151

CHAPTER FOUR

THE INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE ANICONIC YAHWEH AND

“IDOL”

4. 0. Introduction: The previous chapter has established the basis or reason for the

aniconic Yahweh being the foundation for, and integral to, aniconism’s rationale in

the OT. Also, importantly, it shows that the reason for the aniconic Yahweh stands

diametrically opposed to the concept of an idol as believed in the religions of AWA.

An idol, as a fragmented or multiplied material body (a god of heaven and earth),

makes a supposedly heavenly deity omnipresent. However, according to the OT

(Deut. 4; 6: 4; Isa. 40: 18-20), the first and foremost reason for the aniconic Yahweh

is because he is the only God of heaven and earth; its implication for his aniconic

nature is that because of Yahweh’s presence and person is indivisible in heaven and

on earth (or because he is omnipresent), and because Yahweh shares no essential

commonality and comparison with an idol, he does not need a material body like the

other deities of AWA. One may raise a question: could not Yahweh have an idol (or

many idols) and still be the only God of heaven and earth. A straightforward answer is

that he could not. Since Yahweh is the only God of heaven and earth with its

implications mentioned as above, it negates an idol to be the same. Consequently, it

rules out the iconic Yahweh and idol per se (other iconic gods). Nevertheless, the

question still remains: what is so problematic about an idol, as the OT sees, that the

aniconic Yahweh cannot stand, and how intelligently and deftly have the biblical

writers argued the incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” —

whether an idol is something that is intended to embody Yahweh and/or other gods?

This chapter will look into this question and show that the incompatibility between

the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” is two-fold: ontology and offense1 (this also emerges

from the Decalogue’s template, as shown in the first chapter).

1 Scholars have long assumed, but not argued, the seriousness of sin assigned to idolatry--let alone the

gravity of the offense of idolatry being a reason for aniconism. For instance, see Japhet 159,161,169;

Burnside 393; Mein 109; Herring 183. Rosner (73), Day (21) and Williams “(Joshua 125)” quote

Tertulian for drawing attention to the magnitude of idolatry (“the principal crime of the human race, the

highest guilt charged upon the world, the whole procuring cause of judgment is idolatry”). Williams

even says that, both in degree and ranking, the sin of idolatry seems to incur the most vocal and

vituperative condemnation in deuteronomistic and prophetic literatures (126-127, 131). Wright

observes, idolatry is the first and greatest threat to Israel’s mission “(The Mission 381).” Achtemeier

calls idolatry the “primal sin” (46-47). Marcus says that idolatry, apart from being the primal evil,

inevitably gives rise to other sins (153, 155). Wallach underlines the polemic of Palestinian rabbis

152

While substantiating these two aspects of incompatibility (ontology and offense)

between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” as a reason for aniconism in the OT, we will

also pay attention to the incompatibility between “idol” and “Israel” should it emerge

from the text. This would provide a transition (and a connection) from the current

chapter to the following one as the latter looks into the incompatibility between “idol”

and the status of “Israel” being the other reason for aniconism.

4. 1. A Brief Review of the Scholarly Discussion on the Rejection of Idolatry:

Before we examine the aforementioned incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh

and “idol,” it will be helpful to briefly review scholarly discussions. Explanations of

the rejection of idolatry have been scanty; and these explanations, so far, have

pursued two different tracks--theological and lexico-semantic. Moreover, each line of

inquiry has frequently ignored the other. On the one hand, scholars engaging in

theological discussion have paid little attention to the semantic range of idolatry. On

the other hand, those who accord primacy to the semantic field have virtually ignored

the theology of idolatry. For instance, Stephen N. Williams has sketched a template of

idolatry in which his arguments and elaborations revolve around two major issues: (i)

the practices of idolatry and (ii) why these practices should be prevented.

against idolatry, since they see this as the most serious issue (389-404). Hefter terms idolatry as one of

the three principal sins that include murder and moral infidelity (15). Jacob Neusner notes, the aggadic

interpretation considers idolatry to be the primary sin that is “equivalent to” the breaking of “all the ten

commandments” (62). Clements observes that “it is one of the greatest sins” (47). R. R. Reno accepts

that idolatry is the primal sin while assessing the dreadfulness of both idolatry and pride, although he

concedes that pride is equally pernicious (166-180). Turner thinks that the problem of idolatry lies in its

wrong definition and misidentification of the term “God” (153-157)); Lang equates idolatry to

contagious dieses and says that the only force that could potentially distort and destabilize Israelite

worldview is idolatry (152); The general thrust of Trent’s article is that idolatry is a socio-religious

problem, especially economic oppression, though he mostly focuses on the NT (63-73); Muer’s thesis

is, the ill-effect of idolatry perpetuates through the posterity, as the specific case of the Molech worship

suggests (547-561); Murphy shows how the Jewish tradition abhorred idolatry by analyzing the writing

of pseudo-Philo that retells OT stories in its own way (275-287); Anderson draws a parallel between

the creation and Israel. The creation account, in the broader canvas of the Edenic sanctuary, has three

major features such as the creation of humanity in the image of God, the fall and the restoration.

Similarly, Israel’s story, within the larger picture of Yahweh’s sanctuary, tabernacle, reflects three

primary elements: Israel’s election, rebellion in the form of idolatry, the restoration culminating in the

consecration of the tabernacle. In both these accounts, the background is God’s sanctuary (Eden and

the tabernacle). If the parallels are considered in their corresponding parts, the nature of Adam and

eve’s transgression will be equivalent to idolatry. To put it differently, their act of disobedience is an

act of idolatry. See17-30.

153

Dealing with the first (the practices of idolatry), Williams refers extensively to the

worship of foreign deities in Israel “(Joshua 127-129),”2 and appends that discussion

with two observations: One, he finds that idolatry becomes the springboard for all the

banned practices that may be classified under divination and occultism; two, by its

resultant effect, idolatry produces sexual immorality and the infractions of other

decalogical injunctions (129-131). These observations are, however, too brief and

Williams explains them only by citing a few references.

As regards the second issue, his proffered rationale for the eschewal of idolatry can be

summed up thus: (i), idolatry ruptures the intimate relationship built on holiness and

love between God and the people, and consequently, it denies the life of God to them;

(ii), idolatry distorts the meaning of aesthetic beauty--the skill of craftsmanship and

beautification in sculpting a supposed divine image is an abuse of and, affront to,

God’s creation of this beautiful universe; and (iii) idolatry breaches the covenant

“(Joshua 133-137, 137-140, 141-154).” Though Williams’ explanation of the second

issue (why the practices of idolatry should be prevented) is useful, one needs to

further analyze his observations concerning the first issue (the practices of idolatry).

This is because the need remains to demonstrate that idolatry essentially includes or

interfaces with other decalogical violations insofar as the rationale for aniconism is

concerned. More importantly, Williams’ explanation says nothing about the

incompatibility of the ontological divinity of an idol or the gravity of the offense of

idolatry.

In contrast to Williams’ approach, Charles A. Kennedy’s attempt to uncover the

problematic nature of idolatry moves in a different direction (193-205). According to

Kennedy, a theological paradigm is insufficient to provide the accurate meanings of

idolatry. It is preferable, he argues, to understand the meaning of idolatry based on the

translation of the Hebrew words for an idol into a living language. 3

Taking the Greek

translation (LXX) as an example, Kennedy demonstrates that the translated meanings

of “idol” and “idolatry” in Greek are not pejorative in most cases (201).4 He judges

2 He speaks of banned cults such as the worship of Baal, Astoreth, Molech and gods of Sidonians etc. 3Charles A. Kennedy (197-198) suggests this by citing Eugene A. Nida, who prefers the translated

meaning in a living language to the meanings in the original language. For Nida’s own view, see 85. 4Apart from the general meanings of “image,” following are the number of frequencies in which the

translated meanings are “idols”: ~prt (three times out of fifteen occurrences, bca (twelve times out of

154

the religious neutrality of the Greek idol-vocabularies on the basis of two criteria.

First, most Hebrew terminologies for “idol” essentially mean “image,” when

translated into Greek. Second, since the difference between an image and an idol is

well recognized in Greek, a classification is possible. While the words that come

under the idol-category have offensive connotations, the words under the image-

category are accepted as legitimate expressions of the arts. Kennedy thus concludes

that all the words within the semantic range of idolatry that appear in the Massoretic

Text (MT) should not be arbitrarily lumped as derogatory, as their Greek translations

suggest.

Although Kennedy’s method is one possible way of studying the semantic field of

idolatry, at least two general issues may be pointed out: first, a much later translation

of the MT, such as the LXX, may not be an ideal base or comparison to plot the

semantic field of a term (Holmstedt 5, 7-8, 18-21);5 second, the derivation of

meanings of any given words without paying adequate attention to their literary

contexts,6 as is in Kennedy’s case, may not be sound. In other words, Kennedy’s

approach in general amply suggests that the semantic field of idolatry is critical to

unlocking its problematic nature (our review of the scholarly work in the first chapter

has raised this issue). However, a study based simply on the semantic range,

particularly focusing on classification and etymological meanings,7 lacks depth and

seventeen occurrences), ~ylwlg (seventeen times out of forty seven occurrences), lsp (five times out of

fifty two occurrences), hla (four times out of sixteen occurrences), hwla (seventeen times out of fifty

seven occurrences), ~ylyla (four times out of eighteen occurrences) and #wqv (two times out of twenty

seven occurrences). 5 Holmstedt’s point is: if a much closer language such as the spoken Israeli Hebrew poses difficulties

for a comparative assessment with classical Hebrew, it may be a near impossible task to achieve the

same when an unrelated language like Greek is brought into equation. If so, then Kennedy’s approach

to lexico-semantic study would be difficult to maintain. 6Schniedewind 1-32; 235-52. Schniedewind’s respective arguments in these articles are: language is a

part of social system and is used for ideological purposes. An implication of these principles is that a

particular word of the OT should not be studied in isolation, as it is part of a broader linguistic

framework of the OT. Thus Hebrew words referring to “idol” will be pregnant with theological

significance. 7 In general, a semantic analysis focuses on the following: it plots the semantic field of particular word

in the OT (statistical analysis of the occurrences and distribution of a particular word); or, it elucidates

different meanings of particular word based on the frequently associated words (syntagm); or, it

endeavors to trace the root meaning of a particular word by studying a wider semantic field. Citations

of a few models may suffice: Samuel E. Balentine (137-163) plots the semantic field of rts ((hide) in

the OT and explores its various meaning, particularly the meaning in the occurrences in which rts and

~ynp are together; James M. Kennedy traces the root meaning of raG (translated as rebuke) as “explosive

blast,” through studying its wider semantic field and different usages in the OT “(The Root 47-63).”

155

breadth. In this case, it does not help comprehend how idolatry is described, qualified,

or portrayed, or what it is compared to in a given literary-theological context.

In sum, the approaches of both Williams and Kennedy fail to get to the heart of why

the OT rejects idolatry. Hence, the proposed alternative is to integrate the semantic

field and the theological arguments of idolatry, in which the occurrences of words for

“idol” will be studied in and with a given text. In such a combined approach, the focus

will not be on a word and its meaning per se; rather, attention will be directed to its

correlation with the text and the theological underpinnings. In that sense, one may call

it a text-semantic approach. It may be useful to look at the text-semantic method

advocated by Ellen van Wolde, for further clarifying our line of inquiry.

4. 2. An Adaptation of Ellen van Wolde’s Text-Semantic Approach: Ellen van

Wolde speaks of a text-semantic interplay that has a significant bearing on

determining the meaning of words as well as of texts “(A Text Semantic 19-35).” The

following points encapsulate the summary of her argument.

Van Wolde begins her discussion by interacting with the debate concerning linguistics

and literary criticism. A common consensus of this debate, which Van Wolde

mentions, is that the meaning of a text is best derived by analyzing correlations

between its various parts, or by discerning interaction between the whole text and a

particular minute literary constituent. When this principle is applied to semantic

studies, says Van Wolde, the meaning of a word is elucidated not based on a universal

system of lexicography, but based on the interplay between the word and the text as a

whole. Furthermore, her argument seems to suggest that only a particular word, and

not all the words, in a given text may qualify for a text-semantic interaction. Whereas

Van Wolde designates this particular word as the “paradigmatic word,” she calls the

others “syntagms.” Thus, interplay of the paradigmatic word with the syntagms yields

a varied and rich meaning of the former. As the title of her article suggests, she uses

the story of the flood and Job’s trial as test cases to illustrate her argument. A brief

presentation of the first test case would be helpful.

In the first test case, Van Wolde attempts to explore the apparent tension and

contradiction of Yahweh changing his mind in the flood narrative, by doing a text-

156

semantic study of the paradigmatic word, ~xn. As she observes, ~xn is syntagmatically

connected with xn,!x, hxm, xry, xyr and xxwn within the macro-textual structure (the

presence of x that creates assonance is conspicuous in all of these words).

Van Wolde suggests that the sequential (syntagmatic) presentation of the story

displays the interplay between the paradigmatic word ~xn and the syntagms as

follows: Noah (xn) will bring comfort (~xn) from their toils; God regrets (~xn) and

resolves to destroy (hxm) humanity for the violence (smx) he sees on earth; Noah (xn)

finds favor (!x)); God smells (xry) the sweet aroma (xxwn) offered by Noah (xn) and

changes his mind (~xn) so as to revoke the curse, and to reassure the perpetuity of

humanity and creation. Thus, Lamech’s statement that Noah will bring comfort from

toil comes to a full circle, with Yahweh deciding not to destroy humanity ever again.

Further, different meanings of ~xn, such as sorrow, regret, anger and comfort, become

clearer through a syntagmatic relationship. Since Van Wolde thinks that the syntagms

suffices in explaining various meanings of ~xn, she deems it unnecessary to consider

its other usages or semantic range.

The text-semantic method propounded by Van Wolde raises both a problem and a

possibility. As regards the problem, the suggested concept of “syntagmatic” has its

limitations for reading and interpreting the scripture. In the final analysis, the

important point is to assess the theme of a text as accurately as possible irrespective of

the kind of syntagm that van Wolde speaks of. Furthermore, the viability of the

suggested syntagmatic pattern has not been applied across the genres of OT, and not

even in many narrative texts. This weakens its claim as an approach with universal

application. For instance, in her other works on Genesis “(Linguistic 21-50; Word

Becomes World),” Van Wolde does not apply to the text the kind of text-semantic

approach she is advocating for. Except for the flood narrative, to which she applies

the particular approach—this, again, is a duplication of the article’s content under

discussion--the analysis focuses on the syntax and semantics in general. 8

8 In another article “(Linguistic 24),” van Wolde makes passing remarks on the syntagmatic

relationship between the two seemingly unconnected words. Here she refers to the relationship between

“knowing” and “naked” based on ~yMiêWr[] (naked), ~Wrê[' (shrewd/knowing), ~roïy[e (naked). Similarly, in the

analysis of the Tower of Babel “(Word 99),” she briefly points to the connection between ~v (there)

and ~v (name).

157

As regards the possibility, Van Wolde’s idea of interpreting a text based on the

correlation between various parts or between the constituent words (paradigmatic

relationship) is applicable in many situations, which is an important aspect of

structuralism. However, some clarifications are in order in our case. The notion of

“paradigmatic” has a dual application in the adapted approach. On the one hand, we

call a particular text(s) paradigmatic because of its (their) anchoring role. On the other

hand, we retain the conventional paradigmatic analysis while interpreting the

paradigmatic text(s), which is to look into the correlation between various parts or

between different words. The following paragraphs explain this further.

Given the fact that our study is not confined to a single text, the interpretive exercise

revolves around a paradigmatic text(s)9 for each idol-terminology, unlike Van

Wolde’s approach of centering on a paradigmatic word. The paradigmatic text can be

selected based on the following: a predominance of the theme of idolatry, the extent

of semantic range and the strategic occurrence of idol-vocabularies. Further, if a text

has been referred to by other texts in the OT, or it shows contrastive and comparative

frameworks (between Yahweh and idols), such a text naturally qualifies for

paradigmatic category. This means, all the texts having common lexical references

will not receive an equal treatment in our method of interpretation. While some will

be analyzed in detail, others will either be mentioned or be drawn into discussion for

corroboration, depending on their contribution to the interpretation of the main text.

We can illustrate this with an example with the word ~yprT, which is part of the larger

idol-semantics. A text-semantic study of ~yprT would first require the selection of a

main or paradigmatic text(s) out of its many usages in the OT. This selection is done

based on the criteria mentioned as above. While the main text(s) featuring ~yprT will

receive considerable attention, the extent of the study of other usages of ~yprT will

depend upon how much they contribute to the analysis of the main text(s) in general.

A similar but slightly different method has been advocated and followed by G. K.

Beale in his work on idolatry “(We Become 23-24).” While Beale’s method is inter-

textual, ours follows the text-semantic method modified from Van Wolde’s concept.10

9 All the texts cannot function as the main texts due to their varying degree of attention to idolatry.

10Van Wolde is not suspicious of inter-textual analysis, but she does it differently. For her, the

intertextual markers such as “the repetition of words and semantic field…repetition of larger textual

unit or structure…similarities in theme or genre” determine the criteria of an intertextual study (see,

Text 7, and for a fuller argument, see 2-28). Thus she is somewhat critical of the prevalent form of

158

We also retain the paradigmatic analysis for interpreting a text. That is, a text is not

just analyzed sequentially (syntagmatically), but by looking into the correlation

between various parts or between words and the text. In some cases, this means that a

particular word’s repetitions, location, or its association with other significant

words/ideas, become guiding factors towards interpreting the text(s). This seems to be

somewhat similar to Vince Endris’ employment of “leitwort,” when he defines it as “a

word, word roots, or group of words that a biblical author uses ‘to guide the

reader/listener through the thickets of the text.’’’ Quoting Martin Buber, he also says,

this is ‘“probably the strongest of all techniques for making a meaning available”’

(174). At the same time, we need to give prominence to the contribution to theology

they make in the process. To use the example of ~yprT again, in light of the word ~yprT

suggesting a concept, a holistic reading focusing on the correlation between various

parts (or words) of a text helps us understand the theological explanation of idolatry.

The adapted approach is something of a macro-application of Van Wolde’s principles,

which can be summed up as: (i) the focus of the adapted approach is on the

interpretation of the text, in which the idol vocabulary encompasses the theme of a

text or constitutes a dominant or an important thought; (ii) thus the exegesis of the

paradigmatic text(s) will be controlled by, and focused on, the theme of idolatry as

observed between the text and vocabularies for “idol;” (iii) usages of the same idol

vocabulary will be drawn in support of the interpretation of the paradigmatic text(s).

The adapted approach does not add anything new to, or differs from, the conventional

literary-theological interpretation of a biblical text. However, it does suggest a

creative way of employing the literary-interpretive method in examining a text and the

semantic field of a particular word. The adapted text-semantic approach further

intertextual analysis which is guided by echo, allusion, quotation etc. While van Wolde’s approach may

be one way of doing intertextual reading from the standpoint of the aesthetic value of literature, it ends

up extracting little or no theological content of the text under consideration. An example which draws

upon van Wolde’s method of intertextuality is the work of S. D. Giere (1-359). Giere does an

intertextual study between Gen. 1: 1-5 and host OT texts, and even others like Qumran texts based on

intertextual markers such as xwr, ~Ym, ~ymv, rwa, arB, br[, hlyl, $vx, whT and cra. Walter Brueggemann, in

his review of Giere’s work, rightly criticizes it and says that it has little to offer despite containing rich

information; it lurches from one text to another without engaging in any meaningful exegesis (194).

Unlike van Wolde or Geire, our adapted text-semantic analysis does not compare intertextual features

because such an exercise does not serve our purpose. The common theological theme of idolatry and

the semantic field of idolatry are enough reasons for supporting and supplementing the interpretation of

main text (s) with other texts.

159

confirms that a study of texts containing idol-semantics (both divine and non-divine

referents) is critical to the investigation of aniconism’s rationale (earlier, this has

emerged from the review of Kutsko’s work). With the nunance of the method of

interpretation clarified as above, the ensuing discussion will argue the incompatibility

between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol”—both ontology and offense--being the

reason for aniconism in the OT. Also, we shall also look at the incompatibility

between “idol” and “Israel” as and when a text calls it to our attention.

4. 3. An Examination of the Incompatibility between the Aniconic Yahweh and

“idol:” As said earlier, for explaining the ontological incompatibility between the

aniconic Yahweh and “idol,” we will first examine texts containing purported divine

referents, namely, hbc[/~bc[, ~lc, ~yptT and hkSm. This will be followed by a study of

the texts containing the non-divine terms, ~ycwqv, hb[wt, ~ylwlG and ~ylyla, which will

explain the incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” in terms of

idolatry being the highest offense against him. Of course, our examination of divine

referents will also deal with the offense of idolatry and the incompatibility between

“Israel” and “idol” should they arise from a given text (the latter is applicable to the

derogatory terminologies for idol).

4.3.1. A Text-Semantic Analysis of ~ybc[: The word ~ybc[ (the plural of bc[) means

“god-image” (Hadley 483). This particular terminology for an idol, apart from being

strikingly absent in the Pentateuch, does not occur until the closing account in 1

Samuel. Even there, it is used in a non-Israelite context, indicating that the idol is one

of the patron deities, widely worshiped within a given territory or in the entire nation.

The term ~ybc[ is interspersed in prophetic literature and in a few places in the Psalms,

usually in the context of laments or repentance. This suggests that idols with the

appellation of ~ybc[ seem to have been elevated to the status of patron or state

deities.11

Usages of ~ybc[ are found in the following: 1 Sam. 31: 9= 1 Chron. 10: 9, 2

Sam. 5: 21; 2 Chron. 24: 18; Psa. 106: 36; Psa. 115: 4ff.=135: 15; Isa. 10: 11; 46: 2;

Jer. 44: 19; 50: 2; Hos. 4: 17; 8: 4; 13: 2; 14: 8; Zech. 13: 2.

11

This further clarifies Kutsko’s view when he says that ~bc[ suggests divine essence in cult images,

though Kutsko does not mention the point we have raised. Hadley mentions the status of ~bc[ as state

deities, with the examples of Bel, Nebo and Marduk. See Hadley 484. Also, see Wright, The Misssion

153.

160

4. 3.1.1. Psalms 115: We treat Psa.115 as the anchoring text for our text-semantic

study on its thematic flow, the incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and

“idol” based on which the author rejects idolatry (the other parallel text in Psalms,

Psa. 135, offers a compact description). Interestingly, scholarly discussions12

in

general have paid little attention to this incompatibility.

4.3.1.1.1. Yahweh’s Heavenliness (Ontological Divinity) and Divine Function: In

Psa. 115 the author uses affirmation and negation13

as the broader contour within

which he establishes the aforesaid incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and

an idol. The basis for the aniconic Yahweh is mentioned in the affirmative dimension,

which is Yahweh’s location (first) and his function (second).14

When Yahweh’s

whereabouts are enquired after (“where is their God?”), heaven is said to be his abode

(wnyhlaw, ~ymVb v. 2). That the author considers this answer (Yahweh’s location) as

important is apparent in how he handles the question “where” (hYEa;). This question

about God is his supposed absence or hiddenness,15

which is asked in two ways in the

OT: it could be an enemy’s taunt, as seems to be the case in the Psalm because the

psalmist is relaying the refrain of the nations (~yI+AGh;) back to God; or, it could be a

question of the faithful himself “(The Question 216-218).”16

Irrespective of

whichever quarter this question arises from, in the OT texts it is most often preceded

by or followed with a faith statement assuring God’s presence with his people, a

declaration of his mighty deeds (activities) done in the past and his power to perform

divine activity right at the current moment “(Burnett 404-405, 408-412; The Question

218-220).”17

However, here the author does not follow the established pattern of

12

For instance, Allen, Psalms 108-11; Dahood 139. Apart from just mentioning the power and

impotency between Yahweh and idols, Dahood does not say much. 13

J. L. Crenshaw sees only negation, and not the affirmation, although he does explain the latter

(136ff.). 14

John Goldingay notes the importance of Yahweh’s location; he also observes that the contrast

between Yahweh and idol is based on location and activity. In Goldingay’s language: “‘their images”

stands over against “our God”…“the deeds of human hands” stands over against “everything that he

wishes, he has done’” “(Psalms 329-330).” Anderson, too, remarks on the divinity of Yahweh for his

activity, and implies a contrast between Yahweh and idol based on their respective locations (787). But,

he leaves it unexplained. 15

For a detailed discussion see Burnett 395-414; The Question 215-235. 16

For instance Psa. 42: 4, 11; Psa. 79: 10; Joel 2: 17. We can add 2 Kgs 18: 34 and Isa. 36: 19 to these

references. Although here the enemies’ taunt is not direct against Yahweh, the implication is quite

evident. Judg. 6: 13 and 2 Kgs 2: 14 are an example of the faithful asking question on the whereabouts

of Yahweh and his mighty deeds. 17

Judg. 6: 22; 2 Kgs 2:14.

161

theological confession for immediately answering the question (where?). Instead, he

answers this in a different order. He first affirms Yahweh’s location or residence

(heaven) and then submits to Yahweh’s activities. What is also interesting is how the

author expresses the heaven being Yahweh’s residence. That is, Psa. 115 does not

describe Yahweh’s heavenly dwelling by associating it with a state of being, an action

or objects as one finds it in other places in the same book.18

Of course, Psa. 115 is not

the only occurrence as Psa. 73: 25—^ªM.[iw>÷ ~yIm"+V'b; yliî-ymi—expresses similarly directly.

This does not mean that associative expressions in other places—mentioned in the

foot note—are not forceful enough to make a point on Yahweh’s dwelling in heaven.

Rather, such is the confidence of the author in the heavenliness or the exclusive

divinity of Yahweh (Psa. 115: 2) that he takes it for granted. Further, importantly,

while the heavenly abode sets him apart as the one and only deity in heaven (v. 16a),

the psalm also unequivocally attributes the cause and creation of this divine location,

heaven, to Yahweh (v. 15b).19

Thus, Yahweh’s heavenliness (ontological divinity) is

not only predicated on him being in the heavenly residence, but it is also critically

contingent on him being its maker (hf[).

Not only Yahweh’s heavenliness (location), but his function (the second aspect) also

undergirds Yahweh’s divinity, which is defined as the accomplishment of his

sovereign will (MacCann1145). The phrase hf[ #px rva-lk in v. 3 implies Yahweh’s

capacity and self-consciousness to execute his decisions with sovereign freedom.

Further, the use of hf[ in vv. 3 and 15, with Yahweh being the subject in both,

suggests that the divine activities are his sovereign and heavenly plans that are

executed on earth. Therefore, Yahweh’s act flows out of his glory, name and

18

For instance, ~yIm:åV'B; bveäAy (Psa. 2: 4); Aaïs.Kiñ ~yIm:áV'B; éhw"hy> (Psa. 11: 4); @yqIáv.hi é~yIm;V'mi hw"©hy>) (Psa. 14: 2);

hw"©hy>) Ÿ~yIm;’V'B; ~[eìr>Y:w: (Psa. 18: 14); Av+d>q' ymeäV.mi WhnE[]y:â (Psa. 20: 7); hw"+hy> jyBiähi ~yIm;V'miâ (Psa. 33: 13);

~yIm")V'B; ybiªv.YOh;÷ (Psa. 123:1). 19

Artur Weiser (716) only mentions Yahweh’s creative power, but he does not look at the heavenly

aspect of Yahweh’s divinity; neither does he draw a connection between them. By contrast, J. Clinton

MacCann (1145) sees the heavenly aspect as Yahweh’s “cosmic sovereignty,” and not his divinity. J.

L. Mays also suggests that “heaven” is transformed into a symbolism of sovereignty because Yahweh’s

action is connected to it (v. 3). Therefore, one should not see the heaven as a space above which stands

opposed to the earth below (367). While these opinions, particularly that of Mays,’ may be correct, our

argument shows that spatial dimension also denominates Yahweh’s divinity or his otherness. V. 16

suggests that heaven is not only the symbol of divine sovereignty (the heaven and earth being

Yahweh’s dominion), but it is also a physical entity which spatially marks off the otherness of the

divine. Thus the origin of a divinity from below is out of question. This is a reason why the spatial

dimension assumes a stark contrast when the cult image is factored into the equation.

162

covenantal faithfulness (“but for thy name….thy faithfulness,” v. 1), which is

variously described in the verses that follow. The psalm unpacks the phrase

hf[ #px rva-lk in terms of Yahweh’s power to protect, help and his trustworthiness

(vv. 8-11), his being cognizant of the people’s concerns is to be blessed and to

increase (vv. 12-16). The rhetorical impact of Yahweh’s activities is noticeable as

several words are repeated in this connection: xjb ((three times), ~Ngmw ~rz[ (three

times), $rb (five times) and hf[, rkz, !tn, @sy (once each). The motifs of trust, help and

Yahweh’s blessings are expressed in a three-step climatic parallelism in vv 9-11, 12-

13 respectively. Also, noticeable in the text is the quasi-homophone to describe

Yahweh’s act and attribute: rz[ and rqz; $rB and xjB. rz[ (help) as Yahweh’s act, and

rqz (concern) as Yahweh’s attribute; $rB (blessing) as Yahweh’s act, and xjB

(trustworthiness) as Yahweh’s attribute--all these stand in contrast to an idol’s

inaction and unresponsiveness, as we shall see later. Further, the text suggests

directness and immediacy as regards Yahweh’s acts for his covenant people. As

opposed to the nations in AWA which repose their trust in supposed divine objects

(~hB xjB), the covenant community is asked to trust in Yahweh directly (hwhyB xjB).

Interestingly, in the mind of the author, the spatial gulf between Yahweh and people

becomes a non-issue for trusting Yahweh if his location and function are seen

together: Yahweh is in heaven yet he can be trusted directly by his people who are on

earth. Phrases such as wnrkz hwhy, $rby, ~kyl[ hwhy @sy suggest no role of an intermediary

because Yahweh is directly involved in fulfilling his covenantal faithfulness to his

people, although his acts are said to be not for the people’s sake (“not to us…not to

us,” wnl al…wnl al, v. 1).

The author’s purpose is obvious when he answers the question, “where is their God?,”

combined with Yahweh’s sovereign will (his function), in the manner explained as

above, and not in consonance with the conventional theological confession made in

the OT. That is, to logically reject idols—whether they are intended to represent

Yahweh or other gods in the religions of AWA. He does it by taking into account the

origin and function of idols.

4.3.1.1.2. The Earthliness/Earthly Origin of Idol (~ybc[): As opposed to the

heavenliness of Yahweh, the psalm shows that the supposed divinities (~ybc[) are

163

earthly. The text does not draw a contrast between “Yahweh” and “idol” in terms of

their locations; it does not say that the idols of the nations in AWA are on earth as

opposed to Yahweh being in heaven. Rather, as Wright and Barton observe, they are

described as metals worked upon by human hands “(The Mission 156-157; 70).”

Noticeably, Terms such as bhz, @sk, ~da and hf[m in v. 4 amply drive home the earthly

aspect of an idol. It is already noted earlier that materials and metals used for making

idols are considered divine in the religions of AWA; but the the author views it

differently. This could be the reason why the text here does not follow the general OT

descriptions of cult images that designate them as “molten gods,” “gods of gold” or

“gods of gold and silver;”20

instead, it refers to them as mere raw materials (silver and

gold). By avoiding the aforementioned designations, which claim divine referent

(~yhla/yhla) in idols, Psa. 115: 4 doubly underscores their earthliness. One may say

that the author is unfairly criticizing the idols of surrounding nations by calling them

mere metals due to his ignorance of the human-divine/earth-heaven co-operation

through which a cult image is made. However, this is not the case, because the Psalm

goes on to show that even the earthly origin of idols is illegitimate. This becomes

reasonably clear on the basis of vv. 16 and 4. Verse 16 states that “the heavens are the

Lord’s heavens, but the earth he has given to the sons of men;” in light of v. 4, an

implication of v. 16 is that Yahweh has apportioned (!tn) the earth (#ra) to the sons of

man (~da-ynb) for facilitating and participating in all that Yahweh is pleased to execute

(hf[) from heaven,21

and not for working on (hf[m) idols. The adversative usage of w

(but) in v. 16 does not mean that the heaven and earth are disconnected or in

disharmony, but it only differentiates the places of Yahweh and human insofar as the

fulfillment of Yahweh’s heavenly purpose on earth is concerned. In fact, the psalmist

cleverly phrases v. 16 so as to underline that Yahweh is the God of heaven and earth.

While he uses a possessive genitive in the first clause, hwhyl ~ymv ~ymVh, for indicating

the fact that Yahweh owns heaven of heavens, he does not use a similar syntax in the

second clause; by not using a similar possessive genitive in the second, the psalmist

says that humanity does not own the earth. This means, Yahweh being on earth is kept

20

To cite a few examples: Exod. 20: 23; 32: 31; 34: 17; Dan. 4: 4, 23. 21

Scholars such as MacCann (1145) and Weiser (717) interpret man’s purpose in v. 16 as praising God.

Although this may not be incorrect, the mention of heaven in v. 16 suggests that the role of man has to

be seen as Yahweh’s delegated authority to fulfill Yahweh’s sovereign will. Dahood’s comment seems

to be closer to the text when he points v. 16 to man’s stewardship (142). But he does not see this in

light of v.4.

164

at the backdrop. Said differently, Yahweh is not absent on the earth or he is not an

absentee God, but he allows humanity to be his representative. Thus, humanity on

earth, and not idols, connects and collaborates with heaven. In order to substantiate

this point, the origin of the true divine representative, humanity, merits an

explanation.

The word ~da-ynB and Yahweh giving the earth (#ra) to humanity in Psa.115: 1622

echoes the formation (rcyYw) of man out of the ground (hmdah-!m, Gen. 2: 7), and

thereby reflects humanity’s legitimate earthliness as against that of cult images/idols.

The legitimacy of the humanity’s earthly origin is implicit in the fact that the heavenly

joins with the earthly, as the earthly human frame is enlivened by the breath of God:23

~yYx tmvn wyPaB xPYw (Gen. 2: 7). Although it is true that that all other creatures are also

created out of the ground and are given the breath of life, the creation account in

Genesis makes two other points about humanity. First, the account of man’s origin is

also narrated under the rubric of “the generation of heaven and earth” (Gen. 2: 4).24

An implication of the merismus (Gen. 2: 4) with respect to God’s intimate

involvement in creating humanity (vv. 7, 21) is that the divine component sets

humanity apart from, sets them over, the earthly and biological world. Second, this

divine component is not an inherited or shared divinity in an ontological sense, but it

is a royal mandate to divinely represent God by what Wright calls the king-servant

model, since man can only rule over the earth (Gen. 1: 26-28) through service (Gen.

2: 15). In this connection, the combination of hf[ and db[ becomes important in Gen.

1-2: WnmeÞl.c;B. ~d"²a' hf,î[]n :) in Gen 1: 26; Hd"Þb.['l.…~d"_a'h'(-ta,…hw"ïhy> xQ:±YIw in Gen. 2: 15.

Interestingly, the Decalogue’s prohibition in Exodus 20: 4-5 uses the combination of

hf[ and db[ for prohibiting idolatry. In other words, Gen. 2 suggests that since

22

The word ~da-ynB occurs a few times in Psalms (Psa. 11: 4; 12: 2, 9; 14: 2; 21: 11; 31: 29; 36: 8; 45: 3;

53: 2; 57: 5; 58: 1; 89: 48; 90: 3; 107: 8; 146: 3) . In most cases, it refers to humans as unrighteous (no

one seeks God), frail (he is dust) and beneficiaries of God. Even Psa. 8, which uses the term ~da-!B and

speaks of humanity in glorious terms, adds a rider on the nothingness of humanity (“what is man…and

the sons of man…care for him”). However, Psa. 115 portrays humanity as the legitimate and perfect

representative of Yahweh. 23

One may notice a parallel between the mis pi rituals and humans being made alive. In the former, a

priest performs a set of rituals, after which an idol is believed to be vivified as its eyes, ears and mouth

function as living organs. In the latter, Yahweh himself breaths life into human frame made of the

ground. 24

While scholars like G. von Rad and E. A. Speiser think that the phrase is a subscript to Gen. 1:1-2: 3,

other scholars like Gordon. J. Wenham, Victor P. Hamilton show that it is a superscript to what is

explained in the following verses. See von Rad, Genesis 63, 68; Speiser 5; Wenham, Genesis 1-15 49;

Hamilton, Genesis 1-17 150-152.

165

humanity (~da) is made (hf[) in the image of God to serve (db[) the earth as the divine

vice-regents, this service necessarily excludes human engagement in making divinity

or divine image on earth. Therefore, by echoing the concept of ~da-ynB and the

allotment of the earth (#ra) to them in Psa. 115, the author seems to further strengthen

his position on the illegitimately earthly and essentially anti-heavenly aspects of idols,

although the religious ideologies in AWA would ascribe heavenly characteristics to

~ybc[.

To recapitulate, Psa. 115 uses the heaven-earth framework for establishing the

following. First, Yahweh is the God of heaven (exclusive ontological divinity), who

approves the sons of man (~da-ynb) as his legitimate earthly representatives. Humanity,

as Yahweh’s representative, reflects the connection between the heavenly and earthly

for executing divine purpose on earth. This necessarily rules out iconic

representations of Yahweh. Second, by contrast, idols of the nations, which the

psalmist lived among, are rejected because they are not earthly bodies of gods or gods

of heaven and earth; even their earthliness (earthly existence) or origin is illegitimate.

4.3.1.1.3. An Elaboration of the Earthliness/Earthly Origin of Idols (~ybc[): Two

other usages of ~ybc[, Hosea 8: 4 and 2 Chronicles 24: 17-18, corroborate and

elaborate the argument of the earthliness of cult images or the absence of heavenliness

in idol.

The appearance of ~ybc[ in Hosea 8: 4 bolsters the illicit and unilateral aspects of

idolatry’s earthly enterprise because it occurs in association with the disinclination of

the Israelites to seek Yahweh’s approval for their political affairs: “they made kings

(wkylmh), but not through me…they set up (wryfh) princes… with their gold and silver

they made (wf[) idols….” With all three verbs standing in parallel, the first two, wkylmh

and wryfh (both causative), suggest that complete human cause and control over the

political sphere seems to have directly impacted religious affairs, which is image-

making (wf[). The human source and earthly industry associated with image-making

becomes further clear in v.6:

~ybiäb'v.-yKi( aWh+ ~yhiÞl{a/ al{ïw> Whf'ê[' vr"äx' aWhêw> ‘laer"f.YImi yKiÛ

`!Ar)m.vo lg<[Eß hy<ëh.yI)

166

What is noticeable in v. 6 is that the two occurrences of personal pronoun in third

person (aWh) which refers to the calf (Garrett 183), forms a chiastic structure in the

first clause of v. 6: aWhêw> (A), Whf'ê[' vr"äx' (B), ~yhiÞl{a/ al{ïw> (B’), aWh(A’) (Andersen and

Freedman 495). Not only the third person pronoun and the pronominal suffix create

some kind of assonance, but also their chiastic arrangement drives home the point

about the absolute human origin and earthliness of the cult image. Furthermore, the

parallel fate of both the idol makers and the idol, as described in v. 4 and the second

clause v. 6, reinforce this point. That is, while the people make idol for their own

destruction (trE(K'yI ![;m;Þl. in v. 4), the idol itself is broken into pieces or burnt to ashes

(!Ar)m.vo lg<[Eß hy<ëh.yI ~ybiäb'v.-yKi). In short, Hosea 8: 4 and also v. 6 underline that the

earthliness of cult images lie purely in human origin, industry and reasoning.

The non-existence of heavenly part in cult images is underlined in 2 Chron. 24: 18 as

Israelites are indicted for serving (wdb[Yw) idols (~ybc[h). Here the author contrasts the

house of the Lord (the temple) with idols. The text gives prominence to the divine

purpose of the temple, which is noticeable in the repetition of different phrases: hwhy

tyb (seven times), ~yhlah-tyb (three times), ~kyhla-tyb and wtybw ~yhlah (once each). For

the author, the temple may be an earthly place yet it interfaces with the heavenly in

facilitating the cultus (v. 14). Although scholars like Turner view the temple as a

meeting point of the transcendent-immanent presence of Yahweh (62-67), 2 Chron.

24: 14 suggests nothing of this kind except for implying the inseparability between

divine presence and cultus. The phrase “and they offered burnt offerings

(tAlÜ[o ~yli’[]m;)…continually…” in v. 14 echoes the onetime divine phenomenon of the

fire from heaven that consumed the first burnt offering (hl'Þ[oh') in the temple (2 Chron.

7: 1).25

The author’s point in 2 Chron. 24 is not that fire came upon the temple from

heaven every time the burnt offering was offered during the lifetime of Jehoiada;

rather, the continuous act of offering the burnt offering was an evidence of the

assurance of divine presence. Interestingly, elsewhere in 2 Chronicles the importance

of burnt offering is mentioned in the context of divine presence (13: 8-12; 29: 7, 11).

25

Thus Hundley 46. Although Hundley does not refer to the text in question, the main thesis of his

book (1-246) is that priestly cultus ensures the heaven (divine presence) on earth.

167

Therefore, abandoning the temple and serving a cult image with a similar notion of

divine presence, or with a notion that the earthly idol is also heavenly, becomes a

wrong-doing (~tmva). The words, bz[ and db[ in v. 18 seem to encapsulate the

divergence between the heavenly and earthly—that an idol embodies the essence or

presence of its deity—in an idol. On the one hand, the author mentions db[ in

conjunction with ~yBc[ and ~yrva (~yBc[h-taw ~yrva-ta wdb[Yw) because it conveys

people’s idea of cult images purportedly embodying and mediating divine presence

(McCarter, II Samuel 156).26

On other hand, he demolishes this idea by using the

phrase hwhy tyB-ta wbz[Yw which becomes a precursor to serving idols. Thus he lends

weight to the concept of the temple being the locale for a circumscribed spatial

presence of Yahweh. Noticeably, the phrase hwhy tyB-ta wbz[Yw deviates from the

conventional usage of bz[, which invariably refers to Yahweh being forsaken by the

people.27

Instead, bz[ in vv. 18, 20 is simultaneously used to inculpate the people for

abandoning his house and forsaking Yahweh. In this connection, Sarah Japhet’s

observation seems to be closer to the text when she says that the rejection of the

Lord’s temple and embracing of idolatry share a “causal relationship” (165). By

presenting the argument in this manner, the author does not suggest that the temple

has become a divine entity in itself; rather, he shows that the temple is the legitimate

locus of housing the divine presence, despite its earthliness. That is to say, there is a

commonality in the way both the temple and cult image are made out of the earthly

material. As the description of idol-making in Ps. 115 speaks of the use of precious

metals, the 2 Chron. 24 also indicates a material construction (vDxl, I Chron. 24: 4) of

the temple. However, an idol is portrayed as the illegitimate embodiment of divinity,

and the latter is accepted as a legitimate locus of divine presence because of its

heavenly interface, as already mentioned.

The author’s idea as presented in 2 Chron. 24 is consistent with how the temple was

ideally envisioned, which is acknowledged in Solomon’s prayer (1 Chron. 6: 18ff.).

The question mentioned in Solomon’s prayer--“but will God dwell with man on

26

P. Kyle MacCarter helpfully explains a possible meaning and function of hrva/~yrva. According to

him, these terminologies are derivatives of the verb “*’tr,” meaning to ‘“walk in the trace of, track.”’

That is, an asherim/asherah “is the ‘track’ or ‘trace’ of a deity.” Put simply, a supposed deity or its

presence is available in and through the asherim/asherah. In the process of tracing the physicality of the

Assyrian Sacred Tree, Mariana Giovino agrees that the asherim/asherah is connected to the supreme

deity as his/her emblem (22-26).

27

This is a recurrent phrase in the deuteronomistic history. To cite a few: Judg. 2: 12, 13; 10:6.

168

earth?”—points both to the earthly aspect of the temple and its unworthiness to be a

dwelling place for Yahweh. This becomes magnified in view of his non-earthly abode

(heaven of heavens, ~ymVh ymVw ~ymv) being not big enough for the same purpose.

However, Solomon’s prayer goes on to show that the temple is still affirmed as a

circumscribed locality on earth wherein Yahweh puts his name (~v). Thus, in short, it

is the earthly temple, and not a cult image, that mediates or houses the divine

presence.28

Not only does the author say that an idol is totally earthly as it lacks the heavenly, but

he also argues that the very idea of serving idols (~ybc[) is of earthly or human origin.

No sooner does Jehoiada die than the princes of Judah, who earlier rejoiced

(~yrFh-lk wxmvYw) at the divine enterprise (the repair of Yahweh’s house), come and pay

homage (wwxTvYw hdwhy yrf) to the king. Also, the princes are said to have an audience

with the king, with the latter acceding to the counsel or proposal of the former as

suggested by the phrase ~hyla $lMh [mv. The author provides no information as to

what transpired in the meeting, but says that the people’s relapse to idolatry is the

immediate sequence to, or effect of, this meeting (“Now… And they forsook…”). By

narrating the private encounter between the king and the princes,29

the author seems to

expose the earthliness or human origin of idols in two ways.

First, though the act of prostration (hwx) is a standard etiquette for showing one’s

deference to a person of higher socio-political status, superior ability and

intelligence,30

here the act seems be a precursor to, even pregnant with, an agenda of

idolatry for the following reasons: (i) unlike the books of kings that speak of royal

obeisance in different contexts, the author in the chronicles records only one act of

prostration to a king in the context of theophany and worship of Yahweh (1 Chron.

21: 21), which is later connected to the building of the temple (2 Chron. 3: 1); (ii) the

phrase “after the death of Johoiada” in v. 17 anticipates an overturning of what

happened during his lifetime (v. 2); (iii) with respect to the act of prostration and the

subsequent conversation between the king and the princes, a wordplay between wxmvYw

28

For a detailed discussion on the temple being a locale of Yahweh’s presence, see Japhet 50-63. 29

Unlike other accounts of 2 Chronicles that positively portray the unity between the king and princes

during apostasy (12: 5-8; 30: 12), the portrayal in 2 Chron. 24 17-18 anticipates something sinister. 30

To cite a few, Gen. 27: 29 (2X); 33: 7 (2X); 42: 6; 43: 26, 28; 2 Kgs 2: 15; 1 Chron. 29: 20; Dan. 2:

46.

169

and wwxTvYw shows a dispositional shift from one act to the other (vv. 10, 17). That is,

the role of princes on both sides, either their continuing joyful involvement in divinely

approved initiative or their act of obeisance to the king, becomes critical to the

possibility of whether or not people will revert to idolatry. In the end, the latter

prevails leading to a concerted human reasoning between the king and the princes for

serving idols.

Second, the king’s inclination to listen to others’ advice31

stands diametrically

opposed to him being mentored by the priest, Jehoiada: “And Joash did what was

right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest” (v. 2). It is through

this lens of divine commendation or approval of the author one should see the

subsequent thought and action of Joash, particularly his initiative to renovate the

temple. On the one hand, the author shows it as an idea or thought of the king (vawy bl-

~[ hyh, v. 4).32

Here he uses a phrase which suggests a meaning similar to David’s

noble idea of building a temple for Yahweh (1 Chron. 17: 2; 28: 2-3). On the other

hand, the author also suggests Joash’s thought as more than human. Whereas Yahweh

turns down David’s idea despite its nobility and the assurance of prophet, Nathan (1

Chron. 17: 2, 4),33

he does not do the same for Joash. In fact, he goes to the extent of

finding divine legitimacy to how Joash executed his idea. That is, in addition to

providing the blanket divine approval as referred to above, the author anchors the

king’s method of levying tax in Mosaic pattern for defraying the expenditure (vv 6,

9). This is the new perspective in Chronicles that the author adds to its parallel in the

book of kings. It underlines the heavenly aspect of the temple by way of divine

approval to the king’s renovation project. By contrast, the author shows the

earthliness (human origin) of the cult image in the later stage, the king’s idea merges

with that of the princes which results in a rampant worship of supposed divinities

(~ybc[).34

31

So Dillard 192; Thompson 317. 32

The rendering of KJV (“Joash was minded”) is much closer to the literal meaning of the Hebrew than

others such as RSV and NAS which translate the phrase vawy bl-~[ hyh as “Joash decided to.” 33

Turner (52-54) acknowledges the distinctive nature of the human origin of Israelite temple unlike

theologies in other ancient religions (including AWA) which associate a temple’s origin as a pure

divine phenomenon; yet Turner downplays the Israelite distinction so as to equate Israelite temple

building with the common temple-building theologies of AWA. 34

A question may arise against this argument: why does then the author couch Zechariah’s accusation

in a language of covenantal violation, and not in a language of idol-polemic suggesting the idol’s

earthliness or human origin? A possible answer lies in v. 17. Here the author not only shows a

170

In sum, the above examination of the texts drives home the illegitimate and unilateral

earthly/human origin of idols so as to condemn the whole idea of their existence and

worship. What is striking is the point of uniformity that emerges from both Hosea 8: 4

and 2 Chronicles 24: 17-18. The former speaks of an idol (calf) that is supposed to

embody Yahweh (cf. Hosea 8: 6) and the latter speaks of an idol of another divinity.

But the same point is noticeable in both cases: an idol is not an embodied deity

because it is illegitimately and unilaterally earthly/human.35

4.3.1.1.4. The Absence of Divine Function and Earthliness of Idols (~ybc[): The

OT rejects an idol (~ybc[) not only because of its ontological incompatibility with

Yahweh—that an idol is non-heavenly, anti-heavenly or illegitimately and unilaterally

earthly--but also because of its lack of divine function.

The polemic of an idol in Psa. 115: 4-7 suggests that the implied cult image here

might resemble a man, as the absence of the function of speech in idols plausibly

indicates: “they have mouths but cannot speak.” By mentioning this aspect the author

shows that while the man—we have already noted that man is the legitimate divine

representative in v. 16-- is actively displaying his capability for re-creation, though

distortedly, in producing a divine image resembling him, the supposed divinity (~ybc[)

cannot even perform the basic sensory functions inherent in its creator (man), let

alone executing greater things of sovereign will that the text attributes to Yahweh. In

this case, as the text further clarifies, an idol becomes the equivalent of a dead man: as

the dead cannot praise the Lord (Hy-wllhy, v. 17), so the “idol” cannot utter a voice

(wGhy).36 Notably, the parallel text, Psa. 135, refers to ~ybc[ as an inanimate entity

(~hypb xwr-vy-!ya, v.17).

sequential relationship between the private meeting and iconism, but he also portrays idolatry as a

sinful act, whose consequence is the wrath of God. Thus the author presents both sides of the problem

of iconism: iconic representation is purely an earthly and human affair, and it is a sin. Since v. 17 verse

ends with the sinfulness of idolatry, it is logical that further accusation of people is couched in

covenantal language—the people have broken the covenant. Noticeably, the text does not give any

further details about the prophetic testimonies against people that precede Zachariah’s indictment.

These testimonies could possibly include polemics against the cult image. 35

Similar strong condemnations against bonding (rwbx), serving (wdb[Yw) and making of (wf[yw, hf[m) such

earthly divinities (~hyBc[) are stated in other parts of the OT (Hosea 4: 17; Psa. 106: 36), categorizing

this as a greater sin (Hosea 13:2). 36

Barton notes this point of the author assigning the place of idol among the dead (70).

171

Other usages of ~ybc[ also highlight the earthly origin of cult images in regard to their

incapability to be active, cognizant, trustworthy and to execute the sovereign will,

along the lines of Psalm 115. For instance, the account of the Philistines sending news

to their gods (~ybc[) and depositing the armory of the dead at their deity’s shrine after

the slaying of Saul seems to be an extremely subtle polemic of their supposed divinity

(1 Sam. 31: 9-10). It must be noted that the author is not challenging the prevalent

practice of depositing the defeated enemy’s equipments or armor—serving as an

emblem of victory--in an important place such as temple. In fact, elsewhere in the

book of Samuel he mentions Goliath’s sword being deposited in an Israelite sanctuary

(1 Sam. 21: 8-9), which was initially kept in David’s tent (1 Sam. 17: 54). Rather, the

author’s point is that an idol (in the religions of AWA) is incapable of taking

cognizance of events and incapable of executing them. Although the hanging of

Saul’s dead body underscores the author’s point, Saul’s ignominious end, the idol-

polemic is equally noticeable from the literary context and his theological agenda.

The larger literary context of Saul’s final war with the Philistines is described in 1

Sam. 28, 29 and 31. The overarching theological message of these chapters is that

Yahweh has forsaken Saul and rejected his kingship. As a result, Yahweh does not

answer to Saul’s enquiries and hands him over to the Philistines in the battle (1Sam.

28: 6, 15-16, 19). In 1 Sam. 31, the author tells that the Philistines defeat Israelites,

strip off the dead Saul, deposit his armory at their deity’s sanctuary, sends news to

their gods and expose Saul’s beheaded body. That the author is mounting a subtle idol

polemic is explicable from the theological agenda of the text as he does not tell about

Saul’s death at the hands of the Philistines in a logical sequence. Instead, in between

he brings David’s story in 1 Sam. 30 (before Saul’s defeat and death) to say how, in

David’s absence, the Amalekites plundered his people and property, and how David

prevails upon them. In David’s case, Yahweh answers to his enquiry about overtaking

the raiding band; he also assures David that he will be successful in his rescue

operation. By so doing, the author highlights the point that Yahweh’s silence in Saul’s

case—his defeat and death-- does not mean that Yahweh is unaware of the whole

event. Thus the author’s subtle idol-polemic is that while Yahweh knows the end of

Saul and David’s plight and its outcome, the news of the Philistines victory would be

of no use to the idols as they cannot take cognizance of it, much like the dead king of

Israel.

172

Similarly, the report of the Philistines abandoning their idols (~ybc[, 2 Sam. 5:21),

which were carried off by David’s men, provides an insight into the author’s idea of

cult images. According to him, the Philistines’ idols are inert with regard to executing

sovereign will and mediating divine power in a military confrontation. The text makes

this point evident by portraying the Philistines’ idols as nothing more than the booties

of war.37

This idea of idols being taken as spoils, instead of providing divine

assistance or presence, resonates in Isa. 46:1-2, in the context of an imminent

Babylonian military defeat.

It may be argued that the usage of ~ybc[ in connection with a celestial body, namely,

“the queen of heaven” (Jer. 44:19), hints at the possibility of divine potential in idols.

However, even here, the contrast is clearly drawn. First, the celestial designation of

the “queen of heaven,” though deified by the people, suggests that it is just another

created celestial body. Second, neither the celestial body in question nor its image

exercise their sovereign will over the people so as to impact the people’s existence

and destiny. As opposed to the people’s fatalistic claim that evil ([r) was far afield

from them due to image worship (v. 19), the author affirms that Yahweh has caused

the present circumstance of the exile because of his will and power, as is further

confirmed by the expression twabc hwhy in v. 11. Thus Jer. 44 is suffused with phrases

related to Yahweh causing evil (vv. 2, 11, 23, 27), meting out punishment (vv. 8, 13,

29), being cognizant of people’s idolatry (v. 21, 22), and Yahweh controlling and

employing the politico-military force of the other nations to cause evil to Israel (v.

30).

37

The capture of the Philistines’ idols by David’s men is a mark of the victor’s strength, as it displays

the power of David’s God over deities of the Philistines. However, for making a point on the military

strength of the victor’s deity, MacCarter quotes a parallel reversal of how the Israelite Ark was

captured by the Philistines “(II Samuel 154).” McCarter’s argument is in contradiction to what the

narrative says. The Philistines have seen how the capture of the Ark resulted in the destruction of their

land and people, and more importantly, their deity, Dagon, falling in a posture of submission.

Furthermore, McCarter’s argument of projecting the Ark as Yahweh’s image along the line of AWA

pattern is problematic. We have briefly mentioned in the second chapter that the Ark should not be

deemed a cult image of Yahweh. In addition to this argument, the act of “carrying” suggests a

distinction between the Ark and cult images. Except for the Levites carrying the Ark (1 Sam. 4: 4; I

Chron. 15: 15), it is never said to be carried away by non –Israelite victors, not even by the Philistines’

own testimony in 1 Sam. 6. On the contrary, the use of ~aVYw (carried away) in 2 Sam. 5: 21 is striking.

Besides this usage, the other appearance of the verb aVYw is in Lev. 10: 5, which speaks of the dead

bodies of cultic functionaries (Nadab and Abihu) being carried away from the holy place. These two

unique usages suggest that the Philistine cult images are inanimate objects, bereft of divinity.

173

In summary, the following consolidated points emerge from a text-semantic

examination of ~ybc[ in Psa. 115, Hosea 8: 4, 2 Chron. 24: 17-18 (and others) as to

why they reject idols. Yahweh’s heavenliness (the exclusive ontological divinity)

does not disengage him from the earth, but it does obviate the need for his material or

earthly embodiment. This is because humanity is the legitimate representative of

Yahweh as it has a heavenly-earthly interface and the mandate to participate in the

execution of Yahweh’s will on the earth. Further, the temple, despite its earthly

origin, is the divinely approved locale of divine presence and thus eliminates the need

for an iconic representation of Yahweh. In contrast, cult images are not embodied

divinities or gods of heaven and earth because of their illegitimate and unilateral

earthly/human origin, their lack of power, knowledge and will to execute divine acts.

As our analyses of these texts show, the OT challenges the iconological premise of

the religions of AWA which advocates either the heavenliness, heavenly origin of cult

images or a divine-human/heavenly-earthly interface in their making. The examined

texts, especially Psa. 115, also rejects the undercurrents of divine-human co-operation

and mis-pi rituals in the making of an idol (we have already mentioned that the

purpose of this ritual was to initiate the divine statue to the league of gods and to

beseech it to assume its daily divine function).

4.3.2. ~lc: The meanings of ~lc range from something being a “shade, shadow”

(Prince 810) to a “statue or an image” (Wildberger 1081, 1084). As shown in the

second chapter, ~lc implies mutuality and transferability between an idol and the

heavenly deity it purportedly represents. We have also noted that ~lc is not a

“mimetic replica” in a physical sense but by way of divine embodiment. From the

linguistic viewpoint, this divine embodiment38

or the mutual ontology is expressed

38

But in the case of humanity, the author of Genesis uses it in a functional term (to rule) as the function

of AWA kings and priests who would have discharged their functions. See Middleton, Imago Dei 1-

297. However, a functional interpretation does not necessarily militate against a relational argument

(Gentry 16-46). In this sense, the usage of ~lc in Gen. 1: 26-27 retains the relational concept between

God and humanity without suggesting humanity as embodied divinity. Here ~lc occurs as a construct

with pronominal suffixes: ~yhla ~lcB wmlcB, wnmlcB. Garr’s analysis (95-132) of the two prepositions of B and K with respect to ~lc and twmd is interesting. According to him, ~lcB signifies the locative aspect

and thus suggests a “proximal” mutuality between the deity and humanity; twmdK signifies a similitude

but not exactness and thus suggests a “distal” mutuality between deity and humanity. That is, ~lcB

shows that humanity is like God insofar as it acts like God in discharging the royal function. At the

same time, twmdK shows that humanity is like God yet distant and different from him. Garr seems to

have based this literary-theological interpretation, advocating the “proximal and distal” aspects in

humanity, on parallel evidence from AWA. He examines this evidence in another article “(Image and

174

either in construct39

or in a language of parallel ontology (this will become clearer as

we progress in our discussion).40

Of the total occurrences, the following usages of ~lc

point to cult images and their worship: Num. 33: 52; 2 Kgs 11: 18= 2 Chron. 23: 17;

Ezek. 7: 20; 16: 17; 23: 24; Amos 5:26; Dan. 3. Both 2kgs 11 and Dan. 3 become the

anchoring texts for a text-semantic study as in both cases ~lc occurs in connection

with divine power and presence.

4.3.2.1. 2 Kings 11 (Lack of Mutual Ontology and Incompatibility): There may be

various ways of approaching 2 Kgs 11, 41

but our interest lies in the theological aspect,

especially concerning idolatry. Thus we first turn to the dominant theme of the text to

see how idolatry fits into this. The main motif in 2 Kgs 11 is the perpetuity of the

Davidic dynasty, which is at stake. Aligned with this is Yahweh’s control and power

over life, death and destruction, which guarantee his promise to David. Noticeably,

the death caused either by or to Athaliah, seems to form an inclusio (vv. 1, 20).

Moreover, the motif of death operates within a framework of binary opposition: death

and destruction versus life. Whereas Athaliah wrecks havoc by liquidating the entire

royal family (descendants of David, v. 1), Joash holds onto life through a miraculous

providence and goes on to be the king (v. 2). Similarly, when Joash is acclaimed as

the king with a blessing of longevity (v. 12), Athaliah is condemned to death (13-

16).42

In addition, the motif of life versus death and destruction resonates in the

acclamation and enthronement of the king (vv 12, 19). Both of them are preceded by a

background of the covenant involving people (vv 4, 17), and followed by reports of

Athaliah’s death. More importantly, the enthronement of the king, bespeaking

Likeness 227-234).” Here Garr shows that a royal inscription on a coin excavated from Tell Fakhariyeh

suggests two points: a king of AWA, the divine image, is like a god as the king is a divine vice-regent;

also, a king is unlike a god because there is a lack of total correspondence between him and the deity. 39

Not only ~lc, but also hbcm (l[;B'_h; tb;äC.m; in 2 Kgs 10: 26-27). Interestingly, the text not only mentions

of a typical way of destroying a pillar by smashing and breaking it down, as the deuteronomic text

commands, but it also mentions that the pillar is burned before it was smashed. This means, the pillar

was not a mere cult symbol; rather, it is believed to have mediated the presence of Baal, as Hubbard

says (179). 40

W. R. Garr’s (133-134) specification of Baal’s image as a concrete physical object, while viewing

Nebuchadnezzar’s image as cult statue (137-138), should not mean that the former is a mere statue.

Here, Garr cites Baal’s image to make point on the shape or size of an image because he agrees that a

cult image is related to its deity (139ff.). 41

Scholars have looked at this story from a purely political angle, terming it as a palace revolt in which

the army spearheads the movement that eventually feeds on popular dissent; see Nicholson, The

Meaning 66; Gordis 237-259. Such interpretations notwithstanding, it is equally possible to read this

text from a literary-theological perspective. 42

T. R. Hobbs mentions this in passing without analyzing the polarity between life and death motifs

“(2 Kings 137).”

175

Yahweh’s faithfulness to David (v. 19), does not culminate until the cult images are

destroyed (v. 18). Thus, according to 2 Kgs 11, idolatry comes in the way of the

continuity of both the people and Davidic descendants. The author not only fits the

issue of idolatry into the text, but he also deals with its rejection and its underlying

reason. A text-semantic examination of ~lc in 2 Kgs 11 brings to the fore the

following arguments of the ontological incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh

and “idol.”

The term ~lc in the religion of AWA means that an idol, in this case the idol of Baal,

is an earthly body or a god of heaven and earth, but the author in 2 Kgs 11shows that

it is not. He makes this point on the basis of a contrast. While Yahweh and his people

are intimately related to each other and the people become the locus where Yahweh

manifests his power, the image of Baal is devoid of a relational or mutual ontology

with its supposed counterpart in heaven, which also negates the existence of the latter.

Thus, the construct of ~lc in v. 18 (wymlc-taw) is used polemically against the idol that

is believed to be an extended, fragmented or multiplied self of the supposed deity.

Conversely, the sole purpose of the covenant ceremony (v. 17) preceding the

destruction of Baal’s images43

was to reiterate that the people belonged to God, as

evinced by the phrase, hwhyl ~[l twyhl. This contrast becomes clearer if other contrasts

are taken into account: hwhy and l[B; l[Bh-tyB and hwhy-tyB; the people cutting (tyrk) a

covenant with Yahweh and thereafter smashing (wrBv) the images of Baal; the priests

of Yahweh and the priest of Baal (Mattan); and finally, Yahweh’s people and Baal’s

image.

A paneled structure of the two covenants and their counterparts further reiterate the

contrast between Yahweh and his people, and Baal’s image and its supposed deity

(Baal).

A. People and the king make a covenant to be his (Yahweh’s)

B People and king make a covenant between them (but the purpose is not known

immediately)

43

The issue of mutuality and transferability, as evinced by ~lc, raises a critical implication regarding the

divinity of their deities. That is to say, the destructibility of cult images, in this case, Baal, suggests that

their unseen deities are as non-divine as their representatives.

176

A`. People smash the cult image of Baal and kill the priest.

B`. People bring the king and install him.

The above paneled structure does not merely underline the covenant loyalty of the

people because the author seems to have more to say than what one may assume. In

this connection, the meaning of hwhyl ~[l twyhl that parallels the smashing of the

image of Baal, is important. Scholars like Hobbs (135) view this phrase as an

unnecessary intrusion, not contributing any meaning to the text, but a closer reading

of the text suggests otherwise. The author seems to have deliberately employed this

phrase for explaining the contrast between the representativeness of Baal’s cult image

and Yahweh’s people. Here, the construction of the phrase hwhyl ~[l twyhl (qal

infinitive+prep. absolute noun+prep. absolute noun) is different from the widely

occurring phrases having twyhl (twyhl+prep. personal pronoun+ prep. noun).44

If the

author wanted to convey only a meaning of the people belonging to the Lord, he could

have retained the commonly used construction, say, ~[;îl. Al± tAyðh.l (references are

cited in the foot note). In the latter case, the common form of hyh would still have

functioned as an implied verb (to be), as Sinclair says (75). Instead, the author joins

two absolute nouns with the same preposition in combination with an infinite form of

hyh. Why? This is because the meaning of hyh becomes more diversified in the

construction mentioned in 2Kgs 11. While the double use of the preposition (l)

underscores the proximal and mutual aspects between the people and Yahweh, the

verb (the infinitive of hyh “to be”) indicates the purpose and status of the people in

relation to Yahweh. That is to say, people do not become or come into being in a

physical sense, since the usage of hwhyl is not “ingressive” (Beeston 11), but they

become a transformed being as suggested by the infinite of hyh (Ogden 451). It does

not mean that Yahweh shares his divinity with the people, as an image (in this case

the image of Baal) is believed to be in the AWA iconology. Rather, it means that such

is the covenantal intimacy (what we call the mutuality) between the people and

Yahweh that he is known and seen through the people. This interpretation of the given

syntax of hyh is not arbitrary, because scholars do refer to and support the above

meaning of twyhl. For both Bernhhardt (372) and G. S. Ogden (451), usages of hyh can

have a specific connotation of “being and becoming” if it occurs alongside

44

A few instances are: ~[;îl. Al± tAyðh.li in Deut. 4: 20; 7: 6; 14: 2; 26: 18.

177

prepositions; Bernhhardt even says, twyhl also “can take on specialized meaning”

(373). Moreover, Ogden acknowledges, twyhl also “indicate motives…or define in a

more exact manner a fact mentioned in the antecedent clause (462). Thus, in 2 Kgs

11, the covenant loyalty of the people means their intimate status,45

although not

ontological, as we have already explained. Consequently, the author rejects Baal’s

image, since Yahweh has a visible physical entity (his people) to represent him.46

Further, the author shows the absence of mutual ontology between the unseen deity

(Baal) and his cult image (~lc), which is bound up with the materialization of divine

power. 2 Kgs 11, which begins with an account of mass execution, also shows how

the tables were turned on its mastermind, Athaliah, who, in all probability, was a

patron of Baal worship. Similarly, it also shows the presiding functionary of the Baal

cult, Mattan, being put to the sword. Although the text projects the death as a common

consequence upon them--tmh, tmwt and grh are used in parallel for describing both

Athaliah’s and Mattan’s death (vv. 15-16)—it nevertheless heightens the issue of

divine power by pointing to the two different venues of death. Athaliah was not put to

death in the house of the Lord, while Mattan was killed before the altars of Baal

(twxBzm ynpl, v. 18), caricaturing a sacrifice to the deity as the altar symbolizes

proximity to the purported deity. Therefore, in the author’s mind the conspicuous

absence of the house of Yahweh as the venue of Athaliah’s assassination on the one

hand, and Mattan’s killing before Baal’s altar on the other, mean the following: a cult

image lacks divine power or does not channel supernatural power over issues of life

and death. Such an argument negates the existence of a heavenly Baal. Alternatively,

the representatives of Yahweh, the people, become the locus for manifesting the

divine power. This is explained through a shift in the text: the focus shifts from the

45

The author does speak of covenantal commitment of people elsewhere in the book (2 Kgs 23: 3), but

he does not bring the issue of existence or ontology. Here, the author puts it in terms of functions such

as “to keep,” “to walk” etc. This is not to say that there is dichotomy between the ontological and

functional aspects; rather, it is to say that the author argument of ontology of people in 2 Kgs 11 is with

a special purpose for contrasting the image and people. 46

There are no other entities mentioned as counterparts to people. For instance, it is not Baal’s people

versus Yahweh’s people (just like Baal’s prophet versus Elijah), or Yahweh’s worshipper versus Baal’s

worshippers as the previous chapter shows in the case of Jehu’s reform. Such is the focus of the author

on the issue of people versus a cult image in 2Kgs 11 that he seems to offer a contrast on the people

being Yahweh’s representative. As opposed to 2Kgs 10 where only a select few (eighty people) oppose

Baal’s image out of obligation or compulsion, the whole people take a covenantal stand (#r<a'’h' •~[;-lk') against the cult image of Baal in 2Kgs 11. Another important point in 2 Kgs 11 is that the people are a

unified entity; there is no division between the king and people with respect to their representative

status, which truly reflects the principles of Deut. 17.

178

royal palace in v. 1 to the people of the land and the city in v. 20. Yahweh saves

Joash, the Davidic king, and his people from idolatry and oppression of Athaliah.

In sum, a text-semantic analysis of ~lc in 2 Kgs 11 shows that the OT rejects Baal’s

image because it is not a god of heaven and earth; there exists no mutual ontology

between the cult image and its deity as the earthly body of Baal fails to materialize

divine power and presence. Further, for the author, the claim of the existence of a

heavenly counterpart of Baal’s image is untenable. By contrast, Yahweh, the only

sovereign deity--his heavenliness is in the background—has the people as his

representative. Yahweh’s people do not share his ontological divinity, although they

are intimately related with him; they are the locus of divine presence and power.

4.3.2.2. Daniel 3 (Lack of Mutual Ontology and Incompatibility): Daniel 3 seems

to follow the concept of 2 kings 11. In Dan. 3, the non-relational, non-mutual

character of a cult statue is critically tied to the presence and power of the divine

person who comes to the rescue of the three Jewish men. Thus, the author’s argument

of the ontological incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” means the

affirmation of the aniconic status of the divine person and the human representatives,

and the rejection of Nebuchadnezzar’s idol.

The author’s point about the aniconic status of the divine person lies in how he has

used the two important words, namely, ~lc and hmD, in the text. In Dan. 3, these two

seem to be employed in a way that goes against the norm of complementarity between

them. In the OT, juxtaposed usages of the two refer to concrete images in a

complementary manner (e.g. man as the imago dei in Gen. 1: 26 or a cult image in

Ezek. 23: 14-15), but their individual appearances yield different meanings. As

against ~lc that refers to cult images,47

hmD and twmD point primarily to the physical

shape48

or to a comparison (similitude)49

of an object or person, and is bereft of cultic

connotations in most cases. As mentioned earlier, the separation of ~lc and hmD in

Dan.3 seems purposive. Whereas ~lc identifies the king’s cult statue (vv. 1, 3[2x], 5,

47

To cite a few, Num. 33: 52; Ezek. 7: 20; 16: 7; Amos 5: 26. 48

On the physical aspect of hmD and twmD see Westermann 146-147; Wildberger 1082. 49

2Kgs 16: 10; 1 Chron. 4: 3; Isa. 13: 4; Isa. 40: 18; 46: 5; Ezek. 1: 5 (2X), 10, 13, 16, 22, 26 (3X), 28;

8: 2; 10: 1, 10, 21, 22.

179

7, 10, 12, 13, 15, 18), no such a word is used to describe the person who has the

appearance of divinity. 50

Instead, hmD is used to convey his physicality (Dan. 3: 25).

In fact, the physical appearance of the divine person is doubly confirmed by the

occurrences of Hwr (cf. Dan. 2: 31). Furthermore, the usage of a verb instead of a noun

construct (hmD, piel participle singular construct in place of twmD) does not, in any way,

dilute or diminish the material shape of the divine person (cf. Isa. 46: 5). By the

felicitous usage of hmD on the one hand and a deliberate avoidance of ~lc on the other,

the author eliminates all possibilities of a parallel iconic construal between the king’s

installed cult statue and the divine person in the fire. Such an argument of the author

is consistent with Nebuchadnezzar’s second testimony which suggests that the

appearance of one “like a son of gods” is a classic case of theophany “(Goldingay,

Daniel 71):” “blessed be the God….sent his angel (Hkalm, v. 28)….” All these

underline the author’s concept of the heaven and earth aspect of divine presence--the

arrival of the aniconic person assumes a place from where he comes (heaven)—and

provide the basis for the ontological incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh

and Nebuchadnezzar’s cult statue.

The author negates the supposed mutual ontology between the cult statue and its

invisible (heavenly) deity by affirming the same—mutuality, but not mutual

ontology—between the three Jewish men and the divine person. The author is aware

of the fact that the cult image is considered as a god of heaven and earth or an earthly

embodiment of a supposed heavenly deity. Thus he reports the premise of

Nebuchadnezzar and his official, which is also known to the three Jewish men as they

refuse to worship the golden image: “….that you do not serve my gods or worship the

golden image….?”(3: 12, 14 and 18).51

Here the parallelism between “god” and

“golden image,” “serving” and “worshiping” is clear, and the heaven and earth aspect

50

In not employing ~lc for describing Yahweh’s appearance, Dan. 3 follows the Ezekielian visionary

report. Our reading of Dan. 3 is influenced by Kutsko’s analysis of Ezekiel’s first vision (Between

Heaven, 53ff.). This means, Dan. 3 displays the awareness of the AWA background in which ~lc was

the most used nomenclature for cult statues. For a discussion on an AWA equivalent of ~lc being a

predominant nomenclature of cult statues, see Curtis, Images in Mesopotamia 31-56; Hallo, Cult Statue

15. In foot note no 118, Hallo mentions Sennacherib’s statement as to how he made an image of his

deity which is put as a royal declaration: “epis salam Ansar u salam ilani Rabuti.” On the ritual

(feeding and clothing etc.) of cult images (salmu), see Dick, Born in Heaven 10-20; Oppenheim 183-

198; Lambert 118, 120; Jacobsen 23-38. 51

The association between a god and the cult statue is also noted by Lella (160-161), Goldingay

“(Daniel 70)” and Porteous (47). Scholars like Stephen R. Miller (112) and Wiseman (109) think that

the cult statue represents or embodies the Babylonian god, Marduk.

180

is implicit.52

Further, the author is also aware of the fact that the dedication ceremony,

which includes the mouth opening rituals in all probability (Faur 10), suggests the

earthly and heavenly aspects between the cult statue and its supposed deity. Having

presented such a premise of Nebuchadnezzar (and his officials), he goes on to

disabuse it by presenting a proof of how the aniconic divine/deity comes close to the

three Jewish men (we have already explained the aniconic status of the divine person

who walks with the three Jewish men). In the author’s mind, Yahweh’s aniconic

spatial proximity to these three Jewish men in a recognizable form proves his unique

relationship with them, which is acknowledged by Nebuchadnezzar himself, as the

phrase !yhla-rb hmD in v. 25 suggests. The three Jewish men, however, do not become

divine for localizing the deity’s presence. The non-deified representative nature of the

three Jewish men is projected through the usage of db[, that occurs in different

phrases: !yxlp anxna-yD anhla (v. 17), ayL[ ahla-yD yhwdb[ (v. 26), …. $rdv-yD !whhla (vv.

28, 29) and yhwdb[l bzyvw (v. 28). As already stated, while xlp--also rgs (v. 18)—is

employed to convey either the worship of Yahweh or the cult image, db[ is used

exclusively to mark the representative status of the three Jewish men in relation to

Yahweh.

Arguments may be advanced against the foregoing interpretation of mutuality--

Nebuchadnezzar’s god and his image versus Yahweh and his servant--because one

does not find the usage of ~yhla ~lc or its equivalence to describe the three Jewish

men. Such an argument does not invalidate what the author seems to posit. This is

because the proximity of !yhla-rb hmD to the three Jewish men presumes ~yhla ~lc as

concerns the relational aspect. Thus, the concept of Yahweh’s servant, and not

~yhla ~lc, is more appropriate to the literary context. In fact, in this respect, the book

of Daniel echoes and theologizes the creation account. In Genesis 1, the function—the

royal function of ruling and dominion53

—of humanity, the Image of God, begins with

tilling (db[) the earth. Since no rival deity exists or is mentioned in Gen. 1-2, the

identity of the human (~yhla ~lc) characterized by his/her upkeep of the earth.

However, in a context of multiple claimants to divinity, that identity assumes a

52

Elsewhere, the acceptance of heaven and earth paradigm and the parallel between the supposed

heavenly deity and its image is stated more explicitly. For instance, when Bel and Nebo stoop down,

their idols also said to be stooping down (Isa. 46: 1-2); similarly, Bel and its idol are said to be shamed

together; Marduk and its idol are said to be broken together (Jer. 50: 2). 53

This is Middleton’s thesis; see The Liberating 1-297.

181

missional function, in which serving Yahweh or idols (of other gods) defines a new

avenue of relation and representation without nullifying the royal function. This is the

reason why Israel is asked to serve Yahweh and not other claimants to divinity:

~db[t al, Exod. 20: 5; Joshua’s challenge for Israel to serve (db[) Yahweh, Josh. 24:

14ff. The book of Daniel corroborates this line of reasoning. For instance, Dan. 2: 38

echoes the fulfillment of the creation mandate as Nebuchadnezzar represents the royal

power given to him by God. However, that does not make him as special as the

servants. Though the Babylonian king is an integral part of, and an important

participant in God’s sovereign plan, it is the servant who shares a unique relationship

with God as portrayed in Dan. 3.54

While a text-semantic examination of ~ybc[ in Psa.

115 shows humanity to be Yahweh’s representative, Dan. 3 adds another dimension,

in which the servants represent Yahweh. Thus, according to Dan. 3, a cult statute’s

mutuality with its supposed deity is specious; rather, it affirms the servants of the

aniconic Yahweh as his legitimate representatives because of their unique relationship

with him.

That Nebuchadnezzar’s cult statue lacks mutual ontology with its supposed deity is

further clear from the fact that it does not (and cannot) realize divine power.

Nebuchadnezzar’s statement highlighting the threat of a state-approved execution

seems to be the key in explaining this issue, as his statement negates all other divine

alternatives for controlling life and death: “…. fiery furnace …. god that will

deliver….” (v.15).The author progressively refutes Nebuchadnezzar’s statement on

two counts. First, he argues that the purported deity (his cult image) is not able to

protect the executioners (lyx-yrBG !yrbglw, Dan. 3: 20) from death, since they were called

to the royal duty for dealing with the violation of the royal decree that promulgates

the divinity and veneration of the cult image (v 13). Noticeably, instead of reporting it

as a case of death, the text says that the fire killed (ljq, v. 22) the mighty men. Thus

the author shows, the supposed embodied deity possess no command over matter

(fire)55

and has no ability to prevent death. Second, he refutes Nebuchadnezzar’s

54

There is a significant difference between the description of Nebuchadnezzar in the books of Jeremiah

and Daniel. The former describes Nebuchadnezzar as a servant of Yahweh (ydb[, Jer. 24: 9; 27: 6), who

is supposed to fulfill Yahweh’s will as a divine agent to rule over other kingdoms and even the beasts

of the forest. But, the latter does not designate him as Yahweh’s servant in spite of mentioning a

similar function. 55

Presumably, this may be the same fiery furnace in which the cult statue seems to have been designed

“(Goldingay, Daniel 69).”

182

negation of any other divine alternative with respect to its power over life and death,

since the servants as the locus of manifesting Yahweh’s divine power. Here, the

convergence of Yahweh’s presence and power is not only aniconic but also spatially

proximate: “…but I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire…” (Dan.

3:25).

Such an intimate demonstration of divine presence and power not only reiterates the

mutuality between Yahweh and his servants—we have already mentioned that the

servants are not ontologically divine--but it also negates the supposed existence of the

heavenly deity, whose earthly body is made by Nebuchadnezzar. It is interesting to

note that in Dan. 3 the author uses the language of a physical body twice, and in

between them he sandwiches his polemic against Nebuchadnezzar’s idol being a

supposed earthly body of god. On the one hand, he says that Yahweh’s three servants

did not flinch from yielding their bodies (!wohymvg) to be destroyed by fire (v. 28); on the

other hand, he reports Nebuchadnezzar’s threat to “cut limb by limb” anyone who

besmirches Yahweh (v. 29). In between them--immediately after the report of the

servants’ brave faith to give up their bodies—he mentions the king’s admiration of the

servants (the three Jewish men) for not worshipping other gods, which is the cult

statue made by Nebuchadnezzar. By so doing, the author underlines that

Nebuchadnezzar’s cult statue is neither an earthly body of god (a god of heaven and

earth) nor is there a counterpart deity in heaven. This argument is further strengthened

by how Yahweh is described in the book of Daniel, particularly in the narrative

section. Yahweh is described as the God of heaven (aYmV Hla, Dan. 2: 18, 19, 28, 36,

44), the king of heaven (aYmV %lm, Dan. 4: 37 [MT v. 34]),56

the Lord of heaven (aYmV

arm, Dan. 5: 23); Yahweh is also described as the God of gods (Dan. 2: 47), God most

high (Dan. 3: 26; 4: 2; 5: 18). Importantly, Nebuchadnezzar’s sanity is restored when

he looks up to the heaven, as a result of which he praises the God most high (Dan. 4:

34). 57

Whereas Yahweh, the God of heaven, who executes his plans or controls the

power structure on earth by his will (Dan. 4: 35 [MT v. 32]), and has his earthly locus

of presence and power among his servants, the idols are described as the gods of gold,

56

This is acknowledged by Nebuchadnezzar. 57

In connection with the God most high, a holy one comes down from heaven to pronounce judgment

upon Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4: 13, 23, 31).

183

silver, bronze and iron. Thus Belteshazzar, the Babylonian king, is reprimanded for

praising these gods that are purely earthly (Dan. 5: 4, 23).

To sum up, text-semantic examinations of ~lc in 2 Kgs 11 and Dan. 3 show that the

OT rejects idols because “idol” is ontologically incompatible with the aniconic

Yahweh. As seen in 2 Kgs 11, the OT rejects Baal’s image because it is not a god of

heaven and earth. Since the earthly body of Baal does not realize the divine power of

the heavenly deity, the idea of mutual ontology between the unseen (heavenly) deity

and its cult image is a contradiction. By contrast, Yahweh is the only sovereign and

heavenly deity who controls everything including life and death. His people are the

credible divine representative without being ontologically divine; they are the locus of

divine power. Similarly, according to Dan. 3, Yahweh is the only God of heaven, who

possesses all the power. His aniconic power and presence is spatially proximate to his

servants (the three Jewish men). The servants/representatives are relationally attached

to him and they are the locus for the exhibition of divine power. By contrast, Dan. 3

rejects Nebuchadnezzar’s cult image because it is not an embodied divinity (or a god

of heaven and earth). The cult image does not share a mutual ontology with its

supposed heavenly deity as it fails to realize divine power and presence and, in

principle, contradicts the existence of the heavenly deity. In sum, both the examined

texts overturn the iconology of AWA concerning idols being earthly bodies of gods or

gods of heaven and earth. Thus these texts negate the existence of their heavenly

counterparts.

4.3.3. A Text-Semantic Analysis of ~yprT: Apart from being considered an idol—

whether a household or public deity--terminological meanings of this word would

variously suggest “weak,” “impotent,” a “protective spirit,” or something inanimate,

immobile and abominable (Van der Toorn and Lewis 778). It may also mean “demon”

or “genius” (Seybold 1433; Hadley 339).58

The following are the lexical appearances

of ~yprT in the OT: Gen. 31: 19, 34, 35; Judg. 17: 5; 18: 14, 17, 18, 20; 1 Sam. 19:13,

16; 15: 23; 2 Kgs 23: 24; Ezek 21: 21 [26]; Zech. 10: 2.

58

Seybold opines that the old meanings (to deteriorate, “dangle” heal, interpret along with mantic

incantation, or, be “asleep”) of ~yprT no longer hold the field. Hadley also proposes similar meanings of

~yprT.

184

The meanings listed as above are inadequate in themselves to elicit a reason for the

rejection of an idol. Scholarly works focusing either on the AWA phenomenology or

etymology have not gone far enough.59

Studies on ~yprT using the phenomenological

method only consider lexical occurrences and discuss its divergent functions such as

divination and healing, etc “(van der Toorn, The nature 203-222)”. Not much is said

about the incompatibility of idolatry by studying the word ~yprT. This calls for a

careful examination of texts in which ~yprT occurs. Since most instances are from the

narrative section of the OT, a detailed study of Gen. 31 and Judg. 17-18 would serve

our text-semantic analysis of ~yprT well, although we will draw support from other

texts

4.3.3.1. Genesis 31: Gen. 31 recounts Jacob’s secret departure from his father-in-

law’s house, which, after an episode of altercation, climaxes in a mutual agreement.

An initial perusal suggests that the word ~yprT has been thoughtfully woven into the

overall theological scheme of the text. Two climaxes, namely, the alleged deception

and the resultant judicial proceeding are connected with ~yprT. For instance, Jacob’s

act of leaving Laban’s house concludes with Rachel misappropriating her father’s

idol; similarly, Laban’s accusation of theft, his failed search operation for the missing

idols and Jacob’s apparent outburst at Laban, revolves around ~yprT. This predominant

theme paves the way for probing into the author’s rationale for aniconism.

4.3.3.1.1. The Ontological Incompatibility between the Aniconic Yahweh and

Laban’s Cult Image: A cursory perusal of the text shows that the incompatibility

between Laban’s cult image (his teraphim) and the aniconic Yahweh (Jacob’s God) is

the reason why the author rejects the idol. Whereas Laban designates it as “my gods”

(yhla), the narrator describes it as an inanimate object (Speiser 250; Hamilton 292),

even to the point of projecting it as a mere commodity (ylk, v. 37). Also, he portrays it

to be utterly unclean in two ways. First, ~yprT is referred to in conjunction with an

unclean animal, camel, as seen in Lev. 11: 4 and Deut. 14: 17 “(Kenneth Mathews

526).” Second, a menstruating woman who is ceremonially unclean is described as

59

Van der Toorn, The Nature 203-222; Greenberg, Another Look, 239-248. Analyzing Rachel’s theft

case, Greenberg argues against the view of teraphim being regarded as the validating cult object to any

claim to the position of paterfamilias and patrimony. On supporting patrimony, see Spainer 404-412.

On the other hand, Labuschagne (115-117) argues that these are used only for interpreting dreams.

Hoffner (230-238) thinks teraphim gradually got associated with evil forces.

185

sitting upon it (Wenham 276).60

This is not a “light hearted polemic of Laban’s

teraphim,” as Macdonald remarks “(Recasting 29 no. 23),” but it is an issue of

incompatibility based on ontological divinity. We turn to this in the following section.

According to the author, the critical aspect of ontological divinity is the deity’s earthly

presence61

in terms of his ability to communicate directly, with a sense of spatial

movement and proximity, which is undergirded by the heavenly existence. As Gen.

31 shows, with self-introduction the God of Jacob speaks not only to the worshipers

but also to non-worshipers (Laban) on several occasions. Importantly, the crucial

factor of spatial movement and proximity is specifically mentioned in the case of the

God of Jacob speaking to worshipper of cult images. As Laban, in his pursuit of

Jacob, closes in on Jacob (wta qBdYw, v. 23), so does God come to Laban to warn him

(!bl-la ~yhla abYw, v. 24).62

The author seems to heighten the latter incident (God

coming to Laban) in relation to his report of how the angel of God spoke to Jacob in a

dream in the same chapter. That is to say, whereas the usage of la (yla in v. 11) in the

case of God speaking to Jacob may imply spatial dimension (cf. Gen. 15: 1), the same

usage in Laban’s case indicates a greater emphasis on the earthly presence of the deity

due to the addition and the rhetorical impact of the verb abYw. This is arguable on three

counts. First, by mentioning God coming to Laban, the author suggests that he has in

mind the heavenly and earthly presence of God. God has not come to Laban from

nowhere; rather, it is from a place, although he leaves it unmentioned (we shall further

explain the heavenly aspect after the point on earthly presence is made). Second, the

location of abYw underlines God’s earthly presence and does not give an impression of

60

It must be noted that this is different from how sanctified vessels of the Jerusalem temple, including

the Ark, can be demeaned and defiled by the Philistines and Babylonians. The difference in Gen. 31 is

that the same person (Rachel), who accepts the divinity of ~yprT, is portrayed as defiling her sacred

object, and not strangers. 61

Pagolu speaks of Yahweh appearing to patriarchs in different places “(The Religion 55);” A. Saggu

theologizes this idea and says that the God of patriarchs is omnipresent as he appears them in places

like Haran, Schechem etc (68-69). The suggested omnipresence of Yahweh (he is not confined to a

single place), although valid, cannot provide a rationale for aniconism by itself: why Yahweh is

aniconic and why Laban’s cult image is rejected. As we shall deal with later, a possible reason why

Rachel stole her father’s ~yprT is to ensure the mobile presence and blessing. In such a case, the idea of

omnipresence suggested by Saggu does not greately differ from what Laban and Rachel thought. The

only difference is that one is aniconic and the other is iconic. 62

Ian Wilson (83) suggests that if the text approvingly makes God as the subject of the verb aB, it means

his physical presence. Interestingly, even in cases where the narrator’s use aB dissociates itself from the

popular perception of divine presence, it (the popular perception) still retains such a meaning. For

instance, in 1 Sam. 4 aB is used both by the Israelites and Philistines to refer to the physical presence of

the deity.

186

it being a mere communication in a dream. Thus he repeats the spatial details twice

and sandwiches in between them the fact of God coming to Laban (vv. 23-25): “…he

pursued Jacob…caught up with him in the hill country of Gilead; …God came to

Laban; Jacob had pitched his tent in the hill country of Gilead when Laban…camped

there too.” Third, the significance of Yahweh’s earthly presence by way of his spatial

movement and communication to Laban is noticeable in the difference between the

two accounts. Unlike Laban’s speech (v. 29), which closely follows the textual

account of divine encounter (v. 24) and yet leaves out the spatial movement and

proximity of the deity, the narrator seems purposive in highlighting this aspect (v. 24).

To juxtapose both vv 24 and 29: But God came to Laban (!bl-la ~yhla abYw) the

Aramean in a dream by night, and said to him, “take heed that you say not a word to

Jacob, either good or bad;”’ “it is…harm, but the God of your father spoke to me last

night, saying, ‘take heed that you speak to Jacob neither good or bad.”’ This idea of

earthly presence seems to be a pattern in Genesis and other parts of the Pentateuch. As

and when Yahweh is said to have communicated with a person who is not his

worshiper, such communications are invariably accompanied with the literary

evidences of Yahweh’s spatial movement and proximity.63

One also notices a striking

contrast here. As mentioned, the Canaanite El is belived have become transcendent;

thus he manifests himself through dreams and visions. Presumably, the Canaanite El

manifests in this manner to his worshippers. By contrast, with spatial proximity,

Jacob’s God speaks in a dream to someone who is not his worshipper.

Not only does the author characterize the divinity of Jacob’s God by his earthly

presence as explained in the preceding section, but he also does so by his heavenly

existence. Rhetoric of generic term ~yhla, its associated words, and the pronominal

suffixes of ~yhla underscore this point. The generic term ~yhla occurs six times (thrice

by Jacob [vv. 7, 9, 42], once by Leah and Rachel [v. 14], once by the narrator [v. 24]

63

One example of this is when God speaks to Abimelech for taking Sarah as his wife

(… $lmyba-la ~yhla abYw in Gen. 20: 3). A similar theological position seems to be reflected elsewhere

in the Pentateuch. For instance, several phrases of God’s spatial movement are obvious in his directives

to Balaam. Interestingly, this happens in the context of an anticipated divination that either takes place

in a high place of Baal, or in locations conducive to divination (Numb. 22: 7, 41; 23: 13-14, 25-27).

The phrases are: “and God came to Balaam” (~[lB-la ~yhla abYw, Num. 22: 9, 20); “perhaps the Lord

will come to meet me” (ytarQl hwhy hrQy ylwa, Num. 23: 3); “And God met Balaam” (~[lB-la ~yhla rqYw, Num. 23: 4); “while I meet the lord yonder” (hK hrQy yknaw, Num. 23: 15). More interesting, Balaam’s

experience of divine proximity gradually ascends from spatial to personal, as the spirit of God comes

upon him in the final round of meeting with the deity (Num. 24: 2).

187

and once by Laban [v. 50]); the term ~yhla $alm occurs once (v. 11); la-tyB lah

occurs once (v. 13); ~byba yhlaw occurs once (v. 29); yhla-ta occurs once in connection

with Laban’s god (v. 30); ^yhla-ta occurs once referring to Laban’s god (v. 32); yba

yhla occurs once (v. 42). Who do the generic terms refer to? Obviously, they are

referring to the God (Jacob’s God), which is affirmed in v. 42. Here Jacob mentions

the God of his father who did not allow Jacob to return empty-handed; then he

quickly follows it up with the generic usage saying God has seen his affliction. This

immediacy confirms that Jacob’s God is the God, or the transcendent deity.

Noticeably, Laban’s god (my god) is not juxtaposed with the generic term, God, or

God’s spatial proximity and communication. Furthermore, in Gen. 31, the unrivalled

position of Jacob’s God is obvious with respect to his transcendence: (i), the text

shows Laban referring to Yahweh, for keeping a vigil on both him and Jacob; (ii), the

God of Jacob’s father also is the arbiter; (iii) Jacob seals a pact of non-aggression with

Laban in the name of “the fear of his father Isaac” (Gen. 32: 53). Notably, the text

does not speak of a similar oath as regards Laban invoking a deity in the treaty

ceremony, though it mentions his statement about Nahor’s god being roped in as a co-

judge. However, Laban’s attempt to make Nahor’s god a co-judge does not hold

because Jacob’s God, who is the sole judge between Jacob and Laban, is also the sole

judge of all the earth (#ra-lK jpvh, Gen. 18: 25).

In sum, in Gen. 31, the author underlines the identical impact of the two spatial

aspects: the immediacy of Jacob’s God is real in both being near (physical presence

by way of spatial movement and divine communication) and remote (in heaven or

transcendent).

This viewpoint of the author--Jacob’s God is the God of heaven and earth as seen in

earthly presence and heavenly existence—in Gen. 31 has not appeared suddenly. It is

an augmented interpretation of the framework of the heaven and earth, which occurs

in the beginning and other places of the book of Genesis. The book of Genesis begins

with an assertion that God is the creator of heaven and earth

(…#rahw ~ymVh ~yhla arB…, Gen. 1: 1); we have already noted in the previous chapter

that Gen. 11 mentions the heaven-earth paradigm as God comes down to earth, and

being present there he foils the plan at Babel; then the book reiterates about God

188

being the possessor of heaven and earth (…#raw ~ymV hnq, Gen. 14: 20, 22); Gen. 18:

21 again speaks of God going down to Sodom for seeing the heinous evils happening

there (…haraw aN-hdra, the act of going down to Sodom implies that he is coming from

a place, heaven); God as the God of heaven and earth (…#rah yhlaw ~ymVh yhla ...,

Gen. 24: 3, 7);64

God gives dew from heaven (…~ymVh lJm ~yhlah…, Gen. 27: 18);

God blesses with the blessing of the heaven above (…l[m ~ymv tkrB…, 49: 26). All

these statements suggest that the universal God, the creator, the God of heaven and

earth, is Abraham’s and his descendant’s God. Thus, as said earlier, the author

elaborates this point in Gen. 31 as the intimate divine presence in heaven and on

earth. It is quite interesting to note that this explanation of the author is very similar to

the position of the author Deut. 4. Hence, an idol, Laban’s cult image, is rejected

because it is not a god of heaven and earth (or an earthly body of god). We turn to this

in the following section.

Gen. 31 shows that the combination of earthly presence (immanence) and heavenly

existence (transcendence) is absent in Laban’s cult image. Just as the author uses the

verb abYw for making a case for Yahweh’s divinity and the aniconic earthly presence--

the spatial proximity and divine communication--so also he uses it in Gen. 31 as an

irony of divine immanence of Laban’s ~yprT. Whereas the author speaks of the spatial

movement of Laban for locating his deity by using abYw (lhr lhaB abYw…acYw… !bl abYw,

v. 33), he projects his deity (~yprT) as being spatially immobile, hidden by an external

agent from its worshipper. He describes specifically that Laban comes into Rachel’s

tent with all his serious intent and anticipation of finding his god, even to the point of

standing close to the cult image (his god); yet the spatial closeness does not result in

Laban realizing divine presence.65

Here Jacob’s encounter with Yahweh is

contrastable. When Jacob least anticipates for encountering the deity, he is taken

aback by Yahweh’s presence: “Then Jacob awoke…I did not know it” (Gen. 28: 16).

What is remarkably similar between the two is that just as Rachel was in a non-sacred

place (inside her own tent), so also was Jacob --- halted for the night at an ordinary

64

The statement occurs in connection with Abraham asking Eleazer to take an oath. That Abraham’s

deity is the God of heaven and earth becomes clear in light of how others (Abimelech) have asked

Abraham to take an oath in the name of God (~yhla), a generic term for deity. 65

Interestingly, the idol is not appropriated by an enemy from another region and people, which would

have, it is believed, resulted in the detachment of divine substance from the idol. But it is taken by

someone who is a worshiper herself.

189

place66

—when he encountered the deity. Further, not only Laban fails to realize the

divine presence despite standing close to ~yprT, but he also fails to hear a verbal

communication from his idol--either directly or on behalf of his idol67

—during and

after the search operation (during the arbitration).

That the author denies divine essence in (or the realization of divine presence)

Laban’s cult image is further established by Rachel’s theft. The key question here is:

why did the author highlight Rachel’s theft of her father’s ~yprT? Several possible

explanations have been offered on the basis of socio-religious practices in AWA,

particularly focusing on Rachel’s aspiration to become the next paterfamilias’ wife.68

Moshe Greenberg, having examined different AWA parallels that supposedly offer

rationales for Rachel’s act of theft, concludes his argument to the contrary. He thinks

that Rachel’s theft of Laban’s ~yprT was to ensure the presence, protection and

blessings of his father’s or family’s deity “(Another Look 239-248).”

In line with Greenberg’s argument, we suggest two important points from the text as

to the peripheral nature of family succession: first, Leah and Rachel’s list of

disclaimers, which includes Laban treating them as foreigners, seems incompatible

with Rachel’s perceived aspiration of becoming the next paterfamilias’ wife; second,

the mood in Jacob’s family is of immediate escape, and not of seeking a calculated

gain from Laban’s property.69

This means, the author’s primary reason for

66

For a detailed discussion on the non-sacredness of the place where Jacob rested, see Pagolu, The

Religion 161

-163. 67

That an idol (in AWA) lacks the divine characteristic of relating with the living through divine

communications is further adduced in other occurrences of ~yprT in the OT. First, the dead become a

surrogate source of information for idols (2 Kgs 23: 24). Though House (390) sees necromancy and

idols as separate blocks, it is possible to see the connection between them since the text mentions all of

them in one stroke. Second, the idols become a part of the divinatory paraphernalia to find

probabilities based on the interpretations of the omens (Ezek 21: 21ff.) “(Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37

428-429).” Interestingly, Ezek. 21: 21ff. shows that Yahweh has foreordained and, therefore, foretells

something that would later be chanced upon as a probability through the divination done by

Nebuchadnezzar. Third, the claim about a communication through ~yprT is a downright lie (Zech. 10:

2). 68

Answer to this question has been generally sought along the line of the AWA pattern of the

transference of inheritance (Kenneth Mathews 518-519; Wenham, Genesis 16-50 273-274; Hamilton,

The Book of Genesis 18-50 294-295). Since the succeeding paterfamilias of the household is

bequeathed the property and family gods, Rachel, thus, by appropriating Laban’s ~yprT, was projecting

herself and Jacob as strong claimants to this position. In connection with this we have already

mentioned some more sources. 69

Wenham, Genesis 16-50 273-274; Spieser 250-251; Kenneth Mathews 518-519.

190

highlighting Rachel’s theft of the ~yprT is different, which may be closer to

Greenberg’s opinion.

Gen. 31 begins with a private, intimate conversation in Jacob’s family in which Jacob

persuades his wives to consent to an imminent return to his homeland. The reasons for

such an unanticipated move are: allegations and unfavorable attitude of Jacob’s in-

laws towards him; the divine command to leave; and an assurance of divine presence

in the journey. Interestingly, while explaining these reasons in some detail, the text

also simultaneously drives home another point about Jacob’s God being the source

and giver of all blessings as he decides to dispossess the crafty Laban to enrich Jacob.

No sooner does this explanation end and the family is set to leave than Rachel steals

Laban’s teraphim. By showing the literary immediacy of the two, the author

underlines that Laban’s cult image does not materialize divine presence on earth,

which also accompanies material blessings.

The author first presents Jacob’s speech, and then reflects on how Rachel and Laban

acknowledge the truth of Jacob’s speech and yet remain unyielding to it. On the one

hand, Jacob’s speech suggests that God’s spatial proximity and covenantal fidelity are

inextricably intertwined. This is evinced by the following phrases: %M[ hyhaw, (Gen.

31: 3); ydm[ hyh yba yhlaw (v. 5); ydM[ [rhl ~yhla wntn-alw (v. 7); yl-!TYw…~yhla lCYw (v.

9). On the other hand, despite acknowledging Jacob’s account of divine presence and

the intervention of his God in the entire endeavor (vv. 13-16),70

Rachel still relies on

her father’s idol to mediate the divine presence (Bauck 218)71

and blessing. Though

Rachel’s agreement with Jacob could also possibly spring from acrimony towards her

father “(Fretheim, Genesis 557),” this cannot be deemed sufficient to discount

Rachel’s acknowledgment of all that Jacob said about God and his instruction. The

reason is that the author suggests a convergence of rationale between Jacob and his

wives. While Rachel’s and Leah’s statement (“All the… children,” v. 16) echoes

Jacob’s conviction (v. 9), their approving spur (“now… do”) for Jacob to follow the

divine instruction assumes the divine promise given in v. 3 (“And the Lord said….”).

70

Kenneth Mathews 516. 71

Bauck thinks that Rachel has genuinely misunderstood Jacob’s explanation of divinity and divine

presence, when he refers the deity to the God of his fathers. Thus, assuming that Jacob’s deity is no

different than her father’s idol, Rachel steals the teraphim. However, such an explanation is

inconsistent with the text, as our argument shows.

191

Thus he leaves no ambiguity regarding Rachel’s admission to all that Jacob narrates

about his God. This implies that the narrator portrays Rachel as guilty of distrusting

God’s spatial proximity and his covenantal fidelity. This is intensified by the fact that

the sons of Laban give no indication of the role of their deity while referring to their

father’s wealth. The text suggests that it is either an ancestral wealth or humanly

acquired possession: “Jacob has taken all that was our father’s (wnybal); and from what

was our father’s (wnybal) he has gained all the wealth” (v. 1). By contrast, Jacob’s

statements regarding the acquisition of wealth attribute to divine source and

intervention (vv. 9, 11).

Similarly, the author’s portrayal of Laban also makes him culpable of glossing over

the critical fact of the deity’s divine communication and proximity. That is, despite

confessing that Jacob’s God warned him to exercise restraint in inflicting any harm to

Jacob, Laban is still determined to reclaim his idol. Interestingly, as opposed to other

reports of theft in Genesis, which specifies the function of sacred objects (Gen. 44: 4-

5), the text of Gen. 31 maintains a silence in the charge of Laban that concerns such a

function of the teraphim (“but why did you steal my gods”?). This makes Laban

doubly culpable.

One may posit that the fact of Laban, and even Rachel, acknowledging Yahweh’s role

in blessing and guiding Jacob need not rule out their parallel acceptance of a similar

role of the god of Nahor, which may be represented through or embodied in teraphim.

Such an argument may be inconsistent with the points of aniconism that the text dives

home. Apparently, the author does not disentitle Laban and his family to their

conviction of blessing and prosperity, but he certainly seems to dispute whether their

family god impersonated and embodied in teraphim can have a parallel or even a

subordinate role alongside the god of Jacob. This is where the author debunks the idea

of transcendence as regards Nahor’s god. On the one hand, he presents Laban’s

presumption of transcendence of the invisible (heavenly) deity, since Laban addresses

both the supposed transcendent deity and its cult image are addressed as gods (yhla in

v. 30 and rxn yhlaw in v. 53). On the other hand, he exposes the dissonance between

them. As pointed out already, the decisiveness of whether something is divine is not

only premised on a divine referent, but is also critically based on an inextricable

192

divine function of communication—either warning or judgment—with spatial

presence.

In sum, Gen. 31 rejects Laban’s cult image because it is incompatible with the

aniconic Yahweh and its basis. Yahweh, the God of heaven and earth, is aniconic

because he communicates directly with a sense of spatial movement and proximity.

But Laban’s cult image does not materialize divine presence on earth (which also

includes material blessings); it exposes that the unseen deity in heaven does not exist.

4.3.3.1.2. The Offense of Idolatry and the Rationale for Aniconism: As stated in

the beginning of this chapter, not only the OT rejects idolatry because of the

incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol,” but also because of idolatry

being the most serious offense against him. Here, the latter will be examined in two

ways: idolatry’s relation with other evils, and idolatry as the most serious offense

against Yahweh compared to other evils. In fact, idolatry’s interface with other

offense does suggest its seriousness because it emerges within the framework of the

incompatibility between the “aniconic Yahweh” and “idol.” Thus the author shows

that the offenses of theft, deception, false accusation and pretense are connected to

idolatry. Of course, the people involved in the commission of these offenses are

practitioners of idolatry; however, since they have agreed to, and encountered with,

the aniconic presence of Yahweh, as the author shows, we can assess the seriousness

of idolatry in terms of its interface of idolatry with other evils.

The Hebrew verb bnG for deception and stealing is used only for two persons in the

narrative, namely, Jacob and Rachel (vv. 19, 20, 26, 27, 30, 32).72

Whereas

occurrences of bnG in connection with Jacob include an evaluative observation (v. 20)

and Laban’s unproven allegations (vv. 26, 27, 30), Rachel’s stealing of ~yprT (vv. 19,

32 and 34) seems to be disapproved in the story. Furthermore, in Jacob’s case, the text

seems to provide both endorsing and extenuating circumstances for his act of fleeing

(for instance, Yahweh instructs Jacob to return to the homeland). Jacob’s sincere

72

The author does not use the word bnG to accuse Jacob of theft; rather, he weaves it into Jacob’s

statement so as to portray him as someone who bears the loss of Laban’s stolen property: “…I bore the

loss to myself; of my hand you required it; whether stolen (ytiäb.nU)G>) by day or stolen (ytiÞb.nU)g>W) by night” (v.

39).

193

confession to Laban as to why he fled without intimation stands him in good stead.73

It can be argued that Yahweh’s command to leave Laban’s household does not permit

Jacob to circumvent the protocol of a customary farewell. However, the author

proffers two reasons for absolving Jacob: (i), his truthful confession as opposed to

Laban’s deceitful dealing; (ii), Yahweh’s knowledge of Jacob’s loss74

caused by

Laban. Importantly, by using exodus terminologies “(Wenham, Genesis16-50 278),”

the text depicts Jacob as a helpless victim, much like the oppressed Israelites in Egypt,

and thereby bails him out. That Jacob was not decamping with Laban’s property, but

was afraid of his losing his wives puts the dispute of his secret departure (bnG) to rest.

In contrast, the author seems to condemn Rachel’s act on several counts: first, though

Rachel disclaims all the rights and privileges of a daughter in spite of being at her

father’s house, she appropriates75

an object, Laban’s idol, in the absence of its owner;

second, when confronted with reality, she speaks a lie or a half-truth and, thus,

deceives her father.76

In a similar vein, the author portrays Laban, the rightful owner

and worshiper of ~yprT, as equally guilty on two grounds. First, instead of Jacob, who

Laban accuses of cheating, the narrator suggests that Laban best personifies a cheat

not only because he could forcibly steal77

Jacob’s family and property, but also

because he has repeatedly played foul with Jacob’s remuneration. The text evince this

by way of the literary shift from bnGT in v. 26, (Laban’s accusation of Jacob) to lzGT in

v. 31, as Jacob turns the tables on Laban over the allegation of the heist. In short,

idolatry is the main sin by virtue of interfacing with other offenses.

73

Kenneth A. Mathews disagrees on a divine sanction of Jacob’s departure (504). However, this might

be implausible as the narrator does not disapprove of Jacob’s statement in the text. Victor P. Hamilton

says that divine instruction and promises, and not angst, are the basis of Jacob’s return (The Book of

Genesis 18-50 287-288). 74

Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 18-50 296; Fuchs 74-76. Hamilton opines that Jacob’s act is not

culpable as it is done to safeguard his legitimate property. Fuchs justifies that outwitting a feared

superior is permissible in view of a common and larger interest (for instance, the deception of Ehud,

Jael etc.). Of course, her article seems to be a feminist interpretation of the text in general. 75

Speiser 245; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis18-50 291-292, 296. 76

Literary connection between the word ~yprT and the deception motif is evident in other places where

it is used. For instance, the idolatrous association of Michal’s trickery is evident in the employment of a

(de)cultic ~yprT in 1 Sam. 19:13, 17. The motif of idolatry is observable also from a literary-theological

perspective. While the usage of ~yprT in 1 Sam. 15 accounts for Saul’s idolatrous act, its appearance in

1 Sam. 19 further emphasizes the idolatrous nature of an immediate family member. Hence, all the

actions of Michal, however commendable for saving her husband’s life, are tainted by a veneer of

idolatry, although scholars (Bergen 208; McCarter 1 Samuel 326; Birch 1127) commend the valor of

Michal. 77

Wenham 275; Kenneth Mathews 525; Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 291-292. In contrast to

Wenham and Mathews, who explain the meaning of lzG as an open robbery, Hamilton comments that

lzG should be understood like bnG in Gen. 31.

194

4.3.3.1.3. The Incompatibility between Idolatry and Socio-Familial Structure of

Israel: Besides presenting the incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh (Jacob’s

God) and idol (Laban’s teraphim) as the reason for rejecting idolatry, the author also

presents the incompatibility between Israel and idol by way of idolatry’s link with the

socio-familial disorder. This is evident in the judicial proceeding which, as already

noted, is largely connected to the theft of ~yprT. The author mentions at least two

violations of social norms in Gen. 31, during and after the search operation for

recovering Laban’s ~yprT, while the third is implied. A younger member in the

hierarchy, Rachel, deliberately holds back the deference due to the paterfamilias78

by

not rising before him. Her pacifying apology (“Let my lord not be angry….”) suggests

that Rachel is equally conscious of the offensive nature of her action. Although one

may argue that Rachel’s confession stems from an ulterior motive, it does not alter the

fact of a faux pas (Kenneth Mathews 527). Apparently, this is a circumstantial, even a

tactical insubordination on Rachel’s part.

The post-inspection phase is worse. Jacob, who hitherto is a plaintiff, suddenly takes

the judge and paterfamilias (Laban) to task.79

Though it may be argued that Jacob’s

rebuke is more to do with Laban’s ill-treatment than the theft of ~yprT, literary

immediacy between the search operation and Jacob’s anger should not be overlooked

(br,Y"åw: bqoß[]y:l. rx;YIïw: in v. 36). His anger does not flare up until Laban’s fruitless search

comes to an end (Wenham 276), and this is cited by Jacob himself (T'v.V;ämi-yKi( in v. 37).

Here, the role is reversed;80

Jacob seems to initiate the judicial process, though he is

also a party to the dispute. Importantly, Laban is no longer the judge; now the case

will be adjudicated by witnesses of both sides. F. E. Crussemann observes that the

adjudicating body is not simply an accepted means for resolving disputes, but it is

78

Although Jacob is the head of his immediate family, his independence, in a stricter legal-social sense,

begins only after Laban has kissed good-by to his daughters and grand children. The text speaks of

father’s house (ba tyB), namely, Laban’s and Jacob’s father, and at this point Jacob has become a

member of the former (von Rad, Genesis 306). 79

von Rad thinks that God’s intervention in a dream reduces Laban to a plaintiff “(Genesis 309).”

Hamilton, in agreement with L. B. Kutler, suggests a similar opinion “(Hamilton, The Book of 300;

Kutler 96, 99).” Though this is correct, Laban also plays the role of a judge. Laban’s assertion that he

has the power to punish Jacob, his one-man combing operation and admonitory phrases (for instance,

“you have acted foolishly…”) suggest that Laban simultaneously pleads and adjudicates the case.

Importantly, Jacob’s recommendation of death penalty for the case of thievery is addressed to Laban.

Similarly, God’s intervention seems to have disempowered Laban from causing harm to Jacob, but it

does not divest him of a paterfamilias’ role. 80

Wenham only observes that the equality of both Jacob and Laban comes into effect with the treaty

“(Genesis 16-50 274).”

195

formed at the behest of both parties (68). This indicates a serious dysfunction of the

family structure as per the social-familial conventions of the AWA and ancient Israel.

Here, a paterfamilias is not only deprived of the role of arbitration “(Block, Marriage

and Family 42-43, 47, 54-55),” but he is also publicly reprimanded (br,Y"åw)81 by a

younger member of the family. The text also shows a fissure between the husband

and the wife in which the latter shows independence82

in matters of serious

importance. Rachel’s theft of idols suggests that she has acted independently of Jacob

on an issue which certainly will impinge upon their family religion. The author’s

contrast is evident: while the husband does not unilaterally act on the divine directives

but confides in his wives, the most loved wife moves surreptitiously to add a

supposed divinity (an idol) into the family without the husband’s knowledge.

In sum, a text-semantic examination of ~yprT in Gen. 31 provides the following

reasons as to why it rejects Laban’s cult image. First, Laban’s cult image is

ontologically incompatible with the aniconic Yahweh, and its basis. Yahweh’s

aniconic nature is grounded in his divinity. This is characterized by Yahweh’s spatial

proximity as evident through his spatial movement and direct communication with the

people, and his heavenly existence. Furthermore, the heaven-earth paradigm of divine

proximity includes Yahweh’s covenantal fidelity and blessing. By contrast, the

physical contiguity of Laban’s cult image does not communicate with the living nor

mediate divine presence (spatial proximity) and blessing. The absence of the heaven-

earth paradigm in Laban’s cult image suggests that not only it does not embody the

supposed unseen deity, but it also negates the existence of such a heavenly deity. In

other words, the author debunks the idea that Laban’s cult image is a god of heaven

and earth. The incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” includes that

idolatry is the most serious offense against Yahweh as it interfaces with other evils.

The other side of aniconism’s rationale is the incompatibility between “idol” and

“Israel” as idolatry disturbs Israel’s social-familial structures.

81

Wenham “(Genesis 16-50 277, 279)” opines that the word byr is devoid of a legal connotation

because of the absence of further evidence in the Pentateuch. Though it is plausible, the element of

witnesses rebuking/punishing (xky) the guilty still makes it a kind of legal proceeding “(Hamilton, The

Book of Genesis 305-306).” Wenham’s other point (277, 279) which says that Jacob’s speech is a

“pitiful complaint,” can also be interpreted differently. The usage of rxY (being kindled with anger) suggests that Jacob scolded his father-in-law (Kenneth Matthews 527). In fact, our argument of the

erosion of familial authority due to idolatry is also similarly dealt with by Charles Mabee “(Jacob and

Laban 194-205).” 82

Kenneth Matthews 505.

196

4.3.3.2. Judges 17-18: Judg. 17-18 also provides the same reason for rejecting

idolatry in which the idol, unlike Gen. 31, intended to embody or represent Yahweh.

However, a problem needs to be resolved before examining the text, although it goes

without saying that the text shows idolatry or perverse worship83

to be the dominant

theme. The problem here is that three different words for an idol--~yprt lsp and hksm-

-pose a problem for a text-semantic analysis of ~yprt. The question is: is it correct to

focus on a single word ~yprt? Despite the apparent confusion of three possible images

as indicated by these vocabularies, it is plausible that the narrator is referring to a

single entity. In this regard, he seems to offer the following literary clues.

A noticeable irony84

between hksm and whykm suggests that hksm is the best term in this

narrative about idols on which to base a text-semantic study; however, ~yprt seems to

fit better because the author uses it as the identity marker of the worshipped object, if

hksmw lsp is taken as hendiadys (Boling 256; Block, Judges 480).85

Furthermore, the

textual accounts of the installation ceremonies both at Micah’s house and in the city

of Dan suggest that ~yprt seems to encapsulate the entirety of the object. At Micah’s

house, the uninstalled image is identified as hksmw lsp and upon its consecration is

designated as ~yprt. This means, words such as graven image and molten image

connote the sculpted and molded aspects of the statue, though both allege divinity in

the statue “(Block, Judges 480).” Understandably, the author no longer calls the

image ~yprt upon its re-installation in the tribal sanctuary of Dan, because it has been

elevated from the status of a profit-making local deity to that of a patron god of a

particular tribe.

83

Amit 5, 7-9; McMillan 225-243, 242; Davies 159, 162. According to Yairah Amit, there is a common

thread of idolatry between what he calls the three components or plots, namely, Micah’s shrine,

Levites’ role and the Danite conquest. This point is corroborated by a profuse usage of the language of

idolatry (pp. 8-9). Philip McMillan, having examined different governing ideas such as monarchic

apology, conquest and settlement etc., proposes syncretistic worship as the main motif (242). However,

the word syncretistic may be inappropriate because what the text describes is false worship, and

Yahweh’s name is uttered only by characters (Davies 159). 84

Victor Matthews, Judges & Ruth 169. 85

We must note that these two terms occur separately in the later part of the narrative (Judg. 18: 17-18).

The issue of hendiadys may not be a proven fact, but it is a reasonable assumption for being less

confusing. The other possibility is more confusing. That is, problem arises if we take lsp and hksm as

two different entities: on the one hand, if one goes by the Danite installation of the graven image, lsp

(Judg. 18: 30-31), then hksm is left unaccounted for; on the other hand, if one considers v.27 in light of

v 5, then it may mean that the Danites took only Micah’s teraphim. The second interpretation would

contradict with vv. 30-31. Therefore, the proposal of hksm wlsp being hendiadys seems more plausible

than its alternative.

197

The author seems to employ a homophone between ~yprt, ~yrpa and ~yhla: ~yrpa is the

location of most activities connected with ~yprt until its capture; ~yhla is the assumed

divine status of ~yprt that changes Micah’s future course of action and brings other

characters such as the young Levite and the Danites on the scene. These clues, then,

help explore an interplay between the text and the word ~yprt. The following section

will discuss why the text in question rejects Micah’s cult image.

4.3.3.2.1. The Ontological Incompatibility between the Aniconic Yahweh and

Micah’s Cult Image: Similar to our analysis of Gen. 31, the author in Judg. 17-18

presents the ontological incompatibility between Yahweh and idol as a reason for

rejecting Micah’s cult image. An initial perusal suggests this. Despite the restituted

silver being offered to the Lord—this is an abuse of Yahweh’s name in any case –the

author considers the end product as an idol that cannot in any way embody or

represent Yahweh. Literary presentation of Judg. 17-18 seems to counter Micah’s

claim of divinity in idols (yhla-ta, v. 24) by classifying it as a made-object (ytyf[-rva,

also see vv. 3,4,5,27).86

In fact, the verb hf[ in vv. 5 and 6 suggests a humanly crafted

deity is an oxymoron to the author, but it still seems appropriate to its maker.

Moreover, as noticed by Davis, he calls Micah’s shrine ~yhla tyB (Judg. 17: 5) as

against ~yhlah tyB (Judg. 18: 31) in Shiloh so as to differentiate between the dead

paraphernalia of a counterfeit cult and the true deity’s presence in a sanctuary (Davies

158). All these contrasts are not facile, but they encapsulate that Micah’s idol does not

materialize divine presence on earth or it shares no common ontological divinity with

the deity.

From a literary-theological perspective, the narrator’s description of the entreaty of

spies (an, in Judg. 18: 5) seeking a divine confirmation of their mission, explicates the

incongruence between the divine presence and a cult image, although the words of

request—inquire of elohim instead of Yahweh87

--does hint at this incongruity. While

the widespread usages of an in the OT refer to polite request in general, its

occurrences in the book of Judges seem to suggest an additional theological

characteristic. That is to say, while almost all the usages of an (Judg. 1: 24; 6: 18, 39;

86

Davies, Comic Literature 159. 87

Block, Judges, Ruth 498. For instance, this request contradicts David’s enquiry of Yahweh that Block

leaves unmentioned (1 Sam. 23: 6; 30: 7).

198

13: 8, 15; 18: 5) appear predominantly in the context of divine presence,88

its

occurrence in Judg. 18: 5 deviates from the established pattern. Here, divine presence

is falsely assumed, something the narrator is fully aware of. Thus the purported divine

assurance given by the young Levite, as if it were a direct answer from Yahweh, is a

lie from the standpoint of divine communication, because it does not take place in

divine presence. This, then, implies that the young Levite may have used the cult

image (~yprT) and other objects such as the ephod for bringing the supposedly divine

word. That the author has deliberately employed an in order to expose the false

assumption of divinity/divine presence in Micah’s ~yprT, and false oracle mediated by

it, is strengthened by his other information in the story. First, the Danites believe the

priest’s oracle for themselves when they survey the land and, therefore, come back to

Micah’s house to take all that they consider divine, which is the cultic accoutrements.

Second, the author, in the book of Judges, seems to accord less prominence to the

report and details of Israelite priests mediating any divine communication. Rather, it

portrays the people as directly receiving divine guidance in Yahweh’s presence (citing

a few, Judg. 1: 1-2; 2: 1; 20: 1, 18, 23, 26-28). For instance, Judg. 20: 27 does not

give any detailed information about the priestly mediation of Phinehas, the Aaronide

priest. This is not to say that the people have usurped the role of a priest; rather, it is

to note that the author does not emphasize the priest speaking to the people. The focus

is more on the recipients than the mediators. In fact, in each cases of inquiry, the

narrator reports as if Yahweh directly speaks to people (“the Lord said”). Therefore,

by specifically mentioning the mediatory role of the young Levite in bringing the

oracle, the author negates both the oracle and the assumption of divine source behind

it. In short, the literary-theological implications of an suggest a contradiction between

false oracles and the divine presence on the one hand, and the negation of a cult image

embodying or representing the deity (Yahweh) on the other. 89

88

Judg. 1: 24 speaks of the house of Joseph requesting a spy for assistance, which is connected to the

presence of Yahweh (~M[ hwhyw, Judg. 1: 22). Other instances (Judg. 6: 18, 39; 13: 8, 15) show the

occurrence of an in the context of the theophanic presence to Gideon, Manoh and his wife. A few

usages of an elsewhere in OT are also connected with the divine presence and divine purposes. To cite

a few: Exod. 32: 12; 33: 13, 18; 34: 9, 10). 89

Micah’s idol does not produce the covenantal blessing that accompanies divine presence; it gives an

illusory sense of secure material prosperity. As Micah was self-assured of divine blessing, so was the

young Levite of a secured livelihood. However, Micah lost all that he considered valuable for wealth

generation to a raiding party. Similarly, in contrast to a specific remuneration for the young Levite

(Judg. 17: 10), the text is silent about his pecuniary advantage as a result of the deal with the Danites.

Rather, his future generations were condemned to supervise idolatry. On the descendants, see

Weitzman 451-542.

199

Further, the author again deals a blow to the idea of Micah’s cult image impersonating

the deity and divine presence by enmeshing ~yprt with the conquest motif. The Danite

conquest of Laish seems to represent a perfect military pattern of inheriting the

Promised Land: spying the land, a good report of the land, and people’s unity and

motivation for possessing the land. Yet, the text maintains a studied silence on the

divine presence that hitherto was a literary formula (Exum 426).90

Also,

conspicuously absent in the text is the literary formula that speaks of how Yahweh

delivers the enemy combatants into the hand of Israelites and assists them in the

warfare (Judg. 1: 4; 3; 11; 3: 28; 4: 14; 7: 9, 15; 8: 3; 11: 9, 30, 32 etc.). Noticeably,

the deliverance of the people of Laish was impossible because the city was located in

a far-flung place, particularly far away from Sidon (Judg. 18: 28), and not because

Yahweh had given the people into the hand of the Danites. This means, in the mind of

the author, Micah’s ~yprt does not mediate divine presence in an Israelite war, though

the conquerors (Danites) perceive it as such. In sum, the author rejects Micah’s cult

image because it is incompatible with Yahweh; it shares no common ontology with

the deity.

4.3.3.2.2. The Seriousness of the Offense of Idolatry and Aniconism’s rationale:

Not only does the author reject idolatry because of the ontological incompatibility

between Micah’s cult images and the aniconic Yahweh, but also he rejects it because

idolatry is the main sin as it is the cause or destination of all discernible offenses.91

For instance, the sins of swearing and theft lay the foundation for idol-making; misuse

of Yahweh’s name occurs repeatedly in the context of idolatry (vv. 2, 13; 18: 6);92

a

forcible disappropriation of a fellow Israelite is witnessed in tandem with an idol

being appropriated as a supposed deity. Finally, the threat of a murder on the one

hand (vv. 24-25), and a merciless massacre of a defenseless people93

on the other,

90

By being placed towards the end of Judges, the Danite conquest serves as a contrast to the story of

Israelite conquest that the book begins with. Whereas the Judg. 1 speaks of Yahweh’s presence in

Israelite warfare (Judg. 1: 4, 22), the same is precisely is absent in Judg. 18. 91

On this point our argument differs from scholars’ interpretations. While scholars like D. T. Oslon,

Davies and Cheryl Exum note as if each offense is independent, Amit and Block analyze various

offenses through characterization, either centering on Micah or on a negative cast of Ephramites. But,

we seek a coherent explanation of all the offenses in light of idolatry. For scholars’ explanation, see

Oslon, Judges 870; Davis 158-16l; Exum 425-426; Amit, Hidden7-8; Block, Judges, Ruth 478-482. 92

The Hebrew conjunction w occurs repeatedly in vv. 1-5 and connects each individual act (event) until

the formation and installation of the idol in Micah’s house. 93

Bauer 38-40. Bauer contends that Judg. 18 is an anti-spy and anti-conquest account, as the text lacks

the elements of divine allotment, guidance, approval and negative description of the enemy. Yahweh

200

come to pass after the idol is owned by the Danites: “and you take my gods… and you

lose your life with the lives of your household” (vv. 24-25); “And taking what Micah

had made…city with fire” (v. 27). Although the consequential link between idolatry

and the offense of murder may not be obvious in a cursory perusal, a closer reading

reveals that the author indeed uses such a macro-link. The narrative sequence makes it

clear that these offenses take place neither in parallel with, nor in isolation from

idolatry; the cult image is either in the centre stage or in the background. The threat of

murder to Micah would not have arisen in the first place were it not for the desire to

retain the cult image by both parties. Similarly, the massacre at Laish is sandwiched

between the author’s accounts of the cult image being taken into the city (v. 27) and it

being set up there (v. 31). As Heidi M. Szpek observes (17), “it is in references to

cultic activity that our story can indeed ‘make sense’ in what has preceded and what

will follow.” This means, the author portrays all the other offenses committed at the

house of Micah, and the killing of the people at Laish, as a precursor and sequel to

idolatry.

Furthermore, the author’s evaluative comment in Judg. 17: 6, its literary-theological

function in particular, points to his view of idolatry being the source and destination

of all evils. He states that the consequence of the absence of king is the wanton

individualistic acts: “there was no king…every man did [hf[]what was right…”.94

To

put it differently, according to Judg. 17: 6, a king would have prevented all the self-

propelled and self-justifying acts of the people. In this regard, the employment of hf[

which suggests the acts of people becomes important. Although hf[ in Judg 17: 6

may mean all kinds of evil acts in general, its clarification in the rest of the text (Judg.

17-18) indicates that it predominantly refers to the act of idolatry as various usages of

hf[ either refer to idol-making or stand as the summary word for its forcible

acquisition (17: 4, 5, 18: 14, 24, 27, 31). By so clarifying, the author is portraying the

king as an ardent worshipper of Yahweh, who, out of his loyalty to Yahweh, would

does not allot Laish to the people nor does he instruct them to attack the city. Furthermore, the people

of Laish do not show Canaanite traits. They are portrayed as peace-loving and non-idolatrous. Also see

Boling 267; Block, Judges, Ruth 510; Victor Matthews, Judges 174-177. 94

Scholarly arguments have focused mainly on the pro and anti-monarchic meaning of this verse (for

instance Block, Judges 483; Butler 383-385; Dumbrell 23-33; Howard 107-11), and thus have paid no

attention to the combined issue of monarchy and idolatry.

201

have discharged his royal duty in preventing iconism in Israel. 95

Conversely, he does

not assume a special ability to stop other widespread evils that typify ethical

violations and anti-social behaviors96

-- for example, Micah’s theft or the misuse of

Yahweh’s name by Micah’s mother, or for that matter the atrocious act of abusing the

wife of a fellow Israelite at Gibeah (Judg. 19). Thus, as J. P. Fokkelman says (42-43),

the narrator’s desire for the “right kind of government” must be seen in the context of

the ensuing fratricidal war, although one should not gloss over the heinous crime

committed by the delinquent youth at Gibeah. In other words, while a king could

possibly prevent the bloodshed and inter-tribal chaos, it would have been nearly

impossible for him to pre-empt the shameful act of rape. This means, the prevention

of idolatry would have been a pre-emptive measure against the commission of other

evils, and thus Judg. 17: 6 suggests that the king’s commitment to aniconism is a key

factor.97

95

In the rest of book hf[ is associated with the evil of idolatry (“and the people of Israel did[Wfô[]Y:w:] evil

in the eyes of the Lord”), which is brought to a halt under the rule of Judges. As David Jobling

suggests, the Judges schema of apostasy, rule of judges and resultant faithfulness is still seen in some

form in Judg. 17 (47, 49). In Judg. 17, a king (not a judge) is the preferred candidate to arrest the

problem of idolatry. Interestingly, while the rest of book explains the act of idolatry as something evil

in the eyes of the Lord, Judg. 17 explains it as something good in the eyes of every one. 96

Although the author again begins Judg. 19 with the phrase, “there was no king in Israel,” he presents

a nuanced argument with regard to the prevention of anti-social behavior in the story (the rape of a

concubine of the Levite). Here, he factors in a voice (an old man) from among the people, who

disagrees with the wanton acts of the “base fellows of the city” and therefore stands as an antithesis to

their immoral disposition. The old man may not be the perfect character because he fails to discharge

the duty of a good host—he offers his daughter and the guest’s concubine to the lecherous mob.

Nevertheless, he is still the sober voice of the society. The narrator reports this to dissuade the wicked

youth from committing homosexuality. Although the author uses different forms of hf[ for referring to

the intention of committing homosexual act and the act of rape in Judg. 18: 23-24, he makes two

important points for subordinating them to idolatry: one, the author does not use hf[ to report these

vile acts in the remainder of the story; two, he does not rationalize it immediately with a note that the

presence of a king would have eliminated such vices. Rather, the author’s presentation of the lone voice

points to the immediate societal structure being responsible for preventing such acts. Interestingly, as

the later part of this story explains, the people’s attempt to root out such an immoral act through

retributive measures has only resulted in bloodshed and inter-tribal animosity. While the deuteronomic

vision of stamping out anti-social behaviors and immoral acts through a societal imposition of punitive

mechanism anticipates a better end, the story in Judg. 19-21 portrays the opposite. Why? The answer

lies in what the author seems to convey at the macro level based on the preceding narrative of Judg. 17-

18. That is, any attempt to control anti-social behaviors and immoral activities in Israel without a

strong foundation of aniconism is bound to fail. This again suggests the plausibility of the narrator’s

point: one, he considers idolatry as the predominant act (hf[) of the people insofar as the vicious cycle

of vices goes; two, the king’s covenant loyalty in controlling this predominant act has a repercussions

on the social health of Israel. If one says that the inclusio in Judg. 17: 6 and 21: 25 is the key that points

the need for a king, the question, then what role, and relationship, does Judg. 17: 1-5 have in the whole

of Judg. 17-21. 97

Block, too, suggests the incapability of the king concerning the prevention of all evils, but for

different reasons. According to him, both the king and people are the source of all evil “(Judges 483,

484).” Block’s view seems to be somewhat confusing. It is undeniable that the sinful nature of

humanity breeds sin, but the focus of the text here is different. If the sinful nature of the people and the

202

4.3.3.2.3. The Incompatibility between Idolatry and the Socio-Familial Structure

of Israel: In addition to explicating the incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh

and “idol”—in terms of ontology and offense—as the reason for aniconism, the

narrator also factors in the incompatibility between “idol” and Israel in which idolatry

and a degenerating family structure feed off each other. He deliberately highlights

how the elderly lady of the house lays her hands on the money, and subsequently

takes initiative to guide the cultic practice of the family. In so doing, the elderly

woman of Micah’s house seems to have wrongly usurped a role by invading the

domain of ba tyB, Micah, who also is the chief functionary and the sole deciding

authority over the cultic affairs “(Block, Marriage and Family 42-43, 47, 53-55).”

One may posit that the narrator was trying to portray Micah’s mother in good light

because: (i) she is expressing gratitude to Yahweh; (ii) thus she is revoking the

conditional curse (hla) by uttering a blessing on his erring son, and thereby reversing

all the possible misfortunes that could have befallen Micah as a result of theft.98

However, such a position may be problematic as it raises questions about the

dedication of the silver. That is to say, as a mark of expressing gratitude to the deity,

the woman was free to offer them at Shiloh, which the narrator emphasizes as the

sanctuary of Yahweh (Judg. 18: 31). Instead, she hands the two hundred pieces of

silver over to a silversmith for making a cult image, and speaks nothing about the rest

nine hundred pieces. The author’s account is important in revealing the hidden agenda

of Micha’s mother. First, there seems to be an irony of in Judg. 17: 3:

tAf[]l;(…ynI©b.li…hw"“hyl;…yTiv.D:äq.hi. Continuity of the same preposition (l) in the Hebrew text

drives home the irony in the act of consecration as to how one (Micah’s mother)

cannot consecrate something to Yahweh and decides for himself/herself the purpose

of it. Second, Micah’s mother initially speaks of restoring the silver to his son for

king was the point that the author was making, then why does he rue the absence of a king, and why

does he present the lone voice (the old man of Gibeah) against the anti-social and immoral act? Rather,

we argue that the author makes two basic points. First, a king becomes the guardian of aniconism

because of his loyalty to Yahweh, and not because of any of his supernatural power to eradicate

idolatry. The OT texts suggest that no Israelite king, however godly and mighty, was able to prevent

anti-social behaviors. For instance, acts of murder, rape and events of sectionalism has never ceased to

exist in the days of David. On the contrary, with regard to reformation, the OT texts commend the

kings for doing away with idolatry in Israel. This is not to say that the king was not responsible for

social justice, but the point is that a king simply cannot prevent all the anti-social behaviors. Second,

the Israelite society, with its commitment to aniconism, will be in a better position to maintain its

socio-moral health. 98

Block, Judges, Ruth, 478-479.

203

making the cult image, yet she personally does business with the silversmith (Judg.

17: 3-4). This means, the act of Micah’s mother is not merely a misdirected gratitude

to Yahweh, but is indicative of an agenda of introducing iconism into the family.

That Micah’s mother encroaches into the role of a ba tyB becomes further clear from

the author’s intention to profile Micah as the head of the house. One, the story is silent

on Micah’s father “(Block, Judges, Ruth 482).” Two, the introduction of Micah in the

narrative further corroborates his headship: instead of introducing as the son of a

person, it says “there was a man.”99

Three, undoubtedly, Micah is the father of the

house, which is evident in how conducts his affairs—appointing his sons or a Levite

for running his business. In short, the text shows that an inclination towards idolatry,

or the initial act, in Micah’s family is the beginning of its disordered family structure.

During the course of the unfolding of idolatry in Micah’s house, the author also shows

how the Decalogue’s command is subverted in according honor to one’s own parents.

Both Micah and his son comply with the wishes of their respective parents for sinful

causes--one is an accomplice to initiating idolatry in the family; the other is an official

perpetuating the cult. Again intriguingly, Micah subjects himself to the fatherly

authority of the Levite who is said to be a younger person. The text suggests a

worsening family structure by portraying a younger person as a father-figure.100

On

the one hand, Micah does not seem to abdicate the responsibility of being the

paterfamilias, as he desires a prosperous life and commits himself to looking after his

cultic appointee. On the other hand, by according an honorific title of “father” to the

Levite, Micah transfers the authority to someone who is not his kin. This is a serious

subversion of family and clan succession.101

In this respect, the analysis of Gen. 31

and Judg. 17-18 substantiates Wright’s observation which says, “idolatry produces

disorder in all our fundamental relationship” “(The Mission143).”

99

The first kind of introduction suggests that the person is not the ultimate head (Judg. 3: 9, 15; 4: 6; 6:

11; 9: 1) unless the relationship with the father is expressed in the past tense (Judg.11: 1-2). By

contrast, introductions such as “there was a man, “a certain man” or “a man of” seem to suggest that

the person is the head of the family (for instance, Judg. 10:1; 13: 2; Ruth 1: 1; 1 Sam. 1: 1; 9: 1; 25: 2;

Job 1: 1). 100

Block, Judges, Ruth 488. Commenting on this D. T. Oslon speaks of a collapse of accountability

structure in Micah’s family “(Judges 870).” 101

A provisional fratriarchy within a clan or family was practiced in Ancient Israel. This means,

Micah’s act goes against the established convention. On the discussion of fratriarchy see Bendor 1188.

On the honorific aspect and how Micah subjects himself to the authority of the Levite, see Block,

Judges, Ruth 488.

204

To round off, our text-semantic analyses of Gen. 31 and Judg. 17-18 show that both

texts give the following reasons for aniconism. First, idolatry is rejected because an

idol is ontologically incompatible with the aniconic Yahweh. As opposed to

Yahweh’s aniconic nature that is grounded in his presence on earth, direct

communication with the people and his existence in heaven, an idol (Laban’s

teraphim) is not a god of heaven and earth because it does not materialize divine

presence on earth (immanent), nor does it suggest the existence its supposed deity in

heaven (transcendent). Similarly, an idol (Micah’s teraphim) does not share a

common ontology with Yahweh and thus has nothing in common with him. Further,

both Gen. 31 and Judg. 17-18 reject idolatry as it is the main offense committed

against Yahweh. The other side of aniconism’s rationale is the incompatibility

between “idol” and “Israel” as idolatry affects the socio-familial structure in both

families (Jacob and Micah).

A similar pattern emerges from both texts concerning aniconism’s rationale

irrespective of whether the teraphim is intended to embody other gods or/and

Yahweh. That is, the incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” in

terms of ontology and offense, and the incompatibility between “idol” and Israel in

terms of idolatry affecting the socio-familial structure of Israel.

4.3.4. A Text-Semantic Analysis of hkSm: This term is associated with the golden

calf (Butler 378), though it also means an idol in general.102

Some of the usages103

of

hkSm in the OT are: Exod. 32: 4, 8; Exod. 34: 17; Lev. 19: 4; Neh. 9: 18; 2 Kgs 17: 16;

Psa. 106: 19; Isa. 30: 22; Nah. 1: 14 (appearances of hkSm in Hosea 13: 2 and Hab. 2:

18 are discussed elsewhere because they are used along with other idol vocabularies).

4.3.4.1. The Ontological Incompatibility between the Aniconic Yahweh and the

Golden Calf (hkSm) in Exodus 32-34: We base our text-semantic analysis on the

Exodus 32-34 as most of the aforementioned references seem to allude or refer to it.

102

C. Dohmen derives two basic meanings of hkSm based on the root word $fn: (i) hkSm is cast metal; (ii)

it is a cult image. He disagrees with J. Fauer in classifying hkSm as a “consecrated image.” See,

Dohmen 431-432, 436. 103

Other usages of hkSm are not cited because either such usages do not convey the prominence of

idolatry or some of them are covered in the previous chapter. For instance, whereas occurrences such as

Isa. 25: 7; 28: 20 do not suggest idolatry, others that do convey idolatry are Deut. 9: 12, 16; 27: 15; Isa.

42: 17.

205

The author’s use of hkSm in two important places suggests that the incompatibility of

“idol” (the golden calf) is central to the text: it occurs at the beginning of the narrative

when the idol is accepted as a divinity, and towards the end, in the immediate literary

context of re-enunciation of the covenantal obligation. These strategic locations of

hkSm in Exod. 32-34 again reinforce the notion that the violation of the first and

second commandments becomes concomitant, if Yahweh is represented through a cult

image. The people, by uttering the phrase “these are your gods,” violate the first

commandment (“you shall have no other gods”). Furthermore, the author presents a

rephrased second commandment, in order to emphasize the contradiction of divine

representation through a molten image (hkSm). The text defines idolatry as the making

of molten gods (hkSm yhla, Exod. 34: 17) instead of explaining it in terms of sculpting

an image (hnwmt-lkw lsp, Exod. 20: 2-3).

A close perusal of Exod. 32-34 indicates that the text portrays the idol as an antithesis

to Yahweh’s continuing presence among his people. Exod. 32-34 has usages of spatial

proximity for both the idol and Yahweh. Whereas words such as wnynpl and wynpl are

used for the idol (Exod. 32: 1, 5, 23), phrases like hwhy-la (32: 31-32), ^BrqB (33: 3),

d[wm lha (33: 7), !n[h dwm[ (33: 9), ~ynp-la ~ynp (33: 11), ynp and ^ynP (33: 14-15), wnM[

(33: 16), ^ynP-l[ ybwj-lk ryb[a (33: 19; 34: 6) and wnBrqB (34: 9) are used to convey

Yahweh’s presence. The author refers to people’s language of divine proximity

through the cult image, but he also shows how Yahweh refuses to accompany the

people for their offense of replicating the divine presence. Thus the author’s reason

for aniconism is the incompatibility between the authenticity of the aniconic divine

presence and the inauthenticity of the supposed earthly body of Yahweh (the golden

calf) for materializing the same. We turn to this in the following section.

4.3.4.1.1. The Extent of Divine Presence and the Inauthentic Divinity of hkSm:

From the viewpoint of cultus, the author reports about the idol (hkSm) as offering a

direct and an unrestricted divine presence to the people, with an unbound freedom to

worship (vv. 6, 8). Cultic activities such as singing and dancing before the purported

deity seem to confirm this (vv. 18, 19).

206

The author deliberately retains this idea of divine presence in the text—we have

mentioned a few words referring to the perceived divinity of the idol--because by so

doing he denies divinity or the authenticity of the ontological mutuality between the

golden calf and the deity. As the text suggests, the authentic aniconic divine presence

is readily available and yet highly restricted. The people live within the bounds of

Yahweh’s spatial presence, but only Moses is said to have a direct and close access to

it, as exemplified by the tent of meeting.

Some scholars argue that the tent of meeting reflects Yahweh’s limited and distant

presence, because he no longer lives in their midst and is available only on the basis

of the people’s enquiry. The reason for Yahweh’s distance, it is suggested, is the

golden calf (Stuart 694): “Now Moses used take the tent and pitch it outside the camp,

far off from the camp (hnxMh-!m qxrh).” Though the damaging effect of idolatry seems

to justify this line of argument, the text seems to suggest an alternative explanation for

the following reasons.

First, as Brueggemann says, the pillar of cloud did not cease to symbolize and realize

Yahweh’s continuous and complete presence after the episode of idolatry “(Exodus

938).” We shall go further to support Brueggemann’s point. The language describing

people’s experience of divine presence at the tent of meeting is reminiscent of the

Sinai theophany.104

In the Sinai theophany Moses brings (ace’AYw:) the people out of the

camp to the mountain, but in the case of the tent of meeting the people themselves

would go (aceyE) out to the tent of meeting. In the Sinai theophany people take their

stand (WbßC.y:t.YI)w:) at the foot of the mountain, but in the later case people stand (WbêC.nI“w>) at

the door of their own tents when Moses goes out (taceÛK.) to the tent of meeting. In the

Sinai theophany Moses goes up (l[;Y:ïw :) to the top of the mountain that is covered with

cloud, but in the latter case Moses comes into (AaßB o) the tent of meeting after which the

cloud descends on it. In the Sinai theophany Moses speaks (rBeêd:y> hv,ämo) and God

answer him by thunder, but in the latter case Yahweh speaks (hw"Ühy> rB,’dIw>) with Moses

104

Joze Krasovec (79) does remark on such reminiscence or what he calls a “similarity.” But he does

not explain this except mentioning the cloud cover and Yahweh’s appearance to Moses in both cases.

207

face to face. Thus it is incorrect to say that the tent of meeting offers a limited

presence.

Second, the argument of a spatial gap between the deity and people seems to be

unduly stretched. The text states that people are able to catch sight of Moses until he

enters the tent of meeting. This suggests contiguity between the camp and the

designated venue. According to Moberly, in Exod. 33: 7-9, the verb acy does not

convey a meaning of the tent being located outside the camp “(At The Mountain174-

176).”

Third, in so far as a geographically circumscribed presence of Yahweh is concerned,

restrictive and distance factors always existed between him and the people even

before the act of idolatry. For instance, during the Sinai theophany, people are

instructed to stay away from the periphery of Yahweh’s presence. The author explains

this paradox in Exod. 19. On the one hand, he affirms that people stood in the

presence of Yahweh: “then Moses brought the people out of the camp to meet God

(~yhiÞl{a/h'( tar:îq.li); and they took their stand at the foot of the mountain” (v. 16). On the

other hand, except for Moses, he repeatedly conveys the imposed restriction upon

both the people and the priests: tAaêr>li hw"hy>-la, WsÜr>h,y<-!P, (v. 21);105

yn"+ysi rh:å-la, tl{ß[]l;

~['êh' lk;äWy-al { (v. 23); hw"ßhy>-la, tl{ï[]l; Ws±r>h,y<¥-la; ~['ªh'w> ~ynIåh]Koh;w> (v. 24). Furthermore,

upon witnessing the natural phenomenon associated with the theophany, they retreat

and depute Moses to be their interlocutor. Thus while the people withdraw, Moses

draws near to Yahweh: “… vGn hvmw qxrm ~[h dm[Yw.” Similarly, this paradox is again

explained on another occasion in which Yahweh invites Aaron, Nadab, Abihu and

seventy elders of Israel to his presence (Exod. 24: 1-2, 9-11). Unlike the restrictive

sense in Exod. 19, here the author uses the verb hl[ (hw"©hy>-la, hleä[]) with a positive

meaning and yet he reinforces the restriction by mentioning two things: one, they are

to worship him from a distance (qxrm); two, only Moses can come near to Yahweh

(ADb;l. hv,Ûmo vG:“nIw>). Although the text says that they went up and saw Yahweh

(…Wa§r>YIw: l[;Y:ïw:…), it is certainly from afar. Because, the author uses the same verb hl[

in verses 2 and 12 to suggest that the people going up to Yahweh is not completely

105

The wordplay between tar:îq.li (to meet God) and tAaêr>li (not to see Yahweh) also reinforces the

paradox that the author drives home.

208

closer. It is the same in the post-idolatry phase, even when Yahweh reassures them of

his own presence, which is confirmed by his revelation to Moses. The entire venue of

Yahweh’s spatial presence becomes a prohibited zone again for a theophany of

Yahweh in the post-golden calf phase (Exod. 34). After the theophany, the people

restrain themselves from approaching Moses, the divine intermediary, because he

reflects the glory of Yahweh’s presence. More importantly, the element of restriction

is equally extended to Moses himself, for Yahweh does not allow Moses to see his

face.106

Thus the restrictive aspects of the aniconic divine presence should not be seen

as its inadequacy.

In sum, according to the author, the golden calf is rejected as an inauthentic embodied

divinity because of its open and unhindered access to the supposed deity (divine

presence), while the true divine and aniconic presence is characterized by its

restrictive and deterring aspects, despite being adequately and readily available.

4.3.4.1.2. Cultic Comportments and the Inauthentic Divinity of hkSm: The author

highlights the cultic comportment of worshipers so as to drive home the inauthentic

divine presence offered by the idol.107

As he shows, the religious celebration of the

people in front of the idol reflects confusion, as their joyful noise lacks sanity and

order. When Joshua thinks it is the jubilation of a military victory, Moses says it is a

cacophonous singing (Andersen108-112; Edelmann 35). Apparently, this boisterous

ambience suggests the lack of cultic decorum. Thus Moberly “(At The Mountain196)”

rightly rejects J. M. Sasson’s view who thinks the cult of golden calf was “an orderly

ritual” “(The Worship151-159).” Moreover, their cultic celebration is associated with

a loose and despicable behavior (qxe(c;l. WmqUßY"w :), which is understood as sexual orgy

(Moberly 46, 56; Macdonald 36).

Gerald J. Janzen “(The Character 597-607)” revisits and challenges Moberly’s

argument of disorderly or condemnable behavior of the people. He proposes that the

106

Thus our interpretation suggests that Victor P. Hamilton’s comment is somewhat misleading when

he says “the luminous and numinous presence of Yahweh attracts; it does not repel…it is forbidden to

everyone except Moses and Aaron “(The Hand186-187).” 107

Although the sincerity of the conduct and the piety of idol worshipers cannot be a universal criterion

to argue for the lack of authenticity in cult images, Exod. 32 factors in the improper cultic

comportments of Israelites before the golden calf in order to make a case for the authentic, aniconic

divine presence of Yahweh.

209

cultic behavior of the people is an anticipatory military celebration, and not a frenzied

activity associated with sexual orgy. Janzen’s proposal reopens the debate of the

orderliness and propriety of the cultic comportment in Exod. 32. However, our focus

here is not to determine the exactness of orgiastic behavior associated with people’s

celebration (which earlier studies have shown). Instead, it is to challenge the viability

of Janzen’s proposal and, in light of this, to show how the cultic comportments

underline the inauthentic divinity (the absence of mutual ontology between the idol

and the deity) of the golden calf.

Janzen’s proposal revolves around the following points: one, he argues that the very

form of the bull iconography not only associates with strength and militarism in the

AWA (although bull symbol also means fertility and sexuality), but also with the fact

that Yahweh is described as a warrior in the book of Exodus (chs 15, 22, 23); two, the

phrase “eating and drinking” ooccurs alongside military celebration (cf. Judg. 9: 27; 1

Sam. 30: 16); three, other usages of qxc may not mean sexual orgies, but joyful

celebration (cf. Gen. 26: 8; 39: 14, 17);108

four, both the words h[o+rEB . and hc'Þm.vil. (vv.

17 and 25) suggest respectively the people’s war cry and the people being a threat to

their enemy, 109

which essentially means people’s rebellion against Yahweh’s

kingship so as to organize themselves into an independent political entity (601-603).

Although Janzen’s argument is impressive, his proposal seems to be less plausible for

a number of reasons.

First, Janzen’s interpretation fails to see the text plainly, since the author is not

concerned primarily about the form and function of the idol. Before the idol is made,

the author reports the people’s statement as asking Aaron to make gods who will go

before them, which, according to Janzen, means that the calf will oversee Israel’s

military advancement. However, after the idol is made no such statement is made by

the people. As reported on both occasions, people speak of the idol as the one which

has brought them out of Egypt; nothing of the future activity is explicitly attributed to

it, let alone its military function. In this connection, an important point one must

108

Janzen, “The Character” 600, 601, 602. His point is: it is unimaginable that both Isaac and Joseph

would have engaged in sexual orgies, though the latter is falsely accused of rape. 109

Exod. 32: 25 says, “…for Aaron had let…loose, to their shame among their enemies;” however,

Janzen prefers the NJPS translation that says, “so that they were a menace to any who might oppose

them.

210

consider is that the book of Exodus never describes the act of Yahweh bringing

people from Egypt as a military victory. The main verb that mainly express Yahweh’s

act of bringing people out of Egypt is acy (and hl[110 occurs in a few places). However,

the appearances of acy (or hl[), or the motif of Yahweh bringing people from Egypt, is

conspicuously absent in the texts which use the language of war or portray Yahweh as

a divine warrior. For instance, Exod. 14 speaks twice of Yahweh fighting for his

people (…~xLy hwhy [v. 14]; …~xln hwhy…[v. 25]), but nowhere does the chapter

connect Yahweh’s fight against the Egyptian army with his bringing the people from

Egypt. Similarly, Exod. 15 speaks of Yahweh as a man of war, but it has no reference

to Yahweh bringing the people from Egypt. In a few places, acy does occur in the

context of Yahweh unleashing his power against Egypt, but in these places the

imagery of Yahweh is that of the sole divine sovereign (not divine warrior) who

executes his punishment and judgment on Egypt and Pharaoh.111

Thus Janzen’s

argument for the military function of the calf is open to question. The central issue in

Exod. 32 is whether or not the golden calf can embody Yahweh (his

self/essence/presence) irrespective of its form and function.

Second, Janzen’s interpretation of qxe(c;l as a celebration of military victory, as it

occurs alongside the pair “eating and drinking,” is unlikely.112

Whereas the two

instances in Judges and 1 Samuel speaks of “eating and drinking” in the context of an

obvious or a vanquished enemy,113

Exod. 32: 6 does not suggest any impending war

or a specific enemy.114

Rather, the activity of eating and drinking mentioned in Exod.

32: 6 (Atêv'w > lkoåa/l,¥ ‘~['h' bv,YEÜw :) reverses the cultic nature of the meal shared by the elders

before Moses went up to the mountain. Here Janzen ignores the implications of words

such as x;BeÞz>mi, tl{ê[ o and ~ymi_l'v.. in Exod. 32: 5-6. Interestingly, the cultic repast in Exod.

23 is the last Israelite activity before they undertook another one in front of the golden

110

For further discussion on the verbs, acy, hl[ and the Egyptian deliverance. Chacko 221-222. 111

Two verbs, xlv and acy, occur in relation to people’s deliverance from Egypt in which Yahweh’s

power and judgment is mentioned (Exod. 3: 20; 6: 1; 6: 6; 7: 4). In Exod. 7: 4, 5; 12: 17, 51, acy occurs

along with the term tabc. But they do not refer to the divine appellation, tabc hwhy. 112

Although Macdonald considers the orgiastic conduct of the people, he does not probe into the text

except making a passing observation with regard to the sexual immorality and resultant plague between

the Baal Peor and the golden calf episodes “(Recasting 36-37.)” 113

Another reference we may cite is 2 Kgs 9: 34. 114

The act of eating and drinking also occurs in the context of hospitality and fellowship (Judg. 19: 4,

6).

211

calf.115

As for the angel of Yahweh driving out the inhabitants of Canaan, the author

provides a nuanced position in Exod. 32-34. He does not refer to them as enemies of

Israel in Exod. 33: 2, as he does in Exod. 23: 20-23. Importantly, in Exod. 33: 2-3 the

weight falls more on Yahweh’s withdrawal from among the people than the divine

assistance in driving out the occupants of Canaan. This is further evident in Moses’

plea as it shows that he is more interested in the personal presence of Yahweh

accompanying the people, which is the distinctive hallmark separating them from

others, than merely achieving military success for occupying Canaan (Exod. 33: 14-

15). Thus unlike 1 Sam. 8: 20 that speaks of the king going before (acy) and fighting

the people’s battle, different usages of $lh in Exod. 32-33 refer predominantly to

Yahweh’s presence among the people rather than attaching any overt military

function to it (Exod. 32: 33; 33: 14).

Finally, the meaning of hc'Þm.vil as fearfulness of Israel’s enemies because of the

impending advancement of the former is also contestable. In this regard, Janzen’s

preference for this meaning of hc'Þm.vil is based on two explanations (we have already

cited his preference for NJPS translation): one, the singing (tANë[;) and celebration in

Israelite camp is associated with war cry (h[o+rEB); two, this fits with v. 25 as h[oår"p—this

creates wordplay with h[o+rEB--suggests that the Israelites have declared themselves as a

rebel political entity. However, both arguments have their drawbacks. Although both

terms, tANë[ and h[o+rEB/h['äWrT.(cognate), occur in the context of military celebration as

Janzen’s argues, the text suggests it otherwise. As the narrator shows, Moses

possessing prior information about the situation at the foot of the mountain is in a

better position to discount Joshua’s assessment that peoples’ singing is a war cry.

Similarly, it is difficult to interpret hc'Þm.vil as Israelites being a military threat to their

enemies just because it occurs alongside h[oår"p. The difficulty is that this interpretation

makes the indictment of Aaron redundant. Verse 25 says that Aaron is responsible for

the disorderly scenario: “for Aaron had let them loose (h[oår"p.)…” Janzen’s

understanding of the word h[oår"p as an act of rebellion or creating an independent

political entity with an implication of rejecting Yahweh’s kingship (603-605), seems

to be stretching the argument too far. Even if Janzen does not concede the orgiastic

115

The partaking of a cultic repast is a pattern of Israelite idolatry, which is evident later in another

episode at Baal of Peor (Num. 25: 2). Whether or not the cultic repast was a covenantal meal is besides

point. For a detailed discussion, see Nicholson, The Interpretation 76-97.

212

connotation of h[oår"p that Moberly suggests (56), he fails to see the statement of v. 25

in light of Moses’ reprimand of Aaron (v. 21) for having led the people to commit a

great sin. In verse 21, the mention of people’s sin does not carry an undertone of

political rebellion against Yahweh; it shows an obvious violation of the prohibition of

idolatry. The author’s use of the word txeävi (v. 7, accusation of the people being

corrupt of idolatry) at the beginning drives home the nature of charge in v. 21. This is

not to say that the OT does not concomitantly speak of idolatry and political rebellion,

but it is to say that Exod. 32-34 does not juxtapose the accusation of idolatry with the

rejection of Yahweh’s political authority or kingship as clearly shown, say, as in

1Sam. 8: 6-8.

In short, Janzen’s proposed meaning of qxe(c;l. WmqUßY"w as a celebration of military victory

is contestable. Whether or not qxc means sexual orgy in Exod. 32: 6, it certainly

suggests a heightened moral impropriety in the context of an energetic mass

celebration given that qxc generally means a forbidden conduct between opposite

genders except for its allowance in marital relationship. Thus our dialogue with

Janzen reinforces that that the cultic comportment of the people before the golden calf

is marked by disorderliness and morally deplorable conduct.

Building on this point, we should now turn to the issue of how the author fits the

cultic comportments in Exod. 32-34. While scholars have mainly looked into the

meanings of qxe(c;l. and hc'Þm.vil as seen already, no light is shed on another word, ~wq,

which draws a contrast between the two different cultic comportments and establishes

the inauthentic divinity of the golden calf.

The author mentions of people’s cultic activity in Exod. 32: 6 which has two similar

words used in parallel, namely, WmyKi’v.Y:w : and WmqUßY"w: with a meaning of rising up. The

first (~kv) is normatively associated with cultus (sacrifice); and, it is also associated

with offering sacrifices to idols.116

The usage of ~kv in Exod. 32: 6 refers to the latter.

The second (~wq) is more of a trigger movement to engage in a condemnable cultic

celebration. The purposive nature of their usages (~kv and ~wq), particularly ~wq in

116

Some of the other occurrences involving both Israelites and non-Israelites are: Num. 14: 10; Josh. 6:

15; 1 Sam. 1: 19; 1 Sam. 5: 3, 4; 1 Sam. 9: 26.

213

Exod. 32-34, is fairly clear for the following reasons: (i) their usages in Exod. 32: 6

carry a negative connotation because the previous usages convey a positive sense: in

the earlier part of the book, ~kv is used in connection with Moses rising up early in

the morning to confront Pharaoh (Exod. 8: 20; 9: 13), and ~wq is used in connection

with Pharaoh asking the Israelites to leave Egypt to serve Yahweh or in connection

with Moses going up to Yahweh’s presence (Exod. 12: 30, 31; 24: 13); (ii) in the book

of Exodus, their occurrences stop with the golden calf episode; (iii) in the remaining

part of the story the author exclusively uses ~wq in two phases: the act of idolatry

incurring divine purge and Moses’ intercession, and thereafter the divine presence in

the tent of meeting and through the theophany.

In the first phase, the nature of cultic comportment becomes clear by a reaction of

Israel’s enemy (Exod. 32: 25). Here the enemies are referred to with an uncommon

term (~hymqB) in connection with their derision (hcmvl) for the people’s behavior.

While words such as bya or rc are used mainly for referring to Israel’s enemies in the

book of Exodus, or for that matter in the Pentateuch,117

the word ~hymqB is used

strategically in Exod. 32 to make a point. That is, the usage of ~hymqB accentuates

people’s shame as it shares the same root (~wq) with wmqYw (v. 6), with the latter

providing the necessary triggered moment to commit an act (qxe(c;l) which connotes a

despicable behavior between opposite genders. In line with this, the author defers the

declaration of the divine condemnation (Exod. 32: 7) of idolatry until people rising up

before the idol to engage in a shameful conduct. Thus the negative usage of ~wq comes

full circle before the punitive purge and Moses’ intercession: people rise up (wmqYw) to

engage in a deplorable act (qxe(c;l) and become a derision to (hcmvl) all those who will

raise their hand (~hymqB) against Israel.

In the second phase, following the purging and intercession of Moses, the usages of

~wq (in association with other words) suggest the contrast between the disorderly and

orgiastic celebration of the people before the idol and their true reverence before

Yahweh. Whereas the people rise to engage in an unacceptable behavior (qxcl wmqYw)

in the presence of the cult image (hkSm), they rise (wmwqy) in awe of the divine presence

117

Gen. 49: 8; Exod. 15: 6, 9; 23: 4, 22, 27; Num. 10: 9, 34; 32: 21; Deut. 1: 42; 6: 19; 20: 1, 4, 14; 28:

7, 25, 48, 53, 47, 67.

214

manifested at the tent of meeting (33: 8). Interestingly, unlike the worship of the idol,

the rising (~qw) of the people for worshipping (WWxTvhw) Yahweh does not draw them

closer to the tent of meeting; rather, it is done in their own tents (33: 10).118

This

restriction, in no way, undermines Yahweh’s immediate presence. As Niehaus

observes, the symmetric action of people standing (WbêC.nI“w>) and their tent-doors and the

pillar of cloud standing (dWMå[;,dmeÞ[o) at the door of the tent of meeting suggest that the

latter has become home to Yahweh (201). In other words, the synchronization

between people rising up and standing (WbêC.nI“w> ~['êh'-lK' ‘WmWq’y", Exod. 33: 8) only

underscores that Yahweh’s presence and the orderliness and reverence towards the

deity go hand in hand.

The reverence towards the deity is all the more intensified in the event of theophany.

Such awe and glory of Yahweh’s presence is revealed in the theophany that even

Moses, the intimate divine interlocutor who spoke to Yahweh face to face in the tent

of meeting, had to hurry to bow before him: “And Moses made haste to bow his head

towards the earth, and worshipped” (Exod. 34: 8).119

The utmost reverence shown by

the divine interlocutor in the immediate presence of Yahweh is higher than that of the

people; whereas the people rise up (~wq) and worship, Moses bows down (ddq). Not

only does the author employ the wordplay between ~wq and ddq to suggest the Moses’

deference through his posture, but also his use of hwx—this verb was also used for the

Israelites worshipping at their tents--alongside rhm and #ra in Exod. 34: 8 raise the

rhetorical impact of Moses’ spontaneous and profound reverence.

People’s revelry before the supposedly embodied divinity (the golden calf) as

opposed to their reverence before Yahweh’s presence, as explained above, is

consistent with how the author describes their disposition in relation to the latter in

other places. This disposition is fear and trembling. It begins with the mediator,

Moses, himself at the venue of burning bush: “…for he was afraid to (arEêy ") look at

God” (Exod. 3: 6). Similarly, in the Sinai theophany the people are said to be terrified

of Yahweh’s presence, which is expressed in various terminologies:

118

Krasovec (97) makes only a vague observation of the point we have made in the text. 119

Interestingly, no other encounter of Moses with Yahweh mentions Moses worshipping the deity.

215

“… hn<)x]M;B;( rv<ïa] ~['Þh'-lK' dr:îx/Y<w:” (Exod. 19: 16); “…W[nUëY"w: ~['h' ar.Y:Üw:” (Exod. 20: 18).

Interestingly, Moses’ counsel to calm down the fear-stricken people uses the word ary

twice (Exod. 20: 20). On the one hand, Moses’ counsel means people should not fear

(War"yTi-la;) because Yahweh wanted them to have a firsthand experience120

of his

presence; on the other hand, this firsthand experience of his presence should evoke in

them a perpetual fear/reverence (At±a'r>yI) that they may not sin.121

Of course, fear is not

the only disposition in relation to the divine act or divine presence. There is also

jubilation on account of the divine act after people pass through the red sea (Exod.

15); the elders do eat and drink in Yahweh’s presence to the extent of seeing him.

However, on both these occasions it is clear that the reverence of Yahweh or the fear

of destruction associated with his holy presence is equally evident. The celebration

after the miraculous escape through the red sea commences after the people are said to

have feared Yahweh: “And Israel saw the great work…the people feared the Lord…

(Exod. 14: 30). Similarly, the elders’ eating and drinking is attached to the fact that

Yahweh did not destroy them: “…they saw the God of Israel…and he did not lay his

hand… (Exod. 24: 9-11). Thus, in Exod. 32 people’s cultic behavior and disposition

before the supposed embodied divinity does not coincide with the hitherto described

conduct in Yahweh’s presence.

In sum, the aniconic divine presence is characterized by proper cultic behaviors or

disposition and thus negates the golden calf as an authentic earthly body of Yahweh

for realizing divine presence.

4.3.4.1.3. The Supposed Supernatural Origin (Autogeneration) and the

Inauthentic Divinity of hkSm: The author brings the origin of the cult image into

120

Scholars translate the verb tASån: (piel infinitive construct) as “test” or “prove,” with ideas that

Yahweh has come down to test people’s obedience or test their respect of Yahweh’s presence. For

these opinions, see Durham 303. However, Moshe Greenberg “(hsn in Exodus 273-276)” makes a case

for rendering tASån as a firsthand experience based on host of other occurrences in the OT. Greenberg’s

case seems to be compelling because, as Durham observes, in Exod. 20: 18 the verb hsn is a parallel to

another twice-occurring verb har. See Durham 303. 121

Possibly, the author is referring to the sin of replicating divine presence through any other means

because the following verses (Exod. 20: 22-23) rehearse the first and second commandments as an

inseparable unit. This is followed by the promise that Yahweh will come wherever his name is

remembered (Exod. 20: 24). Further, the rephrasing in Exod. 20: 22-23 is interesting. While Exod. 20:

3 speaks of having no other gods before or besides Yahweh, Exod. 20: 22-23 show that these gods are

idols that can be worshipped as a part of or along with Yahweh. Similarly, whereas the second

commandment speaks of graven images, the latter refers to them as putative divinity.

216

sharp focus and thereby seals the issue of why it cannot be an authentic material

embodiment of Yahweh. Contrary to the author’s account of the human origin/source

of the idol (Aaron’s fashioning of the idol), Aaron claims that the idol came about by

itself, which is without any human cause and source: “…. And I threw into the fire,

and there came out this calf.”

Scholars122

have generally interpreted this as a libelous defense of Aaron’s weak

leadership, whose sole purpose is to exculpate himself and mislead Moses. While this

interpretation is possible, it must be borne in mind that the main concern of the text is

not to draw a mere comparison between Moses and Aaron, but to underline the

problem of divine presence through a cult image and to drive home the ontological

incompatibility between it and the deity.123

Although Aaron’s statement about the divine autogeneration (divinely mysterious

creation) of the idol is a factual lie, it does not seem plausible that Aaron can deceive

Moses with this frivolous excuse given the fact that Moses has spent such a long time

in the presence of Yahweh. The author already speaks of Moses having a prior

knowledge of the people’s idolatry as Yahweh has already told him. In fact, one need

not start with Aaron’s second statement to look for falsities about the formation of the

calf. He identifies the calf with Yahweh right at the beginning of the story. If Aaron

thinks that the idol represents Yahweh, then the latter explanation of the idol’s

autogeneration is consistent with his claim of a divine superintendence. Noticeably,

Aaron is not retracting any of his earlier statements; rather, he is only giving a divine

legitimacy to a collective ideology by alluding to divine intervention in the origin of

the idol. Furthermore, Moses does not accuse Aaron in a general sense as being

122

Durham (431), Brueggemann “(Exodus 932-933),” Childs “(Exodus 570),” Cassuto “(A

Commentary 419-421),” Fensham “(The Burning191-193)” and Lewy (319-320) think that the author

has deliberately vilified Aaron and exalted Moses. Others like Aberbach and Smolar (91-116) and Bori

“(The Golden1-129)” see people’s demand. For a capsule summary of this line of argument, see Fox

85-102. 123

Thus the argument of J. B. Wells (62-63) seems to be misleading. He says that it is the priests who

“enable” Yahweh’s presence through their proper cultic functions and mediation. Drawing a parallel

between the selected Aronide priesthood and the people of Israel, he says that Yahweh’s presence is

withdrawn because the priests have served him in an inappropriate manner. Thus while Aaron, the

main priest, fails to intercede for the people, Moses takes it upon himself. Although the text speaks of

Moses’ vicarious plea, the foundation of this argument that priest “enable” Yahweh’s presence is

problematic because Yahweh is already there on the mountain even before the priests are consecrated;

also, his descent upon the mountain is not contingent upon the priesthood of Israel (Exod. 19: 3). By

contrast, the central question of the text is: can a cult image materialize divine presence or can the

golden calf embody Yahweh.

217

responsible for the act of idolatry; rather, he accuses Aaron as leading people into a

great sin: the literal meaning of t'abeîhe-yK i( (hiphil pf. 2nd

masculine singular) suggests

that Aaron is portrayed as the main instigator for bringing this upon the people,

although Yahweh accuses the people in general. Therefore, in overemphasizing the

purpose of Aaron’s apologia, scholars (mostly commentators) have ignored the claim

about the self-generative aspect of the idol.124

Another group of scholars do see the point of autogeneration of the golden calf in

Aaron’s statement as a manifestation of the undergirding iconological presupposition,

but they leave it there. The undergirding iconological premises are proposed in two

different parallels. On the one hand, Cassuto and Loewenstamm suggest a Canaanite

parallel. According to them, Aaron’s statement echoes the Baal epic, in which Baal is

said to have made a temple for and by him from the fire into which was cast precious

jewelry.125

On the other hand, Victor A. Hurowitz discerns a Mesopotamian parallel

as Aaron’s apologia disowns his role in the making of the idol, just as smiths and

artisans in Mesopotamia would have made ritual disclaimer of creating their gods

“(The Mesopotamia 155).”126

Although the Mesopotamian parallel is “more

preferable,” as Hurowitz opines “(The Mesopotamia155),” the important

commonality is that both parallels suggest a similar iconological premise with respect

to the alleged divine autogeneration of the idol, 127

and consequently, people’s

presumed divine fluidity of Yahweh. When people say, “these are your gods; Aaron

says, “…came out the idol.”

Having shown above the iconological premise of Aaron’s statement, we shall now

turn to how the author has dealt with it in Exod. 32-34. 128

All the three words--

whklvaw, vab and acYw—in Aaron’s reply contribute towards a strong appeal to the

124

Dougas K. Stuart mentions this (Exodus 679-680), but does not go further (he does not provide any

bibliographic information about scholars that advocate the motif of a “mythopoeic” origin of the idol).

In fact, he too veers off to address the leadership issues pertaining to Aaron’s indecisiveness. 125

Cassuto “The Palace of,” 136; Loewenstamm 486; Loewenstamm, “The Making” 337-338. 126

As we have noted in the first chapter, idol-makers in the AWA (Mesopotamia) will deposit their

instruments at the feet of the deity after each day’s work, followed by a recital of recant concerning

their role in idol-making which, otherwise, attributes the entire process to the supposed deity, whose

cult image is being fashioned (see Dick, Prophetic Parodies. 127

Also Hurowitz, The Mesopotamia 154. 128

In fact, this ideologically driven statement of Aaron also seems to be a counterclaim to the position

of the author of Deuteronomy (Deut. 4). While Aaron statement claims that the calf came out of fire,

Deut. 4 repeatedly asserts that Yahweh spoke from the fire underlining him being present in the fire.

218

iconological presupposition of the AWA. Interestingly, the author uses the same

words or their imagery so as to debunk Aaron’s iconological presupposition.

First, Aaron’s use of $lv seems to allege a divine miracle. This echoes Aaron’s

performance of the first miracle before Pharaoh, in which he threw the staff (Exod. 7:

9-10, both %lEïv.h;w > and %le’v.Y:w: in hiphil form). Interestingly, this is the only miracle that

Aaron performed by throwing the staff—other miracles were performed by stretching

or striking the staff—whereby the staff is transformed into something other, a snake.

While in the first event Aaron threw the staff at the divine command, in Exod. 32

Aaron throws people’s jewelry by himself. Although Aaron uses whklvaw (again in

hiphil) instead of hf[ to allege a miraculous creation of the idol, 129

the author argues

otherwise.

In order to consolidate that the Aaron’s action was devoid of any divine initiative, he

weaves into the text one of the important motifs of the book, namely, the imagery of

hand. While this motif, as argues David Rolph Silly, expounds the divine-human

collaboration in the book of Exodus (38-54),130

the author seems to overturn this in

the golden calf story. Thus at the beginning of the story, he mentions Aaron receiving

the jewelry from the people’s hand (~d"ªY"mi xQ:åYIw : v. 4) and made a calf that presumes the

role of Aaron’s hand. In other words, the making of the cult image is a result of

human-human collaboration, and not a divine-human one. Further, as a counter-point

to negate the divine part in the cult image, the author employs the only other usage of

$lv with the motif of the hand imagery, as Moses throws the tablets from his hands

(AdY"mi %lEÜv.Y:w: hv,ªmo) and breaks them at the foot of the mountain (v. 19). In highlighting

Moses’ counter-action ($lv) of disposing the divinely worked upon material, the

129

Another example of the hiphil usage of $lv is Exod. 15: 25 (~yIM;êh;-la, ‘%lev.Y:w: #[eê) which describes the

bitter water turning sweet. Although there is no explicit divine command given to Moses to throw the

tree (wood) into the water, the latter part of v. 25 and 26 suggest that the Moses’ act had the divine

initiative and consent of healing the water. Two other examples outside the book of Exodus are the

miracles done by the prophet Elisha. He heals the water of a city by throwing salt into a water body,

and he depoisons food by throwing the poisonous portion back into the food container. In both cases

the verb used is $lvYw (waw. Cons. hiph. Impf. 3. m. s.). 130

According to him, “the hand gesture of Moses and Aaron” bespeaks of coordination between

Yahweh and them for working out the divine task (39-40). For instance (43), while it is Yahweh’s

hand/arm that afflicts Egypt (Exod. 3: 20, 7: 4, 5; 9: 3, 15; 14: 31), Moses and Aaron are portrayed as

the ones who bring the events to pass through their hand gesture (Exod. 7: 19-20; 8: 5-6; 16-17; 10: 12-

13; 20-21).

219

author repudiates Aaron’s proposal of an automatic creation of a cult image through

divine mystery (“ I threw”), as he emphasizes the following contrasts between the

tablets and the calf in relation to the hand imagery: (i) the tablets are said to be the

work of God (~yhla hf[m), containing the writing of God (~yhla bTkm); (ii) the reason

Moses throws the tablets is the golden calf (“And as soon as…and saw the calf…he

threw the tablets…”); (iii) while the tablets receive a divine treatment (engraving,

twrx), the calf is the product of human labor (~yhla wnl-af[, jrxB).

The author not only employs the hand imagery to highlight Moses action of throwing

the tablet, but also, more importantly, this action is also explained through a causative

usage of $lv (%lEÜv.Y:w:, hiphil 1m.s.) similar to the case and claim of Aaron (Whkeäliv.a;w ",

hiphil 1 c.s.). By employing the causative usages of $lv to explain Moses’ act, the

author seems to underscore the difference in the two human-caused actions. That is to

say, while a unilateral human cause disclaims the human role and alleges a

supernatural creation of a material body of the deity, the human source which is

subordinate to the divine (Yahweh) sees the distinction between divine and human

work (the tablet and the calf). In short, the author’s handling of $lv in the text refutes

Aaron’s suggestion of a divine autogeneration of the calf, and reinforces its human

creation.131

Second, Aaron’s mentioning of fire in the formation of the calf does not merely

suggest its smelting utility for shaping the cult image. In fact, such a role of the fire

seems to be implicit in the author’s description (Exod. 32: 4). Rather, Aaron’s

reference to the fire connotes its divine association. This seems to be a negative echo

of the burning bush. Whereas in the burning bush Yahweh speaks from the fire to take

the people of Israel out of Egypt, Aaron appeals to the fire for an autogeneration of

the calf, which is already hailed as the one that has brought the people out of Egypt

(Exod. 32: 4). In both cases, the supernatural is the absence of natural: in the burning

bush the natural, the consumption of the bush, does not happen; similarly, in the

golden calf episode the fire shapes or creates the cult image without any need for the

natural, which is, the role of human artwork, molding and sculpting. Thus, Aaron’s

defense seems quite intelligible.

131

Macdonald makes a similar point, but he analyzes the text with a different focus “(Recasting 31).”

220

Noticeably, the author also handles the word va intelligently. He shows that the same

fire that allegedly plays an important role in creating the idol is also the one which

burns it: “And he took…. and burnt with fire (vaB @rvYw)….” Understandably, the

same fire means the materiality of a fresh fire made by Moses (Stuart 678), and not

the fire that Aaron speaks of. The use of fire by both Aaron and Moses, therefore,

speaks of human whims and power in creating or destroying cult images and, thereby,

unambiguously suggests the lack of divinity in them.132

Similarly, the author’s use of

the imagery of burning or fire in a negative relation to the people’s idolatry further

indicates that idols are not only non-divine, but they are also anti-divine. The text

mentions Yahweh’s wrath burning hot to consume the people for worshipping the

molten calf, just as the calf was consumed by the fire: ~Lkaw yPa-rxyw (32: 10),

^Pa hrxy hwhy hml (v. 11), ~tLklw and !wrxm (v. 12) and ^lka-!p (33: 3). The imagery of

burning is not only associated with Yahweh, but is also seen in Moses (hvm @a-rxYw),

who shares the anguish of Yahweh and authorizes a cleansing massacre of the

idolaters.

Furthermore, in order to refute Aaron’s idea of the fire playing a supernatural role in

the autogeneration of the calf, the author possibly goes even to the extent of

rephrasing the visible symbol of Yahweh’s presence. That is, he does not show the

fire as a visible sign of divine presence or glory in the remainder of the pericope. By

doing so, he breaks the pattern of cloud-fire combination that the author has followed

hitherto, or will follow after this pericope, to describe the installation of the tabernacle

at the end (Exod. 40).133

For instance, in the mountain theophany before the golden

calf episode, the author associates Yahweh’s presence with fire and cloud:

vae_B' hw"ßhy> wyl'²[' dr:îy" …rh'êh'-l[; ‘dbeK' !n"Ü['w>… (Exod. 19: 16, 18); , rh")h'-ta !n"ß['h, sk;îy>w: (Exod. 24:

15); tl,k,Þao vaeîK . hw"ëhy> dAbåK . (Exod. 24: 17). However, the author mentions only the cloud

132

The text does not hint at whether Aaron’s fire is a special cult fire. If that is so, then the efficacy of

the cult fire becomes worthless since a normal fire burns up the cult image, hkSm. On the contrary, a

dissenting scholarly (though a minority) voice argues for the destruction of the stone tablets by fire

instead of the cult image (See, Frankel 330-339), or the destruction of both (Slivniak 19-38). On the

other hand, C. T. Begg (208-251) argues that a total destruction of the golden calf is impossible. Thus

the explanation of destruction should be seen as the author’s literary technique for driving home his

theological point. 133

In his study of the Sinai theophany, Thomas B. Dozeman only shows the parallel of the cloud

descending on both the mountain and the tabernacle “(God in the127-129).” He does not take note of

the break in the pattern.

221

cover in the Sinai theophany described in Exod. 34:!n"ë['B,( ‘hw"hy> dr,YEÜw : (v. 5). Similarly, as

opposed to mentioning both the cloud and fire as resting on the tabernacle as

mentioned in Exod. 40 (lh,aoå-ta!n"ß['h, sk;îy>w:; hl'y>l:ß hy<ïh.Ti vae§w>), the author mentions only the

cloud cover over the portable tent of meeting,( (dWMå[;drEyE lh,ao+h' xt;P,ä dm;Þ['w > !n"ë['h Exod. 33:

9).134

Not only in the pericope (Exod. 32-34), but also in other places in the

Pentateuch the relationship between fire, jewelry and idols runs counter to Aaron’s

idea. For instance, Numb. 31: 21-23 suggests the role of fire as a cultic purifier for

gold, silver and other metals which are taken in wars. After this purification, these

commodities become fit for use. Further, just as Moses burned the golden calf in fire,

other parts of the Pentateuch instructs the people of Israel to burn the idols of other

nations after the former has conquered the latter (Deut. 7: 5; 25). Thus, put simply, the

author’s use of va and its imagery in Exod. 32-34 is to repudiate the divine origin or

divine embodiment of the idol, the golden calf.

‘

Third, the author strategically uses the verb acy so as to repudiate the alleged

autogeneration (or the deity himself creating) of the idol.135

The people describe their

deliverance from Egypt as the task of the divine mediator: “…As for this fellow

Moses who brought us up out of Egypt (wnl[h)…” (vv. 1, 23). Here, one must notice

the hiphil form of hl[. Then, they attribute the deliverance from Egypt to the calf:

“these are your gods…brought you up out of Egypt ($wl[h)” (vv. 4, 8); again, it is the

hiphil usage of hl[. Nahum M. Sarna comments, the people are by no means foolish

when they do so; they are intelligent enough to judge that it is not the cult image that

has led them so far. Rather, their ideology henceforth, as Sarna goes on to say, is that

134

It is interesting that while the fire is not exclusively—it is fire and cloud combination as stated--

associated with Yahweh in Exodus, other books of the Pentateuch present it otherwise. For instance

Lev. 10: 2 and Num 16: 35 speak of fire coming out from the presence of Yahweh/from Yahweh to kill

Nadab and Abihu and the 250 elders respectively; similarly, Num. 11: 1-2 mentions the fire of the Lord

(hw"ëhy> vaeä) burning up some parts of the Israelite camp. We have already noted from Wilson’s work how

Deuteronomy repeatedly uses fire to connote divine presence. 135

R. C. Van Leeuwen (112-113) proposes that in Exod. 32 acy refers to the final stage of the shaping,

smelting and molding of the jewelry. In other words, acy is the final product of the metallurgy that is

similar to the Akkadian word elu, which suggests a technical meaning. Van Leeuwen also mentions

other references from the OT so as to support this meaning (Prov. 24: 4; Isa. 54: 16; Job 23: 10). Van

Leewuen’s proposal may be correct etymologically. However, going by the author’s intent of mounting

a polemic against the golden calf and its underlying iconological premise, it seems implausible that he

would have meant a technical or metallurgic connotation of acy. That the author was using acy for, and

with, an ideological motif becomes reasonably clear from the wordplay as he makes the literary shift

from rcYw to acYw: the author’s report in v. 4 is, “And he received gold at their hand, and fashioned (rcYw) it with a graving tool and made a molten calf;” however, v. 24 says, “…who have gold take it off, so

they gave it to me, and I threw into the fire, and there came out (acYw) this calf.

222

Yahweh will be identified with the cult image “(Exodus 204),” and it will be the

bearer of divine essence, which, in Fauer’s words, is the “divine glory” (11-12).136

Aaron’s defense for the creation of the calf furthers peoples’ idea. That is, the claim

of the autogeneration of the calf (without any human cause or source)--“…out came

(acYw) this calf” (v. 24)—is valid because the calf has brought people from Egypt.

The author rejects the above claim of compatibility between the autogeneration of the

golden calf and people’s version of deliverance from Egypt. This is evident in how he

has handled the two verbs, namely, acy and hl[. Although these two verbs encapsulate

the Egyptian deliverance in general (Chacko 221-222), which are also used by people

as already seen, the author uses them purposefully in Exod. 32-34 so to drive home

his point vis-a-vis the golden calf. Whereas the qal form of acy reports the calf’s

creation, the author mentions two hiphil usages of acy (causative), tacwh and ~aycwh, for

recounting Yahweh’s act of bringing the people out of Egypt (32: 11-12). Going a

step further, he displays a total absence of the causative usages of acy, even in cases

that narrate the deliverance from Egypt, if the subject is someone other than Yahweh

in Exod. 32-34. That is to say, although the act of bringing people out of Egypt (or

leading Canaan) is connected with Moses in Exod. 32-34, the verb in each of these

reports is not acy, but hl[ (tyl[h, l[h, Exod. 32: 1, 7, 23; 33: 12). By linking hl[ to

Moses, the author does not intend to disown or dissociate the divine source, and

mediation, of the deliverance of Israelites. In fact, at the beginning and at different

places in the book, the author shows that Moses is the God-appointed intermediary as

he uses the verb acy for conveying Moses’ role in bringing the people out of Egypt

(Exod. 3: 10). Rather, the deliberate strategy of the author here, as said, is to rebut

Aaron’s iconological presupposition by subverting the usage of acy. This is why he

highlights the point and counterpoint exchanged between Yahweh and Moses. While

Yahweh restates people’s position and says that Moses has brought the people from

Egypt (tyl[h, hiphil/causative referred to as above), Moses replies that Yahweh alone

136

Thus a philosophical interpretation of golden calf episode is misleading. This interpretation argues

that people’s weak rationality led to them have a visible presence of deity, since a weak mind cannot

come to terms with the invisibility of the deity; on this interpretation, see Fox 95. As shown in the

second chapter, the practice of iconic representation in the religions of AWA is not an outcome of a

weak intelligence or reason of the people, but it is just the opposite.

223

(not Moses) is the cause and source of people’s deliverance (acy).137 Moses also goes

on to say that even the Egyptians know this fact, and they will denigrate Yahweh if he

attempts to undo his own act of deliverance. By highlighting this exchange, the author

breaks the pattern hitherto seen in the book: although he uses the aforementioned two

verbs, hl[ and acy (both in hiphil forms), for describing the exodus, with Yahweh

being the ultimate source and subject of the act of deliverance,138

he limits it only to

acy in Exod. 32-34.139

Also, as we have already seesn, his use of the same verb in

relation to Yahweh’s presence in the tent of meeting debunks the idea that the calf

embodies Yahweh’s essence by virtue of its autogeneration. Thus the author’s point

is: since Exod. 32-34 underlines that not only peoples’ deliverance from Egypt,140

but

also no other divine event happens by itself unless caused by Yahweh,141

any idea and

claim of the golden calf autogenerating (it being brought into existence through divine

source) is out of question.

Finally, the author’s proscription of idolatry (Yahweh’s command) in the preceding

chapter (Exod. 20) cogently disabuses Aaron’s claim. As noted earlier, the Decalogue

137

Quite interestingly, Chacko, having examined different facets of Moses’ charismatic leadership,

stops short of attributing the title of a deliverer to Moses (110-118; 118). 138

Exod. 3: 8, 10, 11, 12, 17; 6: 6, 7, 8, 13, 26, 27; 7: 4, 5; 12: 17, 42, 51; 13: 3, 14; 16: 6; 17: 3; 18: 1;

19: 4; 20:1, 2. 139

Deuteronomy’s account also uses the hiphil form of acy whenever it refers to the deliverance of

Israelites out of Egypt. 140

That the deliverance from Egypt is not a human idea is reiterated elsewhere in the Pentateuch (Num.

16: 28). Here it occurs in the context of Moses being accused of brining the people out of Egypt to kill

them: “is it a small thing…you have brought us out of…to kill us…you have not brought us into a land

flowing…” (Num. 16: 13-14). The accusers, Korah, Dathan and Abiram, use ‘Wnt'’yli[/h,( and Wnt'êaoybiäh] (both in

hiphil 2ms) to underscore the human cause. That is to say, Moses is the source or the mind behind their

ouster from Egypt and the current troubles. To this Moses responds, “yBi(Limi al{ß-yKi” (Num. 16: 28). The

NIV’s rendering of this phrase (“it was not my idea”) beautifully captures the meaning and spirit of

Moses’ defense and hence must be preferred to other translations such as “that it has been of my

accord” (RSV), “for this is not my doing” (NAS), “for I have not done them of mine own mind” (KJV).

The authenticity of Moses’ apology to discount human source is enhanced by two things. One, in Exod.

32 Moses reaffirms that it is Yahweh’s idea to bring the people out: “why should the Egyptians say,

with evil intent (h['Ûr"B.)…” Two, Moses was not keen about him fitting into the scheme of divine

deliverance either, which is why Yahweh had to persuade him. 141

Another example of a divine causality in the text is observable during Yahweh’s self-revelation,

when he says that he will cause to go (ryb[a in hiphil form) all his goodness before Moses (Exod. 33:

19). The aspect of divine causality is noticeable in Yahweh’s self-revelation to Moses. The verb ynarh (Exod. 33: 18, hiphil imperative 3 m.s) shows that only Yahweh can cause his glory to be seen by

Moses. This cannot be accessed or seen by any other means of external agents. Two other hiphil verbs,

namely, ynT[dwh and yn[dwh (vv. 12, 13), speak of the divine initiative for the purpose of Yahweh’s self-

revelation. This implies that Moses is incapable of knowing the mind of the divine unless Yahweh

causes him to know (the divine causality of Moses’ knowledge is also noticed by Brueggemann

“(Exodus 939).” The point of this explanation is: true divine causality stands opposed to the notion of a

cult image supposedly autogenerating and manifesting the essence of a deity, as suggested by Aaron.

224

states that idols do not, and cannot, autogenerate; they are brought into existence by

humans, in this case by the people of Israel if they make idols:

….hyhy al and …. Hf[T al (vv. 3-4). The human/earthly cause of the calf’s origin is

very clear in Exod. 32. Three verbs in the opening part of Exod. 32 occur in hiphil

forms when the cult image is made: yla waybhw, waybYw in vv. 2, 3 as the people are

instructed to bring their jewelry to Aaron; and, rcYw in v. 4142

when Aaron fashions the

molten image. A small but significant detail--Aaron asks the people to take off the

gold earrings-- in the text makes this point even more convincing. It is quite intriguing

that Aaron does not ask for any other items such as gold bracelets, necklace and chain

etc. 143

Interesting also is the mention of the male members (sons) adorning gold

earrings, which was used in the idol-making (32: 2-3). Why is the author so particular

to mention these seemingly unimportant details? First, by exclusively mentioning the

use of gold earrings in idol-making, he polemically negates the idea of divine

embodiment. As mentioned earlier in the first chapter while analyzing Gen. 35 (v. 4),

gold earrings are used for adorning idols (embodied self of divinity). We had pointed

out there that reason for burying the gold earrings of the idol is to prevent the

possibility of their future reuse for making the same or other iconic representations.

In Exod. 32, the author presents the flipside of this argument to drive home the human

origin/cause: the earrings used by human serve the cause of making a supposed

divinity.144

Thus, Yahweh commands the people to strip off their ornaments in Exod.

33: 5 (drwh, again in hiphil form) so as to possibly preempt the usage of jewelry for

any further human cause. Second, by mentioning the wives, daughters and even sons

as the source of contribution, the author seals the near totality of human source. In

short, in the mind of the author, the cult image (hkSm) is an inauthentic divinity

because the underlying source of its origin and existence is human, and not divine—

the golden calf is not autogenerated or created by any heavenly deity. At this point, a

passing, but important, observation must be made concerning the author’s stand on

the Ark in relation to the golden calf. That is, since the author rejects the idea of

142

While the verb is commonly parsed as waw. Conse. Qal. Impf. 3.m.s of rcy (to form), Durham (419)

proposes the parsing as waw conse. hiph. Impf. 3.m.s of rrc (“ pressing, cause to narrow”). 143

In contrast, the author mentions varieties of gold items contributed towards the making of the

tabernacle (Exod. 35: 22). 144

The use of gold earrings for making an embodied divinity reappears in the story of Gideon (Judg. 8:

22ff.). But here the difference in terms of the underlying human source is straightforward. Unlike

Aaron who claims throwing the gold into the fire, the narrator, in Judg. 8, shows that every man threw

(Wkyliäv.Y:w: waw conse. hiphil 3ms) the golden earrings into a garment, and not into the fire. Gideon takes

these thrown earrings and makes an ephod.

225

divine fluidity with respect to Yahweh having a material body—in this case, the

golden calf--the Ark does not, and cannot, become one of that kind. Thus the divine

endowment of Bezalel and company, that they are filled with divine spirit and skills

of craftsmanship (Exod. 31: 1-6; 35: 30-36: 1), only underscores the divine initiative.

While the divine cause approves the making of the Ark, it stands opposed to the

making of the golden calf as its source and origin is human.

Other usages of hkSm suggest that the divine cause is opposed to cult images and their

worship. Isaiah 30: 22 describes molten images (hkSm) as filthy, disposable items in a

context of divine counseling. The chapter contains a dual theme of judgment and

prosperity, both connected to Yahweh’s plan, spirit and word. On the one hand,

Yahweh’s wrath inflicts punishment on the people (vv. 1-17) for having their own

plans which are disapproved by Yahweh and for their refusal to heed divine

instruction (hwhy trwT, vv. 8-11), the word (rbD. v. 12). On the other hand, Yahweh’s

mercy will reverse their fortune (vv. 18-33), an event which will begin with people

yielding to his voice (v. 21). Importantly, when the reversal of fortune happens, the

first and foremost consequence of heeding the divine word is to rid the cult images145

(v. 22): “And your ears shall hear a word…and your gold plated molten image…Be

gone.” Scholars like Willem A. M. Beuken and Watts interpret this divine

word/guidance as Yahweh’s own presence (381-382; 401).146

If so, then Isa. 30: 24

suggests that Yahweh’s presence dissipates idols, the inauthentic embodied divinities.

To put it simply, the divine action here contributes to the disposal of cult images

rather than creating them. Nah. 1: 14 further intensifies it as it shows that divine cause

goes one step further in destroying idols. Nah. 1 declares Yahweh’s impending wrath

upon Nineveh, in which the subject of several verbs (actions) is Yahweh: vv. 1-11 are

in the third person and vv. 12-14 are in the first person. Interestingly, while all the

verbs in Nah. 1 are to be found in non-causative forms,147

the verb that speaks of the

destruction of Nineveh’s idols is in hiphil form: hkSmw lsp tyrka (I will cut off carved

145

Watts discerns a chiastic structure to show the importance of the abolition of idolatry that we have

emphasized: “A, good news for Jerusalem (vv. 19-20); B, Your guide teaches (v. 21); key, get rid of

your idols (v. 22); B,’ your guide provides rain (vv 23-25); A,’ Yahweh heals his people (v. 26).” See

Watts 400. 146

While Watts says this directly, Beuken argues this on the basis of the act of scattering (Isa. 30: 22),

harking back to what Moses did to the golden calf (Exod. 32: 20). 147

~qn rjwn (v. 2); hQny al hQnw (v. 3), r[wG whvBYw (v. 4), [dyw (v. 7), rb[ hv[y @Dry (v. 8) $tN[ $N[a (v. 12) rbva qTna (v. 13); hWcw ~fa (v. 14).

226

and molten images). This is not to say that the verbs in non-causative form are devoid

of a divine force. Rather, it is to point out that the causative form doubly underlines a

tension between Yahweh’s action and the existence of cult images in which the latter

is decimated.148

This means, according to the two prophetic texts considered as above,

the question of divine origin of cult images does not arise as the divine cause

eliminates idols because they are incongruent with it. Possibly, these two prophetic

texts are referring to those cult images which may embody other gods. Hence, to note

again, a similar pattern emerges about the earthly/human cause concerning the origin

and existence of a cult image (hkSm): there is an ontological incompatibility between

Yahweh and “idol” irrespective of whether it is intended to embody Yahweh or/and

other gods.

4.3.4.1.4. hkSm and the Sin of Idolatry: Not only does the author reject the golden

calf because of its ontological incompatibility with the aniconic Yahweh, but he also

categorizes the worship of the idol, hkSm, as a “great sin.”149

Whereas the adjectival

expression of this offense, hldg hajx, is repeated three times in the text (32: 21, 30,

31), the noun and verb forms are repeated twice each--~ktajx, ~taJx and ajx--between

vv. 3-33. Importantly, the text seems to reiterate the offense of idolatry along the line

of the Decalogue and highlights its magnitude, as implicit in the second

commandment. Yahweh’s response in visiting the sin of the people reflects the

Decalogue’s enforcement on the execution of divine retribution. In this respect, the

worship of the calf is justly dealt with. But it also points to another aspect and shows

that the calf worship is no ordinary sin. Such is the gravity of the sin that Moses offers

to have his own destiny jeopardized if Yahweh refuses to forgive the people.

Interestingly, a complementary relation between afn and hxm shows that Moses was

prepared to go to the extent of being a vicarious sufferer for the people’s sin: “if thou

148

Both G.F. Hasel (342, 344) and E. Kutsch (635) observe that either the Niphal or the hiphil form of

trK provides the intensity of the action in view of the absence of the piel form of usages the OT. We

can cite a few examples. Whenever God is the subject (or even in background) of a causative form of

trK, invariably the meaning is destruction of enemies/people (to cite a few examples, Num. 4: 18; 1

Sam. 2: 33; 1 Sam. 20: 15; 1 Kgs 14: 10; Psa. 109: 13; Jer. 44: 8; Ezek 25: 7). The same of tenor of

destruction is noticeable when the object is a cult image or a prohibited cult item, and not people (Lev.

26: 30; Zech. 13: 2). Interestingly, even for other verbs the causative form (hiphil/hophal) is still

retained with respect to the destruction of cult images (Lev. 26: 30; Ezek. 30: 13). 149

Durham acknowledges the greatness of the offense of idolatry (430, 432-433), but he does not go on

to elaborate further.

227

wilt not forgive(afn)…blot (hxm) me….”150

Nevertheless, Yahweh does not fully

oblige the mediator, as the sending of a plague suggests.

The gravity of the sin involved in idolatry (the worship of the golden calf) is attested

to in Neh. 9: 18, where hkSm lg[ occurs. Apparently, Neh. 9 seems to override the

correct sequence of historical events, in favor of a thematic presentation: Yahweh’s

steadfastness versus Israel’s unfaithfulness “(Williamson, Ezra-Nehemiah 313).”

Moreover, the list compiling accounts of unfaithfulness is enumerated in such a way

that it is punctuated with Yahweh’s faithfulness in persisting with Israel. Though

Yahweh’s forgiveness of the people of Israel makes the issue of sin avoidable, as

Williamson suggests (315), the content of the text as a whole sufficiently warrants

that we look at the gravity of these sins that are described in two phases: before

entering the Promised Land and in the Promised Land.

Among all the enumerated offenses, the sin of worshipping a cult image (hkSm) stands

out as the great sin (“blasphemy” twldG twcan….yK @a) because it seems to be more

serious than the two other sins of Israel. Israel’s pride (wdyzh, vv. 16, 29) and

disobedience may not be equated with idolatry despite the former reflecting the sins

of pharaoh and Egypt (v. 10).151

The reason for this is that they lack a qualifying

description--either twldG or its equivalence. Also, though the other offense of Israel

(twldG twcan in v. 26) employs the terminology associated with great sin, it does not

refer to a particular sin; rather, it refers to the list of sins of a particular period. Thus,

the employment of a qualifier (twldG twcan) for a single sin of worshipping hkSm

bespeaks its magnitude. In a similar vein, the worship of “molten images” (hkSm) in 2

Kgs 17: 16 is cited as a direct result of the people abandoning Yahweh’s

commandment, which caused the exile of the northern kingdom.

In summary, a text-semantic study of hkSm in Exod. 32-34 and other supportive texts

shows that “idol” is rejected because it is ontologically incompatible with the aniconic

Yahweh. Here the incompatibility of an idol is the inauthentic divinity of the golden

150

A complementarity between afn and hxm is stronger in Exod. 32: 30-35, because the latter also means atonement in different contexts, when Yahweh holds against or forgives someone’s offense

(Neh. 4: 5; Psa. 51: 3, 11; Psa. 109: 14; Isa. 43: 25; 44: 22; Jer. 18: 23). 151

Both Williamson and F. Charles Fensham hint at the greatness of the sin of pride “(Williamson 314;

Fensham, The Book of 231).”

228

calf. It comes to the fore on the following counts: the golden calf is an inauthentic

earthly body of Yahweh despite supposedly offering an unhindered divine presence

and direct access to the deity; it is an inauthentic divinity because of the despicable

conduct of its worshipers; finally, it is an inauthentic divinity because the

source/cause of origin and existence is human, since it does not come into existence

through a mythopoeic and divine autogenesis. By exposing the inauthentic nature of

hkSm, Exod. 32-34 refutes the iconological premise of the AWA that speaks of divine

fluidity, divine autogeneration and ontological mutuality between a cult image and a

deity (in this case, it is supposedly between the golden calf and Yahweh). In contrast,

Yahweh’s aniconic presence is authentic in its legitimate restriction and the associated

awe of the worshipers. Further, it is diametrically opposed to cult images for two

reasons. On the one hand, Yahweh’s authentic aniconic presence stands opposed to a

cult image because its origin is actuated by non-divine/human causes, and on the

other, the cause of Yahweh’s presence inevitably eliminates cult images, the

inauthentic mediums of divine presence. The incompatibility between the aniconic

Yahweh and “idol” also includes the worship of a cult image (the golden calf) being a

great sin.

The preceding text-semantic analyses of four divine referents for an idol establish the

following: one, the non-prophetic and non-legal texts of the OT are not mere

repositories of semantic cargo of idolatry as Dick observes, but they provide

aniconism’s rationale in the OT; second, contrary to Dick and Prabhu’s position, the

writers of the OT were fully aware of the concept of an idol as understood in the

religions of AWA; third, the OT, therefore, rejects idols not simply because these are

inanimate and destructible commodities (as mentioned in the first chapter, Dick

alleges the prophetic ignorance on this point), or because it is irrational to worship the

creation (although this is not incorrect), but primarily because an idol is ontologically

incompatible with the aniconic Yahweh. In our examination of various texts we have

also seen that the offense of idolatry—it being the main offense--is an inseparable part

of the ontological incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol.”

The following section will further elaborate this aspect of the incompatibility between

the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” to show how idolatry as the most serious offense

against the aniconic Yahweh is a reason for aniconism—this is an explicit principle in

229

the Decalogue’s template of aniconism’s rationale. For this purpose, we will examine

four idol terminologies--~ycwqv, hb[wt, ~ylwlG and ~ylyla. In addition, as done in the

preceding discussion, we will also pay attention to the incompatibility between “idol”

and “Israel.”

4.3.5. A Text-Semantic Analysis of ~ycwqv, hb[wt152 and ~ylwlG : As stated in the first

chapter, we are treating these three terms together for “idol” because they are the key

vocabularies the book of Ezekiel uses frequently to press the charge of idolatry (Ezek.

5, 7), which culminates in Yahweh withdrawing his presence (Ezek. 8, 9 and 11). A

cursory perusal of these chapters suggests that idolatry is incompatible with Yahweh

because it is the most serious and personal offense against Yahweh. Evidently, each

chapter is replete with personal pronouns, I, me and mine so as to impress that

Yahweh takes the sin of idolatry as a personal offense against him. Again, while

examining this, we shall also attend to the incompatibility between “idol” and Israel”

if that emerges from the text.

4.3.5.1. Ezekiel 5 (Idolatry as the Most Serious Offense against Yahweh): The

overarching theme in Ezek. 5153

is divine judgment as suggested by the inclusio. The

sword (brx), a symbolic expression of judgment and defilement, begins and ends the

chapter: “As for you, son of man, take a sharp sword” (v. 1); “and I will bring the

sword upon you” (v. 17). Further, the author unpacks the motif of judgment in two

sections of the text: prophetic performance (5: 1-4) and prophetic pronouncement (5:

5-17). While divine judgment is conceptualized in the first part, it is expressed in an

ascending degree using jpvm in the second. In this regard, two literary features of jpvm

are observable in vv. 5-17. First, the author uses jpvm alternatively between God-

given judgment (his requirement) and God-executed judgment (his punishment).154

Second, he connects these two sides of jpvm to a dual evil, namely, a turbulent

behavior and abominations (idolatry). The following may seem to be the author’s

152

Kutsko provides a summary of various meaning of hb[wt in general (OT), and in Ezekiel in

particular. Out of its 117 occurrences in the OT, most of them (42) are found in Ezekiel; while most

meanings of hb[wt—“cultic infraction, divination, gender violation, dishonesty”—are found outside the

book of Ezekiel, its meanings in Ezekiel are predominantly related to idol and offense of idolatry. He

also observes, a few occurrences of hb[wt in Ezekiel do not give any precise meanings. But he does not

say on what basis they are ambiguous “(Between 29-30).” 153

Michael Fishbane analyzes this strand in Ezek. 4-24, though his analysis seems skewed and

schematic “(Sin 131-150).” 154

Block, Ezekiel 1-24 202.

230

viewpoint: as the people have rejected Yahweh’s jpvm, so also Yahweh executes his

jpvm upon them for both offenses (vv. 8, 10). However, the way the author describes

the punishment suggests that he considers the offense of idolatry to be more serious.

As opposed to the pronouncement of the summary judgment in the case of turbulent

behavior, he catalogues a lengthy judgment of Yahweh, as if this is all because of

idolatry, and does not broach the issue of turbulent behavior after mentioning idolatry

in v. 9. This raises the question of probing into the text as to whether the author

considers idolatry to be a more serious offense against Yahweh.

Concerning the discussion of the gravity of idolatry in relation to the turbulent

behavior (!wmh), we need to clarify the meaning of the latter in Ezek. 5: 7 as it seems

ambiguous. Though by dint of non-religious “usages” !wmh may mean an acceptable

natural phenomenon, its theological import suggests an attitude of insolence

(“hybris”), 155

which is a synonym of pride.156

The issue then, boils down to the

question of the greater gravity of pride or of idolatry. Literary evidences, at least in

four aspects, indicate that the author seems to consider idolatry as a more serious

offence than pride.

First, as the text shows, the violation of Yahweh’s ordinances begins with the

insolence of the people in emulating and even outranking the evils of other nations

(vv. 5-7), all of which ultimately climaxes in doing the detestable things, namely,

idolatry.

Second, literary expression of causality suggests that the offense of idolatry is to be

treated with more urgency and intensity. Whereas the causal usage ![y is mentioned

only once for people’s irreverence and pride (Ezek. 5: 7), it is repeated twice in its

decrial of idolatry so as to lay a greater emphasis on it (Ezek. 5: 9, 11). Noticeably,

verses 10 and 12 only reiterate the concluding judgment upon the people

(“and….wind,” Ezek. 5: 2) by predicating it on the offense of idolatry as already

explained in vv. 9 and 11.

155

Block, Ezekiel 1-24 201. The neutral phenomena are referred to in Isa. 51: 15; Jer. 5: 22; 31: 15;

Psa. 46: 3. 156

Plausibly, it is the result of Israel’s power and prosperity “(Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 112).”

231

Third, the higher ranking of sin assigned to idolatry is reasonably evident in terms of

the accompanying punishment compared to that of pride. As regards the people’s

pride, Yahweh threatens to withdraw his support from them and pitches himself as

their fierce adversary: “And she has wickedly rebelled against (ta) my ordinance…

therefore I am against you….” This is also evident in the employment of an

antanaclasis (vv. 5, 8), a reversed meaning of the phrase “in the midst of,” alternating

between Jerusalem’s special, spatial157

position with respect to Yahweh’s retribution.

That is to say, Jerusalem was set “in the centre of” the nations ($wtB, v. 5), but now

judgment will be wrought “in the midst of” her ($kwtb, v. 8).158

Without doubt, this is

dreadful in itself. But however dreadful it may be, its foreboding nature is only

anticipated, and not detailed in literary descriptions. In contrast, the author creates a

rhetorical impact and brings alive the reality of the horror of Jerusalem’s punishment

for idolatry.159

The measure of such a horrific retribution lies in its unprecedented and

unrepeatable nature (Ezek. 5: 9). In this connection, Yahweh’s solemn declaration not

to revisit the people with such catastrophic vengeance echoes his post-deluvian

resolution (dw[….al, Gen. 8: 27) in the aftermath of the one-time manifestation of the

divine wrath. The appearance of the post-deluvian retributive-resolution motif,

therefore, suggests the higher degree of the offensive nature of idolatry.

Fourth, the volume and intensity of the divine wrath is interfaced with the problem of

idolatry. Verse 13, which is a continuation of the accusation of idolatry in v. 11, uses

four different words--@a, hmx, hrx and hanq--to suggest the extent of Yahweh’s anger.

Whereas the first two generally refer to Yahweh’s anger as regards idolatry, the

culminating word that speaks of Yahweh’s jealousy alongside the self-recognition

formulae, seals Yahweh’s implacable hostility against it. This resonates with

Yahweh’s jealousy as described in the Decalogue. In sum, to the author of Ezekiel 5,

the offense of idolatry seems to be greater than that of pride, though both evils are

connected to jpvm (Yahweh’s judgment and punishment).

157

Without discounting the geographic importance, Cooper says that the phrase “in the midst of”

suggests the elective significance of Jerusalem “(Ezekiel101-102).” On the spatial importance, also see

Enns 50-51; Eichrodt, Ezekiel 88; Keil 88. 158

Block, Ezekiel 1-24, 202. 159

Block acknowledges the intensity of horror, but he thinks that the graphic presentation of judgment

is a continuation of v. 8, which mentions people’s insolence “(Block, Ezekiel 1-24 204, 202).” But the

problem is, v. 9 begins with another interruptive reason, for which a slew of punishment is announced.

Therefore, even if there is a flow, it does not erase the individual cause-consequence issue in the text

“(Allen, Ezekiel 1-19 74, 75).”

232

4.3.5.1.1. The Incompatibility between Idolatry and Israel: The author not only

highlights the incompatibility between “idol” and “Yahweh” in terms of idolatry

being a high-ranking offense against Yahweh, but he also suggests the incompatibility

between “idol” and “Israel” by way of idolatry polluting the people. This is explicable

based on how he correlates brx and jpvm (both in the sense of Yahweh’s judgments

and requirements) with each other.

Ezek. 5 begins with Yahweh’s command to Ezekiel to shave off his head and beard

with a sword. Although the act of shaving is generally interpreted as a symbol of

Yahweh wiping out the Israelite population “(Eichrodt, Ezekiel 87),” a different

interpretation is possible. If the prophetic sign-act encapsulates what follows in the

text, then the word brx becomes important;160

it signifies both judgment and

defilement.161

brx functions as a synecdoche as regards judgment, while

simultaneously functioning as a symbol of defilement in the immediate literary

context of the prophet’s sign-act. The symbolic act performed by the sword conveys a

ritual-ethical contravention on two counts: (i) it defiles the priest (Ezekiel) as he

shaves his head (Lev. 19: 27; 21: 5); (ii) in view of the massacre that follows, it stands

as a foregoing death ritual (Isa. 15: 2; Jer. 41: 5-6), which is also considered as a non-

Israelite practice.162

Correlations between these aspects of brx and jpvm, as mentioned

earlier, explain the breadth of desecration caused by idolatry.163

First, they exhibit a parallel between the prophet and people, and thereby strengthen a

connection between idolatry and uncleanness. To explain: while the symbolic act by

brx portrays the prophet as breaking all the priestly taboos of holiness to the extent of

160

Another implement, ynzam, further explains the symbolic significance of the sword. 161

Block does not mention this dual aspect, though he gives three possible explanations for the

prophet’s symbolic act. They are: renunciation of Ezekiel’s priestly vow, a death ritual and humiliation

“(The Book of Ezekiel 1-24 192).” The first reason seems unlikely because the prophetic call of

Ezekiel (Ezek. chs 2 and3) does not nullify his priestly status. Further, Ezekiel’s symbolic association

with, and access to, the temple in his visionary reports, both the inglorious description in the beginning

and the glorious vision in the end, suggests that his prophetic vocation operated without cancelling his

priestly status. This means, all the prophetic enactments, especially those that suggest uncleanness, are

to dramatize Israel’s impurity. If the defiled priesthood in Ezekiel, due to idolatry, is taken into account

(Abba 1-6), then the prophet’s act will not be deemed a renouncement; rather, it will be a caricature of

his fellow priests. Thus, it is no surprise that the word hb[wt occurs extensively for idolatry in Ezekiel,

as pointed out by Kutsko “(Between 29-30),” to convey people’s unclean status and acts. Cooper

mentions that the shaving off of head is priestly uncleanness (104), but he does not see it in connection

with the word brx. Therefore, Cooper fails to see the duality. 162

Cooper100; Feinberg 36; Wevers 73; Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 126. 163

We have already referred to the gravity of the offense of idolatry based on a double usage of ![y.

233

equating himself with a non-Israelite, the people’s insolent rebellion against the

judgment/requirement (jpvm) of Yahweh has driven them to the point of exceeding the

sins other nations (v. 7). This has eventually resulted in idolatry, defiling Yahweh’s

sanctuary (v. 11).

Second, the ascending degree of desecration associated with brx is evident as Yahweh

avenges the people by executing his judgment/punishment (jpvm, v. 10). Importantly

here, the impact of defilement does not remain confined to the place, the sanctuary (v.

11); rather, it permeates through the practitioners in the most unimaginable manner,

which is the act of cannibalism. Categorized as a defilement of the most imponderable

kind, cannibalism symbolizes degeneration from a ritual level of following OT dietary

proscriptions, especially eating unclean animals, to something that affects the moral-

ethical compass of the people—the dead become food for their kith and kin.

Further, the impurity and ignominy of moral stigma associated with idolatry is further

noticeable in the literary shift from brx (v. 1) to hbrx164 (v. 14) on the one hand, and

in the word play between hprx and hbrx on the other (v. 14). Though hbrx is primarily

used in consequence of the idolatry in the OT, referring to the desolation of land, it is

used in Ezek. 5 in the context of Jerusalem’s personification. This implies that both

the judgment and defilement (as symbolized by brx at the beginning) are also

transferred to the people, making them a desolation (hbrx). Such an implication seems

plausible as the text already mentions as to how the people of Jerusalem, in measure

of a third of the total, will be subject to the divine judgment and defilement (v. 12).

Similarly, the wordplay between hprx and hbrx further strengthens the moral aspect of

the defilement. Despite generally implying social embarrassment in the OT in general,

the usage of hprx also includes moral undertone in certain instances,165

which is

discernible in Ezek. 5.166

164

Both words come from the same root “(Kaiser, brx 150-151).” Ezek. 5 meaningfully shows the shift

from brx to hbrx in how it presents them with their subjects in the sentence. Whereas the prophet takes

the sword for himself (brx $l-xQ), Yahweh gives/sets the desolation on the city and people (hBrxl $nTaw). 165

Ezek. 16: 57; 2 Sam. 13: 13. 166

Ezekiel 20 also highlights the incompatibility between idol and Israel by way of idolatry polluting

the people. Although scholars have glossed over this aspect “(Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1-20 628,

636; Eichrodt, Ezekiel 263-264; Luc 138),” K. L. Wong has called this to attention “(Profanation 210-

239).” It seems to present a three-dimensional profanation caused by idolatry, which is evident in the

repeated usage of different words for idols: different forms of hb[wt (though once in v. 4, it seems to be

234

Thus, a text-semantic study of Ezek. 5 suggests two main points of the author

concerning aniconism’s rationale, building up a case before it reaches its climax in

Ezek. 8&9, 11: one, idolatry is a greater offense against Yahweh than pride; two,

idolatry is incompatible with Israel as it adversely affects Israel’s cultic and moral-

ethical dimensions.

4.3.5.2. Ezekiel 7 (Idolatry as the Most Serious Offense against Yahweh): Ezekiel

7 follows a theme of judgment similar to Ezek. 5; also, it replicates the pattern in

which idolatry and divine judgment are mutual.167

A suggested structure of Ezek. 7,

from the perspective of divine judgment, is as follows: the premise of the judgment

(vv. 1-9), the presentation of offenses and the pronouncement of the judgment (vv.

10-20b), and the profaning and paralyzing impact of the judgment (vv. 20c-27). A

three-paneled168

announcement in Ezek. 7 clarifies that the judgment is to be

executed for two reasons: (i) people’s conduct (%ykrdK in vv. 3, 4, 8, 9, and ~krdm in v.

vantage point for looking at Ezek. 20), #wqv (three times) and ~ylwlg (seven times). First, the idolaters in

different generations of Israelites are said to be defiled. This is evident as ycwqv and ylwlG occur in

association with amj in vv. 7, 8, 30 and 43. Second, the covenant is profaned since the act of idolatry

becomes a rebellion against Yahweh in two ways: (i) the people’s recalcitrant behavior in not

dispensing with defiling idols is a rebellion (v. 8); (ii) the Sabbath, the sum of covenantal requirement

which was to be hallowed, is flagrantly profaned because of idolatry (vv. 13, 16, 21, 24). Thus idolatry

pollutes and outlaws those who engage in it “(Freedman and Welch 465-469; Preuss, hb[wt 591-592,

594, 598, 600, 602).” Moreover, Yahweh’s name is also profaned because of the people’s idols.

Different forms of llx are repeatedly used in connection with the profanation of Yahweh’s name,

which happens at two levels. On the one hand, it means an unreliability of his character in so far as the

other nations are concerned (vv. 9, 14, 22), implying that he did not do what he had said. However, this

seems to be only potential or even consequential as regards Yahweh’s wrath on different generations of

idolaters. On the other hand, there is a higher degree of profanation, which is independent of people’s

opinion about him. This is where Yahweh is outraged because idols are an affront to his holiness:

“…but my holy name you shall no more profane with your gifts and your idols” (v. 39). In order to

drive home the opposition between Yahweh and an idol, the concept of holiness is strongly contrasted

with the defiling impact of idols. This is evident in the repeated use of amj, llx on the one hand, and

Yahweh’s sanctifying attribute (~vDqm, v. 12), his purifying act (ytwrbw, v. 38), his holy name (yvdq ~v, v.

39) and his holy mountain (yvdq-rhb, v. 40) on the other. 167

The author frequently uses terminologies for idols. For instance, hb[wt occurs five times (vv. 3, 4, 8,

9, 20); ~hycwqv and ymlc occur once each (v. 20). In addition, hDn and llx are used repeatedly in

connection with image and idolatry: the former appears twice (vv. 19, 20) while the latter occurs four

times (vv. 21, 22 [2x], 24). The usage of hDn and llx offer a straightforward explanation of defilement

associated with an idol: (i) idols are totally unclean (vv. 19-20); (ii) the impact of the uncleanness of

idols is such that Yahweh does not hesitate to desecrate his secret place. The KJV’s translation is

preferable to that of the RSV’s which translates this as “precious place.” Thus we would propose that

this secret place is the holy of holies as opposed to views suggesting it as the land or the temple. 168

For a detailed discussion, see Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1-24 241-242. The two motifs of the

rationale (conduct and abomination), which emerge from Block’s three-paneled structure, is continued

in the following sections that we have mentioned earlier (vv. 1-9, 10-20b). We suggest that the two

sections hold these motifs inversely. The second section (v. 10) begins with a list of people’s conducts

and ends with abomination (v. 20b). Conversely, the third section begins with uncleanness (v. 20c) and

ends with people’s conduct (v. 27).

235

27), and (ii) idolatry. However, idolatry is presented as the most serious and personal

against Yahweh.

The sequential presentation of the offenses committed by people in the middle section

of the text (vv. 10-20) indicates the intensity of the sin of idolatry to be higher than

any other. Noticeably, the catalogue of the people’s conduct begins with “injustice

(hJMh),” “insolence (!wdzh),” “violence (smxh),” “rod of wickedness ([vr-hJml)” and

culminates with the offense of idolatry (hb[wt), thereby highlighting its enormity. But

this might sound too simplistic. Thus, in order to explore the greater gravity of

idolatry as a personal offense against Yahweh, two possibilities suggesting an equally

high magnitude of other evils (the people’s conduct) should be examined.

First, going by sequential development, it may be argued that the author seems to

consider the crime of bloodshed and violence (v. 23), and not idolatry as the ultimate

evil, as this seems to be the final accusation: “and make it a desolation, because the

land is full of bloody crimes and the city is full of violence….” However, his

argument of idolatry being the supreme sin holds for two important reasons: (i) the

consequential clause !k-l[ in v. 20c follows only after the accusation of idolatry,

which concludes the series of violations (20b);169

(ii) the repeated basis (yk) of

judgment for the “bloody crime” (~ymd jpvm) and violence (smx) in v. 23 only states the

social evils enumerated in v. 10ff once again. The usages of !k-l[ and yk, then, suggest

that social evils and idolatry are interlinked, while the commencement of judgment

happens after the climaxing evil, idolatry.

Second, an argument of equality between the two offenses may be proposed

considering how one stands in parallel to the other. As the text describes the people’s

conduct and the judgment thereof on the one hand (vv. 10-18 and vv. 24ff.), it also

narrates idolatry and announces its consequences on the other hand (vv 20-22).

However, such a proposal may not be tenable. The author’s use of the final clause of

v. 19 (“For it was the stumbling block of their iniquity”) seems to be the key in

resolving the issue, since gold and silver, as symbols of wealth, are connected with

169

It must be noticed that the commencement of divine judgment in v. 11 follows immediately after the

description of social crimes (the rod of wickedness). Therefore, the literary force of the consequence is

lost.

236

the people’s offense. Before looking at v. 19, we must examine two other occurrences

of !w[ (iniquity).

The word !w[ appears twice in association with the commercial transactions and the

survivors of the divine judgment in vv. 13 and 16 respectively. Importantly, its

appearances are also interlaced with the enumeration of the aforementioned conduct.

As vv. 10-11 suggests, the conduct of the people (injustice, pride and violence) seems

to be connected with the affluence that will be wiped out by the divine wrath.

However, the question here is: despite the offensive nature of these evils, does the

author clearly and directly refer to them as !w[? Literary factors may suggest in the

negative. There seems to be two disparate accounts involving the doers (the subject of

the sentence, the people) and their activities and accomplishments. The section that

covers vv 10-18 refers to the people and their offenses in collective terms: “…. none

of them shall remain, nor their abundance, nor their wealth; neither shall be pre-

eminence among them” (v. 11); and “they have blown trumpet and made all ready (v.

14).” However, both the doer (the subject of the sentence, the people) and the

conduct change into singular as the author factors in the word !w[. It appears in a

singular construct with singular suffix, with the plural as the backdrop: “because of

his iniquity, none can maintain his life (wqZxty al wtYx wnw[B vyaw v. 13)” and “all of

them moaning, everyone over his iniquity (wnw[B vya twmx ~LK v. 16).” In the first case

(v. 13), !w[ occurs in the context of trade and business deals, but the text suggests no

injustice or fraud170

in the transaction process so as to construe it as a collective

offense. In the second case (v. 16), it is difficult to apportion only one iniquity (!w[)171

to a single individual in the context of the people committing so many violations (vv.

170

Block, commenting on the business deals, suggests that these are bemoaned over because the

overwhelming judgment dissipates the joy of accomplishing lawful deals pertaining to commerce “(The

Book of Ezekiel 1-24, 259-260)”; also see Dijkstra 112-113.This means, our observation of the text is

not incorrect. 171

Block suggests that !w[refers to people’s guilt in v. 16, as they moan over it “(The Book of Ezekiel 1-

24 261).” This may be unlikely, since the text gives no hint of people’s repentance. Thus, this

mourning is connected more with the tears of anguish, resulting from people’s iniquity, than their

remorse of committing acts of evil. This line of argument seems closer to the text which, in the latter

part, speaks of people’s anguish (hrpq) and the mourning (lba) of the king. While the head of the state

mourns in the land, those who escape to mountains carry on the same act there. Furthermore, if twmh in

v. 9 is seen in tandem with Hnwmh in v. 14, which is connected to the wrath (!wzx), then twmh does not

evoke remorse. This effectively means, iniquity in v. 16 cannot mean a sense of guilt. Cooper (114),

citing Walter Zimmerli notices this aspect of tears caused by divine retribution rather than caused by

repentance “(Ezekiel 208).” However, his notation is only on v. 18, which mentions a mournful

appearance of the people in sackcloth and with shaven heads.

237

10-12). Thus it is reasonable to say that while the people’s conduct may be iniquitous

in themselves (vv. 10-12), the text does not directly refer to them as !w[, either

individually or collectively.172

By contrast, it seems that the author uses !w[ for

referring to a higher evil—idolatry—which is connected with the aforementioned

iniquitous conduct (i.e., amassing of wealth, injustice, pride and violence).

Returning to v. 19, the earlier condemnation of the accumulation of wealth (v. 10ff.)

reappears (gold and silver) in the immediate context of the climaxing offense, idolatry

(vv. 19-20). According to verse 20, the material possession of jewelry becomes the

springboard for both pride and image making. Here again, it is unclear whether

“pride” represents a cumulative of other vices. On the contrary, phraseological

affinities between verses 19 and 20 suggest that Yahweh’s indignation is primarily

directed against cult images, without ignoring the other evils. Verse 19 categorizes

gold and silver under natural commodities and yet they are equated with hDn (unclean

as menstruation) on the one hand, and are condemned as “the stumbling block of their

iniquity (hyh ~nw[ lwvkm),” on the other. Here, the usage of !w[ has moved from the

singular to the plural suffix, which suggests that the offense is committed by all. This

raises a question: how can gold and silver be a “stumbling block of their iniquity”?

Although it may be proposed that the stumbling block is the people’s wealth as

symbolized by gold and silver, it still remains incompatible with the complete

meaning of the verse. The reason being, verse 19 refers only to the inefficacy of

wealth in saving people from Yahweh’s wrath, and not to its illegitimacy or ill-gotten

aspect: “…their silver and gold are not able to deliver them…they cannot satisfy their

hunger…with it.”

Since the apparent illogicality of verse 19 arises out of the fact that no offense is

mentioned to explain the people’s iniquity, its clarification must be further sought in

the following verse “(Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 153).” This implies that the innocuous

material qualified as beautiful metals (wyd[ ybcW) is now condemned as “abominable

172

Allen notes that the accusation of violence in v. 23b is congruent with the charge of iniquity in v. 16

“(Ezekiel 1-19 111, 114).” But, he has not substantiated his observation as to how these two

correspond. The lack of substantiation apart, a question may be raised as regards his observation per se.

According to his own argument, if vv. 12-16 is characterized stylistically by the singular (“each for his

iniquity”) and vv. 16-18 by plural (“all”), how does the accusation of violence in v. 23, that occur in the

flow plural (them), become the common problem of all ( their or everyone’s iniqui ty)?

238

images” (~tb[wt ymlcw) in v. 20. Though they are inherently “detestable” (#wqv) in

themselves, Yahweh will yet again turn them into hDn. Therefore, literary closeness

between verses 19 and 20 shows that the “iniquity” (~nw[) being referred to in verse 19

is idolatry.173

Evidently, within the book of Ezekiel, the phrase “the stumbling block

of their iniquity” points to idols or unacceptable cultic sites (Ezek. 14: 3, 4, 7; 44: 12).

In other cases, it is associated with transgressions that are not repented of (Ezek. 18:

30),174

in which the word !w[ is used as a general collective, thereby suggesting

literary affinity between social evils and idolatry. However, even in such a case as

Ezek. 18, the evil of idolatry is given the place of pre-eminence. A possible lone

appearance of lwvkm outside Ezekiel is Jer. 18:15 which uses the verb form (lvk) to

depict Israel’s stumbling because of its inclination to venerate “false gods.”

Finally, the author shows that idolatry does not stand as an isolated crime in Ezekiel

7, but it stands in parallel to the problem of affluence and pride (!waG), as signified by

“gold and silver” in v. 20. Interestingly, the text is conspicuously silent about

Yahweh’s judgment on the people’s “vainglory.” This is not to say that Yahweh has

brushed aside the issue of pride. In fact, Yahweh pronounces his verdict against the

proud (v. 24). However, pride here is explained in terms of power and strength, and

not wealth as it was shown in the beginning (v. 10 and also in v. 20)). Moreover,

alongside Yahweh’s anger against pride, v. 24 ends with the final judgment against

idolatry: “…their holy places shall be profaned. Here, “their holy place” refers to

locations where images are installed and worshipped. Although the connection

between people’s pride and idolatry is not clear as it was in our text-semantic

examination of Ezek. 5, observations made in this paragraph warrants for further

analysis of a text that juxtaposes or compares these two offenses.

In sum, a text-semantic analysis of Ezek. 7 shows that both idolatry and the socio-

moral violations (the conduct of people) are iniquitous. However, by providing a

stronger literary connection between !w[ and idolatry, the author seems to suggest it to

be a higher evil against Yahweh than socio-moral sins (the conduct of the people).

173

Block agrees v. 20 as referring to “iniquitous situation” on the ground that 20c is “a turning” point

in the oracle “(The Book of Ezekiel 1-24 265).” However, he does not substantiate or analyze his

observation based on !w[. 174

Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 153-154.

239

Furthermore, the issue of greater gravity between idolatry and pride has surfaced, but

the point of greater seriousness of any particular offense is not totally clear (we shall

return to it later). That idolatry is the most serious offense against Yahweh becomes

all the more evident in Ezek. 8, 9 &11 which narrate the withdrawal of divine

presence from the temple.

4.3.5.3. A Dialogue with Nahum M. Sarna and an Examination of Ezekiel 8,

9&11: In order to explore that idolatry is the most serious and personal offense

against Yahweh, we dialogue with Nahum M. Sarna, who proposes the socio-moral

sins to be higher evils in Ezek. 8-11 “(A Fresh Examination 347-352).” We shall first

present Sarna’s arguments and assess them on the basis of literary-theological

considerations of the text (Ezek. 8, 9&11),175

which forms the prophet’s single vision

concerning Yahweh’s anger towards idolatry.176

175

J. N. Day (24-29) thinks that idolatry is the central issue in Ezekiel, particularly in chs 8-11. He

demonstrates the seriousness of idolatry in terms of how it originates in human heart and adversely

affects it. But, Day does not engage with the text in order to show how idolatry indeed is a more

serious problem, except for noting the chiastic structure of 8-11. This may be a reason why Day does

not dialog with Sarna. 176

D.J. Halperin (81-140) argues that the offenses described in Ezek. 8 do not concern idolatry. He

bases the interpretation of the text on what, he thinks, is a necessary assumption neglected by most

scholars. That is, except for the image of jealousy (Ezek. 8: 3-5), the rest of visionary report does not

reflect the actual situation on the ground. The plausibility of such an assumption, as Halperin thinks, is

rooted in the historical reality, because following the Josaianic reform, the only cult that could have

made a comeback during the reign of Manasseh, or later, is the cult of Asherah, which is referred to as

“the image of jealousy” in Ezek. 8. Thus, if the rest of the report (vv. 7-16) is not about the offense of

idolatry, it is something else. Halperin then goes on to argue that these are sexual offenses

(homosexuality, bestiality etc.). Such an interpretation, as Halperin argues further, is consisted with the

final accusation ~Pa-la hrwmZh-ta ~yxlv ~Nhw in v. 17. This phrase, according to him, is opprobrium, an

outrageous sexual act, which is rather expressed as a euphemism. Halperin’s argument is contestable. It

is true that several scholars (they are cited later in the footnote under the subheading “the intention of

divine retribution”) understand the aforementioned phrase in v. 17 as having a possible phallic

association in cultic practices. But to say, as does Halperin, that Ezek. 8 does not deal with idolatry is

to disregard the text. The problem lies primarily in Halperin’s assumption, which is, it is difficult to

suggest that one part of the prophet’s report is closer to the historical reality of idolatrous acts in Judah,

while the other part is not. Even if this is conceded, as Kutsko observes, the issue in Ezek. 8 is not as

much to do with whether or not it corresponds to the historical reality as its interpretation within the

book. Since the book of Ezekiel says nothing about sexual offenses or sexual metaphor until chapter

16, any attempt to overly read sexual connotation into various offenses described in Ezek. 8, unless

described explicitly or echoed, is to force a meaning upon the text. In other words, a plain reading of

Ezek. 8 suggests only the commission of the cultic and socio-moral violations, namely, idolatry and

bloodshed, as commonly agreed by scholars. The extent of idol vocabularies range from images and

portrayed objects to named deities: whereas lms occurs twice, other expression such as hmhbw vmr tynbt, ylwlg, zwMTh and vmv appear once each. The wordplay between vmr in verse 10 and vmv in verse 16 is

suggestive of an exhaustive scope of idolatry in which every part of the universe is used and

represented as supposed divinities in the acts of idolatry. As is mentioned earlier, all of these are

associated with twb[wt and #wqv.

240

4.3.5.3.1 Nahum M. Sarna’s Argument for a Gravity of Socio-Moral Offenses:

Sarna uses the recurrent comparative phrase (“but you will see greater abomination”)

as the starting point for building his case. He suggests that twldg twb[wt hart bwvt dw[ in

Ezek. 8 creates an upward ranking in the magnitude of each succeeding episode of

abomination, until it reaches the high point in v. 17: “…. is it too light a thing…that

they should fill the land with violence…me to further anger?” Therefore, by the

principle of rising intensity, the sin mentioned in v. 17, which is violence, must be the

most serious evil. Furthermore, Sarna thinks, the fact that socio-moral sins (i.e.,

violence or bloodshed) are greater offenses is reiterated in ch. 9, since this becomes

the basis for Yahweh’s retribution against the city. It is suggested, whereas violence is

termed as an “exceedingly great sin” here (9: 9), no mention is made of the cultic

offense idolatry. Based on this, he reasons that the final clause of 8:17 (“lo they put

the branch to their nose;” ~Pa-la hrwmZh-ta ~yxlv ~Nhw) cannot but imply a socio-moral

violation. Further, the higher degree of socio-moral evils is supported by its preceding

clause: “and provoke me further to anger” (ynsy[khl ewbvYw). Such an explanation, argues

Sarna, fits the pronouncement of judgment in 9: 10 (yTtn ~varb ~KrD), since it suggests

an action-reaction phenomenon. As the people have unleashed violence and

bloodshed in the land, so has Yahweh retaliated in equal measure for their deeds by

launching an angelic squad to slaughter the offenders.

Building on the above explanation, Sarna then examines the seemingly difficult

phrase ~Pa-la hrwmZh-ta ~yxlv ~Nhw in 8: 17. In this part of his argument, Sarna

reconstructs the meanings of hrwmZh and ~Pa-la. Drawing on various Semitic cognates

and their reconstructed OT usages,177

Sarna establishes the meaning of hrwmZh as “a

band of toughs,” and the meaning of ~Pa-la as “to be angry” instead of the literal

sense, “to their nose.” In light of the re-conceptualized meanings, which he calls the

pivot of the whole interpretation, Sarna encapsulates his thesis as follows: by the

sheer use of the power of muscle and money, the elite have caused injustice and

177

The Semitic cognates of hrwmz that Sarna cites are “dmr,” “damir” (“brave” in Arabic), “mdmar”

(“strong” in old south Arabic). He supposes that a connection between the Semitic “dmr” and Hebrew

rmz is used in the OT to convey a meaning of “strength” (Gen. 43: 11; Isa. 12: 2; Psa. 118: 14). Finally,

the Ugaritic counterpart of Ezek. 8: 17 is mhrm/gzrm, which means “heroes, musclemen and a band of

toughs.” In sum, the meaning of hrwmZh is not a branch, but a group of “muscle men/band of tough” who

has committed violence either at the heat of moment or to deliberately provoke Yahweh.

241

violence so as to vent their anger on the weak and provoke Yahweh;178

this, in turn,

has angered Yahweh to undertake drastic retaliatory measures against them. Thus the

socio-moral sins, particularly violence and bloodshed, are the higher evils.

4.3.5.3.2. An Assessment of, and Alternative to, Sarna’s Thesis: Sarna’s position

presented as above seems to be well argued. However, there are problems with his

position, raising possibilities of an alternative explanation. That is to say, the author

considers idolatry to be a greater offense of the people against Yahweh than the socio-

moral evils.

Sarna’s argument can be broadly divided into three major points: (i) the issue of

comparison and divine anger; (ii) the intention of divine retribution; (iii) the

interconnection between divine retribution, divine wrath and the offense of idolatry.

We may add another point (the fourth), divine restoration as mentioned in Ezek. 11,

which Sarna seems to have left unexplored. The following section will evaluate

Sarna’s position under the aforementioned points.

4.3.5.3.2.1. The Issue of Comparison and Divine Anger and the Offense of

Idolatry: To begin with, if the comparative expression (twldg twb[wt hart bwvt dw[,

“but you will see still greater abominations”) is the ground for determining an

increasing gravity of each subsequent sinful description in Ezek. 8, then the socio-

moral evils do not fall within the structural purview of the ascending graph. There

seems to be a literary pattern as the prophet envisions the scene of each episode. The

author seems to have used the following literary pattern: the prophet receives a

visionary guidance in either being asked to lift and see, or being led to the actual

location of crime (“lift up your eyes” or “he brought me to”); it is followed by a

visionary description (“and behold….”); and is immediately confirmed by an

exclamatory expression (“do you see/have you seen”); finally, it is concluded with the

forthcoming vision of greater sinfulness (“you will see greater abomination….”).179

Importantly, this literary pattern remains incomplete in the last episode (vv. 16-17), as

178

Greenberg, too, thinks that this so called crux refers to social injustice “(Ezekiel 1-20 172-173).”

Also, see Cooke 100. 179

A similar structural pattern is proposed by F. Horst (342-344), which is explained by Allen “(Ezekiel

1-19 130).”

242

there is a conspicuous absence of the final part of the structural cycle. 180

That is, the

prophet is not asked further to see a greater offense than what he has already seen.

Evidently, v. 17 mentions the exclamatory expression (“have you seen,” v. 17) and

nothing more. Thus the prophet’s firsthand experience of what was happening in the

temple ends here before it resumes in ch. 9. In other words, the structural cycle shows

idolatry to be the greater evil.181

180

Allen thinks that the structural cycle is complete, but it is reshuffled in this case “(Ezekiel 1-19

145).” But he does not show in detail how this is done. Similarly, see Block, The Book of Ezekiel 1-24

298. John W. Olley (284-285) observes that vv. 16-18 follows the pattern of the previous scenes in vv

3-6, 7-13 and 14-15, but he does not show as to how vv. 16-18 is stereotypical. In spite of these

remarks, it seems that v. 17 suggests a transition from a visionary-verbal communication to a purely

verbal communication, because the prophet does include the latter (the bloodshed in the land) within

his visionary tour proper. The prophet is not transported in the spirit to witness what was happening in

the land; he was only told about this. By contrast, the prophet records another vision of bloodbath, the

slaughter of people by the angelic squad. 181

Several scholars (Cooke 93; Dugid 122-123; Halperin 38) do take note of the comparative

framework in Ezek. 8-9. But they do not go further than this. Susan Ackermann makes only a passing

remark about the sun worship as the highest point of people’s offense “(A Marzeah 270, 281).” Her

remark does not arise out of a literary analysis of the text. R. E. Clements summarily assigns more

weight to the offense of idolatry. His argument is: the temple is desecrated by idolatry; for Ezekiel, the

priest, a religious offense (idolatry) was far more serious than anything else “(Ezekiel 40-43, 47).”

Again, Clements ignores the comparative ramework. Similarly, both J. B. Burnside and Zimmerlie

take note of the more serious nature of the offense of idolatry in different ways “(The Sign 216; Ezekiel

237 ).” However, they do not connect it to the issue of comparison. Burnside circumvents the

comparative framework and argues for a greater gravity of the offense assigned to idolatry “(The Sign

186-224).” According to Burnside, in Ezek. 8, the locations where the offense is committed (either

outside of or inside the enclosure of the temple) and who commits the offense (the elders or someone

else) determine its greater gravity. The whole location (temple) where the offense is committed, is a

microcosm of the land and the offenders, the elders, symbolize a representative Israel because they

were the prominent recipients of the covenant. This line of interpretation, it is argued, is coherent with

Ezekiel’s theology. Burnside’s argument is summed up as follows. First, the whole earth is said to be

full of violence—an echo of Gen. 6—because the earth cannot be pure when the microcosm, the

temple, is desecrated. Second, Ezekiel shows two categories of offenders among the lay people: the

elders ~ynqz commit idolatry and the leaders ~yrf abuse power. In Ezek. 8 the twenty five men

worshipping the sun is the culminating offense because it is committed in the eastern side, which is the

enclosure and the most important part of the temple. Thus, while all the four offenses referring to

idolatry (Ezek. 8: 3-6, 7-13, 14-15, 16), they differ in gradation as the first three are committed outside

the enclosure and the final one is committed by the twenty five men inside the enclosure. An

implication of Burnside’s argument is that the comparative framework is dispensable or non-existent in

Ezek. 8. Although Bunside’s interpretation of Ezek. 8 is impressive, his semiotic analysis revolving

around the importance of performance (act) and place seems to be highhanded on the text. Burnside’s

argument for the heinous nature of idolatry based on where it is committed (the eastern side of the

temple) and who commits/performs the offense (the elders) raises textual issues which, in turn, call for

going beyond a semiotic analysis. First, while the text mentions the last appearance of the cherubim in

the east gate of the temple (Ezek. 10: 19), the glory of Yahweh does not depart from this location, but it

lifts up from the city and rests on its eastern part, on a mountain (Ezek. 11: 22-14). In fact, as Tuell

observes, in the book of Ezekiel Yahweh’s glory is not restricted to the precincts of the temple “(Divine

Presence101).” This means, to interpret the magnitude of idolatry basing on symbolic importance of a

particular portion of the temple, or to see the temple as a microcosm of the land in this context, is open

to question. Second, the justification of divine retribution is built on the guilt of the whole Israel and

Judah, in which people are also accused of violence and injustice (this issue of injustice and violence is

raised by Sarna). Interestingly, no representatives (elders) are mentioned here as a special offender.

Since the prophet has already spoken of every one’s iniquity in the previous chapter (Ezek. 7)--we have

already referred to this in the text- semantic analysis of Ezek. 7-- even before the elders come into

243

A few scholars, nevertheless, see the phrase “is it too slight…that…violence” in v. 17

as an equivalent of the final part of the cycle so as to suggest that socio-moral sins are

greater than all the preceding cultic abominations. Primarily, they assess the

outweighing nature of the offense of violence in light of the flood narrative.182

While

this line of reasoning is not wholly incorrect, it may not be close to the given literary

context. Allen’s comment is helpful when he says, “to interpret smx ‘violence’ as

wrong done to God and take it as a definition of the final outrage is forcing the text”

(145).

Following Allen’s observation, it is demonstrable that the author presents the cultic

violation—idolatry--as the greater evil that people have committed against Yahweh.

An examination of the repeated comparative phrase and its supposed equivalence in v.

17 may clarify this further, which is juxtaposed as follows: twldg twb[wt hart bwvt dw[

(vv. 6, 13, 15) and ynsy[khl wbvYw (v. 17). Whereas the occurrences of bwvt and bvYw

suggest some similarity between both, two important words--ldg and dw[--that convey

a sense of higher weight in the comparative expression are avoided in the case of the

social-moral evil in v. 17. By so doing, the author effectively negates its supposed

higher magnitude. Also, the phrase “and provoke me to further anger” (ynsy[khl ewbvYw),

which follows the accusation of socio-moral violation in v. 17, may not heighten its

intensity as has been argued. The key issue here is: in the mind of the author, does the

phrase “further anger” necessarily mean a greater anger than what is already

expressed in vv. 3 and 5 (“provoked to jealousy,” hnqMh)? The answer seems to be in

the negative.

picture, it is difficult to club the elders and Israel/Judah as synonyms or treat the former as the

representative of people. Third, Ezek 8-11 does not categorize the ~ynqz and ~yrf based on the

commission of different offenses by different groups: the former committing idolatry and the latter

abusing the power to perpetrate injustice. For instance, Jaazaniah, who is named among the seventy

elders that offer incense to cult images (Ezek. 8: 11) is also named among leaders (~yrf, the twenty five

in Ezek. 11: 2-3) that devise wicked plans in the temple. Importantly, the twenty five is the same

number that appears in Ezek. 8: 16 in the context of the climaxing offense. Finally, it is misleading to

interpret #r<a'’h' in Ezek. 9: 9 as the whole earth, because up to this point the desolation of land is referred

to the Promised Land; also, #r<a'’h occurs alongside the city, Jerusalem. In short, by circumventing the

comparative framework that is intrinsic to the text, Burnside’s interpretation ignores the importance of

socio-moral evils as a legitimate comparative counterpart. 182

Greenberg, Ezekiel 1-20 172, 178; Block,The Book of Ezekiel 1-24 298. While Greenberg cites

similar usages (“Is it…that,” cf. 1 Kgs 16: 31; Isa. 7: 13) alongside the echo of smx in the flood

narrative, Block shows only mentions the force smx in order to put social-moral evils ahead of the cultic

offense, idolatry.

244

The author’s literary presentation of v. 3 shows a unique character. The word lms (the

image of jealousy) that appears here, besides its use in Deuteronomy and 2 Chronicles

(Deut. 4: 16; 2 Chron. 33: 7, 15), drives home the extraordinary seriousness of

idolatry. This is further confirmed by the phrase hnqMh hanQh (provoking to jealousy),

again a lone occurrence, literally meaning the “jealousy that provokes jealousy.” If the

posture (bvwm) of the image is added to this literary dynamic, it would mean that the

said idol is a rival claimant that challenges Yahweh’s divinity and authority. The rare

combination of such uncommon words as appear in Ezek. 8 portrays the arousal

Yahweh’s visceral antagonism towards idolatry considering the fact that Yahweh is a

jealous God himself.183

The statement concerning people driving Yahweh away from

his sanctuary (Ezek. 8: 6)184

adds poignancy to all that is described in vv. 1-5.

Interestingly, Yahweh’s anger is not expressed again after this, even with the rising

degree of abomination, until verse 17. This means, the author uses the overarching

frame of Yahweh’s jealousy as the controlling factor for his anger towards another

kind of evil--violence (v. 17)--that is deemed additional without outweighing the

intrinsic divine reaction to the former.

Furthermore, apart from Ezek. 8: 17, the exact phrase ynsy[khl (to provoke me to

anger) is used in the OT only in the context of idolatrous offenses. On two of these

occasions, it is shown as the turning point of divine anger. In the first case, idolatry is

said to be the tipping point, which sets the offender apart from his predecessors: “but

you…above all that before you…molten images, provoked me to anger” (1 kgs 14: 9).

In the second case, the proliferation of idolatry is the reason for Yahweh’s anger:

“you also played…to provoke me to anger,” (Ezek. 16: 26).185

This explanation

further adduces that Yahweh’s anger against violence must be seen from the vantage

point of his jealousy aroused by idolatry.

183

These ideas are taken from Block “(The Book of Ezekiel 1-24 282),” but are interpreted slightly

differently. 184

Some scholars like K. L. Wong interpret Ezek. 8: 6 as people being far away from the sanctuary

rather than Yahweh being driven out of the sanctuary “(A Note 396-400).” However, this may not be a

plausible explanation because the subject is the people, as observed by Greenberg “(Ezekiel 1-20

169).” 185

The translation of ynsy[khl wbvYw (Ezek. 8: 17) in KJV is closer to the text. The phrase, “They have

returned to provoke me to anger,” removes the notion of the extra intensity of the anger purportedly

associated with the socio-moral sins.

245

4.3.5.3.2.2. The Intention of Divine Retribution and the Offense of Idolatry:

Sarna’s fundamental argument as concerns the divine punishment is that since

bloodguilt of socio-moral sins outweighs all other evils and is the highest offense

against him, Yahweh avenges it by ordering counter-violence in Ezek. 9. Or, it is

Yahweh’s “measure for counter-measure” against the mighty. Sarna seems to have

missed the point when he speaks of the exclusive greatness of socio-moral sins in

Ezek. 9: 9 in the context of the divine retribution. To put it interrogatively: if

bloodshed and violence are greater than idolatry, for which the angelic squad is

pressed into action, then why are those who have lamented over the cultic offenses186

marked and separated? Noticeably, the revulsion of the righteous towards idolatry is

expressed exclusively in terms of their deep sorrow towards idolatry (Ezek. 9: 4). The

text displays a depth and authenticity of the grief of the righteous over the cultic

offense187

by presenting wordplay between ~yqnaNh and ~yxnaNh, which also creates

assonance with ~yvnah: ~yqnaNh ~yxnaNh ~yvnah. The contrast is clear: whereas the women

(~yVNh) in 8: 14 weep for tammuz (twKbm twbvy), the faithful men (~yvnah) grieve over all

the detestable practices, identifying with the immeasurable pain and passion of

Yahweh. To follow it up with another question: why should the negative attitude of

the righteous towards one kind of sin (cultic offense--idolatry) be the criterion for

them to escape from Yahweh’s punishment against another sin (socio-moral offense,

violence)?188

The two questions raised as above show that the author’s mention of the

critical factor of the righteous bemoaning the cultic sin—idolatry--cannot be glossed

186

We have already mentioned that while hb[wT has a range of meanings in general, it refers to idol and

idolatry in most cases in Ezekiel. Kutsko’s observation of twb[wT in Ezek. 9: 4 as ambiguous is not

entirely correct. Both chs 8 & 9 are part of the single vision that displays a narrative coherence. Thus if

the occurrences of twb[wT in Ezek. 8 refer to idolatry, as Kutsko himself thinks, then the same word

cannot exclude that meaning in chapter 9. Of course, 9: 4 mentions about twb[wT in the land for which

people are slaughtered. However, the act of slaughter only ends there. This means, the offense for

which the slaughter is carried out in the temple, and carried on from there to the land, should be the

same offense for which the people are slaughtered in the land. Thus even if it is assumed that the

abominations committed in the city include many kinds of violation, idolatry seems to be main

violation among all. 187

Block makes a similar observation on the devastating aspect of the grief, by connecting with the

passing of the prophet’s wife in Ezek. 21: 11-12 “(The Book of Ezekiel 1-243 07).” 188

S. S. Tuell “(The Meaning 185-202)” seems to be the lone voice against the majority opinion, who

argues that the marking of faithful did not result in the salvation of any remnant. Tuell agrees that the

righteous’ opposition to the evils is noticeable, but he thinks that they too were swept away by the

divine wrath. Tuell’s proposal (201-202) is unconvincing because the text offers a different

explanation. Yahweh’s assignment of the two different tasks to the two groups complements each

other: to the linen-clad angels he says to mark the righteous off and to the others (six) he says to

annihilate people. This is the reason why ch. 9 begins with a summon to the slaughterers (v. 1), but

ends with the linen-clad angel bringing back the report of finishing the task (v. 11). In other words,

sequentially or consequentially, the second does not happen without the first “(Clements, Ezekiel 40).”

246

over, as is done by Sarna. Thus even if one were to take Sarna’s point on board, the

separation of a group of faithful189

suggests the following: (i) the two kinds of evils,

cultic and socio-moral, are interconnected; (ii) one’s abstention from the former is

essential to the avoidance of the latter.

This is the reason why Sarna’s argument concerning the injustice and anger of a

“band of toughs” arousing Yahweh’s counter-anger to retaliate against them may not

be fully in line with the author’s position and the literary context of Ezek. 9. First, the

angelic squad does not target a specific “band of toughs” for the widespread violence;

rather, the divine decree is to slay the multitude regardless of age, gender and status

(vv. 5-6). Second, the slaughter begins at the sanctuary (v. 6d), which is depicted as

being converted to a place of cultic sacrilege, and not a venue of bloodguilt. Third, the

motive clause, “for they say the Lord does not see us…land (Ezek. 9: 9),” which is

juxtaposed with the socio-moral evil, has already been used in connection with

idolatry in the sanctuary (Ezek. 8: 12e). Of course, it may be argued that the reverse

quotation in Ezek 9: 9 (har hwhy !yaw #rah-ta hwhy bz[ wrma) highlights the accusation

against bloodshed.190

However, as Allen comments, it is not the accusation against

bloodshed, but !w[ that forms the renewed basis of the divine judgment in Ezek. 9.

Thus !w[ conveys the totality (both cultic and socio-moral) of people’s wickedness. As

he goes on to say, the fact that the idolaters in the temple were the first to be put to

sword (149-150) explains the wholeness of !w[. Our preceding argument of the author

interlinking idolatry and socio- moral evils is, in fact, not dissimilar to Allen’s

comment. Therefore, what transpires in the sanctuary in secret becomes variously

manifested evils in the land. In other words, Yahweh’s anger does not flare up just

because of socio-moral evils supposedly committed by the prosperous and the

powerful.

4.3.5.3.2.3. The Interconnection between Yahweh’s Retribution, His Wrath and

the Offense of Idolatry: That Yahweh’s anger is predominantly directed against the

189

Scholars like Thomas Renz opine that the identification of the righteous has not been reported by the

angelic squad (186). Block also holds a similar position “(The Book of Ezekiel 309).” However, this is

immaterial to our argument. It is not the post-facto (whether the righteous were found or not), but what

is important is the very premise of a separation between the righteous and the idolaters. The point here

is: even in the face of the engulfing judgment, why should the text speak of Yahweh first employing a

salvaging plan through a search operation, considering the fact that it will be fruitless? 190

Quoting P. C. Beentjes (509), Block subscribes to this argument “(The Book of Ezekiel 1-24 3 09).”

247

offense of idolatry is clear from the intensity of retaliation. Thus Sarna’s argument of

“the measure for counter-measure” (people’s violence versus angelic destruction) is

not primarily because of injustice and violence; rather, as the text shows, it is a

predominant consequence of the cultic offense. Ezek. 8: 18 says that Yahweh will

deal in his wrath for all that has been done: “Therefore I will deal in my wrath….”

This is arguable on the basis of how the key word hf[ is used in the text.The author

has used varieties of words and expressions to describe divine punishment or

judgment up till now in the book, in which the verb hf[ is used repeatedly to convey

the idea of execution.191

In all these expressions hf[ occurs alongside words that also

carry an idea of judgment or retribution (jpv, $rD). However, in Ezek. 8 the author

breaks this pattern as he dissociates hf[ from the terms such as jpv, $rD. This shows

the literary-theological importance and rhetorical force of hf[ in describing the divine

retribution: hf[a yna-~gw (v. 18a). Noticeably, various forms of hf[ refer to idolatry in

Ezek. 8: twf[m, hp-wf[ in v. 17, ~yf[ %vxB in v. 12 and ~yf[ [~h] [hm] in v. 6.

The expression of divine anger further supports this argument. That is, as opposed to

the pattern--hitherto and hereafter--wherein the author uses verbs such as hlK, xwn, xlv

and $pv to express the execution of the divine wrath,192

he still retains hf[ and

combines with hmxb (in anger) in Ezek. 8: 18 (hm'êxeb. hf,ä[/a, ‘ynIa]-~g:w>). The collocation of

the refusal of divine clemency (“my eyes will not spare…”) with divine retribution

enhances the literary-theological significance of hf[. Statements concerning the

refusal of divine clemency occur three times prior to Ezek. 8: 18; whereas the second

and third occurrences are of a different syntactical order (Ezek. 7: 4, 9), the first one

(Ezek. 5: 11) is identical to the syntactical arrangement of Ezek. 8: 18: conjunction

particle (~g:w>)+ personal pronoun (ynIÜa]) + verb impf. 1 c.s. ([r:g>a,/hf,ä[/a ,) + the phrase

refusing divine clemency. Given the people are bent upon committing idolatry so as to

send Yahweh away from his sanctuary (Ezek. 8: 6), and given the impending

191~yjiÞP'v.mi %kE±Atb. ytiyfió['w> (Ezek. 5: 8), ytiyfiä['w>, Whmoßk' hf,î[/a,-al{)-rv<)a] tae²w> ytiyfiê['-al{ (Ezek. 5: 9),

~yjiêp'v. ‘%b' ytiyfiÛ['w> (Ezek. 5: 10), ~yjiøp'v. %b'’ •ytiAf[]B; (Ezek. 5: 15) and ~t'Aa hf,Û[/a, ~K'úr>D:mi (Ezek. 7: 27). Usgaes

other than hf[ are: %yIk"+r"d>Ki %yTiÞj.p;v.W (Ezek. 7: 3), %yIl;ê[' yTiät;n"w> (Ezek. 7: 3), !Teªa, %yIl:å[' %yIk;ør"d> (Ezek. 7: 4), %yIk"+r"d>Ki %yTiÞj.p;v.W (Ezek. 7: 8), %yIl;ê[' yTiät;n"w> (Ezek. 7: 8), !Teªa, %yIl:å[' %yIk;ør"d>Ki (Ezek. 7: 9), ~jeêP.v.a, ~h,äyjeP.v.mib.W (Ezek. 7: 27). 192~B'Þ yti²m'x] ytióAxnIh]w: yPiªa; hl'äk'w>, Ezek. 5: 13; ~B'( ytiÞm'x] ytiîALk;B., Ezek. 5: 13; ~B'( ytiÞm'x] ytiîyLekiw>, Ezek. 6: 12;

%B'ê ‘yPia; yTiÛx.L;viw>, Ezek. 7: 3; %B'ê ‘yPia; ytiÛyLekiw> %yIl;ê[' ‘ytim'x] %APÜv.a, bArªQ'mi hT'ä[;, Ezek. 7: 8; %B'ê ‘ytim'x] ytiÛxonIh]w:, Ezek. 16: 42; %B'ª ytiøa'n>qi yTi’t;n"w>, Ezek. 23: 25. We have not cited all references, especially those that occur

after Ezek. 8. What is noticeable in all these occurrences is that all the direct objects are prepositional

objects.

248

withdrawal of Yahweh’ glory from the city, a forewarning like [r:g>a (diminishing or

Yahweh withdrawing as found in Ezek. 5: 11) would have been equally appropriate.

But the author retains the usage of hf[ in Ezek. 8: 18 and follows it up with the refusal

of divine clemency. Here the author’s addition of the phrase, “and though they

cry…will not hear,” to the common refusal of divine clemency seems to be purposive

because it further emphasizes his point: while people foolishly think that Yahweh has

not seen, v. 15, the author says that Yahweh will not hear. In v. 18, the divine action

shifts from seeing to hearing. 193

Since Yahweh has seen all that the people have done

as he shows the prophet--different forms of the verb har occur 13 times in Ezek. 8--

now he will not hear their pleas when he punishes them, no matter how “loud” (lwdG)

the plea may be. We can note two literary features in this regard. One, the adjective

(lwdG) which is conspicuously absent in the description of socio-moral sins in v. 17,

now reappears in the people’s petition. Put simply, such is the greatness of the cultic

offense, idolatry (twldG occurs four times, twice in v. 6 and once each in vv 13 and

15), that the divine anger cannot be assuaged as Yahweh refuses to consider even the

great (lwdG) plea of the people when he repays (hf[a) them. Two, there is an assonance

between the three verbs (hf[a, lmxa, [mva) that convey divine anger, retribution and

divine refusal to grant mercy.

The following chapter (Ezek. 9: 10) follows the same pattern except for the reversal

of the order; here the refusal of divine clemency is preceded by divine retribution:

“and as for me…upon their head”). This, again, underscores the point of divine

retribution meted out to people for offending Yahweh by their idolatry as the last

verse reports the accomplishment: the call for a slaughter (“Then he cried out… each

with his destroying weapons in his hand,” Ezek. 9: 1) comes as a consequence of what

people have done (idolatry), and what Yahweh will do (punishment and refusal of

divine clemency, Ezek. 8: 18& 9: 10); this is further adduced by the word of linen-

clad angel, as he relays in the end the message of having accomplished the mandate:

“I have done (ytyf[) as thou didst command me” (Ezek. 9: 11). In light of this

193

The second clause in 9: 10 (“nor will have I pity”) is a recall of its parallel verdict in 8: 18 “(Allen,

Ezekiel 1-19 150).” The phrase, “my eyes will not spare,” (yny[ swxt-al yna-~gw ) seems to be a counter-

motif and counter-statement to people’s foolish rationalization in 9: 9 (“and the Lord will not see,” har hwhy !yaw). The negation of people’s self-deception, as expressed by !ya, is shown in terms of yna and yny[ in an emphatic tone. Greenberg makes a similar observation “(Ezekiel 1-20 178),” but does not point to

the wordplays.

249

interpretation, the phrase ~Pa-la hrwmZh-ta ~yxlv ~Nhw, as Allen comments (he has not

argued the case as we have), can be deemed an idiomatic expression of the outrage

Yahweh felt as a result of people’s cultic offense “(Ezekiel 1-19 145-146).” 194

Noticeably, ~yxlv parallels ~yf[ in v. 17 so as to demonstrate a relation between

people’s symbolic (~yxlv) and real acts (~yf[).

4.3.5.3.2.4. The Divine Restoration and the Offense of Idolatry: Of course, this is

not to say that the author considers socio-moral sins to be less problematic for

Yahweh or they have played an insignificant part in the execution of the divine

judgment. The appearance of ~KrD in 9: 10 suggests that they do play a substantial

role. However, as we have argued what seems to be the author’s position, this does

not become a special or separate reason for Yahweh’s retribution. Rather, they have

either sprung out of the higher evil, idolatry, or have been subsumed under it. Ezekiel

11, the final chapter of prophet’s vision wherein both ~hyCwQv and ~hytwb[wtw occur as a

rhyme (v. 21), further supports this.

The visionary report of Ezek. 11 begins with a prophetic word against those who had

instigated the perpetration of socio-moral sins (vv. 1-3). This report climaxes in the

sudden death of a member of the instigators, which evokes a spontaneous entreaty by

the prophet not to wipe out the remnant (v. 13). The post-death proclamation, then,

abruptly takes a different turn as it announces Yahweh will bring back the exiles and

give them the land (v. 16 ff.). This physical restoration further combines with a divine

initiative in which Yahweh promises to create an enduring pro-covenantal disposition

among the people (vv. 18-20). The creation of lasting covenantal fidelity brings two

issues of idolatry to the fore. First, the land will be purged of idols (~hyCwQv and

~hytwb[wtw, v. 18)). Importantly, no bloodguilt or socio-moral evils are mentioned in

this purification act, though this is what the report precisely began with. Second,

Yahweh will endow the people with a new a heart and a new spirit for their long-term

194

Allen lists AWA examples to buttress the argument of a correspondence between symbolic act the

real act of idolatry. There are also scholars who see an idolatrous connotation in the symbolic act, but

they arrive at their conclusion on the basis of their interpretation of hrwmZh. The word hrwmZh is variously

understood as sexual object in fertility cult, physical posture of beseeching the divine or even breaking

the wind to suggest the vanity of idolatry. For above opinions, see respectively, Saggs 318-329;

Watson105-11; Eichrodt, Ezekiel 128.While these may be called as additional supports for our

interpretation, our reading of the text shows that it is possible to interpret hrwmZh as connected to cultic

abomination without getting into the laborious reconstruction of the meaning of hrwmZh.

250

commitment (v. 19). At least two key words, namely *!tn and bl in different forms,

play a crucial literary role here.

First, Yahweh gives (yttnw, v. 17) them the land so as to make it idol-free.

Second, since idolatry is connected with the heart, he will also give them a new and

different heart to fulfill the covenantal obligation: dxa bl ~hl yttnw, rfb bl ~hl yttnw in

v. 19. That the problem of idolatry is bound up with the condition of heart is further

adduced by the way the author employs rws: as the people remove (wryshw, v. 18)) idols

from the land, so does Yahweh enable the people by removing stony hearts from them

(!bah bl ytrshw, v. 19).195

Of course, the purposive expression (![ml) in v. 20 suggests

that Yahweh’s surgical act would produce an ability in the people to follow his

“statutes” and “ordinances,” which may include their adherence to the Torah (Allen

165).196

Again, no socio-moral violation is expressly mentioned here, though

following the Torah means one’s commitment to socio-moral values. Rather, the

observance of the Torah is located in the context of the people’s revulsion against cult

images and their worship.

Third, Yahweh will also give or pay back in equal measure (yttn), if the people’s

hearts go after idols (v. 21). The appearance of judgment in the midst of an

unprecedented promise of covenantal renewal seems to be a thematic misfit.

However, if it is viewed from the vantage point of yttn, the problem is reasonably

solved. That is to say, the outweighing magnitude of idolatry is such that Yahweh

provides (gives, yttn) all the divine endowments (a supplanted soft heart and an

enabling spirit) in order to remove this scourge once for all. Yet, he will also retaliate

(give back, yttn) with equal vigor for this offense. As the author uses the verb hf[

interchangeably for referring to Yahweh’s punishment and people’s act of idolatry in

Ezek. 8, he also uses verb yttn alternatively for referring to Yahweh enabling the

people and punishing them in Ezek. 11. Importantly, the phrase yTtn ~varb ~KrD that

195

Greenberg detects only a parallelism between wryshw and ytrshw “(Ezekiel 1-20 190),” but he does not

connect it to idolatry. 196

Ezekiel 11: 17 recalls a similar divine enablement spoken of in Jer. 31: 33; but Ezekiel’s idea, that

idolatry is connected to the heart, is clear. While Jer. 31: 33 speaks about Yahweh writing his law in the

hearts of people in the context of making a new covenant with them, Ezekiel speaks of the transplant of

the heart for obeying the law.

251

earlier occurred in Ezek. 9: 10, reappears in 11: 21. To recall, Sarna interprets this as

Yahweh’s equal measure of punishment for socio-moral sins based on the word ~KrD.

However, in Ezek. 11: 21 it occurs in the concluding part of the prophet’s visionary

report in the context of the seriousness and supremacy of the cultic offense, idolatry.

This adequately demonstrates that the retribution for socio-moral evils is included in

the judgment against the overarching offense of idolatry.

In summary, a text-semantic analysis of ~ycwqv, hb[wt and ~ylwlG in Ezek. 5, 7, and a

dialogue with Sarna (Ezek. 8, 9&11) show that the incompatibility between the

aniconic Yahweh and “idol” in terms of idolatry being the most serious and personal

offense against Yahweh. That is to say, the gravity of the offense of idolatry is a

reason for aniconism, since it outranks socio-moral offenses (bloodshed and

violence). To recall, the Decalogue’s template of aniconism’s rationale takes for

granted the gravity of the offense of idolatry (the incompatibility between Yahweh

and “idol”). Our analysis has demonstrated this assumption. In addition, a brief

incompatibility between “idol” and “Israel” has emerged in our analysis; that is,

idolatry adversely affects the cultic and ethical-moral aspects of Israel.

Not only the offense of idolatry is incompatible with Yahweh as it outranks socio-

moral evils, but it also becomes the highest offense against Yahweh because it

outranks another evil, pride. A text-semantic analysis of Isa. 2, in which the word

~ylyla occurs, substantiates this.

4.3.6. A Text-Semantic Analysis of ~ylyla: The following are an example of the

occurrences of ~ylyla in the OT: Isa. 2: 8, 18, 20; 10: 10ff; 19: 1, 3; 31: 7; Lev. 19: 4;

26:1; Psa. 96: 5= 1 Chron. 16: 26; Psa. 97: 7; Jer. 14: 14; Ezek. 30: 13; Hab. 2: 18;

Zech. 11: 17; Job. 13: 4. However, neither the etymological meaning of this word197

nor the texts, in general, explain as to how idolatry is incompatible with the aniconic

Yahweh—it being a seriousness offense against him. In this connection, Isaiah 2

seems to be a paradigmatic or foundational text. The reasons for selecting Isa. 2 as the

197

This word has multiple meanings, but is mainly bi-dimensional. It might mean “nothingness, useless

and worthless” or an “impotent object.” In other words, the meaning of ~ylyla has dual connotations: (i)

an idol lacks the essence of divinity; (ii) since divinity and prowess are inevitably correlated, these are

categorized as weak. See Hadley 411; Schwertener 126-127; Preuss, lyla 285-287.

252

foundational text are as follows. First, the book of Isaiah, known for its idol-polemic,

uses this term a few times. Thus, it is plausible that the employment of ~ylyla/ylyla at

the beginning of the book would have delineated the theological problem of idolatry.

Second, the word ~ylyla is used thrice (vv. 8, 18, 20), apparently couching the

theological agenda of the text. Third, in Isa. 2 ~ylyla occurs in combination with

another word of idol-semantics, namely ~ybc[ (v. 8)--our earlier analysis has indicated

that this term is also a possible designation for state deities. Finally, and importantly,

there is a thematic correlation of both idolatry and pride in Isa. 2, which brings to the

fore the debate about the rejection of idolatry for being the most serious against

Yahweh.

It is noteworthy that the debate of idolatry versus pride in Isa. 2 has not escaped

scholarly attention. For instance, John N. Oswalt (129-130) argues that Isaiah 2 is all

about human hubris that primarily results in self-deification and, then, eventually

climaxes in idolatry. Having argued the case while analyzing the text, he again makes

this point based on verse 22. Oswalt thinks that the concluding remark in v. 22 sums

up the dominant idea of Isa. 2: “be done with man, in whose nostril is breath. Why

take any account of him?” (127). According to Oswalt, an idol is not in the frame of

this verse and thus the exhortation is to desist from relying on human strength.

Therefore, he concludes that pride is the ultimate sin, and not idolatry (129-130). As

opposed to Oswalt’s position, other scholars recognize the preponderance of idolatry

in Isa. 2 “(Watts, Isaiah 1-33 37).” Commenting on verse 22, Edward J. Young says

that both the trust in human prowess and dependence on idols are equivalent, as an

idol is a physical manifestation of the human’s imaginative potential (133). He also

observes that idolatry is the principal sin from which all other sins originate, and

therefore, must be done away with (129-130; also Watts 33-34). Although these two

positions are grounded in the text, they have not explored another aspect. That is,

while both sins are inseparable in Isa. 2, and incompatible with Yahweh, idolatry

becomes the greater (overarching and ultimate) and personal offense against him.

4.3.6.1. A Text-Semantic Reading of Isaiah 2: Isaiah 2 has three main sections and a

final remark: the future of Zion (vv 1-5); prophetic accusation of the present and

reasons for this (vv. 6-9); and pronouncement of judgment (10-2) and the final remark

253

in v. 22. In what follows, we will attempt a text-semantic reading of Isaiah 2 based on

a literary analysis of the text as a whole unlike those that interpret the text in a

disjointed fashion—Isa. 2: 1-5 and vv. 6-22 as separate literary units.198

4.3.6.1.1. Prophetic Accusation and the Offense of Idolatry: Here we shall look at

the overarching nature of idolatry in the accusation part (the middle section).

However, as stated this cannot be done in an isolated manner. The author seems hold

the first and third sections together by employing a literary technique of reversal as

different literary-thematic motifs of the first sections are reversed in the following two

sections “(Watts 35-36; Childs, Isaiah 32-33).”199

Thus, an analysis of the accusation

should first take the reversal into account. We can speak of three such literary-

thematic reversals.

First, there seems to be an inverse motif of honor and elevation. As the text suggests,

this honor is about the exaltation of the mountain of the Lord. The use of words such

as varoå, tA[+b'G>, aF'ÞnI in the first section of Isa. 2 amply clarify the uplifted position of Zion.

However, this idea is reversed in the third section. This reversal concerns Zion on the

one hand, and people at large on the other: whereas Zion is raised high, the people

will be cast low. The repeated usages of loftiness and elevation, legitimately

understood positively in the first section are negatively treated as symbolic

representation of pride that will eventually lead to their humiliation: avn occurs three

times (v. 12, 13 and 14); various forms of hbg and hag that occur five times (v. 11, 12,

14, 15, 17) create an assonance; finally, different forms of ~r occur five times (v. 11,

12, 13, 14 17).

Second, the first section that depicts Zion’s exaltation also speaks of an inward

convergence of the people. Multitudes will unify themselves at Yahweh’s sanctuary

irrespective of their religio-ethnic origin and affiliation. The word wrhn portrays an

uninterrupted, abundant ingathering of the people. Furthermore, this in-flow of the

people is voluntary, spurred on by the people’s quest for truth and peace. By contrast,

this imagery of an inward movement is reversed in the final section wherein the 198 Childs, Isaiah 31; Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12 63-65, 59, 60; Alexander 96-97; Sweeny, Isaiah 1-39 105;

Watts 33-34. 199

Watts observes this at a macro-level, particularly, with regard to human pride and humiliation. By

contrast, Childs explains it briefly, but it is not on the basis of a close literary analysis.

254

people are frantically running into hideouts to save themselves. Importantly, the

prophetic announcement asking people to hide themselves is repeated thrice (v. 10,

19, and 21). The sense and scenario is one of foreboding and catastrophe.200

Third, the theme of Yahweh being the ultimate adjudicator stands out in both the

sections, but again in opposite manners. While Yahweh’s adjudication is

predominantly focused on the resolutions of conflicts in the first section, its purpose is

retributive in the third.

How and why are these motifs held in reversal? The answer apparently lies in the

middle section (vv. 6-9) that enlists the prophetic charges against Israel. The prophetic

accusation reads as:

~ynIßn>[o*w> ~d<Q,êmi ‘Wal.m' yKiÛ bqoê[]y: tyBeä ‘^M.[; hT'v.j;ªn" yKiä 6

`WqyPi(f.y: ~yrIßk.n" ydEîl.y:b.W ~yTi_v.liP.K;

aleÛM'Tiw: wyt'_roc.aol. hc,qEß !yaeîw> bh'êz"w> @s,K,ä ‘Acr>a; aleÛM'Tiw: 7

`wyt'(boK.r>m;l. hc,qEß !yaeîw> ~ysiêWs ‘Acr>a;

Wfß[' rv<ïa]l; Wwëx]T;v.yI) ‘wyd"y" hfeÛ[]m;l. ~yli_ylia/ Acßr>a; aleîM'Tiw: 8

`wyt'([oB.c.a,

`~h,(l' aF'ÞTi-la;w> vyai_-lP;v.YIw: ~d"Þa' xV;îYIw: 9

An English translation of the text (RSV) is:

6 “For thou hast rejected thy people, the house of Jacob, because they are full of

diviners201

from the east and of soothsayers like the Philistines, and they strike hands

with foreigners.

7 Their land is filled with silver and gold, and there is no end to their treasures; their

land is filled with horses, and there is no end to their chariots.

8 Their land is filled with idols; they bow down to the work of their hands, to what

their own fingers have made.

9 So man is humbled, and men are brought low -- forgive them not!”

200

The contrast is also visible between the people thronging to Yahweh’s sanctuary and the people of

God allowing others, particularly, the practitioners of evil (soothsayers, diviners) to swarm the land of

Israel. 201

The word !ymsq (diviners) is missing by a possible haplographic error, which makes the phrase

incomplete. Therefore, Kaiser (56) advocates adding this word before ~dqm. D. W. Thomas emends

~dqm to ~ydq[m (“enchanters”) create a parallelism between “enchanter and soothsayers” (323-324).

However, this proposal has not found support among scholars (Watts 32).

255

Notably, a double use of yk drives home the validity and seriousness of these charges

(v. 6).202

There are four charges listed in this section: an unopposed influx of foreign

soothsayers and diviners; an ever-increasing affluence; an expanding militarism; an

unabated idolatry.203

The charge sheet204

culminates with the final offense, idolatry, as

these offenses are strung together by a sequence of waw-consecutive and waw-

conjunction.205

Another important literary consideration is that the author seems to express both the

second and third charges in an equivalence of superlative terms. The statements such

as “plentitude of gold and horses” are qualified with the phrase, “and there is no end

(hcq !yaw).” This means, while a sense of abundance, as the verb alm suggests, is

common to all four accusations, the second and third charges suggest an idea of

exponential growth leading to the point of being fullest.206

Had the author gone by the

logic of volume and quantification of each offense, the pronouncement of judgment

should have followed right after the second and third indictments, which speak of

affluence and militarism. Instead, the verdict comes after another offense, namely,

idolatry. This suggests that in the list of the prophetic charges, the sin of idolatry

seems to be graded as the ultimate evil, without mitigating the harmful consequences

of other offenses. The verb vjn which is strategically placed between the dual

occurrences of yk, invariably describes estrangements between Yahweh and his

people, mostly in the context of idolatry.207

In other words, the idea of Yahweh

202

While Watts acknowledges v. 6 as the cause of theological “tension” in the text (37), Joseph

Blenkinsopp consider vv 6-8 as the crux of text as a whole “(Isaiah 1-39 195).” However, he does not

look at the heart of this important section, namely, idolatry. Similarly, Childs hints at the tension

“(Isaiah 32),” but does not specify it. Taking a slightly different view, G. M. Tucker (despite terming

Isaiah 2 as an incoherent text) concedes that the text as a whole revolves around “apostasy and

judgment,” but he thinks that the object of punishment is inconsistent (71-72). 203

The tri-lateral affinity between wealth, military power and idolatry is recognized in principle and

expressed as a sort of proposition by summarily suggesting Solomon as a case in point “(Brueggemann,

Isaiah 1-39 29).” Job 31: 24-28 also shows the connection between confidences in affluence,

particularly with the mention of silver and gold, and idolatry. But this has not led to an examination of

the incompatibility between Yahweh and idolatry by way of whether or not idolatry is the principal sin. 204

Here again, instead of seeing idolatry as the vantage point, scholars like Blenkinsopp only take

notice of the tri-lateral relation between “horses, chariot and idols (Prov. 30: 15-31; Amos 1: 3-2: 8)

“(Isaiah 1-39 195).” 205

Whereas waw-consecutive by principle produces “anticipation” and “immediacy” “(Victor Sasson

111-127),” waw-conjunction provides “logical connectivity” (Steiner 249-267). Though Steiner’s

interpretation in rejecting a multiple meanings of waw-conjunction is contestable, his point on its

logical connectivity is helpful. 206

Saydon’s extensive note (433) on the usage of “end” explains that its meaning can be understood as

superlative degree of expression, though he only gives example of xcn and rxa. 207

To cite a few examples: Judg. 6: 13; 1 Sam. 12: 22; 2 Kgs 21: 14; Jer. 23: 33, 39.

256

rejecting (vjn) his people for idolatry becomes an overarching concept in which other

prophetic charges find their significance. Other offenses in Isa. 2, apart from being

connected to one another through the waw-consecutive as is already noted, are to be

seen as being subsumed in, or subordinate to, the principal offense of idolatry.208

Although a few scholars like Tucker and Kaiser have made passing remarks or brief

comments on the organic connection between material affluence, mantic practices and

idolatry “(74; Isaiah 1-12 60),” they are not based on literary considerations of Isaiah

2.209

The overarching nature of the offense of idolatry is further evident in the one-line

verdict in v. 9: “So man is humbled, and men are brought low -- forgive them not.”

Two important literary observations can be made. One, the paronomasia in verses 8

and 9—those that bow down to idols (wwxTvy) will be brought low (xVY) –suggests that

this humiliation is inherently and immediately attached to the crime of idolatry.210

Two, what is interesting is that there is no express mention of pride in the list of

charges yet the judgment speaks of striking at pride as Yahweh humbles the people.

This means, from the standpoint of accusation (vjn) the divine judgment against pride

is part of the overarching judgment against idolatry. We turn to this in the following

section.

4.3 6.1.2. The Divine Judgment and the Offense of Idolatry: Just as the prophetic

accusation shows the overarching offense of idolatry, the judgment described in vv.

11-21 also conveys a similar point. Although this section (vv. 11-21) describes how

the divine judgment is executed concomitantly against pride and idolatry, the author

still suggests idolatry being the most serious and personal offense against Yahweh.

Three literary-theological considerations explained in the following sections

corroborate this.

208

This also suggests that one should not think that only religious offences are exclusively connected to

idolatry. Even socio-political sins are attached to idolatry. Therefore, Kaiser’s categorization of

military expansion as non-religious offense, and thereby to undermine its potential connectivity

“(Isaiah 1-12 59-60),” is unconvincing. 209

Outside Isaiah, another example of a linear climax between wealth/pride and idolatry is Deut. 8:

16ff. Here the author underlines that people’s choice to forget or remember Yahweh’s deeds will be

decisive whether or not they would turn to idolatry. He warns that the surest to forget Yahweh’s deed is

to glory in self achievement and acquisition. 210

Most English translations have rendered the consequential meaning of the last waw-consecutive as

“thus, therefore or so.”

257

4.3.6.1.2.1. Literary Parallels between the Second and Third Sections of Isaiah 2:

The first literary consideration is the parallels in the overall structure of both the

second and third sections. The enumeration of judgments in the third section —it

begins and ends with the call to enter (awb) into caves in vv. 10, 21—follows a similar

structure of the preceding section (vv. 6-9). As the charge sheet in vv. 6-9 against the

people of Israel begins with yk (v. 6) and is held in a sequence by the waw

consecutive until it reaches a crescendo with the crime of idolatry (v. 8),211

so also

does the list of judgments in vv. 10-21 commence with yk (v. 12), is knit together with

the waw conjunction, and attains its ultimate ferocity with the destruction of idols in

v. 18.212

This means the section between vv. 11 and 17 containing judgment against

pride stands in total conjunction with v. 18,213

and thereby suggests the ultimate

execution of Yahweh’s wrath against idolatry.

The aforementioned parallel structure not only clarifies the correspondence between

the charges (vv. 6-8) and the punishment (vv. 11-17), but also further explains the

summary verdict in vv. 8-9.214

That is, the sins of power and possession, expressed in

terms of material wealth and military expansion, is correspondingly dealt with as the

proud are punished (vv. 11-17).215

But, it must be noted that the text does not

explicitly mention either wealth or military power when it describes the punishment

for the proud in vv. 11-17. By contrast, the charge of idolatry is judged directly as the

destruction of idols is repeated twice (vv. 18, 20). Interestingly, the accusation of

possession (“there is no end to gold and silver…”), which is not forthrightly expressed

in the judgment against the proud, is unambiguously connected with the evil of

idolatry in v. 20: “In that day men will cast forth their idols of silver and their idols of

211

Alexander makes a similar remark in passing (105). 212

Sweeny notices this in the third section “(Isaiah 1-39 101),” but does not see a parallel with the

second section. Further, it is possible to differ with Sweeny. 213

The waw in v. 18 need not be translated adversatively (but) so as to demonstrate the contrastive

nature of judgment between the proud and idols, because it is already seen through the framework of

polar opposites in vv.10-21. 214

Sweeny offers no explanation how this factor helps in understanding the charges and punishment,

though he remarks that the idea of idolatry as the object of Yahweh’s wrath connects vv. 6-9 and 10-19

“(Isaiah 1-39 101-102).” 215

Brueggemann opines that Yahweh’s anger against all that is enumerated in vv 10-16 should not be

seen individually, but collectively, for its rhetorical effect. He also says that this list of opprobrium

refers back to concept of opulence in v. 7 “(Isaiah 1-39 30);” the prophetic literature also views horses

and chariots as emblems of prowess and conceit (Isa. 30: 15; 31: 1; 43: 17, Mic. 5: 9). Also see

Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1-39 195-196.

258

gold….”216

This suggests that when pride and idolatry are simultaneously targeted by

the divine wrath: (i) the judgment against human pride will be incomplete and

ineffective if the main crime of idolatry is left untouched; (ii) the ultimate judgment

against idolatry will necessarily punish the proud.

4.3.6.1.2.2. Polar Opposites within the Third Section (Isa. 2: 11ff.):

The Second literary consideration under the divine judgment is the polar opposites in

Isa. 2: 11-21 which underlines the overarching offense of idolatry. We have already

seen that there is a literary-thematic reversal between the first and third sections:

elevation of the mountain of God and diminution of the proud people. In addition, the

author shows another group of polar opposites in the final section (vv. 10-22) that

proclaims punishments. That is, human pride and Yahweh’s honor negatively

correlated to each other.217

This is presented by way of a consequential declaration in

verses 11 and 17:“The haughty looks of man shall be brought low, and the pride of

men shall be humbled; and the LORD alone will be exalted in that day.” Although

human pride is a polar opposite to Yahweh’s glory, it may not be the ultimate sin. If

the humiliation of the proud had satisfied Yahweh’s glory, divine judgment need not

have extended. Since it does extend to the destruction of idols, it underlines that

idolatry becomes the ultimate opposite to Yahweh’s glory. In this respect, Kaiser’s

proposal seems to be closer to the text, as he considers idolatry to be the binary

opposite of Yahweh’s glory. He explains that Yahweh’s honor should not be left as a

unitary entity in this conflict. Therefore, the destruction of idols is material to the

renown of Yahweh “(Isaiah 1-12 64).” Noticeably, the people do not perish in

Yahweh’s wrath despite being conceited “(Isaiah 1-12 62).” In contrast, as observes

Joseph Blenkinssopp, idols will be destroyed and never be reclaimed “(Isaiah 1-39

194).” The author captures this contrast through the usage of alliterative verbs: lpv

and hxv point to the deflation of the human pride and $lv indicates the decaying

process of idols.

The point here is not about a comparison of harshness between the humiliation of

proud and the destruction of idol. Rather, it is about the destruction of idol being the

216

This is why our interpretation of Ezek. 7: 19 differs from Isaiah 2, as the mention of gold and silver

in the former, unlike Isa. 2: 20, is portrayed as neutral material object. 217

It is possible to consider vv. 11-17 as a unit since both v. 11 and v. 17 convey similar meaning,

although Alexander (97) observes vv. 12-17 as a unit based on “strophical arrangement.

259

final remedy that reverses the human pride. An observation of other occurrences of

~ylyla in Psalm 97: 7 and Ezekiel 30: 13 supports this. The syntax of Psalm 97: 7 (“All

worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols”)

suggests that the object of human pride is an idol (~ylyla). That is, pride is not an end

in itself, but is projected at and personified in idols. It is apparent in Psalm 97: 7 that

pride and idol worship are not only parallel, but are also mutual. Therefore, as we

have seen in Isaiah 2, humiliation is the fate of those that worship and boast in idols

(~ylyla).218

Ezekiel 30:13 speaks of the destruction of idols within the broader theme

of the weakening of Egypt’s politico-military power and its eventual fall: “Thus says

the Lord GOD: I will destroy the idols (~yliøWLgI), and put an end to the images (~ylyla),

in Memphis….” That the obliteration of idols is Yahweh’s personal agenda, which

does not fall beyond his domain, becomes clear as one observes the movement of the

prophetic speech. Literary presentation of Ezekiel 30 suggests a dual component in

the prophetic oracle: (i) interspersed common declarations in which Egypt’s doom is

described; and (ii) personal declarations in the first person that involve Yahweh.

Embedded in these speeches are Yahweh’s intents to destroy Egypt through a human

instrument, namely, Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar is assigned the task of

destroying and humiliating imperial Egypt. However, the text does not mention

Nebuchadnezzar in matters of the destruction of idols—although it is the human

instrument that carries way the idols of the vanquished—and suggests that it is only

Yahweh’s work.219

218

Marvine E. Tate defines vwb as the resultant ignominy and the debacle of human enterprise (519).

This best fits into our argument of Isaiah 2, as the highest human enterprise—idolatry--meets with a

catastrophic failure. The proud, therefore, are called to “sit in dust,” symbolically accepting their

humiliation. 219

This idea of Yahweh’s personal engagement in destroying idols and his human agent humiliating the

proud is widely expressed by scholars. For instance, although Leslie C. Allen renders a different

reading of Ezek. 30: 13 from that of the MT—“I will make an end of rulers from Memphis…”—he still

says that Nebuchadnezzar is Yahweh’s instrument who subdues the Egyptian pride “(Ezekiel 20-48

116-117).” L. E. Cooper Moshe suggests that while the human instrument is responsible for the

military logistics, Yahweh remains concerned about idols’ destruction “(Ezekiel 279-280).” Greenberg

divides Ezekiel 30: 1-19 in to three sections (vv. 2-9 as A, vv. 10-12 as B and vv. 13-19 as C) and

comments that there is a contrast in these sections: differing with the sections A and B, God seems to

be directly involved in the section C. He also suggests a comparison between Egypt and the downfall

of Tyre as regards the deflation of the pride of Egypt “(Ezekiel 21-37 630).” D. I. Block also seems to

argue more unequivocally along this line. As is done by Cooper, Block’s argument also suggests a

coherence between Yahweh’s involvement in destroying idols (v. 13) and Egyptian cities (vv. 14-19),

as these cities, apart from being commercial and political centers, are also said to have housed the

images of Egyptian deities “(Ezekiel 25-48 166-170).”

260

4.3.6.1.2.3. A Cause-Effect Relation between Idolatry and People’s Dispersion:

The Third literary consideration under the divine judgment is people’s dispersion.

The prophetic call asking people to flee (vv. 10, 19 and 21:“enter into the rock, and

hide in the dust from before the terror of the LORD, and from the glory of his

majesty”) reinforces the idea of idolatry being the ultimate sin that propels people’s

dispersion. Whereas the destruction of idols (v. 18) becomes the culminating point of

the first prophetic call given in v. 10, the issue of idolatry becomes the basis for the

second and third calls in vv. 19, 21. Further, the prophetic call asking people to flee

echoes the attempt of Israelites to save themselves by hiding in the caves of

mountains as a result of a rampant idolatry during the period of the judges (Judg. 6:

2): “And the hand of Midian prevailed over Israel; and because of Midian, the people

of Israel made for themselves the dens which are in the mountains, and the caves and

the strongholds.220

Wf)[' !y"÷d>mi ynE“P.mi lae_r"f.yI-l[; !y"ßd>mi-dy: z['T'îw:

tArß['M.h;-ta,w> ~yrIêh'B,( rv<åa] ‘tArh'n>Mih;-ta, laeªr"f.yI ynEåB. ~h,äl'

`tAd)c'M.h;-ta,w>

It also anticipates the dispersion of Israelites in the form of exile, the primary reason

for which, as Kutsko observes,221

is idolatry.

4.3.6.1.3. The Final Remark in Isaiah 2: 22 and the Offense of Idolatry:

The final remark about the worth of man in v. 22 might well be speaking of human

pride, but it does not necessarily end at the socio-economic, military or intellectual

level. Rather, the human pride and achievements being opposed to, and averse to,

exalting God would inexorably manifest in the religious realm. As Isaiah 2 suggests,

it is bowing before an idol (v. 8). To put it summarily: human pride refuses to glorify

220

Brueggemann offers a different imagery. That is, the affluent and powerful take refuge in caves, with

a self-deluded hope of finding security “(Isaiah 1-39 31).” Though Brueggemann’s opinion is plausible,

it does not appear persuasive. The reason is, the unexpected pauperization of the rich and powerful is

essentially and ultimately bound up with Yahweh’s hostility against idolatry, as we have demonstrated

that idolatry is the chief concern in this chapter. In fact, the account of Judges amply suggests that the

impoverishment of Israelites and the subsequent abandonment of their settlements for finding difficult

shelters— in caves and stronghold—is a result of idolatry. The parallel concept of divine rejection

rejected and human refuge-seeking, reinforces this point--hw"±hy> ~nEôT.YIw: hw"+hy> and !y")d>mi-@k;B. WnnEßT.YIw:) hw"ëhy> Wnv'äj'n> ‘hT'[;w> in Judg. 6: 1, 13, and ^M.[; hT'v.j;ªn" yKiä in Isa. 2: 6. Hence, the imagery of the book of Judges seems to be

more consistent with Isaiah 2 than what Brueggemann suggests. 221

We have already mentioned this in the introductory part of this chapter.

261

God on the one hand and bows before an idol on the other.222

Thus idolatry is the

ultimate and most serious offense.

The author seems to have embedded this motif in Isaiah 10 (Watts 151),223

albeit

implicitly, as ~ylyla is used for “idol”224

in the context of the accusations hurled

against Judah and Assyria, particularly against Judah. Also, Assyria, designated with

the task of annihilating idolatrous nations,225

is charged and chided for being

imperious and is thus said to be consumed by Yahweh’s wrath. Among all the

pompous statements made by the Assyrian king, an arrogant declaration that focuses

on the pride-idolatry nexus seems to be the turning point in the text (v. 10): “as my

hand has reached to the kingdoms of the idols whose graven images were greater than

those of Jerusalem and Samaria, shall I not do to Jerusalem and her idols as I have

done to Samaria and her images?” This haughty statement misperceives and miscasts

Jerusalem’s God as a lower class idol,226

while revealing the reality of idolatry in

Jerusalem. Thus, hereafter, Yahweh’s speech that started with a positive intent at the

beginning, assumes a hostile tone towards Assyria. Here, not only does human hubris

not recognize God, but, besides unwittingly reiterating the impotency of idols,227

it

also classifies those (Watts 150).

Of course, Isa. 10 does not contain an overt statement on a correlation between the

Assyrian monarch’s bragging and instances of his idolatrous practices. However, the

silence of the text as regards Assyrian idolatry in Isa. 10 does not necessarily mean

that human pride negates idolatry. The question here is: does the classification of idols

mean a negation of idolatry or an implicit legitimization of the worship of supposedly

222

Alexander thinks that the text has shifted its focus from an idol to man as regards their unreliability

(105). However, we have shown that confidence in human is explained in terms of his achievement

reaching its apogee in idolatry. 223

Watts alludes to a connection between Isaiah 2 and 10 as regards the humiliation of the proud, but he

does not take the inseparable issue of idolatry into account. 224

As vv. 10-11 suggest the specific terms such as lsp (of the nations and of Jerusalem and Samaria)

and hybc[ (of Jerusalem) confirm to the characteristic of ~ylyla in being found and destroyed by human

hands. 225

Kaiser’s translation of @nx as apostate against that of the common phrase “godless,” is interesting

“(Isaiah 1-12 228, 237).” This helps us reason that vv. 10-11 is quite integral and important to

understanding the bragging of the Assyrian king. 226

Tucker132-133; Watts 148; Oswalt 264; Childs, Isaiah 92. While Oswalt thinks this statement is

made out of ignorance, Childs and Watts suggest that this characterizes insolence and intention. Again,

by exclusively focusing on pride, Oswalt seems to ignore the issue of idolatry and pride in Isaiah (262-

263). 227

Kaiser, Isaiah 1-12 237; Tucker 133.

262

higher class idols? A close literary-thematic similarity228

between Isa. 10 and Isa. 36-

37 suggests that the Assyrian monarch’s boastful speech was more aligned with his

imperial agenda than with a traditional aversion towards idolatry. The Assyrian

monarch being a presumed practitioner of idolatry views idols and their destruction

through the prism of military power and imperial expansion. This means, while one

must prostrate before the idols of victorious powers, state deities of the vanquished

must be treated with contempt,229

which eventually leads to their final disposal.

Importantly, by assuring the deflation of Assyrian pride in terms of its imperial

downfall, the text seems to subvert the military-empire paradigm of assessing and

ascertaining divinity in idols. To the author’s mind, the absence of divinity and divine

power in idols is reality irrespective of military victory or defeat, and thus

apportioning divinity in idols is a contradiction.

In contrast, the author seems to offer a proper perspective on idolatry by presenting

Yahweh’s rebuke to Assyrian pride in Isa. 10. That is, the imperial hegemony is not

an arbiter of whether to venerate idols or to abrogate idolatry, and a mere military

conquest is not an antidote to idolatry. Premising on the practices of idolatry in the

Assyrian empire, the author postulates that military force based on political

expediency might eradicate one group of idols, while encouraging the worship of

another group of idols. Simply put, idolatry is an issue that supremely concerns

Yahweh who reserves the ultimate right and the modus operandi in dealing with this

malaise. An interaction between two key words, namely hf[ (its noun form hf[m) and

hyBc[, in vv. 11-12 corroborate this position. As regards the first, Blenkinsopp

comments that Yahweh’s work on Mount Zion in v. 12 (“When the Lord has finished

all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem…”) refers to the purging of Jerusalem’s

idolatrous practices (Isaiah 1-39 252-253). In other words, the obliteration of idolatry

in Jerusalem is no longer a self-proclaimed work of the Assyrian king

(h'yB,(c;[]l;w> ~Øil;Þv'Wryli hf,î[/a, !KE±), but is Yahweh’s work (~Øil'_v'WrybiW !AYàci rh:ïB. Whfeê[]m;¥). Concerning

the second, P. W. Skehan’s observation of an inverted reading of hybc[ in v. 12

228

Though Isaiah 10 does not mention Assyrian idolatry, literary parallels between Isa. 10 and 36-37

help the reader take the additional information of Isa. 37: 38 into account. Blenkinsopp thinks that these

chapters form a close literary-thematic resemblance on the basis of these parallels “(Isaiah 1-39 53;

Kaiser 237; Childs, Isaiah 92, 93).” Two of the literary-thematic parallels can be mentioned as they are

pertinent to our discussion: the Assyrian king’s boastful talk of destroying idols of many nations; a

purported divine command to the Assyrian monarch to carry out his military expedition. 229

This is alluded to by Oswalt (262).

263

reinforces Yahweh’s role in destroying cult images, while retaining the illegitimacy of

the Assyrian king’s work along the above line. Skehan’s observation suggests that it is

Yahweh who solely accomplishes ([Cby) the mission of destroying idols (hybc[), which

the Assyrian king touted as part of his military expedition (236). 230

In fact, the

instrumentality of the Assyrian king is not even recognized in resolving this problem

as is mentioned in v. 5. Rather, the Assyrian king himself becomes an object of

Yahweh’s wrath.231

This may be the reason why in Isa. 10 Yahweh’s punishment for

Assyrian imperial pride waits until the more pressing issue, idolatry’s elimination, is

dealt with. As Isa. 10 affirms Yahweh’s unique role in decimating idols by presenting

an interface between different forms of hf[ and an inversion of hybc[, so also it

undergirds Yahweh’s majesty in punishing the pomp of the Assyrian king by creating

an assonance between dqp, yrp and trapt.232

In short, human pride that manifests in

imperial hubris does not negate idolatry, but it actually categorizes and celebrates

idolatry. It also corresponds to our earlier finding: judgment against idolatry

necessarily takes the punishment of the human pride into account. In other words,

idolatry is incompatible with Yahweh because it is the most serious and personal

offense against him; for Yahweh to destroy human pride is to ultimately and urgently

destroy idolatry.

To sum up, the foregoing text-semantic analysis of ~ylyla in Isaiah 2 crystallizes into

the following.233

A conjoint nature of pride and idolatry shows that Yahweh takes

both highly seriously. However, idolatry is incompatible with him for being a greater

offense against him: one, the evils listed in Isa. 2 climaxes in idolatry (the ultimate

and overarching) as the analysis of the prophetic accusation shows; two, the execution

230

Watts too hints at “inversion of words” in vv. 5, 6 and 7 (147-148), but does not clearly identify or

elaborate. 231

There is a minority scholarly voice “(G. C. I. Wong, Deliverance 543-552)” which argues that the

punishment enumerated in Isaiah 10 is not for Assyria, but for Judah, as Yahweh does not change his

mind on punishing the proud Judah in spite of noting the Assyrian arrogance. However, this view has a

major problem. First, as Wong’s article acknowledges, it has not been able to demonstrate that the

majority opinion is untenable. Second, the minority view seems unconvincing as it fails to account for

the difference in the severity of judgment upon Judah and Assyria: while Yahweh’s punishment of his

people is restorative, the same against Assyrian is ruthless. Yahweh’s restoration plan for Judah is

acknowledged by D. L. Christensen (394, 395). He argues, Assyria’s prominence as Yahweh’s

instrument in punishing his people is no longer visible in Isa. 10. The latter part of Isa. 10 suggests that

it is Yahweh, and not Assyria, (initially designated as Yahweh’s rod) who chastises the proud Judah. 232

Watts mentions this assonance (150), but leaves out dqp. 233

Other Problematic features of idolatry are explained in the first appendix.

264

of divine wrath against pride (both on judgment and final remark) is incomplete

without the elimination of the main evil, idolatry.234

4.4. Conclusion: Building on, and along with the foundation of why Yahweh is

aniconic (the discussion of the third chapter), this chapter investigated the

incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” in the OT being a reason for

aniconism. As we sum up the findings of this chapter, it is important to bear in mind

the conclusion of the previous chapters (the second and third). The second chapter has

found that idols in the religions of AWA were believed to be earthly bodies of gods or

gods of heaven and earth on the basis of their divine origin in heaven and their divine

creation on earth—either through autogeneration or divine-human co-operation. In

other words, an idol is a god of heaven and earth (or a body of god), since it shares

mutual ontology (an embodied divinity)—materializing divine presence and power on

earth--with the deity in heaven. However, the findings (in the third chapter)

concerning why Yahweh is aniconic stand contrast to this. The previous chapter

concludes: Yahweh is aniconic because first and foremost he is the only God of

heaven and earth. Its implications for his aniconic nature are as follows: Yahweh is

aniconic because of his indivisible presence in heaven and on earth, his indivisible

person (his person or self cannot fragment/multiplied and be embodied) and his

incomparable divinity (a lack of and common comparison of essence) between

Yahweh and an idol.

The findings of the last two chapters lead one to examine the incompatibility between

the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” in the OT (or why the OT rejects an idol). This has

two aspects: one, the ontological incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and

“idol” (mutual divinity, divine presence and power); two, incompatibility between the

aniconic Yahweh and “idol” in terms of idolatry being the most serious and personal

offense against the aniconic Yahweh.

234

Pride is certainly a serious sin and Yahweh deals with it on its own. However, the issue of greater

seriousness or ultimate nature of an evil cannot be judged when it is presented independently. This is

possible only when two or more offenses are presented conjointly or comparatively, as in the case of

Isa. 2 and other texts that we have examined. Interestingly, there could be a few instances where pride

does not seem to be the highest evil even when the offense of idolatry goes unmentioned in the list of

evils. We can cite Prov. 6: 16-19 as an example which, as Clifford opines, borrows an AWA pattern of

gradation by way of numerical saying “(The Wisdom 39-40).” Going by the principle of numerical

gradation, the higher raking evil here is creating discord in a family, and not pride.

265

In order to achieve our purpose, we have done a text-semantic examination of four

divine referents for an idol, namely, ~ybc[, ~lc, ~yprT and hkSm. Interestingly, our text-

semantic examinations of different texts reveal that all of them show a consistent line

of reasoning as to why the OT rejects “idol,” which is, the ontological incompatibility

between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” in the OT is a reason for aniconism.

A text-semantic examination of ~ybc[ establishes that the ontological incompatibility

between the aniconic Yahweh and an idol is based on the heaven-earth paradigm.

Yahweh is the God of heaven—he lives in heaven and has created it—yet he is

represented on earth in two ways: (i) by humanity which combines the earthly and

heavenly in its essence as it participates in the execution of divine acts and will on

earth; (ii) by the earthly temple which intersects with the heavenly so as to localize

the divine presence on earth. By contrast, cult images of nations (among whom the

psalmist lived) and Israel are not only non-heavenly, but they are also anti-heavenly.

Their origin is purely human and earthly; even their earthliness or earthly origin is

illegitimate. A conspicuous absence of heavenly components in them is further

established by their incapability to execute divine power, will and acts. Thus cult

images (~ybc[) are neither gods of heaven and earth nor made through a divine-human

cooperation as the iconology of the religions of AWA presumes.

A text-semantic analysis of ~lc shows the incompatibility between the aniconic

Yahweh and an idol based on the absence of a mutuality or mutual ontology. There is

an intimate mutuality between Yahweh and his people/servant, yet his people/servants

do not become ontologically divine. By virtue of this mutuality his people/servants

localize his aniconic presence and power. That is to say, Yahweh’s people and his

servants become the earthly locus for materializing Yahweh’s (the God of heaven)

presence and power. By contrast, Baal’s image and Nebuchadnezzar’s cult image do

not share any mutual ontology with their supposed heavenly deities as they do not

mediate divine presence and power. In other words, not only both Baal’s image and

Nebuchadnezzar’s cult image are not the earthly bodies of their heavenly

counterparts, but also their heavenly counterparts are non-existent.

266

A text-semantic examination of ~yprT shows the ontological incompatibility between

the aniconic Yahweh and an idol based on the heaven and earth paradigm. Yahweh’s

aniconic nature is grounded in his immanent-transcendent divinity which is

characterized by his spatial proximity to the people through his spatial movement,

direct communication and covenantal blessing. And, the immediacy of the spatial

presence is not affected by his transcendence. In other words, the ground for

Yahweh’s aniconic nature is his being the God of heaven and earth, and his

immediate presence on earth as it is in heaven. By contrast, the physical contiguity of

Laban’s cult image does not communicate with the living nor does mediate divine

presence and blessing on earth. The absence of the immanent-transcendent paradigm

in Laban’s cult images suggests that not only is it incapable of embodying the

supposed unseen deity, but also it negates the existence of such an unseen deity. In

short, Laban’s cult image is not a god of heaven and earth. Similarly, Micah’s cult

image, which is assumed as Yahweh’s idol, does not share any common mutual

ontology with Yahweh because it does not localize Yahweh’s presence on earth.

A text-semantic examination of hkSm shows the ontological incompatibility between

the aniconic Yahweh and an idol based on the authenticity of divine presence or

divine embodiment, since the golden calf is believed to have embodied Yahweh and

his presence. While the aniconic divine presence is authentic for its availability and

restriction, and for the proper cultic comportment of worshippers, the iconic presence

is inauthentic for its supposed unhindered access to the deity and improper cultic

comportment. The incompatibility between iconic and aniconic presence is sealed by

the creation of the idol (the golden calf). That is, the idol is not autogenerated or

mysteriously created by the deity, rather it is caused and created by human source. In

other words, it is a rebuttal of the iconological premises of the AWA that speak of

divine fluidity, divine autogeneration of an idol—in this case, it is the golden calf.

Finally, the authenticity of Yahweh’s aniconic presence stands opposed to all

inauthentic divine bodies/cult images and eliminates them. Furthermore, text-semantic

examinations of divine referents for an idol show that the OT rejects idolatry/iconism

because the writers were fully aware of the concept of an idol, and the basis for

Yahweh’s aniconic nature.

267

The second aspect of aniconism’s rationale in the OT is the incompatibility between

the aniconic Yahweh and “idol” in terms of idolatry being the most serious and

personal offense against the anionic Yahweh. This chapter shows that when the

offense of idolatry interfaces with all other evils, they either engender idolatry or

derive their existence from it. Further, a text-semantic examination of four other

terminologies (~ycwqv, hb[wt, ~ylwlG and ~ylyla) shows that idolatry outranks the socio-

moral evils (like violence and bloodshed) and pride, and becomes the most serious

offense (of the people) against Yahweh. The offense of idolatry not only arouses his

wrath and judgment, it also forces him to withdraw his presence from his sanctuary

and people.

While the incompatibility between the aniconic Yahweh and “idol”—ontology and

offense-- is one side of the reason for aniconism, this chapter has also brought to the

fore the incompatibility between “idol” and “Israel” in which idolatry disturbs its

social-familial structures and negatively influences its cultic-ethical dimension.