LAS DONCELLAS-HADAS

However, other interpreters argue that the prohibition, “You shall not make for yourself an idol” means (or at one point meant) “You shall not make for yourself an idol of YHWH.” To cite one of many examples, von Rad writes, “The image implied in the commandment was certainly an image of Jahweh, and not one of an alien or foreign deity…”23

Five points can be made in support of this approach toward the divine ambiguity.

In the first, just as some scholars argue that the sequence of the prohibitions points to divine images of alien deities, others argue that the sequence points to divine images of YHWH. For example, Noth writes, “As the strict prohibition of other gods has already been expressed previously, the prohibition of images is hardly concerned with the images of strange gods but with any images which might

possibly be made for the legitimate worship of Israel.”24

Similarly, Clements writes, “Since the first command excludes the worship of any other deity, the implication is that such an image would be a symbol of the LORD, the God of Israel.”25 And finally, Durham suggests, “A paraphrase of the commandment might even be, ‘Not a one of you is to have a shaped image for the worship of Yahweh.”26

Therefore we first note that a number of scholars find that the sequence of the prohibitions points to divine images of YHWH because all “other gods” have already been forbidden by the previous prohibition.

23 _{von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 215. Cf. Chung, The Sin of the Calf, 188; von Rad,}

Deuteronomy: A Commentary (trans. Barton; London: SCM, 1966), 49; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 48.

24

Noth, Exodus, 162-163.

25 _{Clements, Deuteronomy (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1989), 123. Clements is} commenting on the prohibition of idols in Exod. 20:4. Cf. Childs, Exodus, 406; Durham, Exodus, 285; Rowley, “Moses and the Decalogue,” in Men Of God: Studies in Old Testament History and

Prophecy, (London: Nelson, 1963), 22; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 213-216.

78

The second point has to do with Obbink’s argument that there were no real representations of YHWH in Israelite religion.27 A number of scholars have strongly argued against Obbink’s conclusions. For example, Stamm writes, “[Obbink’s] thesis must finally be rejected, for two reasons in particular [of which I will only cite one]. First, the existence of images of Yahweh in Israelite popular religion cannot be contested. The main proof of this is the image of Micah, which, according to the context of the passage, cannot be understood as an idol image, even though it may have appeared as such to a later age…”28

Similarly, Childs writes, “The reasons against Obbink’s thesis appear quite decisive…The general picture of pre-

monarchical Hebrew religion seems to confirm the judgment that images of Yahweh were forbidden, even though contraventions are recorded.”29

Therefore, contrary to Obbink, some scholars argue that the existence of images of YHWH within the Old Testament cannot be contested. If so, then the prohibition of idols does not

necessarily deal with divine images of alien deities but may stand against divine images of YHWH.

Thirdly, the fullest rationale for the prohibition of idols that the Old

Testament provides suggests that divine images of the God of Israel are the primary concern.30 In Deut. 4 Israel is called to remember that on the day they received the commandments, they heard the voice of YHWH but saw no form. For this reason they are not to make an idol. This seems to suggest that Israel is not to make an

27 _{Obbink, “Jahwebilder,” 265.}

28 _{Stamm and Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research, 83. On the treatment of} Micah’s “Idol” within the DtrH, see Hutton, “A Simple Matter of Numbering?,” 214. However, of its 54 occurrences, לספ appears 8x referring to Micah’s “idol.”

29 _{Childs, Exodus, 406.}

30 _{On Deut. 4 as an explanation of the prohibition of idols see for example Holter,}

Deuteronomy 4, 112; McConville and Millar, Time and Place in Deuteronomy (179; Sheffield:

Sheffield Academic, 1994), 134-136; McConville, Deuteronomy, 107-108. Also see section 4.2.3 where I will deal with this passage in further detail.

79

image of YHWH because they did not see YHWH’s form when he spoke.31

As Tigay notes, “Since the immediate context does not refer to other gods, the

prohibition must refer to images representing YHVH or members of His retinue.”32

Similarly, Hutton writes, “Taken this way, logic demands that idols were understood to be images of YHWH…”33

Therefore, the Old Testament rejects the worship of YHWH by means of divine images and Deut. 4’s rationale focuses upon this issue.34

A fourth point has to do with assumptions regarding the relationship between the prohibition of idols and the statements which follow it. In the MT, the

prohibition is first followed by the command not to “bow down to them or worship them” and then by the statement, “For I the Lord your God am a jealous God”. Zimmerli pointed out that the phrase, “bow down and worship” is never used in reference to YHWH or images of YHWH35 and Obbink argued that the jealousy of YHWH would not make sense unless the divine images of alien deities were

intended.36 Both of these points seem to argue against the idea that divine images of YHWH are intended in the form of the text we now have. However, as pointed out in section 2.3, Zimmerli’s argument suggests that the relationship between the prohibitions has changed over time. Subsequent redaction drew the prohibition of idols under the shadow of the prohibition of other gods. Therefore, some interpreters

31

The same logic is presented more concisely in Exod. 20:22-23: “22 The LORD said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites: ‘You have seen for yourselves that I spoke with you from heaven. 23 You shall not make for yourselves gods of silver alongside me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold.”

32

Tigay, Deuteronomy, 48. Cf. Barton, “‘The Work of Human Hands’,” 65-66.

33 _{Hutton, “A Simple Matter of Numbering?,” 214. Cf. Miller, The Ten Commandments, 49-} 50; Curtis, “The Theological Basis for the Prohibition of Images,” 283-284; Schmidt, “The Aniconic Tradition,” 84-85.

34

Though note the objection in Houtman, Exodus, Vol. 3: Chapters 20-40, 20.

35 _{Zimmerli, “Das Zweite Gebot,” 554. Though note the individual uses of each of the verbs:} While הוח occurs 36x referring to the worship of “other” or “foreign” gods it refers to the worship of Yhwh 46x. While דבע occurs 43x referring to serving ‘other’ or ‘foreign’ gods, it refers to serving Yhwh 42x. See section 3.5.

80

who agree with Zimmerli’s point about the redaction of the text nevertheless argue that the idol prohibition originally had to do with images of YHWH.37 In other words, the fact that the command not to “bow down or worship” is never used in reference to the God of Israel does not mean that the original object of the

prohibition must have been divine images of alien deities. Along these lines, both Stamm and Childs rejected Obbink’s point regarding YHWH’s jealousy.38

Following Zimmerli, Childs points out that the statement of YHWH’s jealousy does not refer to the singular “idol” but to the “other gods” of the previous verse. He then writes, “The fact that the jealousy of God refers to strange gods does not touch on the original meaning of ‘image.’”39

In other words, Childs argues that the original prohibition of idols was directed against divine images of YHWH and the

subsequent redaction which drew it under the shadow of the prohibition of other gods does not alter that original intention. Therefore interpreters may agree that the redaction of the text now suggests that the prohibition of idols is concerned with divine images of alien deities while maintaining that this was not its original intention.

A fifth and final point may be made in regard to the version of the commandments in Exodus. Unlike Deuteronomy, the coveting command in the Exodus version uses only one verb (דמח). If this is taken to indicate a single commandment (as in the Protestant Reformed and Jewish tradition and probably indicated by the absence of the setumah in Exodus), then there would be nine

37

E.g. Nelson, Deuteronomy, 80; Childs, Exodus: A Commentary (London: SCM, 1974), 406-406; von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 215-216.

38 _{Stamm and Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research, 83; Childs, Exodus,} 406. Cf. Tigay, Deuteronomy, 65; Nielsen, The Ten Commandments in New Perspective: A Traditio-

Historical Approach, 96.

81

commandments left instead of eight. It could be argued that the distinction between the prohibitions is the most reasonable way to arrive at the count of ten and that this suggests that the prohibition of idols was understood as a prohibition of divine images of YHWH.

Therefore, to summarize the points in favour of this second approach to the theological ambiguity: It could be argued that the prohibition, “You shall not make for yourself an idol” means (or at one point meant) “You shall not make for yourself an idol of YHWH” because: (1) The sequence first prohibits all “other gods” which would include the divine images associated with them and therefore when it goes on to speak of “idols,” it is referring to divine images of Israel’s God, YHWH. (2) The Old Testament rejects divine images of YHWH. Therefore, once all “other gods” are forbidden by the first prohibition, the prohibition of idols is most likely referring to divine images of Israel’s God. (3) Deut. 4, the clearest rationale for the

prohibition of idols, suggests that it is concerned with divine images of YHWH. (4) Although the present construction in the MT does not emphasize the point, the original intention of the prohibition was concerned with divine images of the God of Israel. And finally, (5) The single verb in the coveting commandment found in Exodus points toward a distinction between the prohibitions and this distinction is most reasonable if the prohibition of idols is understood as a prohibition of divine images of YHWH.

3.4 Implications

Interpreters who understand the prohibition, “You shall not make for yourself an idol” to mean, “You shall not make for yourself an idol of YHWH” are likely to find

82

a significant distinction between the prohibition of “other gods” and the prohibition of “idols.” According to this perspective, the first forbids the worship of the “wrong gods” (i.e., alien deities and their divine images), and the second forbids the worship of the right God in the wrong way (i.e., the worship of YHWH by means of

images—whether the image represents YHWH directly or is conceived as a pedestal upon which YHWH is to be worshiped). As Charles puts it, “The second

[commandment] forbids the worship of the true God in a wrong way, that is, by means of images or the likeness of anything in heaven or earth.”40

Practically speaking, the first stands against the worship of gods like Dagon, Chemosh, or Bel and the images associated with those gods, while the second stands against the worship of YHWH by means of divine images. Interpreters who understand the prohibition of idols in this way are unlikely to see it merely as an addendum to the prohibition of other gods. Instead, it represents a significantly different concern. Such a reading favours an enumeration of the Ten Commandments which sees the prohibitions as separate commandments.