Can God be Trusted?

A fundamental question within any religion that must be asked is, “Can you trust your god?” Of course if one believes in a benevolent, merciful, and essentially good god, then it follows that that god can be trusted. If, however, one has doubts as to whether your god is good, then the issue of trust of the deity comes into question. In this post, I will look at the religions of Mesopotamia and Israel to find out if their respective gods could be trusted and whether their followers felt they could trust them. I will be looking at various aspects of their religion such as prayer, divination, piety and others.

We have many examples of prayers within the Mesopotamian religion (Mesopotamia being a broad stroke covering the religion of the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, etc. Although these were very different cultures, the majority of components of their religion were the same including the sharing of deities, although the hierarchy very often changed depending on who was in power at the time). These prayers give us an insight into the emotions and feelings of the authors regarding their deities. The Assyrian King Asshurbanipal (668-627 BCE) wrote this prayer on a tablet.

“Thus I’ve done good for the gods and for men, for the living and for the dead. But then, why do illness and sadness, difficulties and prejudice continue to plague me? Discord in the land, complaining in my Palace, troubles and failures of all sorts, are constantly against me! Illness of the body and the heart have completely shrivelled me up. I spend my time sighing and complaining. Even the day of the Great Feast I remain in despair. . . O my god, reserve such a fate for the impious, and allow me to find happiness once again! How long are you going to abuse me so, and to treat me as one who respects neither gods or goddesses?”

Here we can see Asshurbanipal touching upon the subject of suffering. It seems that he is of the opinion that since he has lived a pious life (a requirement of the gods) he should be living a life of happiness. Yet, his life seems to be plagued with various tragedies. The one line, “reserve such a fate for the impious”, seems to imply a blessing and curse theology where righteousness is rewarded, and disobedience and unrighteousness bring curses and tragedies. This is of course one way in which the Mesopotamians explained unanswered prayers or certain sufferings in their lives. If the gods were allowing suffering in their lives, it was most certainly because of some source of unrighteousness or sin in the victim’s life. Yet, as we see here in this prayer, Asshurbanipal fails to find anything within his life that would warrant such a response from the gods. He questions the gods and thus, his trust is broken. What follows is a piece of Babylonian Wisdom Literature which displays this blessing and curse theology within Mesopotamian religion which is alluded to in Asshurbanipal’s prayer above.

“Every day worship your god.
Sacrifice and benediction are the proper accompaniment of incense.
Present your free-will offering to your god,
For this is proper toward the gods.
Prayer, supplication and prostration.
Offer him daily, and you will get your reward.
Then you will have full communion with your god.
Reverence begets favor,
Sacrifice prolongs life,
And prayer atones for guilt.”

According to this piece of wisdom literature, there are two main ingredients for obtaining blessings from the gods (in this case in the form of long life): Sacrifice and prayer. The author maintains that sacrifice will prolong life, and prayer atones for guilt. Sacrifice and the free-will offering, in Mesopotamia, were generally thought of as a way to sustain the gods. The gods, like humans, required food, clothing, etc. in order to have a worry free existence. Humans were required by the gods to provide these things for them. As well, the gods demanded a level of morality from humankind as well. We see here that prayer was the atonement for guilt. There was also punishment for immorality as well. In the previous prayer we saw how to obtain blessing. In this next prayer to Marduk, we can see how sin can cause divine affliction and how it was necessary to pray for atonement.

O warrior Marduk, whose anger is the deluge,
Whose relenting is that of a merciful father,
I am left anxious by speech unheeded,
My hopes are deceived by outcry unanswered,
Such as has sapped my courage,
And hunched me over like an aged man.
O great lord Marduk, merciful lord!
Men, by whatever name,
What can they understand of their own sin?
Who has not been negligent,
Which one has committed no sin?
Who can understand a god’s behavior?
I would fain be obedient and incur no sin,
Yes, I would frequent the haunts of health!
Men are commanded by the gods to act under curse,
Divine affliction is for mankind to bear.
I am surely responsible for some neglect of you,
I have surely trespassed the limits set by the god.
Forget what I did in my youth,
Absolve my guilt, remit my punishment,
Clear me of confusion, free me of uncertainty,
Let no guilt of my father, my grandfather, my mother,
My grandmother, my brother, my sister,
My family, kith, or kin
Approach my own self, but let it be gone!
If my god has commanded (it) for me,
Purify me as with medicaments.
Commend me into the hands of my (personal) god
And my (personal) goddess for well-being and life,
Let me stand before you always in prayer, supplication, and entreaty,
Let the fruitful peoples of a well-ordered land praise you.
Absolve my guilt, remit my guilt!
O warrior Marduk, absolve my guilt, remit my guilt!
O great lady Erua-Sarpanitu, absolve my guilt,
O Nabu of the good name, absolve my guilt,
O great lady, Tashmetu, absolve my guilt,
O warrior Nergal, absolve my guilt,
O gods who dwell (in) Anu’s (heaven),
Absolve my guilt!
The monstrous guilt that I have built up from my youth,
Scatter it hence, absolve it sevenfold.
Let my real father and my real mother,
Let your heart be reconciled to me.
O warrior Marduk, let me sound your praises!

The writer of this prayer has had some issue with his health as he describes himself as a hunched over old man, and he longs to frequent the haunts of health. It is also obvious that he feels that his illness is the result of sin or the neglect of some religious rite on his part. He appeals to Marduk’s mercy and proceeds to ask for atonement for his guilt. As in Israelite religion (and modern Christian tradition) the sin and guilt of one’s ancestor’s and relatives can also give reason for the gods to inflict curses and hardship upon an individual. The author of the previous prayer entreats Marduk to absolve the guilt of his mother, grandmother, kith, kin and any of his relatives believing that their sin could also be the cause of his problems. And just in case it isn’t Marduk who’s angry with him, the author also appeals to lady Erua-Sarpanitu, Nabu, Tashmetu, Nergal, and to the gods who dwell in Anu’s heaven (which are the rest of the gods, just in case it wasn’t any of those four).

In the poem of the righteous sufferer, a man (like Job) is plunged into suffering for some unseen reason. He, like Job, then begins to question the gods.

Like one who has not made libations to his god,
Nor invoked his goddess at table,
Does not engage in prostration, nor takes cognizance of bowing down;
From whose mouth supplication and prayer is lacking,
Who has done nothing on holy days, and despised Sabbaths,
Who in his negligence has despised the gods’ rites,
Has not taught his people reverence and worship,
But has eaten his food without invoking his god,
And abandoned his goddess by not bringing a flour offering,
Like one who has grown torpid and forgotten his lord,
Has frivolously sworn a solemn oath by his god, (like such a one) do I appear.
For myself, I gave attention to supplication and prayer:
To me prayer was discretion, sacrifice my rule,
The day for reverencing the god was a joy to my heart;
The day of the goddess’s procession was profit and gain to me.

For the Mesopotamian, suffering seemed to be explained through sin against the gods, or some sort of neglect in the maintenance of the religious liturgy (sacrifice, offerings, etc). Any failure in this could bring suffering upon the people. As well, the consistent maintenance of the gods as well as a moral life brings blessing from the gods. Yet, as everybody undoubtedly discovered in their own life, these rules don’t really seem to stand up to scrutiny. The Mesopotamian as well could see this as we saw demonstrated in the previous excerpt. Here is another example of a rather sarcastic attitude towards the gods from what is called the Babylonian Theodicy.

Those who neglect the god go the way of prosperity,
While those who pray to the goddess are impoverished and dispossessed.
In my youth I sought the will of my god;
With prostration and prayer I followed my goddess.
But I was bearing a profitless corvee as a yoke.
My god decreed instead of wealth destitution.
A cripple is my superior, a lunatic outstrips me.
…………………..
I have looked around society, but the evidence is contrary.
The god does not impede the way of a devil.

The people knew the rules that the gods set out for them, yet it seemed that even if they followed the rules, the gods were not keeping up their end of the bargain. Could the gods be trusted to hold up their end of the blessing and curse covenant? To the Mesopotamian who has suffered for no apparent reason, they would answer ‘no’. The gods could not be trusted. Yet the gods were the supreme forces in the universe and regardless whether or not they held up their end of the bargain, humans by all means had to uphold their end, if for no other reason but to try and deter further affliction.

Israelite religion was very similar in blessing and curse theology. If the Israelites would follow Yahweh, obey his commandments and maintain his liturgy through sacrifice, he would protect them as a nation and provide for them. One can see this theology laid out fairly explicitly in Leviticus 26.

3 If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out,
4 then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.
5 Indeed, your threshing will last for you until grape gathering, and grape gathering will last until sowing time You will thus eat your food to the full and live securely in your land.
6' I shall also grant peace in the land, so that you may lie down with no one making you tremble I shall also eliminate harmful beasts from the land, and no sword will pass through your land.
14' But if you do not obey Me and do not carry out all these commandments,
15 if, instead, you reject My statutes, and if your soul abhors My ordinances so as not to carry out all My commandments, and so break My covenant,
16 I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror, consumption and fever that will waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you will sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies will eat it up.

The author of Psalm 18 certainly believed that his righteous acts would be rewarded by God, another example of the blessing and curse theology.

20The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness; According to the cleanness of my hands He has recompensed me. 21 For I have kept the ways of the LORD, And have not wickedly departed from my God. 22 For all His ordinances were before me, And I did not put away His statutes from me. 23 I was also blameless with Him, And I kept myself from my iniquity.24Therefore the LORD has recompensed me according to my righteousness, According to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes.

Verses 26 and 27 of the same Psalm reveal both sides of the spectrum. Righteousness is rewarded and wickedness is punished.

26With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the crooked You show Yourself astute. 27For You save an afflicted people, But haughty eyes You abase.


Throughout the book of Judges we see time after time this blessing and curse theology played out on a national level.

Judges 2
10 After that whole generation had been gathered to their fathers, another generation grew up, who knew neither Yahweh nor what he had done for Israel. 11 Then the Israelites did evil in the eyes of Yahweh and served the Baals. 12 They forsook Yahweh, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of Egypt. They followed and worshiped various gods of the peoples around them. They provoked Yahweh to anger 13 because they forsook him and served Baal and the Ashtoreths. 14 In his anger against Israel Yahweh handed them over to raiders who plundered them. He sold them to their enemies all around, whom they were no longer able to resist. 15 Whenever Israel went out to fight, the hand of Yahweh was against them to defeat them, just as he had sworn to them. They were in great distress.

We also see that when the Israelites returned to their God, he then blessed them and redeemed them from their suffering.

Judges 3
9 But when they cried out to Yahweh, he raised up for them a deliverer, Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, who saved them. 10 The Spirit of Yahweh came upon him, so that he became Israel's judge and went to war. Yahweh gave Cushan-Rishathaim king of Aram into the hands of Othniel, who overpowered him. 11 So the land had peace for forty years, until Othniel son of Kenaz died.

In Exodus 19, we see again an example of the blessing promised by God and the requirements of that blessing.

5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'

However, like the Mesopotamians, the Israelites as well had their doubts about whether or not God was holding up his end of the bargain. This sentiment is displayed best in the book of Job. Most are familiar with this book and the results. At the beginning, we are given a sneak peak into heaven where we see that God allows Job to be tested. Even though he is righteous, God allows Satan to cause affliction in Job’s life. Job then goes on to question God and his decisions. Job knows that he has lived a righteous life and by rights, according to the promises of God, does not deserve this punishment. We, the readers, of course have the inside knowledge that God is allowing him to be tested. When God finally does reply to Job’s words, he doesn’t let Job in on the secret of him being tested, but rather simply (or rather long windedly) says that He is God, and Job is human. God cannot be questioned simply because he is God, and that should be good enough for Job. Surprisingly, Job seems to accept this and repents of his attitude resulting in the replenishment of the blessings upon Job.

Both the story of Job and the Righteous Sufferer take aim at their respective gods in regard to suffering, despite being righteous and doing what their god demanded. The Babylonian version, however, gives no explanation as to why the person was made to suffer. The ending, slightly fragmented, gives us the allusion that Marduk did restore him and alleviate his suffering but without any reference as to the original reason as to why he was allowed to suffer. The book of Job, however, does offer an explanation to the reader, yet not to Job. The reader is led to believe that Job is being tested by God. However, Job himself does not receive any explanation but is rather told simply to trust God because he is God. The book of Job also leaves one with the impression that it is unwise and possibly wrong (or a sin) to question God and his wisdom. It would seem that the true righteous follower will never question God.

From these examples of prayers/dialogues with God, it is apparent that in both Mesopotamian and Israelite tradition, it was not always possible for the follower of the gods to trust wholly in the system/promises that were laid out by the deities. Both religions follow a general blessing/curse theology of the gods, and yet we find examples in both religions where this covenant is not followed by the deity.

So can one trust God in his covenant of blessings for the righteous and curses for the wicked? The answer we find in the Biblical and Mesopotamian sources would be ‘no’. Of course, a short reflection upon our own modern lives would also yield the answer ‘no’. So why would such a blessing/curse theology evolve in the first place? What reason might there have been behind this type of thinking? Why is it a common idea throughout the Ancient Near East?

My answer to this question is that, in all likelihood, this straight and narrow theology of blessing and curse was a human creation that is an attempt to control our own destinies. We as humans have a natural tendency to want to control our own lives. We don’t like the idea that God controls what happens to us. Yet, if we believe in God, and if we believe he is all powerful, then it follows that we must believe that he also has the ability to control what happens to us for good or bad. I believe that the blessing/curse theology of the Ancient Near East was an attempt to tame the deity, to control the gods. If they acted in a certain manner, if one performed certain libations, this all-powerful being had to (in the sense of being controlled by our actions) bless the righteous person. On the flip side, if something bad happened to us, it was not God doing it to us, but rather a result of our own actions or inactions. I believe that this type of thinking that God will bless the righteous and curse the wicked is a human system designed to control God and put God’s power back into human hands. Not to say that God doesn’t bless us or curse us. I believe that God’s blessings and curses are not so easily controlled by our actions. Suffering falls upon the righteous and the wicked alike. A quick look around our modern society and it seems one must be evil in order to obtain blessings (in the worldly sense). Do I think God can be trusted? Yes. Do I think God can be controlled by our righteous acts or prayers? No. Do I enjoy asking yes or no questions of myself and then answering them in the next sentence? Yes.

There is another aspect of this trust of God which I would like to look at, and that is through the form of prophecy or divination. First we will look at divination and prophecy within the Mesopotamian tradition, then move on to the Israelite religion.

In Mesopotamia, there were essentially two ways to divine the will of the gods and in particular to foresee the future. These were through prophecy and divination. Prophecy for the Mesopotamian was mainly done through the ‘ecstatic’ or ‘inspired divination’. The god would pass on a message to his people through a receiver (apilu) who could be a man or woman. They were very often people of lower or marginal standing and showed a tendency toward ‘delirium’. The message that the god wanted to transfer would be shown in either a vision or an inspiration. Here is an example from a letter to Zimri-Lim, the king of Mari.

(A certain) prophet came to find me, some time ago, concerning the restoration of the Great Door. He was all upset, and he said to me: “Undertake this work!” At present, the very day when I am sending My Lord the present tablet, he came back to tell me, forcefully: “If you do not restore this door, there will be piles of bodies, and you will never escape the consequences!” This is what he said to me.

Here is an example of a prophecy that apparently came true concerning the king’s daughter.

A prophet had had an ‘ecstasy’ concerning the girl whom the Queen brought into this world: this daughter of My Lord did not live: she died today. . . . The same day, a certain Irra-gamil also had had an ‘ecstasy’ and had declared: “She will not live!” Before the king arrives in Mari, tell him that his little girl is dead, so that he will be informed! We fear that he will be profoundly upset by this news.

This form of prophecy seemed to only exist in the Western Semitic areas of Mesopotamia such as Mari and later in the Assyrian kingdom. Due to its somewhat subject nature (the prophet in any given situation could be using their ‘prophetic ability’ to manipulate the situation, in particular, the sovereign) the Babylonians preferred a more deductive approach to discovering the will of the gods, and that was through divination. Two examples of this are extispicy (the study of anomalies within animal entrails in order to divine the future) and hepatoscopy (using the liver of the animal to divine the future). This was a very specialized profession utilized by the rich and powerful (for only they could afford the service). However, as is expected, the predictions made through these means were not always correct and could not necessarily be trusted. When things did go awry, there was a long list of reasons as to why the divination didn’t work. Here is an example of a prayer to Shamash (the god of divination) asking him to ignore any of these ‘reasons’ why the divination might fail in order to achieve a positive result.

Shamash, great lord, give me a firm positive answer to what I am asking you!
Niqia, mother of Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, who is now ill, and on whom the ‘hand’ of god Iqbi-damiq was placed in estispicy—will it pass by unto sacrificial sheep and oxen?
If she is ill with this disease, is it decreed and confirmed in a favourable case, by the command of your great divinity, Shamash, great lord?
Will he who can see, see it? Will he who can hear, hear it?
Disregard that a clean or an unclean person has touched the sacrificial sheep, or blocked the way of the sacrificial sheep.
Disregard that an unclean man or woman has come near the place of the extispicy and made it unclean.
Disregard that an unclean person has performed extispicy in this place.
Disregard that the ram offered to your divinity for the performance of the extispicy is deficient or faulty.
Disregard that he who touches the forehead of the sheep is dressed in his ordinary soiled garments, or has eaten, drunk, or anointed himself with anything unclean.
Disregard that I, the haruspex your servant, have eaten, drunk, or anointed myself with anything unclean, changed or altered the proceedings, or jumbled the oracle query in my mouth.
Let them be taken out and put aside!
I ask you, Shamash, great lord: Be present in this ram, place in it a firm positive answer, favourable designs, favourable, propitious omens by the oracular command of your great divinity, and may I see them.
May this query go to your great divinity, O Shamash, great lord, and may an oracle be given as an answer.

As is evident from this prayer, even divination, the less subjective form of discerning the will of the gods, was not free from error. As such, many reasons were created as to why the divination could have been wrong. This is not so much an issue of trust of the gods, but it does make discovering their will very difficult. Also an issue is whether or not the gods will always tell the truth, whether it be through divination or prophecy. Is it possible for the beneficent gods to lie? Is divine deceit possible?

If we look at the Myth of Adapa and the Food of Life, we do find that it is possible, at least in the minds of the authors of this myth, for the gods to lie. Adapa is told by the god Ea, that when he is brought into the council of Anu, the great god of heaven, he will be offered the food and water of death and that he should not drink. However, when Adapa is in the council of Anu, he is offered the food and drink of life, which would grant him immortality. Adapa, thinking it is the food and water of death as was told to him by Ea, refuses the food and drink. It is unclear as to why Ea deceived Adapa, but what is clear from this myth, is that the gods are capable of deceit and lying.

As we turn to the Israelite God and ask the same question - Does God lie? - what answer can we find within the Biblical texts? The result is somewhat surprising. Prophecy within the Israelite religion is particularly problematic on this point. If the prophets are inspired by God, and if it is impossible for God to lie, then what the prophets say must be true. However, we find numerous examples where the prophet intentionally lies. For example, there is the story in 1 Kings 13 where the old prophet from Bethel lied to the young prophet from Judah causing his death. However, in this case it may be that the old prophet was acting of his own accord and was not inspired by God (as the text seems to suggest).

There are, however, examples of prophecy in which God himself is the instigator of the deceit. The most well known is probably that of 1 Kings 22. King Ahab of Israel is thinking of attacking the Arameans in order to retrieve the city of Ramoth-Gilead and consults the prophets of God before doing so. This is the response he is given.

6 So the king of Israel brought together the prophets—about four hundred men—and asked them, "Shall I go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?" "Go," they answered, "for the Lord will give it into the king's hand."

Ahab then decides to consult Micaiah the son of Imlah as well in order to be sure.

13 The messenger who had gone to summon Micaiah said to him, "Look, as one man the other prophets are predicting success for the king. Let your word agree with theirs, and speak favorably."
14 But Micaiah said, "As surely as the LORD lives, I can tell him only what the LORD tells me."
15 When he arrived, the king asked him, "Micaiah, shall we go to war against Ramoth Gilead, or shall I refrain?" "Attack and be victorious," he answered, "for the LORD will give it into the king's hand."
16 The king said to him, "How many times must I make you swear to tell me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD ?"
17 Then Micaiah answered, "I saw all Israel scattered on the hills like sheep without a shepherd, and the LORD said, 'These people have no master. Let each one go home in peace.' "
18 The king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "Didn't I tell you that he never prophesies anything good about me, but only bad?"
19 Micaiah continued, "Therefore hear the word of the LORD : I saw the LORD sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' "One suggested this, and another that.
21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'
22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked. " 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said. " 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.'
23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you."

In this situation, Micaiah, who is portrayed as the true prophet, reveals that God had put a lying spirit within the prophets and instructed Micaiah to lie as well, the purpose of which was to kill off Ahab. This is perhaps the most blatant example of divine deceit and a God that lies within the Biblical text. It would be difficult to trust a God such as this, one that is capable of lying for the purpose of murder.

The prophet Jeremiah also seemed to believe that Yahweh was capable of lying and deceit. In Jeremiah 4:10 he says, “Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, You will have peace, when the sword is at our throats." Again in Jeremiah 20:7 the prophet laments, “O Yahweh, you have deceived me and I was deceived. You were stronger than I, and you have prevailed.” Jeremiah also says to Yahweh in Jeremiah 15:18, “Why has my pain been perpetual and my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Will You indeed be to me like a deceptive stream with water that is unreliable?” It appears that the prophet Jeremiah certainly believed that God was capable of lying and deceit. If this is so, how can one ever trust such a God? Granted, in all instances where God is seen as being the inspiration for false prophecy it is first instigated by disobedience within the receiver of said prophecy. Thus, it may be safe to say that God will always tell the truth to those who are obedient. To those who have sin (and don’t we all), the possibility of a lying God remains a distinct possibility.

Can God be trusted? Can God be counted on to bless those who are righteous and curse those who are wicked? I don’t believe so. Blessing and curse, as bestowed upon humans, seems to be random at best, at least in the worldly material sense (which was the main concern of those perpetuating this theology as seen in the Biblical texts). The blessing and curse theology was likely a result of humanity trying to take some control over their respective god in order to have some hope of a better life.

Also, if God is capable of lying and deceiving those who are disobedient, then it seems difficult to trust the words of such a God. Modern Christianity is fraught with examples of people who have felt that God was telling them a certain thing, and that they believed it very strongly only to discover that they were wrong. Was God deceiving that person or was that person merely not as in touch with God as they thought they were? Both are a possibility. How many times have people prayed for their loved ones to be spared only to have that prayer unanswered. It is difficult to reconcile this with the verses in Luke 11.

9"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
10"For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.
11"Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he?
12"Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?
13"If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?"

Here God is even comparing our intellect with his own, saying that if we know how to do good for our children, how much more does God know how to do good for us. It stands to reason then, that if my intellect tells me that a 13 year old boy should not have to die from cancer, how much more would God agree? Yet, if he does agree, why doesn’t he answer the prayer to save that boy?

Prayer in itself may be somewhat comparable to the blessing/curse theology of the Israelites and Mesopotamians in regard to how we as Christians use and perceive it. Like the blessing and curse theology, prayer at times can be used as a system to try and control God. I have heard the phrase that God only acts if we pray. This seems to me like it is putting God on some kind of leash. This attitude seems to place humans in the position of power and control, and not God.
In the same way the Mesopotamians had a long list of reasons why a certain extispicy may not have worked, Modern Christians also have many reasons as to why prayer may not have worked (lack of faith, sin in our lives, result of the fall, didn’t pray hard enough, or not in God’s will). All of those reasons, except for perhaps the last, again puts the onus and control back into human hands. Maybe the purpose of prayer never was to control God and have him do our bidding. I have a friend who is going through a very difficult time right now. He tells me that he is finding himself praying constantly throughout the day. He is waking up at 4:00am every morning simply because he can’t sleep and has to pray. It flows out of him at every moment. He feels like he has nothing left to hope for and that praying to God is all he has left. I have seen him change even in the last few days as he has been going through his struggle, and he has begun to realize a sense of hope. He doesn’t know if God will answer his prayer or not, but it I’m sure he can relate to the following quote from the movie Shadowlands about the life of C.S. Lewis. Here, C.S. Lewis had just received some news that his wife, who was terminally ill, was doing better.

Harry: Christopher can scoff, Jack, but I know how hard you've been praying; and now God is answering your prayers.

C. S. Lewis: That's not why I pray, Harry. I pray because I can't help myself. I pray because I'm helpless. I pray because the need flows out of me all the time, waking and sleeping. It doesn't change God, it changes me.

I believe that God can be trusted, but I don’t think he can be placed into a box. If one takes the Biblical text at its word, then God is capable of lying and reneging on his own covenants that he has made. I particularly like the description of Aslan in the “Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe” by C.S. Lewis.

“Is he—quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver…”Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”

God is good, dangerous, and all powerful all at once. Trusting God cannot come from our own preconceived notions of what a promise or covenant is. Trusting God, like faith, is often simply a choice. Can he be trusted? By human standards and according to human intellect, he cannot be trust. But, if you are prepared for some surprises and willing to grant him the control he rightly deserves and relinquish your own leash on his power, then perhaps, you can learn to trust God in a new way.

Sources:

The Bible and the Ancient Near East, J.J.M. Roberts, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake Indiana, 2002

Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia, Jean Bottero, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2001

Dingir. s̆a. dib. ba Incantations Author(s): W. G. Lambert Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3 (Jul., 1974), pp. 267-322 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/544700

Bull-ogne

In this post I will be looking at the ‘sea’ as described being built and placed in the temple of Solomon. Here is the passage in which we find its description.

1Kings 7:23-26
23 Now he made the sea of cast metal ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits, and thirty cubits in circumference.
24Under its brim gourds went around encircling it ten to a cubit, completely surrounding the sea; the gourds were in two rows, cast with the rest.
25 It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east; and the sea was set on top of them, and all their rear parts turned inward.
26 It was a handbreadth thick, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom; it could hold two thousand baths.

Since there is no real practical ceremonial function mentioned (other than the priests to wash in, 2 Chron. 4:6), it would stand to reason that the sea had some symbolic significance. There are two key elements of the ‘sea’ which I will be looking at: the basin itself, and the 12 bulls. The first element we will look at will be the bulls.

Bulls were a common motif throughout the Ancient Near East and many of the deities are described as a bull (although not depicted as a bull directly, the symbol of the bull became associated with the deities. In many cases it was an epithet of the deity.) The Sumerian God Enki was considered the ‘black bull of the Abzu’ (the primordial sea of the underworld which is also an important consideration when discussing the ‘sea’). In the Sumerian myth, ‘Enki and the World Order’, Enki blesses the cities of Nippur, Ur, Meluhha, and Dilmun as well as organizes the sea and the land. There are several examples within this myth where Enki is identified with a bull.

(lines 1-16) Grandiloquent lord of heaven and earth, self-reliant, father Enki, engendered by a bull, begotten by a wild bull, cherished by Enlil the Great Mountain, beloved by holy An, king, mes tree planted in the Abzu, rising over all lands; great dragon who stands in Eridug, whose shadow covers heaven and earth, a grove of vines extending over the Land, Enki, lord of plenty of the Anuna gods, Nudimmud, mighty one of the E-kur, strong one of heaven and earth! Your great house is founded in the Abzu, the great mooring-post of heaven and earth. Enki, from whom a single glance is enough to unsettle the heart of the mountains; wherever bison are born, where stags are born, where ibex are born, where wild goats are born, in meadows ......, in hollows in the heart of the hills, in green ...... unvisited by man, you have fixed your gaze on the heart of the Land like a halhal reed.

In this section we see that Enki was believed to have been begotten by a wild bull. As such, the bull is the primary epithet of Enki. There are more examples within this myth where Enki is identified with the bull. (The following excerpt has been edited for content.)

(lines 250-266) After he had turned his gaze from there, after father Enki had lifted his eyes across the Euphrates, he stood up full of lust like a rampant bull, lifted his p---s, ej------ed and filled the Tigris with flowing water. He was like a wild cow mooing for its young in the wild grass, its scorpion-infested cow-pen. The Tigris ...... at his side like a rampant bull. By lifting his p---s, he brought a bridal gift. The Tigris rejoiced in its heart like a great wild bull, when it was born ....... It brought water, flowing water indeed: its wine will be sweet. It brought barley, mottled barley indeed: the people will eat it. It filled the E-kur, the house of Enlil, with all sorts of things. Enlil was delighted with Enki, and Nibru was glad. The lord put on the diadem as a sign of lordship, he put on the good crown as a sign of kingship, touching the ground on his left side. Plenty came forth out of the earth for him.

In this rather provocative description of Enki, he is illustrated as a bull full of lust who then creates the Tigris with his own semen. Enki is very often portrayed in art with the bull as a symbol. On a cylinder seal from the Akkadian period, Enki, known as Ea to the Akkadians, is pictured in the Abzu, with water flowing from his shoulders. At his feet, is a bull. In other Akkadian literature Ea (Enki) has two divine bulls known as the god of the field of Eden, and the god of the house of Eden (Hibbert Lectures, pg. 289).

Marduk, the chief god of Babylonia from the days of Hammurapi was known as the ‘young wild bull of day’ and as the ‘Ox who plows the furrow of the celestial fields’. The writing of his name was two signs with a meaning of the bull-calf of the sun. There is a standard of Shur which has a solar disk within which there are two bulls (among other symbols). The west Semitic storm god Adad (who was Enki’s twin brother), also known as Addu/Hadad is identified with the bull. On a stele erected by Sennacherib, we see Adad riding upon a bull. In Phoenicia Baal was represented by a bull and at Sidon Astarte was associated with a cow’s head. In the Gilgamesh epic, Ishtar calls upon Anu to release the Bull of Heaven upon Gilgamesh after his refusal of her advances. Many other deities in the Ancient Near East are compared to a bull in regard to their strength and prowess, however the previous list of deities are the ones most commonly associated with the symbol of the bull. The symbol of the bull was very often used to refer to gods of the storm, or as a reference to strength and power.

In the Enuma Elish, Marduk is pitted against Tiamat (otherwise identified with the primordial oceans). It is interesting and very much ties in with the theme of the ‘sea’ that, Tiamat, identified with the primordial sea, is also given qualities of a cow.

53. He laid down her (text: his) head, heaped [a mountain up]on it,
54. Opened up such a spring that a torrent could be drawn off,
55. (Then) released through her eyes the Euphrates and Tigris,
56. Closed up her nostrils, reserved [the water].
57. He heaped up high [mounta]ins at her udder,
58. Drilled fountains (through the dugs) to carry off the fountain head.
59. He bent back her tail, bound (it) [to] the "great band,"
60. [..........] ... the Apsu beneath his foot;
61. [......... ]her crotch, it wedged up the heavens,
62. (So) [the sky] was roofed, the earth fixed.

In line 57 we see that she had an udder, and in line 59 she has a tail. Both of these indicate that Tiamat was given the form of a cow (aka a female bull, if you hadn’t already made that connection). This will become more important as we look at the Abzu later on.

In Mesopotamian art, the horned cap of divinity was used from as early as the third millennium BCE and continued in use throughout the survival of that culture. The horned cap is likely derived from the horns of the wild bull. The cap was used as a general status of divinity and can be seen in Mesopotamian art on all different kinds of deities, from the highest of the gods, to the lower bull-men colossi of the Assyrian palaces. Below are some examples of the horned cap of divinity.

Needless to say, the bull as a sign of divinity (through the horned cap of divinity, the bull as an epithet of the deity, and the bull as a descriptive metaphor) was very prevalent throughout the Ancient Near East.

Bull worship within the Israelite tradition is not an unheard of phenomenon. Often we merely interpret such things that we read as ‘abominations’ or ‘idolatry’ on the part of the Israelites. However, these may be signs and clues as to what the bull symbolized or what its origins were in Israelite tradition and how this symbol managed to gain entrance into the house of Yahweh built by Solomon in the 10th century BCE.

The incident with the Golden calf in the desert is probably the earliest source of bull-worship that we see in Israel. However, there are some problems as to whether or not this was originally in this text or rather edited in at a later time. We see in 1 Kings 12:26-32 a very similar event in which Jeroboam sets up his golden calves in northern Israel.

26Jeroboam said in his heart, "Now the kingdom will return to the house of David.
27"If this people go up to offer sacrifices in the house of the LORD at Jerusalem, then the heart of this people will return to their lord, even to Rehoboam king of Judah; and they will kill me and return to Rehoboam king of Judah."
28So the king consulted, and made two golden calves, and he said to them, "It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem; behold your gods, O Israel, that brought you up from the land of Egypt."
29He set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan.
30Now this thing became a sin, for the people went to worship before the one as far as Dan.
31And he made houses on high places, and made priests from among all the people who were not of the sons of Levi.
32Jeroboam instituted a feast in the eighth month on the fifteenth day of the month, like the feast which is in Judah, and he went up to the altar; thus he did in Bethel, sacrificing to the calves which he had made And he stationed in Bethel the priests of the high places which he had made.

Here is the account of Aaron and the golden calf in the desert as found in Exodus 32.

1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."
2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."
5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD." 6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.

One can notice quite quickly that the words of Aaron and the words of Jeroboam are almost exactly the same. It is generally believed that the Exodus account is edited to match the Jeroboam account. The evidence can be seen in the language alone. Where Aaron makes only one golden calf, he still uses the plural which is somewhat out of place, whereas the plural gods in the words of Jeroboam make sense with his two golden calves. From this, it can be deduced that the Exodus account is of a later tradition than the Jeroboam narrative.

Another thing to consider is the seemingly out of place presence of an animal used in agriculture among a nomadic tribe in the desert. The natural development of religion is first naturism among a nomadic group of people. Once this group begins to settle and develop agriculture and the raising of animals, it is then that we begin to see animism develop, and particularly that of the ox or bull as they were used to plow. They were seen as a symbol of power and thus used very often in imagery associated with a deity. Therefore, it seems somewhat alien to have a bull image amongst the tribe of Israel in a desert. Scholars who support this view (Exodus borrowed from Jeroboam) generally believe that the reason this was inserted in the Exodus account was to give some credence to the condemnation of bull worship at a time contemporary with the editor. They did this by showing (or creating) an historical event regarding the worship of bulls and the ‘sin’ of the people in the desert and God’s displeasure with them. If this portion in Exodus does serve the purpose of trying to slant bull worship as evil in a time contemporary to the editor, then it is possible that in early Israel bull worship may have been common and not necessarily regarded as evil. Is there any evidence which may indicate this?

There is some evidence that the tribal names were somewhat indicative of each individual tribal god previous to the tribes uniting under one confederacy. Some names may suggest animal gods such as Leah (wild cow), Rachel (ewe), Caleb (dog). Ephraim may indicate a relation to the bull through a phonetic connection to the word, but far more with the frequency of Bull worship mentioned in the Old Testament as connected with Ephraim and the North, and never once in the south. The names of Isra-el, Ishma-el, Jerahme-el, and Jabne-el all somewhat indicate that these were originally names of gods. Other names are very clearly god names such as Edom, Dan, Gad, and Asher. Meek argues that it is likely the tribes entered into Canaan, each with their own particular tribal god. Over time the tribes became a confederacy and eventually Yahweh became the chief god of the others. However, undoubtedly some of the old traditions and paraphernalia remained from the older religious values and were grafted into the cult of Yahweh.

One glaring example of this is the symbol of the snake which is likely a remnant of the god of the tribe of Levi. It is likely no coincidence that the term for the giant sea monster which has been associated with the serpent is levitan which is obviously phonetically associated with levi (as I have mentioned before, Semitic words are made up of consonants which are varied slightly with vowels and other additives to make up different forms of the word such as nouns, verbs, adjectives etc.). It has been argued that the people of the tribe of Levi were originally shamans, or medicine men that had a certain ‘mantic power’ associated with the serpent (the term for serpent and divination are both NHS, with varying vowels). The serpent is even attributed certain powers of healing as we see in the incident of the bronze serpent in Numbers 21.

6The LORD sent fiery serpents among the people and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died.
7So the people came to Moses and said, "We have sinned, because we have spoken against the LORD and you; intercede with the LORD, that He may remove the serpents from us." And Moses interceded for the people.
8Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a standard; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, when he looks at it, he will live."
9And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.

It seems somewhat strange that God would have the Israelites look at a graven image in order to obtain healing. This is likely a sign of something left over from the serpent cult of the tribe of Levi which survived into the writing of the book.
Thus we can see that there were images used within Israelite religion that seem to be foreign to the cult of Yahweh. These are likely a remnant of the individual tribe’s particular cults before the cult of Yahweh championed the rest to become the chief God of the Israelite religion. It may then be that the bull symbol used in the ‘sea’ of the temple of Solomon, may well be a leftover epithet of an older tribal deity.

The number of bulls being 12 is probably of some significance as well. In the Ancient Near East, the number 12 usually represented the Zodiac. However, in the Old Testament, it is usually used in reference to the 12 tribes of Israel. The third option could simply be that’s how many bulls it took to hold the thing up. I tend to lean towards the 12 tribes of Israel, or perhaps the Zodiac.

The next part of the molten sea we shall examine is the sea itself; the giant basin which contained water. Although there is a lot of talk about the discrepancy between the dimensions and the volume it contained, this does not concern us in this discussion. What I will be looking at now is what did this ‘sea’ symbolize? What are the roots of its meaning? It would seem like an awful waste of space if it had no significance.

Firstly, one must realize that these ‘seas’ were a common thing placed in temples and palaces throughout the ancient near east. We have at least two physical examples of ‘Abzu tanks’ that are in our possession. Below are pictures of both of them.
In the first picture we see an Abzu tank found in Assur inscribed by Sennacherib. In relief on the sides of the basin are fish garbed people each holding a basket towards the figure holding an overflowing vase. These were very likely priests of Eridu and the figure holding the overflowing vase could have been Ea/Enki, the god of the Abzu. In the second picture we have an example of an Abzu basin from the early dynastic period (approximately 3000-2300 BCE) from the Temple of Ningirsu at Girsu. It is replete with deities wearing the horned cap of divinity in relief all around the basin. They are each holding together with both hands overflowing vases signifying the Abzu. From these examples we can see that this idea of having a ‘sea’ or ‘Abzu basin’ within a temple of a god is not original within Israelite culture and was likely a borrowed idea from their Mesopotamian neighbours who had originally borrowed it from the Sumerians (from whom we see the earliest examples of this artifact). Thus we can deduce if we find the meaning of the ‘Abzu basin’, we may be that much closer to realizing the significance of the ‘sea’ in the temple of Solomon.

To know better what these basins symbolized, we must examine further the Abzu itself. The Ancient Near Eastern person had a very specific idea of how the world existed. I have already covered this in a previous post, but at the risk of being redundant and for the sake of possible new readers (yeah right) who haven’t gone back to read the first posts (which were pitiful lazy works which will be bolstered sometime in the near future) I will repeat what I said. The Ancient Near Eastern picture of the world (Sumerian, Babylonian, etc) was that the world was a flat disc surrounded with a rim of mountains and floating on an ocean of sweet waters, called the ABZU. Resting on these mountains was the sky in which rested the stars and other astral bodies. Below the earth was the netherworld, where the spirits of the dead lived (sheol in the old testament) And the whole earth was immersed in a giant bubble of boundless primeval ocean of salt water. Below is a diagram taken from Georges Roux's "Ancient Iraq" (yeah I copied and pasted that from the earlier post).

It is this ocean of sweet waters called the Abzu which is represented in these Abzu basins. The reason for this basin was likely a representation of the god’s struggle with the primordial ocean at the beginning of time and its eventual containment. In the Enuma Elish which we looked at earlier, Marduk is depicted as doing this very act. In this case the primordial ocean is personified as Tiamat. Marduk then defeats her and proceeds to create the earth and contain the primordial chaotic ocean.

Seung Il Kang’s recent article in ‘Biblica’ would equate the ‘sea’ with this idea of the creator verses the primordial sea. There are various Hebrew words used to describe this ‘sea’; HYS MWTSQ ( 1 Kings 7:23; 1 Chron. 4:2), YM HGHST (the Sea of bronze, 2 Kings 25:13; 1 Chron. 18:8, Jer. 52:17) and HYS (the sea, 1 Kings 7:24; 2 Kings 16:17). Seung bases his reasoning upon the etymology of the word ‘mwtsq’ (again I’m using the ‘ts’ to transliterate tsah-dee, or the ‘s’ with a dot underneath). In the modern versions of the Bible ‘mwtsq’ is interpreted as being derived from the Hebrew root ‘ytsq’, which means to cast, or pour. However, Seung proposes an alternative root verb of ‘tswq’, which means ‘to constrain, press upon, harass, oppress’. With this as the root, the translation would read, ‘The Sea has been constrained’. He believes that translators based their etymology of the word ‘mwtsq’ through the filter of the ‘sea of bronze’ used in Kings 25:13 and 1 Chronicles 18:8. Seung suggests that “the Deuteronomistic historian intentionally downplayed the original mythological import of the Sea’s name by deriving it from its construction material, or that the historian did not fully understand the meaning and significance of the Sea’s archaic name HYS MWTSQ” (Seung, pg. 101).

If we give Kang’s theory credence, then it stands to reason that there must be some evidence for Yahweh having some sort of battle with (or perhaps a simple interaction with) the primordial chaotic sea. If we look to the texts, I believe we can see several examples of this. The first, and probably the most obvious interaction that we can see between God and the sea is in Genesis 1.

9Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.
10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.
In verse two of Genesis 1, after Elohim creates the heavens and the earth, it is described as follows.
2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

In other words, it seems that the earth was covered with water and this water was in some sort of pre-controlled state which could easily correspond to the primordial chaotic sea/abzu. Then in verses nine and ten Elohim gathers (QRH) the waters together into one place. The gathering (MQVH) of the waters is then called the seas. This seems to fit in very nicely with Seung’s translation of MWTSQ as being the sea has been constrained.

In exodus 14 we see Yahweh once again having an interaction with the sea. This time it is to aid his people in the escape from Egypt.

21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD swept the sea back by a strong east wind all night and turned the sea into dry land, so the waters were divided.
22The sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on the dry land, and the waters were like a wall to them on their right hand and on their left.

This was a very important point of history for the Israelites and may very well have been part of the inspiration for the ‘sea’ of the temple of Solomon. Here Yahweh divides the sea, which again gives off the impression of constraining, or pressing against the sea.

We also see several examples within the Psalms where Yahweh interacts with the seas.

Psalm 33:6, 7
6By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host. 7He gathers the waters of the sea together as a heap; He lays up the deeps in storehouses.

These verses seem to hearken back to the epic of creation with the reference to gathering the waters of the sea and the deeps.

Psalm 65: 6, 7
6Who establishes the mountains by His strength, Being girded with might; 7Who stills the roaring of the seas, The roaring of their waves, And the tumult of the peoples.

This reference simply implies that God has control over the waters which is another example of how God interacts with the sea.

Psalm 74:12-14
12Yet God is my king from of old,Who works deeds of deliverance in the midst of the earth. 13 You divided the sea by Your strength; You broke the heads of the sea monsters in the waters. 14You crushed the heads of Leviathan; You gave him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

Here it is possible that it is referring to the incident with the parting of the sea, or it may go back to creation as well. It is difficult to know for certain. But again, we see an example of God dividing (constraining) the sea. From all of these examples, we can see that the theme of God interacting with the sea is attested within the Deuteronomistic history as well as in the Psalms. This would support Kang’s translation of the molten sea as ‘the sea is constrained’.
I have tried to include a vast amount of information that is available in a short amount of time (probably to the detriment of my study). However, I will try to draw some conclusions (there are a few options) and then give my opinion as to the symbolic significance of the ‘sea’ in the temple of Solomon.

Although there are examples of the Abzu basins in temples throughout the Ancient Near East, the ‘sea’ in the temple of Solomon is unique in some respects. The Abzu basin is generally believed to represent the primordial sea which has been contained by the Creator God (in whichever particular cultural religion that god is). In this aspect, I think the ‘sea’ of the temple of Solomon corresponds with the symbolic significance of the Abzu basins. The physical examples of the Abzu basins we have show various figures in relief around the basin. The basins have straight sides and are generally in the shape of a rectangle/square of sorts. The shape of the ‘sea’ of the temple of Solomon is not given to us. It may have had straight sides or it may not have, we don’t know. There is no mention of any figures in relief around the sides of the ‘sea’ (other than the ‘gourds’ which went around the rim which seem to be for the purpose of decoration) which is also different from the Abzu basins we have in our possession.

As well, the ‘sea’ is set upon 12 bulls, 3 bulls facing in each direction (east, west, north, south) whereas the Abzu basins were (as far as we know) directly on the ground. It is these bulls that set the ‘sea’ apart from the Abzu basins of the Ancient Near East. These bulls could represent many things. The bulls could have simply been a symbol of the strength and power of Yahweh in connection to his power to control the sea and in reference to his power over the sea as seen in the creation epic. The bulls could also represent a leftover epithet of a tribal deity from the tribe of Ephraim or Jacob that survived throughout history as a symbol of Yahweh. As well, the bull was a symbol throughout the Ancient Near East associated with many gods and these bulls of the sea could be direct syncretism from a neighbouring culture of the time.

I tend to agree with Kang’s conclusion regarding the sea in that it represents God’s interaction and power over the waters and probably reflects God’s gathering of the primordial chaotic oceans to bring order to the world. As for the bulls holding the sea up, I think that it is likely a combination of the above options. Initially, the symbol of the bull was probably carried over from an ancient tribal deity into the cult of Yahweh. However, over time, rather than being a symbol of Yahweh himself, I think the bulls came to represent his power and strength. Also, the bull as a representation of deity as well as a symbol of power was prolific throughout the Ancient Near East and very likely played a role in the choice of the bulls holding up the sea. As for the number 12, it may represent the zodiac, or the 12 tribes of Israel. Likely in this case it represents the 12 tribes of Israel, although I would not discount the idea that it may be connected with the Zodiac.

The temple of Solomon was full of many varying symbols that represent the mind and religion of the Israelite community of the time. The ‘sea’ that we find in the temple of Solomon is also very symbolic in nature through the basin itself, as well as the bulls which hold it up. This post was designed to show the complexity of symbology within the temple through a specific study of the ‘sea’ itself. I think we have seen that nothing can be seen as simply decorative within the temple, but rather there is always some meaning.

Sources:

Iconography of Deities and Demons: Electronic Pre-Publication, 2008, Stephanie Dalley

The Heavenly Sieve Author(s): Samuel I. Feigin Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jan., 1950), pp. 40-43 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/542851

The Hibbert Lectures, A.H. Sayce, Published by Williams and Norgate, 1887

The Damaged "Blueprints" of the Temple of Solomon Author(s): Leroy Waterman Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1943), pp. 284-294 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/542354

The Molten Sea or is it? Seung Il Kang, Biblica, Volume 89, Fasc 1, 2008

Theophorous Proper Names in the Old Testament Author(s): Henry Preserved Smith Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Oct., 1907), pp. 34-61 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528100

The Supercaelian Sea Author(s): David Neiman Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Oct., 1969), pp. 243-249 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/543291

Bull-Worship in Israel Author(s): Leroy Waterman Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Jul., 1915), pp. 229-255 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528741

The Fifth Tablet of Enuma Eliš Author(s): B. Landsberger and J. V. Kinnier Wilson Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Jul., 1961), pp. 154-179 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/543187

The Treasuries of Solomon's Private Chapel Author(s): Leroy Waterman Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jul., 1947), pp. 161-163 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/542406

The Mouth of the Rivers Author(s): W. F. Albright Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Jul., 1919), pp. 161-195 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528616

Babylonian and Assyrian Sculpture in the British Museum, H.R. Hall, Paris and Brussels, Les Editions G. Van Oest 1928.

Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia, Jeremy Black and Anthony Green
Fifth University of Texas Press printing, 2003

Anat: Ugarit's "Mistress of Animals" Author(s): Peggy L. Day Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 51, No. 3 (Jul., 1992), pp. 181-190 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/545543

Some Religious Origins of the Hebrews Author(s): Theophile James Meek Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 37, No. 2 (Jan., 1921), pp. 101-131 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528730

The Mount of Yahweh

There are three decorations or adornments of Solomon’s temple which I would like to discuss, which I believe have their roots not in a unique Israelite religious tradition, but rather as borrowed symbols which were prominent throughout the Ancient Near East. These are the Cherubim, the stands built by Hiram, and the Molten Sea.

In this post, I will be looking at the Cherubim. The Cherubim were used upon the Ark with regards to the mercy seat, as well as throughout the temple built by Solomon. The people of the Ancient Near East did not just use random images to decorate their temples. Everything had meaning. If one were to ask an "average Christian" what the cherubim were, the answer would naturally be angels. Of course this brings to mind images of human like celestial beings with wings, who have some sort of holy glow about them. However, I would like to argue the point that the Cherubim were not angels, but rather a common symbol and motif used throughout the Ancient Near East. Naturally, the concept of the Cherubim probably evolved throughout Israelite religion and Christianity into the concept of angels we think about today, but in this post, we will be trying to find the initial source of inspiration for the cherubim.

Our first clue that the Cherubim were not angels as we would imagine them is found in 2 Samuel 22:10,11 as well as in Psalm 18:10.

2 Samuel 22:10,11
10"He bowed the heavens also, and came down With thick darkness under His feet.

11"And He rode on a cherub and flew;And He appeared on the wings of the wind.

Psalm 18:9,10
9He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet.

10He rode upon a cherub and flew; And He sped upon the wings of the wind.

It is obvious from these two verses, which are identical and have an obvious literary connection that Yahweh rode upon a Cherub. The verses in 2 Samuel are taken from a song of David after he was rescued from the hand of Saul. The verse in the Psalms seems to be drawing upon the writings in 2 Samuel (or vice versa). Now unless this is some weird sort of holy piggy-back ride (it is difficult to imagine Yahweh with his arms and legs wrapped around an angel flying through the air) it would stand to reason that the cherubim must have had some other form, rather than human.

Although there is no direct textual evidence for the Mesopotamian gods having a mount, it is very common among the gods of the near east to have some sort of beast associated with them. It may be a normal animal, but more often than not, it was some sort of hybrid. Sometimes, these beasts were used in art to symbolize the god, or they would be erected on a grand scale as statues to guard the entrance to the deity’s shrine. Some examples of these beasts of the gods were: the snake-dragon of Marduk, Nabu, and Ashur; the lion-dragon of the god Ishkur; the bull which usually identified a god associated with the weather or lightning; the lion which was associated with Ningirsu and the goddesses Ninlil, Inana, and Damgulnuna; the horse of the god Shamash; the dog of the goddess Gula; the turtle and goat-fish of the water god Enki/Ea. Below is a picture of a relief at Maltai depicting various gods on their respective animals. Below that picture is a drawing of the same relief which is slightly clearer.

This relief was created likely by the Assyrian king, Sennacherib (704-681 BCE). Sennacherib is depicted flanking the gods on the far left and far right. From left to right the gods on their respective animals are: Ashur on a snake-dragon and lion-dragon; Mullissu on a lion, Enlil or Sin on a lion-dragon, Nabu on a snake-dragon, Shamash on a horse, Adad on lion-dragons and bull, and Ishtar on a lion. This relief was carved on a cliff face on a road from Assyria to the Upper Zab valley.

As you can see, a deity being associated with some sort of animal or hybrid animal is very common throughout the Ancient Near East. As I mentioned before, although the deities are often depicted in carvings as standing on their respective animals, this is not clear evidence that they rode upon them. It would seem that Yahweh is somewhat unique in this respect. Therefore, if the Cherub is something that can be mounted and rode as we saw in 2 Samuel and the Psalms, then it stands to reason that it must have been something animal-like in form. This would be consistent with the common motif of a certain animal or hybrid animal being associated with a deity in the Ancient Near East.

The Old Testament is somewhat scarce in its physical descriptions of the cherubim. In the construction of the temple, they are simply mentioned as being placed here and there. This along with the idea that they have wings is all we can glean from 2 Samuel. However in Ezekiel we do find a very vivid description of the cherubim from which we can begin to investigate the origins of this creature.

Ezekiel 1:4-14
4As I looked, behold, a storm wind was coming from the north, a great cloud with fire flashing forth continually and a bright light around it, and in its midst something like glowing metal in the midst of the fire.
5Within it there were figures resembling four living beings And this was their appearance: they had human form.
6Each of them had four faces and four wings.
7Their legs were straight and their feet were like a calf's hoof, and they gleamed like burnished bronze.
8Under their wings on their four sides were human hands. As for the faces and wings of the four of them,
9their wings touched one another; their faces did not turn when they moved, each went straight forward.
10As for the form of their faces, each had the face of a man; all four had the face of a lion on the right and the face of a bull on the left, and all four had the face of an eagle.
11Such were their faces. Their wings were spread out above; each had two touching another being, and two covering their bodies.
12And each went straight forward; wherever the spirit was about to go, they would go, without turning as they went.
13In the midst of the living beings there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches darting back and forth among the living beings. The fire was bright, and lightning was flashing from the fire.
14And the living beings ran to and fro like bolts of lightning.

Later in Chapter 10, these creatures are confirmed as being the Cherubim.

20These are the living beings that I saw beneath the God of Israel by the river Chebar; so I knew that they were cherubim. 21Each one had four faces and each one four wings, and beneath their wings was the form of human hands. 22As for the likeness of their faces, they were the same faces whose appearance I had seen by the river Chebar. Each one went straight ahead.

Since I am trying to establish that Ezekiel’s description of the Cherubim is the same as those in the temple of Solomon, it is important to note that Ezekiel seems to have direct knowledge of the temple and is drawing heavily upon this knowledge. We can see this through the cherubim, the position of the wings of the cherubim being ready for flight, and the wheels of the bronze stands of Hiram(1 Kings 7:30-33). Thus we can carefully use this imagery to try to establish the form of the cherubim in Solomon’s temple.

There are three things that can be determined from Ezekiel’s description of the Cherubim. “All the living creatures have wings; the human countenance of the creatures is a prominent and constant feature of the cherubim wherever their faces appear; all their feet were the feet of the ox. (Waterman, pg. 250)” It is safe to assume that if the feet were that of the ox the lower bodies and extremities were also those of an ox. From this description in Ezekiel, we can reasonably conclude that the Cherubim were a composite animal of a human headed bull with wings (although the other faces on the cherubim were not human, the human face seems to be the prominent feature). This image very quickly brings to mind the winged bulls of Assyria as shown below.

These beasts would guard the entrance to the palaces of Assyria and the resemblance to the description of the Cherubim can scarcely be ignored. You can see in the second picture that these particular lamassu had had five legs, an artistic element designed so that the relief can be observed from the front and from the side. It is also worthy of note, that in both pictures of the lamassu shown above, they are wearing the horned cap of divinity which would designate this beast as either a god, or at the very least, as a celestial being. There is of course one major difference between these carved Assyrian lamassu and the cherubim which were constructed for Solomon’s Temple. The lamassu were still partly in relief whereas the cherubim seem to have been constructed fully round with outstretched wings.

1 Kings 6:27, 38
27He placed the cherubim in the midst of the inner house, and the wings of the cherubim were spread out, so that the wing of the one was touching the one wall, and the wing of the other cherub was touching the other wall. So their wings were touching each other in the center of the house.
28He also overlaid the cherubim with gold.

As they are said to be placed in the midst of the inner sanctuary, it is very unlikely that these were in relief as the Assyrian lamassu were, but were likely fully round statues with outstretched wings ready for flight. Perhaps the Cherubim being in this position of outstretched wings preparing to fly is related somewhat to the cherubim being the mount of Yahweh. Perhaps they are prepared to carry Yahweh to wherever he wishes to go from his house. However, this is merely conjecture on my part.

The etymology of the word Cherub is worthy of examination as well and may provide evidence to their likeness as well. There are several different theories as to the origins of this word which I will lay out here. The first theory is that the Hebrew word KRB is related to the English word griffin, a composite figure of an eagle, and a lion. Some would use this as proof that the Cherubim takes on the form of a griffin like creature. However, this is taking the word forward in time, instead of backwards, which is what we are trying to discover. We must look backwards from the word KRB in order to find the origin of it.

It is suggested that the Phoenicians were the ones to transmit the word KRB to the Hebrews. The corresponding beasts in Babylonia and Assyria are named Shedu and Lamassu, which of course gives us no relation to the word KRB. However, the bull-men also have a designation ALAD LAMMA, which is a combination of the ideograms for Shedu and Lamassu, and we unfortunately do not know the phonetic reading of this combination. It has been suggested that it may have been something similar to KRB (but there is no strong evidence for this).
The Assyrian word karubu which means blessed, or reverently greeted would seem to have a good relation to the word KRB if it were to describe the function of the KRB. Also, the word karubu is often used as an epithet of deities which would strengthen our argument as being the etymology of the Hebrew word KRB. A derivative of the word karubu, is the word kuribu. The kuribu is defined in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary as, “representation of a protective genius with specific non-human features.” Esarhaddon had the kuribu erected in his restoration of the temple of Ashur.

d-lahme d-ku-ri-bu sha tsa-ri-ri rushshu idi a-na idi ulziz
I placed lahmu-monsters and kuribu made of reddish gold facing eachother.

(In rendering the transliteration, I have used ‘sh’ as the designation for ‘shin’, and ‘ts’ as the designation for ‘tsin’. Normally ‘sh’ would be an ‘s’ with a down facing ‘<’ on top, and the ‘ts’ would be an ‘s’ with a dot below it. Due to my lack of a font for the transliteration, I have opted for this somewhat cumbersome rendering. My apologies to all.)

The kuribu is here demonstrated to be something that can be erected in a temple and is likely some sort of conglomerate creature. It is also interesting that the kuribu has the dingir sign of divinity in front of it designating it as a celestial being or something of the gods. Having said all of this, it is likely that the Hebrew word KRB (cherub) has its roots in the Akkadian semitic word karubu, or its derivative kuribu. Whether it was transmitted directly to the Hebrews, or via the Phoenicians is unknown.

As for the physical evidence, we are left with very little. However there are a few Hebrew seals found at Megiddo, which was under Israelite control at the time of Solomon (1 Kings 4:7-12), that provide us with an example of some of the art during that time. There are three seals: the first found in stratum II of Megiddo (650-600 BCE) and the other two from Stratum III (780-650 BCE). Solomon’s Temple was completed roughly around 950BCE and survived until the Exile in 586 BCE. From this, we can surmise that these seals found in Strata II and III can give us some indication as to the art of the period while the temple of Solomon was in existence.

The first seal has been called the seal of Elemar, after the inscription upon it which is translated, ‘belonging to Elamar’. The name Elamar itself means 'God has spoken,' which can be compared to the biblical name Amariah. This may suggest that the owner of this seal may have belonged to a priestly family. The inscription on the top reads ‘lalamr’ (belonging to Elamar), and below the inscription are pictured two uraei (winged serpents) facing each other. Below this is a picture of a conglomeration of a lion with a human head and outstretched wings which can be called a sphinx. The other two Hebrew inscribed seals belonging to Stratum III are the seals of Asaph and Shema. Both again have conglomerate animals corresponding to the sphinx and griffon. There are scholars who would propose that the Cherubim actually correspond to the sphinx, rather than a bull-man.

Another example of conglomerate creatures in the art in Megiddo is the example of the pottery shrines which were pictured in the previous post. In the one shrine, it is evidenced that there are creatures along the sides with the lower bodies of an Ox and human heads.

These belong to Stratum IV (1000-800BCE) which would place them as possible contemporaries of the actual construction of the temple of Solomon. This is probably the greatest physical evidence we have for the cherubim being of a bull/human conglomeration as these pottery shrines are mini-representations of temples of the time. From this physical evidence of the Hebrew seals and the pottery shrines we can conclude that this motif of conglomerate animal art was alive and well within the Israelite kingdom which did include Megiddo within its realm of influence.

From the arguments above, I would conclude that the Cherubim would have had the form very similar to that of the bull-man colossi of the Assyrian reliefs. I base this conclusion upon the textual evidence in Ezekiel which describes them as having the feet of an Ox (or the bodies and lower limbs of an ox), wings, and the head of a human. Also, it seems that the etymology of the word KRB stems from the Akkadian word karubu or kuribu, the latter of which refers to a type of guardian which was placed in the entrances of the temple. Lastly, although the Hebrew seals at Megiddo do show that the motif of conglomerate animals was indeed prolific, the case for the cherubim being a sphinx is not convincing. I believe rather that the pottery shrines are more indicative of the art used in the temples themselves, and are indeed contemporary with the time of the building of the temple of Solomon. Thus, it is my opinion that the cherubim were not angels per say, but rather a bull/human like figure with wings which was very much a common motif throughout the ancient near east at the time. It would also seem much easier for Yahweh to ride upon this type of beast, rather than piggy-back on an angel.

Sources:

The Ark. A Miniature Temple Author(s): H. G. May Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 52, No. 4 (Jul., 1936), pp. 215-234 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529185

The Heavenly Sieve Author(s): Samuel I. Feigin Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Jan., 1950), pp. 40-43 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/542851

The Treasuries of Solomon's Private Chapel Author(s): Leroy Waterman Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jul., 1947), pp. 161-163 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/542406

Seal of Elamar Author(s): Herbert G. May Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Apr., 1936), pp. 197-199 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528950

On Ancient Hebrew Seals Author(s): Sabatino Moscati Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Jul., 1952), pp. 164-168 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/542634

The Damaged "Blueprints" of the Temple of Solomon Author(s): Leroy Waterman Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Oct., 1943), pp. 284-294 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/542354

Bull-Worship in Israel Author(s): Leroy Waterman Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Jul., 1915), pp. 229-255 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/528741

A Hebrew Incantation against Night-Demons from Biblical Times Author(s): H. Torczyner Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Jan., 1947), pp. 18-29 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/542231

Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia,

Jeremy Black and Anthony Green

Fifth University of Texas Press printing, 2003

Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago Volume 8 ‘K’

Published by the Oriental Institute of Chicago, 1971, Chicago, Illinois, USA