tibullus, Note: Tibullus, lib. i. Eleg. 3. that it was regarded as a very ill omen for a person to strike his foot against the threshold on quitting his house in the morning.

In the modern East, the indications of the same custom are abundant. The Persians, in particular, treat with great respect the thresholds of certain mosques, in which the remains of their holy men are deposited. They are usually covered with plates of silver; and to tread upon them is a crime not to be expiated but by severe penalties. Thus, immediately below the sixth distich, inscribed over the gate of the famous mausoleum at Kom, are the words—“Happy and glorious is the believer, who through

reverence shall prostrate himself with his head on the threshold of this gate, in doing which he will imitate the sun and the moon.” In fact, before they venture to cross such thresholds, they kneel down and kiss them; and in passing over, are most careful not to touch them with any part of their feet or their raiment. This feeling is in a measure extended to the palaces of kings, and in a lesser degree to the thresholds of private mansions. In writing to a prince, it is usual to say—“Let me make the dust of your threshold into Surmeh (eye wash) for my eyelids;” and Chardin relates, that in his time the threshold of the royal palace at Ispahan was one large stone of green porphyry, on which no one was allowed to tread.