127 2.2.13.5 History and Indwelling in H
2.3 Exod 20:18-21: With Recourse to Chapter Nineteen
2.3.1 Concerns about Proximity to the Divine May Supercede Concerns about the PRR Krüger’s study highlights aspects of the spatial dimensions in the holy mountain
narratives. In Chapter One we presented his assessment that Exod 19f underwent yet additional adaptation in order to deal specifically with the question of maintaining a safe distance between the people and God.
652If correct, this would then indicate that for some tradents the concern to cordon off sacred space transcended uneasiness over God
speaking directly to the people. For them the audition of the divine davar posed a minor challenge in comparison to the threat of unauthorized trespass. The two potentialities overlap in so far as they both describe/narrate contexts of spatial encounter. One may nonetheless distinguish between the two in the following way: (1) an ostensible priestly concern to restrict access to the sacred domain, (2) the prophetically infused, levitical advocacy for unmitigated access to the davar YHWH.
653The two concerns overlap. One may envision levitical priests protecting against rampant encroachment of sacred space
654while simultaneously supporting the notion that, for all-Israel to flourish in its
socioreligiously competitive environs, non-priests also need to apprehend YHWH’s unadulterated voice.
655It stands to reason that elite priestly circles that would frown on the presence and participation of non-priests, and especially non-Israelites, within the sacred domain (Ezek 44:9-15) would not support the tradition of the PRR. Particularly problematic would be the community’s assertion of the right to take their stand, together
651 “The presentation of the Sinai-theophany in Exod 19f is still more complex and internally more tension- rich than that of Deut 5” (Krüger, “Zur Interpretation,” 88).
652 Krüger, “Zur Interpretation,” 89, n. 12.
653 Cf. Isa 55:11: “so shall my word (ירבד) be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose ( תצפח רשא־תא השע־םא יכי ), and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” It is likely that as literacy increased the view that the efficacy of the divine לוק /רבד was
compromised through human mediation also increased.
654 After all, Levites had to justify their vocational existence as priests.
655 Cf. Jeremiah’s accusations against priests whose more exclusive access to revealed traditions and religious education wreaked havoc among the community of Israel (Jer 6:13f; 8:10f.; 14:18; 23:12;
23:33f.).
136
with Moses, to receive tôrôt directly from YHWH (Num 16).
656Such a stance however finds a measure of topological support at the beginning of the Sinai theophany at Exod 19:17,
657after which Moses and Elohim dialogue in immediate proximity to the םע (v.
19b).
658Neither Moses nor the people need ascend the summit, since the entire mountain constitutes the venue of divine encounter.
659If in this connection the nearness of the deity supports the notion of the PRR, then on similar topological grounds the notion of YHWH’s distance, i.e., residing in heaven, may intend to inhibit the PRR. Be that as it may, the essential texts for this perspective, Exod 20:22 and Deut 4:36 (Oswald’s so- called “YHWH-heaven-type”) share a striking communication dynamic with the topology of YHWH locating on the mountain (“YHWH-mountain-type”) in that they affirm (Exod 20:22b “you have seen for yourselves that I spoke with you from heaven”; Deut 4:36
“from heaven he made you hear his voice”
660) the םע receiving direct revelation from their location in relation to YHWH and the mountain. Defense of the PRR could therefore be waged on both religious and proximity planes,
661that is, for some the notion of
sentient hearing within audible range seemed more the believable (or palatable) premise than “hearing from the heaven.” Then again, for some, the latter might be thought the safer scenario physically and less problematic theologically.
656 The concern to demarcate sacred zones in Ezek 40—48 and the texts under consideration here would suggest a connection between the elite, Zadokite-Levite circles responsible for those texts and similarly- minded texts in the mountain of God accounts, especially the Sinai account.
657 This passage and the theme of “taking one’s stand” receive exegetical treatment below.
658 Verses 17f locate Moses, and ostensibly Elohim, at the foot of the mountain. Not until v. 20 does Moses again ascend the mountain at the deity’s bidding.
659 Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg, 75. Note also that 19:19 and 20:20 suggest that YHWH does not descend (דרי) to the mountain, but rather comes (אוב), as v. 20aβ makes explicit: םיהלאה אב. This is the second of Oswald’s numerous topological-epistemological conceptions, “types,” “YHWH-comes-type” (cf. also 19:9aα) which connects to his third, “YHWH-mountain-type” (the mountain as God’s permanent dwelling;
cf. 19:9aα). Type one foregrounds YHWH’s descent “YHWH-yarad-type” (cf. 19:11b) and type four has God speaking from heaven, so the “YHWH-heaven-type” (Exod 20:22, the only passage in the Sinai periocope supporting Deut 4’s notion of YHWH speaking from heaven; Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg, 79;
cf. Deut 4:36, 39). Types five and six are the “People-Above-type” (19:13f) and “Visio-Dei-type” (24:9f).
See table of the six types, their declaration, limitation, and realization, on p. 76.
660ךרסיל ולק־תא ךעימשה םימשה־ןמ; cf. Neh 9:13 םימשמ םהמע רבדו תדרי יניס־רה לעו.
661 Oswald emphasizes the contradictions between the tradition of the deity descending (YHWH-Yarad- type) and the deity remaining in heaven (YHWH-heaven-type): “Während beim Jhwh-Jarad-Typ das Volk nur von unten und nur optisch die Theophänomene am Berg wahrnimmt, spricht beim Jhwh-Himmel-Typ direkt mit dem Volk—größer könnte der Gegensatz nicht sein” (Israel am Gottesberg, 77). The complexity of the narratives about the revelation of the law evidence a long-running “conversation” between various priests, priest-prophets, “the wise,” and—in the case of defining moments such as this, indeed—the םע, as they collectively remember and selectively sift through their traditions, whether in oral or written contexts.
137
That staunch opponents of lay access to sacred space (cf., e.g., Exod 19:12) would support the notion of the PRR seems an extraordinary hypothesis.
662Framed in some respects as a mode of compromise, however, Exod 19:11b-13 and 24:1b-2 could be interpreted as qualifications rather than negations of the PRR, since they function as safety mechanisms for the impending encounter with the deity.
663With respect to question of whether mediatorship figures as a central component in this topological- epistemological conception, Oswald answers in the negative.
664On first blush Exod 20:19 presents a picture of a terrified assembly (“... do not let God speak to us, or we will die”). Upon closer examination, however, an effort to reframe the portrayal of a timid םע comes into view.
665First of all, a retreat from a menacing
cacophony (v. 18b) occasions little surprise; it is a prudent measure to take under such circumstances. Secondly, in view of the interest in establishing cultic institutions expressed in Exod 18, subsequent requests for mediation should perhaps be expected.
666Oswald points out here, though, that although the םע request a buffer agent between them and God (20:19), no request for a cessation of divine transmission obtains.
667A close inspection of 19b “but do not let God speak to us” generates at least two interpretative
662 Nonetheless the final form of the Pentateuch includes both viewpoints. Cf. Nihan, “Priestly Torah,” 500:
“The Torah should be viewed as a document of compromise, which attempts to define the identity of Israel by including different, even conflicting traditions issued from distinct circles in Persian Period Yehud.” See also the suggested literature in ibid., n. 624. A most intriguing question presents itself with respect to the identity of those most likely to support such compromise.
663 Cf. Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg, 77.
664 “Gleichzeitig kann aber gesagt werden, das Feuer sei auf der Erde und die Stimme Jhwhs erschalle daraus (4,12.15). Hinter der topologischen Unklarheit steckt eine klare Konzeption. Transzendence und Kondeszendenz Jhwhs sollen gleichermaßen zum Ausdruck kommen. Dtn 4 kreist um das Thema ‘Keine Gestalt Jhwhs habt ihr gesehen,’ gleichzeitige soll aber sichergestellt werden, dass das am Fuße des Berges stehende Volk den Dekalog wahrnehmen kann. Ein Spagat im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes ist die Folge.
Das Feuer reicht von Himmel bis zur Erde. Die Position Jhwhs darin bleibt gewollt unklar, er hat ja keine abgegrenzte Gestalt. Die Stimme kommt aus dem Feuer, ihr Ursprungsort ist—je nach dem, was betont wird—im Himmel oder auf der Erde. Epistemologisch hat diese differentierte Topologie aber keine Konsequenzen. Israel hört den Dekalog, kein Mittler wird gebraucht” (Israel am Gottesberg, 78). Writer’s translation of the final three sentences: “The result of the work is a balancing act in the truest sense of the word. The fire reaches heaven from the earth. The position of YHWH thereby remains intentionally unclear;
he has no delimited Gestalt. The voice comes from the fire, its place of origin is—subsequently—, which is stressed—in heaven or on the earth. Epistemically however this differentiated topology has no
consequences. Israel hears the Decalogue, no mediator is needed.”
665 Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg, 50.
666 In the Job story (9:32-35; 19:23-25; 33:23-27) the afflicted protagonist alternates between desiring direct confrontation with God and desperately seeking intermediation.
667 Oswald comes to the same conclusion: “Die furchterregenden Theophänomene sollen auf keinen Fall von der Rezeption der Gebote abhalten” (ibid., 51). Noth (zweite Buch Mose, 135; ET 168) appears to uphold the traditional interpretation emphasizing the people’s fear.
138
possibilities: the םע either entreats the deity not to begin or continue speaking.
668From the perspective of 19:19, 25, in which the םע apparently do not participate in the discussion, the first option commends itself. The second however looks likely in 20:1:
“Then God spoke all these words.” Here the recipients of the divine transmission remain unspecified.
669Because of the lack of clarity in the communication structure of 19:19, 25;
20:1, a definitive answer remains aloof.
670The liminal zone of the sacred high place (i.e., mountain of God), where heaven, earth, and the elements merge, provides an ideal theatre for acting out the narrative tension regarding the direct and indirect contact between God, Moses, and the plenary assembly. Krüger observes that whereas in Exod 19 the people do not have the option to ascend (cf. Exod 34:3), in 20:18-21 they in no wise wish to do so.
671The latter
circumstance suggests they have a choice in the matter. Here redaction-historical possibilities present themselves.
672The Wiederaufnahme in Exod 20:18b effects a shift in the narratival perspective.
Whereas the appearance and speech of YHWH had previously taken center stage, the םע now step into the spotlight.
673The nearness of the theophanic encounter facilitates the impartation of the laws and enjoins their observance.
674The mode of “testing” in v. 20 consists of three essential components: (1) hearing and (2) keeping the commandments,
668 Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg, 50.
669 Ibid., 50, 52.
670 “Die antwort fällt deshalb schwer, weil die Kommunikationsstruktur von 19,19.25; 20,1 unübersichtlich ist und eindeutige Aspektmarker (ingressive oder progressiv) fehlen” (ibid., 50).
671 “Zur Interpretation,” 88.
672 Exod 20:18-21 may belong to a stratum of chs. 19f that lacks the Dec, in which case the theophany may serve another purpose, e.g., to legitimate Moses as transmitter of the law. A more recent revision may have reconfigured chs. 19f into a depiction of the direct proclamation of the Dec by YHWH to the people in the sense of Deut 5, wherein tradents brought 20:18ff into conceptual alignment with Deut 5:23ff. This version would have later undergone additional correction in terms of increasing the distance between deity and people (Krüger, “Zur Interpretation,” 89, n. 12).
673 Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg, 49f.
674 “Vielmehr soll die Theophanie die Mitteilung der Gesetze ermöglichen und deren Befolgung befördern”
(ibid.); cf. Childs, Exodus, 372: “The point of the present sequence is to emphasize that the theophany and the giving of the law belong together. In spite of the probability that theophany and Decalogue circulated independently of one another during a long history of development of the tradition, the author of the present narrative wants the two chapters [Exod 19f] understood as part of one event” (ibid.). What remains is the people’s inescapable dilemma: “God has come to prove Israel. The people who committed themselves to the covenant in 19:3f have been put to test. How do they respond to the God who reveals himself both in word and deed?” (ibid., 373, secondary emphasis).
139
and (3) not shrinking back (zurückweichen) from the theophany.
675One would not go far wrong concluding that such responsibility seems a heavy load to place on the backs of recently uprooted slaves. Irrespective of kingly or priestly intermediation, the people will succeed—or fail—in their momentous mission largely based on their own actions and attitudes. Severity is promised those who falter out of fear—or for any reason—in fulfilling the assigned task.
676The high expectation bespeaks an authorial circle that perpetuates the notion of a uniquely qualified people, a nation capable of surviving sustained, direct exchange with their high god. That this circle shared similar views with the author(s) of Deut 4:6bβ-7
677seems fairly certain.
In Exod 20:21 Moses draws near (שגנ) to the thick darkness (לפרע) where God dwells.
No indication of vertical movement obtains (in which case one would expect either הלע or דרי), as the לפרע ostensibly covers the entire mountain. Contrary to the perspective of 19:11b-13e, 13f, 20-25, no ascent is needed; the people may remain in the vicinity “on the same level” with Moses and within (over)hearing distance of the dialogue between him and YHWH. Exodus 20:19 resumes a theme subtly introduced in Exod 19:17, that is, whereas in Exod 3 Moses becomes mediator on the intiative of YHWH, from 19:17 a shift towards the people taking the initiative occurs, leading to their installing Moses in his
675 Oswald, Israel am Gottesberg, 51. Relevant in this connection is the LXX of Hab 2:4, which censures those who “shrink back” from YHWH: ἐὰν ὑποστείληται οὐκ εὐδοκεῖ ἡ ψυχή μου ἐν αὐτῷ (“If he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him”); cf. Letter to the Hebrews 10:38b: “my soul takes no pleasure in anyone who shrinks back” (ὑποστέλλω); cf. v. 39 “but we are not among those who shrink back and so are lost”( ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑποστολῆς εἰς ἀπώλειαν). These verses, along with v. 37 comprise a composite of Isa 26:20 and the LXX of Hab 2:4. Admittedly, the sentiment here appears to be that of enduring patiently rather than recoiling in fear. Nonetheless, the notion of “giving way to” or “shrinking before” someone as in the use of ὑποστέλλω in LXX of Deut 1:17, used to render Hebrew (ורוגת) “dread” (Herder, Bibel: “vor keinem dürft ihr euch fürchten”; TNK “fear no man”; TOB “n’ayez peur de personne” forשיא־ינפמ ורוגת אל (MT of v. 17aβ) plausibly accompanies the use of ὑποστέλλω in each of the noted instances; Rev 21:8 curiously prefaces the litany of mortal sins with cowardess: “But as for the cowardly (τοῖς δὲ δειλοῖς), the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire … the second death”; δειλός connotes showing fear in a craven manner or for no (apparent) reason.
Childs (Exodus, 372f.) questions the probative effectiveness of the theophany alone: “How could the bare theophany actually test Israel?” Noth in contrast maintained “das Volk hat die recht Gottes-’Furcht’
bewiesen und nicht versucht, der Gotteserscheinung zu nahe zu treten” (zweite Buch Mose, 135; ET 168).
676 Cf. the juxtaposition of rebellion and fear in Num 14:9, thereafter YHWH’s frustration in v. 11: “How long will this people despise (“disrespect” is probably the prefererable trans. of ץאנ) me? And how long will they refuse to believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?” The fearsome acts of YHWH are to inspire faith.
677 “‘Surely this great nation (הזה לדגה יוגה) is a wise and discerning people!” For what other great nation has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is whenever we call to him?”