This is a continuation of yesterday’s (#158) and the previous day’s entry (#157).
In the Priestly literature that now surrounds the Elohist’s Golden Calf story, Yahweh commands Moses to have the Israelites make two golden cherubs, of solid hammered gold. These cherubim moreover sit on top of the Ark’s atonement dais which resides in the inner most shrine of the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies.
And he made two cherubs of gold. He made them of hammered work, at the two ends of the atonement dais, one cherub at this end and one cherub at that end. He made the cherubs from the atonement dais at its two sides. And the two cherubs were spreading their wings above, covering over the atonement dais with their wings, and their faces each toward the other. (Ex 37:7-9)
A possible rendition might be:
What is the difference between these golden cherubs and the golden calf? Why is it permitted to fabricate golden cherubs and not the golden calf? Aren’t they both idols? Furthermore, why would Yahweh’s most Holy of Holies contain two golden cherubs? Were these representations of the god? Was the golden calf a representation of the god?
If the biblical writers regarded the golden calf as an idol and condemned propitiating it or any image, then why is not the same upheld for these golden cherubs? One answer might be found in the manner in which these images were produced. The golden calf is a molten or poured image. It is probably made of wood around which the gold was poured. The Yahwist’s Ten Commandments (#134) specifically prohibits the making of molten images. The golden cherubs, we are informed, are of solid, hammered, gold! Are solid hammered images permissible then?
There may be something else going on here. Scholars mostly agree that the golden cherubs, similar to their use in other ancient Near Eastern cultures, served as Yahweh’s throne seat. It was from above the atonement dais where the cherubs were that the deity would speak. This is a perfect example of how the Israelites borrowed from their older contemporaries and used the standard image of cherubs to depict their god enthroned. There is, however, one exception. The throne seat remains empty, whereas in other artwork from Mesopotamia the god or king was depicted sitting on the cherub throne seat.
It is quite possible that the calf altars that Jeroboam constructed, of which the golden calf story is a parody (#157), were throne seats as well. There is ample evidence from the ancient Near East of deities seated upon bulls. Scholars have certainly started to envision Jeroboam’s calf altars as just that—not representations of Yahweh, but his thrones. In this case, the calf-altar cult of the north rivaled the southern temple in Jerusalem. The depiction of the golden calf as an idol, or as gods, was part and parcel to the propaganda and polemic of the pro-Jerusalemite scribes who wrote it. In the end, however, these cultic symbols were no different than the cherubim that stood in the Holy of Holies and also served to represent the deities presence.
This is a great and thought provoking article.I thought about this years ago soon after starting to read the bible for myself at 17 yrs old.If the commandment condemns making any likeness in heaven above or on earth below then what of these supposed cherubs?,whether graven, molten or hammered?
Of course only the holy high priest was allowed to even see this and that once a year according to what I understand,but if the commandment prohibits the making of any image then why could it not have been just a gold empty throne even? it’s like what is the need of these cherubs?
It all seems like a bunch of bologna now but if given a choice I take the beef(golden calf) over the chicken!
Andrew, You raise a good question. Why even have the cherubs at all. Why not just an empty inner shrine. I think the “necessity” of the cherubs, despite the prohibition against images, really has to do with the fact that the cherub or griffin was a very engrained symbol of monarchy in the ancient Near East. It’s a cultural influence that the Israelites adopted from their older contemporaries. It was the standard symbol for the enthroned powerful monarch or the god as monarch. At least that’s the best answer I can come up with. Also, if indeed the cherub are only supposed to represent Yahweh’s throne—a throne seat that was moreover empty—then the Priestly writers did avoid providing an image or re-presentation of the deity—the throne remains empty. So, if the prohibition against images was really aimed primarily at images of gods/the god, then the Israelites did avoid this. The most adamant source condemning any images of Yahweh is the Deuteronomic source. There the author actually uses the idea that Yahweh is without form—and therefore there can be no image of him—to argue that Yahweh is therefore God of gods! This is what separates Yahweh from all the other ancient Near Eastern gods—at least that was the intended aim.