Part 9
This chapter has been through a process of editing. It is mainly P, but there is probably an older narrative behind it. It is a somewhat awkward effect of the editing that when YHWH appears he simply repeats what Moses and Aaron have said already; and another awkward feature is the half-hearted way in which the quails are introduced into the narrative from Num n, where they play a greater part. It is only the manna that the people eat for their whole time in the wilderness, v. i, 'the second month'. The reckoning is inclusive: it is exactly a month since they left Egypt. In v. 7 'the glory of the LORD' is probably another way of referring to the way YHWH makes himself known in his miraculous provision; but in 10 it is the usual way in P of describing the appearance of YHWH in brightness wrapped in a cloud. In v. 15 the word translated 'what?' is man, which is not the normal word for 'what?' (mah), but near enough for a Hebrew pun: it is the word for 'manna' (v. 31). Aaron kept the preserved manna 'before the covenant' or 'testimony' (v. 34), that is before or in the ark, which is made in ch. 37. Since they 'ate manna forty years'
It is impossible to say to what extent these stories are based on a tradition in Israel (see EX C.2). The references to the wilderness time in Old Testament literature are very varied: in some it is a time of happiness and obedience in contrast to the apostasy of the time in Canaan (e.g. Hos 2:14; Jer 2:2-3), in some a time of disobedience (e.g. Deut 9:7; Ps 95). Deut 8 comes closest to Exodus in seeing it as a time of testing.
By putting in place-names, the authors must have intended to give a precise idea of the Israelites' route, but this no longer works for us because we do not know where the places are. The people are now on their way to Sinai. If Sinai was, as traditionally supposed, in the south of the Sinai peninsula
(v. 35), Moses' order could have been given at any time: there is no anachronism.
(17:1^7) For general comments and comments on the location of the place-names, see EX 15:22-18:27. The episode closely follows the general pattern of the two previous episodes; its distinctive feature is the people's 'testing' or 'provoking' of YHWH, which gives its name to the place (w. 2, 7).
(see Davies 1979: 63-9), the places mentioned in 15:22, 27; 16:1; 17:1 are likely to be strung out along the west side of the peninsula. But there are other theories about the location of Sinai, and they would change the location of these places.
79 EXODUS
share the burden is given by his father-in-law. Moses here is a judge deciding civil disputes, and a lawgiver mediating God's 'statutes and instructions'; and people come to him 'to inquire of God' (v. 15), that is, to seek directions in particular situations. There is no sharp line drawn between these functions in the Bible: so in Deut 17:8—13 the priest is associated with the judges in the decision of difficult cases, because the direction of God must be sought. The legal system which is established is actually based on a military organization (v. 21). Practice in the ancient Near East tended to give military and judicial functions to the same officers. The organization is artificial, it does not arise out of the existing social structure. Moses here acts like ancient kings, who tended to impose their systems on society. Possibly the story is intended to account for the later judicial system of the Israelite/Judean monarchy.
Once again Moses directs their attention away from himself, whom the Israelites blame, to YHWH who is able to provide. 'Horeb' in v. 6 is the name in Deuteronomy, but not in Exodus (except 3:1), of the mountain of revelation. It may be identified with Sinai here, which cannot be far away. It is confusing that the place is given two names, not only Massah, 'testing', but Meribah, 'quarrelling', and that the latter is given to another place where a similar thing happens in Num 20:13. Th£ poetic references at Deut 33:8 and Ps 95:8 use the two names. Possibly the author has taken both names from one of the poems and assumed they referred to the same place.
(17:8—16) Amalek was a nomadic people dwelling in the wilderness to the south of Canaan. All references to them in the HB are fiercely hostile: see especially Deut 25:17-19 and i Sam 15. There seems to be a long-standing feud: Deut 25 offers a reason for this, but it is not reflected in this story. The strangest feature of the story is the connection between the position of Moses' arms and the fortunes of the battle. Older commentators presume that his arms were raised in prayer; but if so why does the narrative not say he was praying? As Van Seters
The interesting theological point is seen by Childs: that hard-headed, practical advice is seen as the 'command of God' (v. 23). There is no distinction between divine revelation and practical wisdom: the latter is as much the will of God as the former.
(1994: 203) points out, Josh 8:18-26 is similar. In both cases the automatic connection suggests magic; it is only implicit that God was in action. It is only the end of the story (17:14—16) that makes it clear that Israel's battle is, as always, YHWH's— to the death in this case. The Hebrew text in v. 16 is unclear. The NRSV's 'A hand upon the banner of the LORD' is the best suggestion, since it explains the name Moses has just given to his altar.
(19:1-40:38) The Establishment of Israel's Relationship with YHWH The people of Israel are no longer slaves. They have been saved from the land of oppression. But they are not yet a nation. The authors of Exodus believed that their being as a nation depended on the presence of their God with them, and that in turn depended on certain conditions. The second half of the book of Exodus is mainly concerned to set these out. The chapters contain two main kinds of answer to the question: on what conditions can Israel be YHWH's people and YHWH their God? The first answer is: on condition of obeying his commandments, which can be summed up as to worship him alone, and to behave with justice towards one another. These are set out in chs. 20—3, and the people's formal acceptance of them is narrated in ch. 24. This solemn imposition of requirements and undertaking of obedience is what this part of the book means by 'covenant' (19:5; 24:7, 8; 31:18; for covenant see EX C.i; and for law and commandments, Patrick 1986). The book then goes on, in chs. 32-4, to deal with the question: what happens if the people break the covenant? They then depend essentially on the mercy of God (33:19). But interleaved with this account is another way of dealing with the question. It is not contradictory to the first, but its presuppositions are different. YHWH safeguards his presence among his people by locating it in a physical site which moves as they move, and is hedged about with restrictions so that they receive blessing rather than harm from the presence of the holy God among them (29:43-6). YHWH gives Moses directions for the establishment of this 'tent of meeting' or 'tabernacle' in 25—31, and it is set up in accordance with his directions in 35-40.
(18:1—12) This episode links up with the early part of the story (chs. 2-4). Cf. in particular v. 5 with 3:12. There are difficulties in the placement of the story. The Israelites have not at this point actually reached the mountain of God. Moses' father-inlaw appears to be still with them in Num 10:29; an(^ the measures of 18:13-27 are placed after leaving Horeb in Deut 1:9-18. For all these reasons it is often believed that the story originally belonged after the Sinai narrative; but the reason why it was moved is unclear (see Childs 1974: 322; Durham 1987: 242; Van Seters 1994: 209 n. 3). Zipporah and her family also create a problem. In 2:22 we are only told of one son of Moses (but see 4:20); and we lastheard of Zipporah and her son on the way to Egypt, not left behind with her father
(4:24-6). The best explanation may be that 4:24-6 is a late addition to the narrative. 'After Moses had sent her away' would then be an addition in v. 2 to harmonize the narrative with 4:20—6. 'Took her back' in v. 2 (NRSV) is not a correct translation of the Hebrew, which refers to what Jethro did after hearing about Moses: he 'took her and her two sons... and came' (v. 5).
The author has a tolerant acceptance of foreign peoples, and sees no sharp distinction between their religion and Israel's. Jethro, a foreign priest, gladly acknowledges the supremacy of YHWH (v. n); but he makes this acknowledgement from within his own religious tradition, not as an act of conversion. Probably for this reason (unless one accepts the existence of a special E source (see PENT) ) the chapter tends to use 'elohim rather than YHWH except in w. 8—n. For the multiple names of Moses' father-in-law, see EX 2:15/7—22.
The first answer sees the relationship as above all a moral one—not a matter of morals in a narrow sense, but based on how God and people behave towards one another. It is deeply marked by the influence of the prophets and the Deuteronomic writers, and is the work of the author I call J (see EX C.i). The second answer sees the main issue as being that of holiness. From God radiates a power that is the source of life and blessing, but is destructive to anyone who approaches too
(18:13—27) The theme of this section is also addressed in Num 11:11-17; Deut 1:9-18. It is not clear why the advice to Moses to
EXODUS 80
them in the Priestly calendar to the feast of Pentecost, when the Jews to this day celebrate the giving of the Law.
close or does not take precautions. This answer is the contribution of P.
'A priestly kingdom and a holy nation' (19:6): each of the two phrases expresses both sides of Israel's future existence. They will be a nation, with a social and political structure; they will at the same time and through their nationhood and state structures be dedicated to YHWH as priests are dedicated to the God they serve. The covenant to be announced will explain how this will be possible. A further purpose of YHWH's coming is explained in v. 9: it is to confirm the position of Moses as the confidant of YHWH in the eyes of the people, so that they trust him (cf. 14:31). The severe rules for anyone touching the mountain in 19:12—13 arise from the idea that holiness is a physical infection which can be 'caught' and is dangerous for people in an ordinary state. The command 'do not go near a woman' (v. 15)—a euphemism for sex; the 'people' who receive the command are the men—again arises because of the conception that certain bodily states create a danger in the face of holiness (see Lev 15, esp. 31; i Sam 21:4). The mention of priests in 19:22, 24 is difficult, since at this point Israel has no priests. Presumably it means those who will become priests later (Lev 8—9).
(19:1-20:21) Before any of this can happen, the coming of YHWH to his people must be described. Mount Sinai becomes the symbol, not of the permanent presence of YHWH, which goes with them, but of his coming in unimaginable power and glory. This is the work of an imaginative writer, not a record from history. But it describes, symbolically, the experience of the presence of the holy and righteous God. The account proves difficult to follow, at least with our ideas of narrative logic. 19:3-8 appears to anticipate the whole process which culminates in ch. 24, and w. 20-5 seem inconsequential. YHWH's speech to the people in ch. 20 begins abruptly: 19:25 breaks off with: 'and Moses said to them'which ought to be followed by what he said (NRSV 'and told them' smooths over the difficulty). After YHWH's speech, in 20:18-21, the people react in a way that suggests they have not heard what he has said. Two main types of solution are on offer. The first is that the difficulty arises from a complex literary history (see, for different analyses, Childs 1974: 344-51; Van Seters 1994: 248—52; Albertz 1994: 55). It is possible, for example, that the Ten Commandments are a late addition to this context, from Deut 5, although they are fundamental to the covenant in the text as it stands. The alternative is that a literary technique is being used which we tend not to understand. For example,
(20:1-17) The Ten Commandments The central place which this passage has had in the religious and moral teaching of Judaism and Christianity is a fair reflection of the centrality which it is given here in Exodus and in Deut 5. The Ten Commandments are, in this story, the prime expression of the covenant demands. They stand first in the account of the covenant-making. It is unclear whether they are spoken directly to the people; they certainly are in Deuteronomy. But the centrality also emerges from the very form and content of the text. Inthe first place it begins with YHWH's self-introduction
Sprinkle (1994: 18—27) suggests that ch. 19 gives us an overview of events to come, which are described in greater detail later: possibly 20:1 picks up 19:19 and 20:21 picks up 19:20; YHWH's command to Moses in 19:24 is taken up again in 24:1—2. Patrick (1994) suggests that 19:3—8 makes clear at the outset the nature of the transaction. YHWH does not give commandments until the Israelites have formally declared themselves ready to accept them.
(cf. 6:2 and see Zimmerli 1982), and asserts his right to authority, by recalling to the Israelites his goodness to them. And the first and much the greater part of the text is concerned with the requirements of his honour. Secondly, it is obviously designed to include all the most basic religious and moral requirements over a wide sphere of life. Thirdly, every command is expressed in the broadest possible way, sometimes by detailed elaboration (w. 8-n), sometimes by avoiding any details which might narrow down the application (w. 13—15). In a word, it is the most basic statement possible of the conditions on which Israel may be in relationship with YHWH. It combines in one text the specific demand for Israel to worship YHWH alone with those few moral requirements which are essential in one form or another for any human society.
The description of YHWH's coming is created from traditional materials. So far as the site of the theophany (see EX 3:1-6) is concerned, there was a very ancient literary tradition describing the coming of YHWH in power from the deep southern wilderness, and one of the geographical names used was Sinai (Judg 5:5; Ps 68:8). The idea that the gods live on a high mountain was a very widespread one. But here the idea is more refined: YHWH does not actually live on the mountain, but comes down on it (19:11, 18; cf. 3:8). The theophany (19:16-20) is described in terms drawn from thunderstorms, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, the greatest displays of natural power that can be observed; and such descriptions are found in Hebrew literature of all periods— see e.g. Ps 18:7-15. They are ways of describing the indescribable, and certainly should not be taken to mean that what the Israelites actually saw was a thunderstorm or earthquake, or that Mt. Sinai was a volcano. The one unusual feature in the theophany is the sound of the trumpet (19:13, 16, 19; more precisely the ram's horn). This was used in temple services. YHWH comes so that the Israelites may come to him in worship. They have to make preparations to meet a holy God
But it is not a legal text. What laws in ancient Israel looked like we see in chs. 21—2. It is instruction addressed personally to Israel, or to the individual Israelite (the 'you' is singular and masculine, but that does not necessarily mean that women are not addressed; see below on w. 8-n). It does not suggest how it is to be implemented or say what is to happen if the commands are ignored, but simply asks for obedience. (But Phillips 1970 regards it as Israel's fundamental law, and many scholars connect it with the form of ancient treaties: see Mendenhall 19920.) If the setting in life of this type of text is not legal, what is it? Material of this kind, with its brief memorable clauses, could be designed as an aid to religious
(19:10-15), preparations which are similar to those undertaken before entering a temple for sacrifice, and the mountain is fenced off in the same way as the most holy parts of a shrine are fenced off. 'On the third new moon', 19:1; more likely 'in the third month', reckoning inclusively. This would bring
81 EXODUS
God had to struggle against a polytheism which to many people seemed more natural, reflecting the complexity and unpredictability of the world. Even the Bible has to recognize the existence of other powers; the uniqueness of its demand is that even so only one of them is worthy of Israel's worship, the one 'who brought you... out of the house of slavery'; who is 'a jealous God'—better, perhaps, 'passionate', 'watchful of my rights'. The issue is one of YHWH's honour as the protector and saviour of his people. The harshness of the threat in 5/7—6 (see also 34:7) has to be evaluated in the light of a far stronger community feeling than is normal with us. The worship of a god could not be an individual matter: the whole extended family shared in the sin—and therefore in the punishment. But contrast Ezek 18.
instruction in the home (Albertz 1994: 214-16). But this text goes beyond that function. With YHWH's self-announcement and personal demand for exclusive loyalty, w. 2—6 belong nowhere else but in this present setting of covenantmaking. Afterwards, in w. 7-12, he is referred to in the third person, which is more suitable for a catechism. Perhaps catechetical material has been adapted to its place in the narrative.
This is the fundamental text of the covenant, but that does not mean that it is necessarily historically the earliest of the OT legal' texts, although many scholars firmly believe that it is, at least in an older form (see Durham 1987: 282). Reflection on all God's commands and requirements may have led to a more profound grasp of their basic meaning, which has then been expressed in this text. In fact w. 2—12 are written very much in the style of Deuteronomy, except for v. n, which is Priestly, so they are unlikely to be earlier than the late seventh century. Although this passage has always been called (literally) the Ten Words (Ex 34:28; Deut 4:13; 10:4), it is not obvious how the roughly twenty sentences of the text are to be grouped into ten. Different religious traditions have come to different conclusions. Jews call v. 2 the first Word and w. 3—6 the second. Roman Catholics and Lutherans group w. 2—6 as the first commandment and divide v. 17 into two to make up the tally of ten; other Christians separate v. 3 as the first commandment and treat w. 4—6 as the second. (See further EX 20:2—6.) This commentary will simply use verse numbers. (For detailed discussion of the Commandments see Childs 1974: 385-439; Weinfeld 1991: 242-319.)
(20:7) It is uncertain what this command was intended to refer to: suggestions include deceitful oaths (as in Lev 19:12), unwarranted use of formal curses (Brichto 1963: 59-68), the use of God's name in magic spells, or all of these and other things (Childs 1974: 410—12). But it is quite clear that the improper use of the name YHWH is prohibited. The command is closely related to 20:2-6. It is YHWH's honour that is at stake. To wrest his name to one's own private and deceitful purposes is to dishonour the one who bears it.
(20:8—11) The sabbath likewise is an institution for the honour of YHWH; it is a sabbath 'to YHWH your God', and must be 'kept holy'. The day is dedicated to YHWH by abstaining from work, that is, from anything that is intended for one's own benefit, or human purposes generally. In order to ensure that the entire community keeps it, the householder is required to ensure that everyone in the house, which is also the work unit in peasant society, abstains from work on the seventh day. The list of persons does not include 'your wife'. The best explanation is that the lady of the house is not mentioned because she is addressed along with her husband (as in e.g. Deut 16:11; Smith 1918:169; Weinfeld 1991: 307-8; contrast Clines 19950). v. n gives a motivation for observing the commandment. The primary emphasis is on the special character of the day, determined by YHWH in the beginning, rather than on the need for people to rest (contrast Deut 5:15). The verse is obviously P, referring back to Gen 2:1—3 (so also
(20:2—6) The first section of the Commandments is quite different from the rest, being spoken in the first person and expressing what is most distinctive of the religion of the OT: the requirement to worship YHWH alone, and the prohibition of using images in worship. Two basic demands: can the Catholic tradition be right in treating it as one 'commandment'? Many scholars (e.g. Durham 1987: 286; B. B. Schmidt 1995) would see v. 4 as prohibiting images of YHWH in particular, after v. 3 has dealt with worshipping other gods. However, there is no sharp break anywhere in these verses: they treat throughout of YHWH's exclusive claim. The 'them' in v. 5 must refer to the 'other gods' in v. 3, because all the nouns in v. 4 are singular (Zimmerli 1968). This means that the command not to make an idol is part of a context forbidding the worship of any god but YHWH. That YHWH might be worshipped by means of an idol is simply inconceivable for this text. If you are using an idol, you must be worshipping another god. In those OT passages where people appear to be worshipping YHWH with idols (Ex 32:4; Judg 17; i Kings 12:28), the context implies that they are not genuinely worshipping YHWH. In the Syria—Canaan area generally, the central worship symbol in official sanctuaries tended not to be an image, but images of subordinate gods and especially goddesses were freely used (Mettinger 1995). But in the pure monotheism demanded here YHWH brooked no such rivals.
Ex 31:14). The sabbath commandment is the only positive ritual requirement among the Ten Commandments. The main reason is likely to be that it had to be observed by every individual in the community without exception (the dietary laws, for example, did not have to be observed by aliens).
(20:12) Ancient Israel was a hierarchical society in which respect for superiors, parents in the first place, was fundamental. Care for their honour therefore comes next in the series after the honour of God (similarly Lev 19:3—4). This commandment is formulated positively, so its effect is broader than the law against insulting parents in Ex 21:17, etcIt wiU include care and comfort in old age (Mk 7:9-13). The commandments are addressed to adults, not children, and the need for this commandment may arise from tension between older men at the head of extended families and their sons with their own families.
Modern preachers interpret this command in a moralistic way: anything which absorbs a person's devotion is his/her god (cf Luther). But this is not what it means in the OT context. It was not self-evident to people in OT times that there was only one God; the demand to worship only one
The remaining commandments define serious transgressions against the rights of members of the community (generally of male householders).
EXODUS 82
shaped to fit its narrative context (see 20:22; 22:21; 23:15 (13:6— 7); 23:20—33), and as it stands is likely to have been put together by J.
(20:13) 'Murder' is the correct translation, i.e. the unlawful killing of a member of the community. The commandment does not cover capital punishment, killing in war, or the killing of animals for food; which is not to say that the OT is unconcerned with the ethical problems posed by these things. (20:14) Adultery in the Bible is definable as intercourse between a married (or betrothed) woman and a man not her husband. The commandment is concerned with a man's rights over his wife. As in all traditional patriarchal cultures, the men of the family need to be assured of the faithfulness of their wives to be sure that their children are theirs. No similar restrictions apply to a husband in OT morality. It is the only sexual offence in the Ten Commandments, since others do not infringe the rights of a third party in a serious way.
The main areas covered are religious observance; civil law, specifically the law of bondage for debt, personal injury, and property torts; social justice; and judicial integrity. The arrangement of material sometimes seems capricious to us, but there is logic behind it, as Sprinkle (1994) shows. There is a general heading in 21:1, which suggests that 20:22—6 could be described as a prologue; and 23:20—33 is concerned with the immediate situation rather than with permanent rules, so it might be described as an epilogue. The material between is arranged as follows:
21:2-11 Release of slaves 21:12—32 Personal injury 21:33—22:17 Property damage (these two bridged by the case of the goring ox) 22:18-20 Offences against covenant holiness 22:21—7 Treatment of dependants 22:28—30 Treatment of superiors 22:31 Covenant holiness (bracketing with 22:1820) 23:1—9 Judicial integrity 23:10—19 Sabbaths and festivals
(20:15) This commandment would include kidnapping as well as the theft of movable property. The word translated 'steal' does not cover the violent or dishonest alienation of land and houses: that is probably covered by 20:17.
(20:16) This is concerned with testimony in the courts. In Israelite courts the witness was in effect a prosecutor, as there was no state prosecution system. False accusation could put one's life, not merely one's reputation, in danger (see i Kings 21; Deut 19:15-21).
The speech contains material of very different types. Most of the material between 21:2 and 22:17 is in an impersonal legal style which contrasts sharply with the personal address of most of the rest, in which YHWH speaks of himself in the first person and addresses Israel as 'you' (usually in the singular, sometimes the plural). For detail on these different types of law see Patrick (1986: 13-33). The impersonal style sets out a legal case, giving the situation 'when such-and-such happens', and laying down what should then be done. This is the style used in the Mesopotamian legal codes such as the Code of Hammurabi (see ANET159-98), and it is technically referred to as 'casuistic' law. There is also a good deal of overlap in content between this section and the Mesopotamian codes (summarized by Childs 1974: 462—3). This does not mean that the laws have been borrowed from a foreign source, simply that legal style and stock examples were similar all over the ancient Near East. Laws of this type were probably not used as the basis of judicial decisions (see Jackson 1989:186). The skill of judges lay not in the interpretation of a body of written law, but in being able to perceive how a dispute could best be resolved and where justice lay in a particular case. Laws such as these would help in educating them in this skill, but they did not have to rely on them in reaching a verdict. That is why the laws here do not have the detail and precision one would expect in a modern body of law. They are probably borrowed from an old legal text to illustrate the kind of justice required by YHWH in the resolution of disputes.
(20:17) The dominant interpretation of this commandment is that it is concerned simply with the desire to possess what is not one's own as a sin in itself (Rom 7:7—8; Calvin 1953: i. 354— 6). However, there is also an interpretation which sees it as concerned with overt action to dispossess one's neighbour (Mk 10:19; Luther; J. Herrmann 1927). Even if the Hebrew word refers primarily to desire (Moran 1967), the concern is for the danger to one's neighbour posed by one's covetousness; and in particular the kind of covetousness described in Mic 2:1—2. As Luther saw, the machinations of the powerful to dispossess the weak are not covered elsewhere in the Ten Commandments.
(20:18-21) Moses' point is that they should not be terrified at the divine appearance because it is for their good: 'fear' in v. 2 o is not the panic terror that is now seizing them, but reverence and awe which should lead to the right conduct that God asks of them. Once again (cf 15:25) they are being 'tested' or 'challenged' to make the right response.
(20:22-23:33) The 'Book of the Covenant' The very long speech that YHWH now delivers to Moses to pass on to the Israelites includes a much wider range of religious, moral, and legal instruction than the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments make absolute demands; this speech shows how the demands of God for fairness and justice and for the proper honouring of himself work out in practice in a particular society. That is why much of it is at first sight of little interest to people who live in a different society under different conditions. It has been given the name Book of the Covenant by modern scholars, from 24:7. The name suggests that the speech existed as a single document simply slotted into the text. (There continues to be discussion among scholars about its date (see Albertz 1994: 182-3).) But it is
The other main style is that of personal admonition. This is the kind of style in which a tribal elder might give moral instruction (cf. Jer 35:6—7; Gerstenberger 1965: 110—17), but in this text it is clear that God is the speaker. It is therefore unlikely to have been borrowed from a specific social setting; the suggestion of a ritual of covenant renewal (see Childs 1974: 455—6) is pure speculation. So although the content of the instruction would have been derived from Israel's moral
unlikely ever to have been a single document. Most of the material has been taken from earlier sources, but it has been
83 EXODUS
(Daube 1947: 106—9; Childs 1974: 472), but at some earlier stage its literal application prevented excessive vengeance and would have ensured the rich were not at an advantage. In the case of slaves, the compensation for serious injury or unintended killing (v. 21) is that the owner loses his property. If he murders his slave he must face punishment (v. 20). It is important that as against Mesopotamian codes the slave is treated as a legal person.
and religious tradition, its form has been designed to fit its present literary setting.
In each case the style is appropriate to the subject-matter: casuistic for the settlement of disputes, personal address for religious instruction and for teaching about justice as a personal responsibility. (20:22-6) Prologue: YHWH's Presence YHWH begins his address to Moses by speaking of his own person and presence in worship. The first point, as in the Ten Commandments, is his intolerance of idols, that is, other gods, alongside him: see EX 20:2—6, and Sprinkle (1994: 37—8) for a different view. He goes on to speak positively of how he should be worshipped. The altar must be of natural materials (E. Robertson 1948; for the different kinds of sacrifices, see LEV 1-7). The key religious point, however, is in v. 25. YHWH's presence and blessing depends not on the humanly organized cult, but on his own decision: 'where I proclaim my name'. This has generally been understood as permitting many altars for sacrifice, while Deut 12 permits only one, so that it would belong to an earlier stage in religious history than Deuteronomy. But it could be saying that while one altar is allowed, YHWH's blessing may be received quite apart from altars and sacrifice (Van Seters 1994: 281).
(21:28-36) The case of the goring ox is a topic also in Mesopotamian codes. It serves as a standard example of the way to treat cases of negligence, and of how to distinguish between accident (w. 28, 35) and culpable negligence. The one feature that would not be found in contemporary or modern laws is that the ox itself, if it has killed a person, is treated as a criminal and stoned rather than slaughtered in the normal way (w. 28,29,32)- Here religious factors enter in. The ox has transgressed boundaries between human and animal and between wild and tame animals (see Houston 1993: 182200), so is treated as ritually detestable and not simply dangerous; see Gen 9:5.
(22:1—15) Th£ principle adopted in the property section of the laws is that equal compensation is acceptable for negligence
(w. 5, 6, 12, 14), but is enhanced as a deterrent to deliberate theft or fraud (w. i, 4, 7, 9); while no compensation is payable in the case of accident or force majeure (w. n, 13).
(21:2—11) The 'ordinances' begin with the demands of justice in relation to the use of people as slaves, no doubt because the people addressed have just been released from slavery themselves. For detail on the laws of slavery, see Chirichigno (1993); also 'Slavery' in ABD vi. The law is concerned with 'Hebrew' bondservants, not with foreign slaves who might be owned outright (ibid. 200-18; another view of the meaning of 'Hebrew' in e.g. Childs 1974:468). Itis an attempt to deal with social distress caused by debt among peasants (see Lang 1983 for background). A creditor could seize a defaulting debtor or a member of his family (2 Kings 4:1) and either sell or use him/her as a slave; or a man could sell a member of his family into bondage to pay off his debts (Neh 5:1—5). The law limits the period of such bondage to six years. Permanent bondage could only be at the bondsman's own choice; but often he may have had no genuine choice. 21:7-11 is concerned with a girl who is sold as a concubine or slave-wife. A woman who had been sexually used and might be the mother of her master's children could not normally be released after six years; but the law lists situations in which justice would demand that she should be. In effect she is given the privileges of a legal wife.
Theft and sale of livestock (v. i) is treated more severely than theft of money or articles (v. 7), perhaps because they represented the farmer's livelihood; oxen are compensated on a higher scale than sheep perhaps because of their working capacity (Daube 1947: 133). w. 2-312 draw a line between justified killing in self-defence and unnecessary killing, which is murder. The time of day is simply an example of the factors that could be taken into account. The other issue raised in this section is that of evidence. Where the matter could not be settled by witnesses, the only recourse was religious. 'Before God' (8, 9) probably means at a sanctuary; but how was the decision made? In n it is clearly by oath; this may be true in 8 and 9 as well (Sprinkle 1993: 146-7); other suggestions include ordeal and divination by the priest.
(22:16-17) Seduction is treated on the one hand as a matter of responsibility on the part of the seducer: he does not have the right to decide not to marry the girl. On the other, it is a matter of the father's rights. Normally a father had the right to dispose of his daughter, and to receive 'bride-price' for her. If he chooses to exercise his right, he is compensated for the difficulty he will have in giving her away. The girl has no say in the matter.
(21:12—17) F°ur capital cases are listed in descending order of severity. All are worthy of death; this indicates how seriously the requirement to honour parents (20:12) was taken. In v. 17 'dishonour' or 'reject' might be a better translation than 'curse'. It was customary for the relatives of the victim to take vengeance, v. 13 limits this by protecting someone who is accidentally responsible for a person's death (Deut 19:1-13 elaborates); traditionally the altar provided sanctuary (i Kings 2:28). Frequently the victim or relatives would accept monetary compensation (see 21:30), though in the case of murder Num 35:31 forbids this. (21:18-27) Th£ general principle of justice exemplified here is that of fair compensation for injury. The principle is stated in general terms in the famous w. 23—5. Later this was interpreted as requiring reasonable monetary compensation
(22:18—20) gives a series of three practices which the advocates of exclusive loyalty to YHWH saw as fundamentally threatening to it, and therefore deserving of death. We do not know precisely what is meant by sorcery, but it probably involved treating with spiritual powers other than YHWH. Bestiality transgressed fundamental ritual boundaries (cf. 21:28 and see Lev 18:23). Here it is the community which must inflict punishment on YHWH's behalf.
(22:21^7) Earlier sections have treated disputes in the community as resolvable by applying norms of justice. But there were great disparities in wealth and power in Israelite society,
EXODUS 84
(23:20—33) Epilogue: Entering the Land As the whole of the speech has looked forward to Israel's settled life in the land, it is appropriate that it should be concluded with a word of promise, along with some admonition, about their journey to and entering of it. The promise of an 'angel' or messenger does not really revoke YHWH's personal presence with them (13:21—2)—see EX 3:1—6; especially in view of YHWH's statement that 'my name is in him', w. 23-33 l°°k back to the promises in 3:7—10 and expand them. Here, as in Deuteronomy (see Deut 7 especially), the native nations stand for the constant threat of the worship of the gods of the land (seen as idols, as in the opening of the speech at v. 24): 'you shall... demolish theni) to the exclusive loyalty demanded by YHWH. He will do all the fighting for them (as in ch. 14!); their sole responsibility is to be faithful to him. v. 31 very much exaggerates the territory that Israel ever held at any time in her history; but as in w. 25-6 the implication may well be that they never received the fullness of the promise because they were not faithful.
as in ours. Some people were in a dependent situation either temporarily or permanently. It was easy to take advantage of them and prevent them from obtaining legal redress. So those who hold power over them must be both reminded of what is just and warned of the possible consequences when they have to deal with a just God. The 'resident alien' meant an incomer from another area without a property stake in the local community. Widows and orphans were vulnerable because they had no adult male protector in the immediate family. A 'poor' person means primarily a peasant who cannot maintain his family until the next harvest, and so needs a charitable loan. (22:28-30) As the independent Israelite has duties to his dependants, he also has duties to those above him, especially God (see also 13:11—16).
(22:31) In an economy of scarcity, people would be inclined to make use of any source of food, however suspect. But being dedicated to YHWH means using a diet fitted to his dignity. Mangled meat is fit only for the universal scavenger. This theme is developed in much more detail in Lev n; Deut 14; see Houston (1993: 241—4, 248—53). (23:1-9) It is all very well to have norms of justice. But unless the courts can be relied on to enforce them fairly and impartially, they are of no use. w. 4, 5, which do not seem to fit this theme, underline the requirement of total impartiality. You may have a long-standing dispute with another family: but you should be fair to them in daily life, and, just the same, you should show no partiality against them in court, v. 9 ties up the section on social justice by repeating the warning not to oppress the alien which begins it in 22:21. (23:10-19) A people dedicated to YHWH, who are called by him to act with justice, honour him particularly in ways which serve the cause of justice. Two institutions particularly characteristic of Israel's religious culture are the sabbath year (w. 10-11) and the sabbath day (v. 12). Neither ofthem is called that here, possibly because the name was attached to a different holy day in the pre-exilic period when these verses may have originated (Robinson 1988). The original function of the sabbath year (cf Lev 25:1-7) is unclear, but here it is given a charitable purpose; likewise the sabbath day is commended for its beneficial effects on dependants, as in Deut 5:15, not as in 20:11 (P!) for its sacral character in itself, v. 13 looks like a concluding verse, so what follows may be an addendum, w. 14, 17 bracket the brief instruction about the major pilgrimage festivals of the agricultural year. Passover is not mentioned, possibly because it was not yet a pilgrimage festival at the time of writing. The Israelites are reminded that they have already been told (13:3-10) of Unleavened Bread. The other two festivals are described in exclusively agricultural terms, and are given different names from those customary later. 'Harvest' is Weeks or Pentecost, Deut 16:9-12; Lev 23:15-21; 'Ingathering', when all produce is taken in before the autumn rains begin, is Booths or Tabernacles, Deut 16:13-15; Lev 23:33-6.
(24:1—8) The Conclusion of the Covenant Ch. 24 is the climax of the Sinai narrative, but it contains a number of themes rather roughly pieced together. There has never been any consensus among critics about the sources or editing of the chapter, w. 1—2 take us back to the end of ch. 19. v. ia is most accurately translated in the Jerusalem Bible: 'To Moses he had said', i.e. in 19:24. YHWH's invitation here includes more people, but variation is common when speeches are repeated. Though we are reminded of the invitation here, it is only taken up at v. 9. w. 3-8 are the account of the ceremonial sealing of the covenant on the basis of the words which YHWH has given to Moses, that is the Ten Commandments and the Book of the Covenant. The meaning of the covenant has already been explained in 19:4-6. There (19:8) we heard of the people's response in advance, and it is repeated twice here (w. 3, 7): first Moses secures their acceptance of YHWH's terms, then he formally seals their covenant with YHWH by writing the terms down, reading them to them, and hearing their acceptance again; then he consecrates them as YHWH's holy people (19:6) in a sacrificial ritual. Nicholson (1986:171— 2) has shown that although there is no ritual precisely like this in the OT we can understand its meaning by comparing rituals which have some similarity, such as the ordination of priests in 29:20. The blood of the holy offering makes them holy to YHWH. This is an imaginative way of expressing in narrative form the bond of will and obedience between YHWH and Israel.
(24:9-18) Vision of God on the Mountain The invitation of 24:1 (19:24) is now taken up. Representatives of the people, and of the future priests (Aaron and his sons), ascend the mountain and receive a vision of God himself. As with other similar visions (Isa 6; Ezek i), the Bible avoids describing the appearance of God, but simply gives one vivid glimpse of the glory that surrounded him. 'Sapphire' (NRSV) should probably be 'lapis lazuli', a common material in the decoration of temples. The eating and drinking of the people's representatives in the presence of YHWH himself is an appropriate conclusion to the story of how they became his holy people. The promise of 19:13^13 at last fulfilled. (See Nicholson 1986: 121-33, I73~4-) w12-14 prepare for YHWH's giving of the
The instructions in w. 18—19 are connected with festival worship. The taboos in v. 18 possibly arise because the ideas of fermentation and corruption are opposed to the purity of the sacrifice. The 'kid in mother's milk' prohibition is an old conundrum. See the full discussion in Milgrom (1991: 737-41)-
85 EXODUS
scriptions follow in ch. 30; the first (w. i—10) is part of the main speech, the others, like those in ch. 31, are added as separate short speeches. As a conclusion has already been given to the instructions, and the incense altar and basin have not been mentioned in their logical places, these pre-
tablets of stone to Moses, and it also makes a bridge to ch. 32. What exactly is written on the tablets is not made clear here: it is only at 34:28 (and Deut 5:22) that it emerges it is the Ten Commandments. It is also unclear how the tablets relate to the book that Moses has written. The tablets are to be placed in the Ark when it is made (25:16; 40:20; Deut 10:2—5); as
scriptions are generally taken as later additions.
Cassuto (1967: 331) notes, this is similar to the provisions in ancient treaties for copies to be placed in the sanctuaries of the contracting parties. Perhaps, then, the tablets are meant to be the official original of the covenant, while copies on papyrus may be made for practical purposes, w. 15—18 are a P paragraph preparing for the giving of the instructions about the tabernacle which now follow.
The whole passage is framed by the call for contributions in 25:2-9 and the provisions for design and manufacture in 31:1ii. Why this is followed by the repetition of the sabbath commandment in 31:12—17 is discussed below.
The general outline of the sanctuary is similar to that of Solomon's temple described in i Kings 6, and to that of many of the shrines in Palestine and its surrounding area found in archaeological excavations. It clearly reflects very ancient ideas of the deity's dwelling in the temple and having his needs attended to there by his priestly servants. A covered rectangular structure stands in an open court, and is divided by a crosswise partition into two rooms (for a slightly different picture see Friedman 1992). The inner, smaller room contains the principal symbol of the presence of the deity. The two cherubim originally represented a throne for the invisible YHWH (see i Sam 4:4). In the outer room stands furniture required for the personal service of the deity: the lampstand for light, the table for the 'bread of the Presence', and the incense altar for pleasant scent. Outside in the court stands the 'altar of burnt offering', where offerings are burnt, wholly or partially, as a 'pleasing odour' to YHWH (29:18, etc.).
(25:1—31:17) The Prescriptions for the Sanctuary This third long speech by YHWH from Sinai is an entirely Priestly passage. He gives instructions here for the building of a portable structure which has two functions. It enables the living presence of YHWH, which the Israelites have met at
Sinai, to go with them on their journey and continue to bless them (40:34-8); and it enables Moses to continue to receive instructions from YHWH after the people have left Sinai (see 25:22; 29:42; Lev 1:1). This double function is reflected in the names 'tabernacle' and 'tent of meeting'. In part, these names refer to different parts of the structure (see ch. 26, especially v. 7): the tabernacle is the arrangement of frames or boards over which curtains of fine material are stretched, and the tent is the curtains of goat's hair which cover the tabernacle. But theologically the name 'tent of meeting' implies (as in 33:7—11) the place where God meets with Moses as the prophetic representative of Israel; while 'tabernacle' (miskan, lit. 'dwelling') implies the place where God dwells among his people. Both these understandings are expressed in the conclusion to the main body of instructions in 29:43—6.
Taken literally, this mode of service would imply a very crude conception of God. But the ritual goes back to time immemorial, and the text does not imply such a literal conception. It avoids implying that YHWH was enthroned over the ark (Mettinger 1982: 88), and gives no indication beyond the use of traditional cliches that YHWH was literally benefited by his service. In fact no one had ever believed that gods literally lived in their temples, in the sense that they were bounded by them. God's true temple is in heaven, where he sits enthroned in glory (see Isa 6); the temple on earth is a copy of this (Ex 25:9; Cassuto 1967: 322), and there he makes himself present to his people in a particular way.
But though the name 'tent of meeting' is rather the commoner of the two, the physical image is that of a temple, differing from other temples only in being portable; and a temple was primarily thought of as a god's permanent dwelling-place on earth. (For thorough discussion of the priestly picture of the tabernacle and its service see Haran 1985: 149259.) The main body of instructions, chs. 25—9, moves outwards from the centre which represents the divine presence. First (25:10-40) the sacred furniture is prescribed, beginning with the ark and its cover which stand in the innermost sanctum; then (ch. 26) the tabernacle-tent structure which screens these sacred objects from public view; then (ch. 27) the altar outside and the hangings which surround the court where it stands. A consecrated priesthood is required to serve in this holy place, so the instructions proceed by prescribing their vestments (ch. 28) and the rite of their ordination (ch. 29) which qualifies them to serve. Chs. 28-9 on the priesthood are framed by two passages which prescribe the permanent daily service which is to be carried on, and so explain why a priesthood is necessary: 27:20-1 on the tending of the lamp in the tabernacle; and 29:38-42 on the daily burnt offerings.
The presence of God in the centre is believed to generate an intense holiness which is like a physical influence, radiating outwards in declining degree. This is marked by the materials used and by the persons allowed to enter. The materials decrease in value as one moves outwards (Haran 1985: 15865). No one may enter the inner sanctum except the high priest once a year (Lev 16:2, 29); no one but priests may enter the outer hall or ascend the altar. The high priest (Aaron) and the priests (the sons of Aaron) are specially consecrated (29) and must preserve a special degree of ritual purity (Lev 21) so that they can venture into these holy areas. Any Israelite who is ritually clean for the time being (see Lev n—16) may enter the court, but the hangings mark out the area beyond which the unclean may not proceed. (For further details see Haran 1985: 158-88.) Clearly this whole arrangement is symbolic. At the centre of the people's life stands the Presence of God, and order, life, and blessing flow out from there. But there are also powers of disorder and death that have to be kept at bay. Contact between these would be deadly: hence the carefully ordered gradation of boundaries, material, and personnel. (See also Jenson
The instructions are rounded off (29:43-6) with a statement by YHWH of how he will use the sanctuary, as the place of meeting and of presence. However, some additional pre-
EXODUS 86
whether they are set side by side, giving the tabernacle a length of 30 cubits, or overlapping (Friedman 1992), giving a length of (perhaps) 20 cubits. The breadth is very uncertain, because of the difficulty of w. 23-4. The tabernacle curtains are meant to be stretched over the top of the structure, forming its roof and hanging down the sides; they are joined together lengthwise to make an area 28 x 40 cubits, with the long side running the length of the tabernacle and hanging down the back; similarly with the tent curtains which are stretched over the top of the tabernacle curtains and cover the parts these cannot reach.
1992: 56-88.) At the same time the system would have served to guarantee the power of the priests who controlled it.
The system is more obviously appropriate for a settled people, despite the great care with which it is adapted to life on the move. No doubt it represents what the priests believed about the temple. The question arises whether the picture of the mobile tabernacle is imaginary or derived from a real sanctuary. Portable shrines existed, but the one described is far too elaborate to have been produced in the wilderness. Critical scholars have tended to argue that it is an imaginary projection of the Jerusalem temple into the period of the wilderness. Some (e.g. Friedman 1992), however, have suggested that there was a real portable shrine, not as elaborate as is here described, referred to in Ex 33:7—11 and in Num n and 12, which was preserved at Shiloh and perhaps later at Jerusalem, and that this is what the writer is describing.
The key ritual element here is the 'curtain' (not the same word as in v. i, etc.) in w. 31—5, which marks off the 'most holy place' (Heb. 'holy of holies'). Within the curtain is the ark, outside it the other furniture. Most scholars envisage the curtain as dividing the tabernacle crosswise in the same way as the solid wall dividing the main hall from the inner sanctum of permanent temples, with the pillars side by side; Friedman however sees it as a canopy hanging down from four pillars set in a square. (27:1-8) This description is once again very ambiguous. The altar is a hollow box of wooden boards overlaid with bronze: so much is clear. But as it is doubtful whether such a structure could stand a fire, it is argued by Cassuto (1967: 362) that it has no top and in use would be filled with stones or earth (cf. 20:24—6), so that the fire would be laid on the stones. Even more unclear is the placing and function of the 'grating'. The horns (v. 2) at least are a regular feature of altars in that cultural area. Their origin is uncertain, but their use in Israelite ritual appears in 29:12.
But if P is dependent on the earlier sources, it is likely that it has taken the idea of a tent-shrine and the name 'tent of meeting' from 33:7, and with it the function of the shrine as a place of meeting between God and his prophet, and has combined that with the temple image (similarly Childs 1974). But there are details that do not accord with the Jerusalem temple either before or after the Exile.
(25:1—9) The Israelites are to make a 'holy place' (v. 8; NRSV 'sanctuary'), a place marked out for and by YHWH's presence. The verse is echoed by 29:43 at the end of the main body of instructions. In v. 9, YHWH does not merely tell Moses what to make: he shows him a 'pattern' (very necessary in view of the obscurity and ambiguity of some of the prescriptions!). Perhaps the writer believed that the tabernacle was a copy of a heavenly temple (as Heb 8:5 deduces). Other ancient NearEastern priestly writers claimed this for their temples. (25:10-22) The word translated 'covenant' (w. 16, 25) in the NRSV and 'testimony' in many other versions is not the same as the word for 'covenant' earlier; it is P's regular term for the written record of YHWH's commandments on the stone tablets. P follows the conception in Deut 10:2—5, so mat the ark becomes not only the place of YHWH's meeting with Moses
(27:9—19) The dimensions and function of the enclosure which surrounds the altar and tabernacle are clear, even though details of the spacing of the pillars on which the hangings are hung are not, and the placing of the altar and tabernacle within the court is not specified.
(27:20—1) It is not immediately clear why this passage is placed here (it is repeated almost word for word in Lev 24:2— 4); for my suggestion see above, EX 25:1-31:17. Why it speaks of only one light is also unclear; it is likely that it is a fragment of a different tradition from that which calls for seven, which has become dominant in the text.
(v. 22), but also the sign of the obligations he lays upon Israel, v. 18, 'cherubim' were probably imaginary winged fourfooted creatures such as are found constantly in ancient Near-Eastern art. YHWH is depicted as 'riding' or 'seated' on cherubim in e.g. Ps 18:10; 80:1.
(28:1—43) This chapter now introduces the priesthood to serve in the holy place, and details the vestments they are to wear for that purpose. Aaron is to be the high priest, his sons the priests. Obviously what is said of Aaron will apply to each high priest after him. Most of the chapter (w. 2—39) is concerned with Aaron's vestments, which are designed for officiating within the tabernacle (Haran 1985: 210-13). v4° lists
(25:23—40) The table is used both for the bread of the Presence (v. 24; see Lev 24:5—9) and for vessels for drinkofferings; however, these were not offered inside the tabernacle. The prescriptions for the lampstand are hard to follow, but the well-known relief of the lampstand from Herod's temple on the Arch of Titus in Rome probably gives a fair idea of what the writer had in mind; see also Meyers (ABD iv. 142; cf Meyers 1976). Solomon's temple had ten lampstands (i Kings 7:49), but it is not said that these were branched. The branched lampstand appears to be a later innovation, thrown back into the time of the wilderness. (26:1-37) The description is ambiguous, and various reconstructions have been made. The main structure is the 'frames', or boards, described in w. 15—25. These are set up on end, so that the height of the tabernacle is 10 cubits (a cubit was about 50 cm. or ift. 8 in.); but disagreement arises over
the garments of Aaron's sons, for service at the altar, and v. 41 points forward to their vesting and ordination prescribed in detail in the next chapter. The undergarments or drawers prescribed in w. 42-3 may be a later development, but as their function is a negative one (cf. 20:26) they might in any case not be mentioned along with the garments which are designed for 'glorious adornment' (w. 2, 40). These are made of the same costly materials (v. 5) as the tabernacle itself. The ephod (w. 6—14) appears to be a sort of apron with shoulderstraps; it is the most visible and impressive of the vestments. The 'breastpiece of judgement' (w. 15-30) is so called because
87 EXODUS
by the king: P needs to emphasize the importance of continuing it by placing its beginning in the wilderness.
it holds the Urim and Thummim (v. 30), which are objects used for divination (Num 27:21). The robe (w. 31—5) is worn under the ephod, and is of simpler workmanship, except for the hem. The bells protect Aaron (v. 35) perhaps by preventing him making an unannounced approach before the throne
(29:43—6) The speech comes to a fitting climax in which YHWH defines the purpose of all the elaborate provisions which he has been reciting, and makes it clear that they are the fulfilment of the promise he had made while the people were slaves in Egypt, that T will take you as my people, and I will be your God' (6:7). What he had not said there was that he would meet with them and dwell among them. It is the tent of meeting that makes this possible. And even though he has been giving directions for Moses to consecrate the tent, the altar, and the priests, he makes it clear that it is he himself, YHWH, who will really consecrate them, and he will do this by his presence, which is summed up in the symbol of his 'glory', which for P is a literal dazzling radiance. 'And they shall know...' (v. 46): of all the acts by which Israel comes to know their God, this, for P, is the supreme one, that he dwells among them and speaks with them.
(Cassuto 1967: 383). Like the other elements of ritual in the tabernacle, they go back to a more primitive conception of deity. The tunic goes under the robe, but it may have sleeves, unlike the other vestments.
The balance and structure of the account emphasize those elements in Aaron's attire which express his representative function: the stones on which he bears the names of the sons of Israel 'before the LORD'—that is, in the tabernacle; Urim and Thummim in which he would 'bear the judgement of the Israelites'; the rosette with its inscription, which reminds YHWH that the whole people (not just Aaron) is 'holy to YHWH', so that any unintentional failures may be overlooked. During the monarchy, it was the king who was the representative of the people before God; it is likely that it was in the post-exilic period that the high priests took over this function, and perhaps much of the array ascribed here to Aaron was originally the king's.
(30:1—10) This may reflect an addition to the furniture of the Second Temple. Incense was at all times in the ancient Near East a common element of ritual; its sweet smell was held to attract the favour of the deity and appease the deity's wrath. But we more commonly hear of its being offered in censers carried in the hand. Although it is an addition to the ritual, it is fully integrated into the complex of acts of 'service' which Aaron performs in the tabernacle (w. 7-8) (Haran 1985: 230—45). For v. 10, see Lev 16.
(29:1—37) This chapter prescribes a ritual which is carried out in Lev 8, where it is again described in detail; Lev 9 goes on to describe the ritual of the eighth day, when Aaron enters fully on his priesthood. Fuller comment will therefore be found at LEV 8-9; for the details of the different sacrifices LEV 1-4; and for the 'elevation offering' (w. 24, 26) Lev 7:28—38. Briefly, the elements of the ordination ritual are as follows: investiture in the sacred vestments (w. 5-6, 8-9); anointing, a symbol of appointment (v. 7; only for Aaron, though 28:41 mentions anointing for them all); and ordination proper (w. 10—35), which is a seven-day rite of passage (v. 35) consisting of particular sacrifices. The defining moment is the ritual in w. 19-21, in which some of the blood of the 'ram of ordination' is smeared on representative extremities of the ordinands and the rest dashed on the sides of the altar. Cf 24:6—8: the smearing or sprinkling of a token portion of the blood of a sacrifice which is at the same time made holy by its offering to God makes the person holy to God. The altar (w. 36—7) also requires purification from any uncleanness it may have contracted, and consecration. 'Sin offering' and 'atonement' (NRSV) are clearly unsatisfactory translations in reference to an inanimate object: 'purification offering' and 'purification' (Milgrom 1991: 253—4) are better. Its consecration is not simply dedication: it becomes actively holy so as to engulf in its holiness anything that touches it: this is a warning, for it is certain death for anyone who is not already consecrated.
(30:11—16) During the monarchy the regular offering would have been the king's responsibility; in Neh 10:32—3 we find the community as a whole taking the responsibility on themselves through a poll-tax; the census ransom is P's version of this. It was an ancient belief that carrying out a census was a dangerous act which might arouse the envy of the deity: see 2 Sam 24. The token offering averts this, as well as providing for the offering. (30:17-21) The concern here is not for ordinary dirt, but for ritual uncleanness (Lev 11—15), which to the priests, who are constantly in the holy place and handling holy things, is a constant threat. Washing the body is the normal way of removing low-grade uncleanness. (30:22-38) These two sections each provide for the compounding of distinctive substances which are to be used exclusively in the service ofthe tabernacle. They are 'holy' (w. 25, 36) both in this sense and as far as the oil is concerned in the sense that it is a sign which conveys holiness to the objects and persons which are anointed with it.
(31:1—11) Bezalel's qualifications come to him by a twofold action of YHWH, who both calls him and fills him with divine spirit. Although these graces are most frequently referred to as bestowing gifts of leadership and of prophecy, they are clearly not confined to those connections. P has laid stress throughout on the importance ofthe materials and design of the tabernacle and its furniture; they help to give them their holy character. It is therefore natural that the skill which is needed to create them should be seen as a divine gift.
(29:38—42) Mention of the altar leads into instruction for its one regular daily use; but as I have suggested it also serves, with 27:20-1, to framethe instructions forthe priesthood with a representative reminder of the daily need for a priesthood: Aaron to enter the tabernacle to dress the lamps, and his sons to serve at the altar. The prime reason for the existence of a public sanctuary is to offer public offerings paid for out of public resources (see 30:11-16) as a formal expression of the community's homage to its God. The Jerusalem temple under the monarchy would have had such a regular offering paid for
(31:12—17) It is appropriate that the sabbath command should be repeated here, with its grounding in the creation account in Gen 1:1-2:3. Th£ tabernacle represents God's heavenly
EXODUS 88
cases the cultic object is described as a golden calf, and the cry in 32:4 is identical to Jeroboam's announcement in i Kings 12:28. There can be no doubt that one or other of the writers has deliberately described the event in terms drawn from the other account. It is likely that Kings is the source. The bull was a common symbol of deity in Canaanite culture; it fits with this that the kingdom of Israel should have had bulls as its official cult symbols, and the story in i Kings 12 is a slanted and polemical account of how they were introduced. Calling the bulls 'calves' is deliberate disparagement, probably begun by Hosea (Hos 8:5, 6; 10:5). J follows his usual practice of tracing back key themes in Israel's later history into the wilderness period. (For another view, see Moberly 1983: 161-71.)
dwelling-place, where he rested after his exertions in creation, and the sabbath represents his heavenly rest (cf Levenson 1988: 79—99). The passage bears a number of marks of the style and concerns of the editor of the Holiness Code (Lev 17-26), who may have been the final editor of the Priestly material (Knohl 1994). The sabbath is not only holy itself, but is a way God has given of expressing the holiness of the people (v. 13). For the first time a penalty is given for breaking it (w. 14-15): as with other offences against Israel's holiness to YHWH, it is death (cf. Lev 20).
(Chs. 32-4) Covenant Breaking and Renewal (For a thorough treatment of 32-4, see Moberley 1983; also Van Seters 1994: 290—360.) The story here takes a turn which is of great importance for the theological message of the book. After the people have solemnly accepted YHWH's covenant on the basis of his commandments, the first thing they do is to break the most fundamental of them; they desert the worship of YHWH for an idol. This is a 'test' (see 17:2) of the covenant, and of YHWH's commitment to his people, of the most radical sort. He would have every justification in destroying them and starting afresh, and says so in 32:10. But this does not happen; why not?
(32:1—6) The calf which Aaron makes is in the first place a subsitute for Moses, who represented God's guidance in a concrete way. Without him, the people feel the need for a visible expression of divine guidance. The course they urge on Aaron is described in terms which suggest that they are behaving exactly like pagans. Gods are something that can be made. Why 'gods', when there is only one image? Because to speak of'gods' in the plural is typical of pagans (see i Sam 4:7— 8; i Kings 20:23);me sentence is probably taken from i Kings 12:28, but not unthinkingly—the fact that there are two calves does not make it more appropriate there (see Moberly 1983: 163). Is the calf intended as an image of YHWH? It is hailed as having 'brought you up out of the land of Egypt', and the feast which Aaron announces is a festival for YHWH. But the author leaves no doubt that they are not really worshipping YHWH. See EX 20:2—6. Therefore the people have indeed broken the first commandment.
The story makes Moses responsible for reconciling YHWH to the people. Moses struggles with YHWH from 32:11 to 34:9, first to avert the threatened destruction, and then to ensure the full restoration of his presence with them and graciousness to them. And this he achieves. The people do nothing towards this, and make no renewed promises. They express no repentance for their apostasy; Moberly (1983: 60—i) shows that their mourning in 33:4 is not repentance. Moses here comes into his own as a heroic figure (see EXA). Formonthshe has simply obeyed orders; now he not only acts on his own initiative, but, with deference but determination, sets himself against YHWH's expressed intention and fights on behalf of the people whom YHWH himself has made his responsibility, ignoring inducements (32:10), and putting his own life on the line for their sake (32:32). Aaron makes a pitiful contrast: 'Aaron was too weak to restrain the people; Moses was strong enough to restrain even God' (Childs 1974: 570). But if Moses acquires new stature in this episode, so too does YHWH. What Moses appeals to is YHWH's own promise and character. He cannot persuade him to do something that he does not want to do. And when YHWH at the climax of the story proclaims his own characteristics, what comes first is his mercy, steadfast love, and forgiveness (34:6—7). He proves himself a God able in the end to bear with a people who not only have sinned but are likely to go on sinning, as Moses confesses (34:9). The legalistic interpretation of the covenant, that breaking the commandment means death, suggested in 20:5, 23:21, and 32:10, is set aside without being formally repudiated (34:7/7). It is on this basis that YHWH's presence is able to go with the people, as he has already promised in 33:17; and so the elaborate provisions that he has made for this are able to go forward.