Chapter 14
Ritual Objects and Artifacts
Introduction
The Hebrew Bible refers to a wide range of material artifacts in connection to worship and ritual activities. These include the ark, altars, wash basins, censers, tables, lampstands, and various other items. Such objects feature prominently in texts describing the blueprint for and construction of the wilderness tabernacle (Exodus 25–31; 35–40) and the design of Solomon’s temple (1 Kgs 7:13–51; 2 Chr 2:1–5:1). They also play a significant role in texts detailing the operation of the sacrificial system (Leviticus 1–7; 16). During the fall of Jerusalem, these objects were destroyed and some were brought back to Babylon as spoils of war (2 Kgs 25:13–17; Jer 52:17–23). Certain cultic objects deemed to be illicit, such as idols, pillars, sacred poles, and the bronze serpent, are critiqued by the prophets and are the target of the cult reforms of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:1–6) and Josiah (2 Kgs 23:1–20).
For much of the history of biblical scholarship, especially in Protestant circles, the importance of ritual objects has often been downplayed if not altogether dismissed. Some have suggested that any connection between Yahweh and the natural or material world was the result of Canaanite influence (Wright 1968). As a form of syncretism, this aspect of early Israelite religion was eventually overcome through a theological emphasis on Yahweh’s transcendence beyond image, object, and locality. Other interpreters have concluded that a concern for ritual and ritual objects only emerged in the latter stages of the Hebrew Bible’s literary growth and thus reflected a priestly corruption of earlier forms of religion (Wellhausen 1885). Pointing especially to the book of Hebrews, other interpreters have posited that Jesus fulfills and replaces the role of objects and personnel associated with the temple, thus rendering them obsolete.
However, since the turn of the century an increasing number of scholars have emphasized the importance of studying the material dimensions of religion, whether ancient or modern (Arweck and Keenan 2006; Morgan 2010). In the context of Hebrew Bible (HB) research, attending to the form and function of ritual objects is necessary for gaining a more comprehensive understanding of ancient Israel’s cultic system and, more broadly, the experience of worship beyond prayers and other forms of verbal expression. Ritual objects also play a crucial role in structuring sacred space, mediating liturgical practices, activating sensory experiences, and making available the presence and power of the deity. The following article surveys the most prominent ritual objects in the HB, placing special emphasis on their material form, their role in rituals, and the theological systems that undergird how they are diversely responded to in various biblical sources and traditions.
Cult Statues
The central ritual object in most ancient Near Eastern religion was a freestanding cult statue. Referred to as an “idol” or “graven image” (pesel) in the HB, a cult statue was typically anthropomorphic in form and fashioned from wood or stone, overlaid with precious metal, and housed in a temple. Rather than being seen only as an image of a god, the cult statue was understood to serve as a conduit for divine disclosure insofar as the real presence of the deity was thought to dwell in the material form of the object. However, the connection between the deity and the image was not automatic or inherent. Rather, it was conferred through special consecration ceremonies, known as the washing of the mouth (mīs pî) or opening of the mouth (pīt pî). Through these rituals, the statue’s senses were activated, transforming it into an epiphany of the deity. This understanding explains why cult statues were routinely fed, clothed, washed, anointed, perfumed, and processed as part of the regular operation of ANE temples.
Almost without exception, the HB condemns the making and use of cult statues. This is evident in the prohibition against idols in the second commandment of the Decalogue (Exod 20:4–6|Deut 5:8) and other legal materials (Exod 34:17; Lev 19:4; 26:1; Deut 4:14–16; 27:15). Narratives in the Deuteronomistic History (2 Kings 18; 22–23) and Chronicles (2 Chronicles 29–30; 34) describe the destruction of idols in the context of cult reforms under Hezekiah and Josiah, and the prophets critique foreign nations for their association with idols (e.g., Isa 10:10; 19:1; 46:1; Jer 50:38; Ezek 20:7–8). Scathing parodies against idols, which can be found in Isaiah (40:18–20; 41:6–7; 44:9–20), Jeremiah (10:1–16), and, to a lesser extent, other prophets (e.g., Hos 8:4–6; 13:2–3; Mic 5:12–13; Hab 2:18–19), mock idolaters for worshiping lifeless and impotent objects instead of the true and living God. Elsewhere, idols are described as “abominable” (šiqqûṣîm, 2 Chr 15:8), “abhorrent” (tô’ēbâ, Deut 27:15), “false” (šeqer, Jer 51:17), “worthless” (hebel, 1 Kgs 16:13), and “a work of delusion” (ma’ăśēh ta’tû’îm, Jer 10:15).
Two core issues underlie the HB’s stance against idols. If understood as the image of a foreign deity, an idol would constitute an improper object of worship. In going after idols, the Israelites are described as committing adultery in their relationship with God (e.g., Hosea 1–3; Ezekiel 16). Biblical texts that focus on this issue can be understood as a defense of monotheism, or at least more exclusive forms of monolatry. If understood as the image of Yahweh, an idol would constitute an improper manner of worship. Biblical texts that address this issue can be understood as a defense of aniconism, a form of worship that excludes visual representations of the deity.
In a number of instances, these two issues are difficult to distinguish. This is especially the case with Jeroboam’s bulls (1 Kings 12). While the Deuteronomistic Historian denounces these objects as symbols of Israel’s tendency to go after other gods, the immediate context of 1 Kings 12 suggests that Jeroboam was primarily concerned with persuading the northern tribes to worship Yahweh in sanctuaries in Dan and Bethel rather than in the Jerusalem temple. As ritual objects, Jeroboam’s bulls were likely intended to serve as a viable alternative to and functional equivalent of the cherubim throne. Just as the cherubim throne provided an empty space for one to imagine the presence of the invisibly enthroned deity, so too were the bulls understood not as images of Yahweh but rather as mounts upon which the invisible deity stood.
The motivation behind the ban on Yahwistic cult statues is never clearly spelled out in the HB. One possibility is that Yahweh was thought to be inherently invisible. This logic might be hinted at in Deut 4:15–16, though it is possible that this text only suggests that the Israelites did not see Yahweh’s physical form in one particular instance (the revelation at Horeb/Sinai). Another possibility is that the image ban reflects various anxieties about representing Yahweh in an incorrect fashion (Halbertal and Margalit 1992). This idea might be rooted in Isaiah 40:18–20, which implies that God cannot be likened or compared to any earthly creation. In this view, the second commandment of the Decalogue might be seen as an analog to the prohibition against using God’s name in vain (Deut 5:11; Exod 20:7) insofar as both commandments warn against an attempt to manipulate deity, whether in name or in image. Prohibitions against cult statues of Yahweh might also have been motivated by a concern for an error of substitution in which the object, rather than the God it represents, becomes the target of a worshiper’s devotion. This view seems to underlie prophetic parodies that stress that idols are no more divine than the mundane materials from which they are made.
Despite the force of the HB’s anti-idol polemics, three qualifications about Israelite aniconism should be noted. First, Israel’s aniconic tendencies likely developed over time, progressing from a de facto preference for nonanthropomorphic representations of Yahweh to a more programmatic prohibition against a wide range of images in association with the deity (Mettinger 1995). Second, at no point did Israel’s aniconic tradition ever include a prohibition against the visual arts in general. From the archaeological record it is clear that ancient Israel made and used images in abundance, mostly in the form of miniature seals, scarabs, and amulets that bore various kinds of iconographic motifs (Schroer 1987). Third, even in its most programmatic and restrictive stages, Israel’s aniconic tradition tolerated certain types of material objects in association with Yahweh. Among these were objects that signified Yahweh’s presence through abstract, non-anthropomorphic symbols (e.g., unadorned standing stones and the ark) or those that implied Yahweh’s presence through empty space (e.g., the cherubim throne).
The Ark
As ancient Israel’s most sacred ritual object, the ark (’ărôn) features prominently in the operation of the wilderness tabernacle, the sanctuary at Shiloh, David’s tent shrine, and Solomon’s temple. The fullest description of the ark is found in Exod 25:10–22 (cf. Exod 37:1–9). There it is described as a chest made of acacia wood, overlaid with gold inside and out. It is rectangular in form (1.5 × 1.5 × 2.5 cubits) and fashioned with four feet and four rings, the latter of which were used for transportation. On top of the ark is a pure gold covering called the mercy seat (kappōret), which is decorated with the images of two cherubim facing each other with outspread wings. Based on this description, earlier scholars have interpreted the ark as a divine throne, where the ark’s cover functions as the seat for the invisible deity.
However, a different picture emerges in 1 Kgs 6:23–28. Here the cherubim are not inscribed upon the mercy seat but rather take the form of two enormous (10 cubit high) objects whose massive outspread wings form the back and side of a divine throne. Based on this description, the ark is best thought of as a footstool that goes with, but is structurally separate from, the divine throne. This view is made explicit by the Chronicler (1 Chr 28:2) and closely corresponds to the iconography of the Megiddo ivory, which pictures an individual seated on a winged throne, with feet upon a nearby box-like footstool (Figure 14.1).
Figure 14.1 Close up of a cherubim throne, Ivory plaque, Megiddo, Late Bronze Age.
Source: J. M. LeMon, Yahweh’s Winged Form in the Psalms: Exploring Congruent Iconography and Texts (OBT 242; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), p. 6, fig. 1.2. Used with permission of the editor of the series.
The vast majority of references to the ark appear in association with the name of the deity. Arguably the most ancient and fullest title is “the ark of the covenant of the LORD of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim” (1 Sam 4:4). In the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles, the most common designations are “the ark of God,” “the ark of the LORD,” and “the ark of the LORD of all the earth.” Characteristic of the Pentateuch are descriptions of the ark in relationship to the covenant, with Deuteronomy preferring the Hebrew term bĕrît (“ark of the covenant”) and the P source preferring the nearly synonymous term ʿēdût (“ark of the testimony”). These various designations for the ark are interchangeable and primarily reflect stylistic differences between literary sources and not fundamentally different theological conceptions about the nature of this object or its relationship to Yahweh.
Outside of the Pentateuch and historical books, the ark is only explicitly referenced twice: Ps 132:8 and Jer 3:16. Indirect allusions to the ark might be detected in several places in the Psalter, including references to the worshiper being in the presence of God and descriptions of God in procession around and into the temple (Ps 68:24 [Heb. 25]). The psalmist might understand the ark to be so closely related to the being and essence of the deity that he can simply refer to God or the divine name rather than the ritual object that is thought to manifest divine presence.
The fate of the ark is unclear. It may have been taken along with “the treasures of the house of the LORD” during Shishak’s invasion in the tenth century (1 Kgs 14:25–28) or it may have been seized along with “all the vessels that were found in the house of the LORD” by King Jehoash of Israel during his incursion into Judah in the early eighth century (2 Kgs 14:9–14). The Chronicler seems to believe the ark was still in Jerusalem during the time of Josiah in the late seventh century (2 Chr 35:3). The most plausible theory is that the ark was destroyed and/or removed by the Babylonians during raids in 597 or 587 bce. However, in light of the fact that the ark itself is not mentioned in the list of ritual objects plundered by the Babylonians in 2 Kgs 25:13–17, some Jewish traditions have suggested that either Jeremiah or an angel from heaven moved the ark into safe keeping prior to the fall of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Macc 2:4–8; 2 Bar. 6:7). These accounts represent ways interpreters have attempted to cope with the unthinkable reality that ancient Israel’s most sacred cultic object was destroyed or stolen by Gentile forces.
However and whenever it was lost, the ark was never replaced. An ark does not appear in any description of the Second Temple in Ezra-Nehemiah, Malachi, Haggai, or Zechariah. Nor is an ark mentioned in Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezekiel 40–48). Both Josephus (JW 5.5) and the Roman historian Tacitus (Hist. V.9) report that the holy of holies remained empty in the Second Temple. That a new ark was not replaced is remarkable since virtually every other ritual object in Solomon’s temple is replicated for the Second Temple. This situation might reflect the belief that the original ark was so sacred that it was irreplaceable. Conversely, the fact that a new ark is not made might reflect the belief that the ark was no longer deemed to be essential to the operation of the temple in the postexilic period. This latter possibility reflects later theological developments that emphasize how God cannot be contained or localized in one place or object, even if it is the temple or the ark. Perhaps as a reflection of this theology of divine transcendence, Jeremiah suggests that at the time of Judah’s restoration the ark would “not come to mind, or be remembered, or missed” (3:16).
The primary function of the ark was to make available to Israel Yahweh’s presence and power in a tangible, visible, and material form. So close was the association between the ark and Yahweh that the terms “God” or even the divine name can be used in reference to the object itself, as is the case in Num 10:35–35 where Moses’ words “Arise, O LORD” and “Return, O LORD” refer to the movement of the ark in the wilderness. God’s holiness indwells the ark such that Israel needs to be guarded from the dangers of coming into direct contact with it. Even if such contact is unintentional, as was the case when Uzzah touches the ark in order to prevent it from falling while being transported from Kiriath-jearim, death ensues (2 Sam 6:6–7). The ark might thus be thought of as a source of holy “radiation” insofar as it makes accessible a divine power that, while vital to Israel’s life, is inherently dangerous and must be handled with extraordinary care.
As a manifestation of God’s power, the ark’s presence causes the waters of the Jordan to pile up in a heap (Josh 3:13, 16), and it plays a crucial role in the conquest ritual that leads to the fall of Jericho (Josh 6:1–25). In 1 Samuel 4–6, the Israelites bring the ark into battle with the Philistines as a type of war palladium (Miller and Roberts 1977). Even when the ark was taken captive by the Philistines, its power was not quashed. While in Philistine territory, the ark causes a plague to break out and topples the cult statue of Dagon. The Philistines swiftly return the ark to the Israelites, who subsequently prevail in battle.
Functionally speaking, the ark was a near equivalent of a divine cult statue in most other ANE religions. Numerous parallels can be identified. For instance, in ancient Mesopotamia, a divine statue could be referred to as an image (ṣalmu) but also simultaneously as a god or even by the personal name of the deity it represented. The same is true of the ark in both the Psalms and Numbers 10. In addition, cult statues were thought to manifest the deity’s power in the context of battles, and, as such, they were often mutilated, stolen, and held captive by enemy forces not unlike what happens to the ark in 1 Samuel 4–6 (Bahrani 2003). While the ark was not daily fed, clothed, or perfumed as was the case with ANE cult statues, it was carried in procession (Ps 47:5 [Heb. 6]), anointed (Exod 30:26), and kept in the innermost sanctum of the deity’s temple (1 Kgs 6:19).
It is perhaps because of these parallels that several sources in the HB intentionally guard against the ark being seen as a type of image of Yahweh. For instance, Deuteronomy demythologizes the ark, describing it as a box-like receptacle whose primary purpose is to hold the tablets of the Decalogue (10:1–5). The priestly writer acknowledges that the ark was a theologically significant object in its own right (cf. Num 7:89), but he also moderates any direct association between the ark and God. Specifically, while some form of the divine name is used in combination with the ark 112x in the HB, such a designation never occurs in P (Seow 1985). This tendency can be understood as a way of softening the crisis of faith that arose when the ark was lost prior to or during the fall of Jerusalem. Disassociating the ark from Yahweh’s presence, not unlike emphasizing the mobility of God’s cherubim throne (Ezekiel 1, 10), reinforced the belief that Israel could experience the presence and power of Yahweh even during the Babylonian captivity.
The Altar of Burnt Offering
The term altar (mizbēaḥ) is used over 400 times in the HB to refer to a type of table upon which a sacrifice is placed or incense burned (see below). Altars were made of various materials, including earthen brick (Exod 20:24–25) and wood overlaid with metal. The most common construction material was unhewn stone (Deut 27:5–7). While the rationale behind this requirement is not made explicit, it might reflect the belief that chiseling an altar would violate the second commandment of the Decalogue, which prohibits the making of a graven image. The second commandment does not explicitly reference the activity of chiseling (it simply uses the word “make”), but the word for an idol or graven image in Hebrew (pesel) is derived from a root meaning to chisel or carve out.
Altars were typically made with four horns or projections emerging from the corners. This design feature is not unique to ancient Israel but is also attested in Canaanite and Mesopotamian contexts. On altars of incense, the horns may have supported bowls or censers, while on altars of burnt offering, they may have been used for binding animal sacrifices. According to 1 Kgs 1:50, a person accused of murder could grasp the horns of the altar to receive protection prior to a fair trial. This latter use reflects a belief in the special sanctity of the altar and perhaps the sense that it was a place one could appeal to God for justice.
Generally, altars of burnt offering were small and did not require an elevated platform or steps, either for ease of use or out of a fear of indecent exposure by the priest (Exod 20:26). A notable exception is the massive altar King Ahab had built based on a model of Tiglath-pileser’s altar from Damascus (2 Kgs 16:10–15). While the exact dimensions are not given, it is described as a “great altar” that the king had to go up on (ʿlh) in order to present his offering. While no such altar likely ever existed, one should note the giant three-tiered altar described in Ezekiel’s vision of the restored temple (43:13–17).
The altar of burnt offering was located in the courtyard of the tabernacle and played a key role in the sacrificial system. Animal sacrifices were not actually killed on the altar itself but rather were slaughtered on adjacent tables and then placed upon wood that had been pre-arranged on the altar. Animal and grain sacrifices are either burned (śrp) or turned into smoke (qṭr). Both processes produce a “pleasing odor to the LORD” (e.g., Lev 1:17; 3:5). Though the altar can be conceived of as a type of table for the deity, in contrast to ANE literature the HB does not generally describe sacrifices as way of feeding God. Most sacrifices were not completely burned, thus allowing the remains to be used as food for the priests.
In a few notable cases, altars are mentioned apart from any explicit association with the tabernacle or temple. This occurs frequently in the ancestral narratives, where the patriarchs build altars at Shechem (Gen 12:7; 33:20), Hebron (Gen 13:18), Beersheba (Gen 26:25), and Bethel (Gen 35:1, 7). Others said to build altars apart from a sanctuary setting include Noah on the mountains of Ararat (Gen 8:20), Joshua on Mount Ebal (Josh 8:30), Gideon at Ophrah (Judg 6:24), and Samuel at Ramah (1 Sam 7:17). Apart from sanctuary complexes, altars seem to function as memorials that bear witness to a covenant or divine-human interaction. In the curious case of the altar on Mount Ebal, Joshua not only uses the altar for making burnt offerings, but he also inscribes on it a copy of the law of Moses (Josh 8:30–35). The dual function of this altar is not widely attested in the HB, perhaps because writing words on an altar’s surface would have required the use of an iron tool, which is explicitly prohibited (Josh 8:31).
The use and construction of altars is occasionally a matter of controversy. The altar Aaron builds beside the golden calf (Exod 32:5) is seen as a sign of Israel’s idolatry, and, more specifically, it presents an occasion for legitimating the Levites’ claim to the priesthood (cf. 32:25–29). Jeroboam’s altars at Dan and Bethel (1 Kgs 12:32) symbolize the apostasy of the northern Kingdom and, in the interpretation of the Deuteronomistic Historian, set all subsequent kings of Israel on a sinful course that ultimately leads to the destruction of their nation (2 Kgs 17:21–23). Prophets denounce altars made to foreign gods (Amos 2:8; 3:14; 9:1; Hos 8:11; 10:1–2), and the cult reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah specifically target altars made to Baal and Asherah.
The location of altars can also be a matter of dispute. In the curious case of Josh 22:10–28, the trans-Jordanian tribes create an altar of great size by the Jordan river. When the cis-Jordanian tribes hear of it, they gather to bring war against their fellow Israelites, presumably because they saw this altar as an unauthorized alterative to Joshua’s altar. In their defense, the trans-Jordanian tribes claim that their altar was “not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifice, but to be a witness (‘ēd) between us and you” (22:28). Their altar was thus to be understood not as an alternative to Joshua’s altar, but as a copy of it (or a simulacrum) that stood in for the original but did not necessarily replace it. Whether this explanation reflected the original intentions of the trans-Jordanian tribes or was a belated attempt to legitimize their altar is unclear. In either case, the cult-centralization program of Deuteronomy prohibits setting up any altar outside of Jerusalem (Deut 12:13–14). In order to accommodate this new theological emphasis, other altars had to be decommissioned and a new provision was added into the law that allowed Israelites to slaughter animals outside of Jerusalem and apart from their use as sacrifices (Deut 12:15).
After the end of the Babylonian exile, the altar of burnt offering was rebuilt and put in operation long before construction on the Second Temple began (Ezra 3:1–3). The returnees responded to the setting up of this altar with joy, while those who had remained in the land wept upon seeing it (Ezra 3:12). These differing responses are suggestive of the conflicting claims and power struggles that arose between these two segments of the Judahite population. Controversies sounding the misuse of altars extend into the postexilic period (e.g., Mal 1:7, 10; 2:13; Joel 1:13).
Altar of Incense and Censers
The second main type of altar, the altar of incense (mizbaḥ haqqĕṭōret), is described in Exod 30:1–10. It was smaller in scale than the altar of burnt offering and located in the inner court. In contrast to the altar of burnt offering, the altar of incense was overlaid with gold not bronze. Rather than being dictated by their differing functions, the use of gold on the altar of incense is a reflection of its location. Areas closer to the holy of holies, such as the inner court, were seen as being holier than areas farther away and thus required more precious materials. Closely related to altars of incense are incense burners or censers (maḥtâ), metal objects that hold coals and produce smoke when incense is placed on top of them. Archaeologically it is difficult to distinguish between incense burners and incense altars, with the latter perhaps being a special category of the former.
The altar of incense was used in association with three rituals. First, the high priest burns incense (qĕṭōret) while attending to the lampstand (Exod 30:7–8) and arranging the bread of presence (Lev 24:5–9). Second, once a year the high priest would burn incense on the altar in conjunction with his entrance into the holy of holies on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:12–13). Third, blood of the purification offering was sprinkled on the horns of the altar of incense (Lev 4:7, 18). The latter practice reflects a priestly understanding of sin’s ability to affect (or infect) not only people, but also objects. The more extreme the sin, the farther its effects would penetrate into the sanctuary, with unrepented sins infecting the holy of holies itself. Blood was used as a type of ritual detergent that counteracted, or purified (kpr), ritual objects from the stain of sin.
The HB offers little explicit reflection on why incense is to be used. One possibility is that the smoke produced by burning incense functioned apotropaically. This function seems to be in view in Num 16:46–48 (Heb. 17:11–13), in which Moses instructs Aaron to burn incense in the presence of the congregation in order to protect them from a plague sent by God. Similarly, in the Day of Atonement ritual in Leviticus 16, the burning of incense seems to shield the high priest from the danger of being in such close proximity to the ark (v. 13). In this same ritual, burning incense also creates a veil of smoke that effectively renders the ark invisible even when the high priest is within the holy of holies.
The burning of incense is also intended to activate and appeal to God’s senses. Made of spices, gum, aromatic wood, and other perfumed substances, incense, when burned, would produce a fragrant, often sweet, odor. Not unlike the odor of burnt sacrifices, the smell of incense was thought to be pleasing to the LORD. Closely related, the burning of incense was thought to summon the deity, with the smoke acting as a type of prayer in aerosol form (cf. Ps 141:2). Alternatively, the smoke of burning incense could be thought of as a visible, though non-permanent, link or type of ladder between heaven and earth. This function might underlie Lev 16:2, where God appears “in the cloud above the mercy seat.” If this cloud results from the burning of incense, it might be the case that it symbolizes, or even invites, divine presence. General parallels are evident in ANE rituals in which incense is used to purify the image of a god and thus to persuade the god to indwell the cultic object.
As was the case with the altar of burnt offering, the use of incense altars and incense burners was occasionally found at the center of theological controversy. One example is found in Leviticus 10, where Nadab and Abihu, Aaron’s sons, appear to be performing a ritual with censers and incense. Accused of offering “unholy fire,” both men are struck dead. In Numbers 16, the rebellion of Korah is adjudicated through a process of presenting censers before the Tent of Meeting, with only the incense of Aaron being accepted. Both texts affirm that only certain authorized personnel are allowed to burn incense before the LORD.
The Lampstand and the Table of the Bread of the Presence
In the inner court along with the altar of incense were located two other significant ritual objects: the golden lampstand and the golden table for the bread of the Presence. Their proximity to the holy of holies suggests their importance in the operation of the cult. While these objects functioned, respectively, to light the inner court and provide food for the priests, they also worked along with the altar of incense to provide a sensory rich experience of light, aroma, and food for priests and God.
While a lampstand (mĕnôrâ) could be used in domestic settings, almost all occurrences of this term in the HB relate to light-producing vessels found in cultic contexts. The lampstand in the tabernacle (Exod 25:31–40; 37:17–24) was made out of gold and consisted of a central shaft with three branches on each side. Each branch was ornately decorated with cups, calyxes, and petals. Exodus 25:37 suggests that there were seven lamps, one for the central shaft and each of the six branches. Other texts, however, give the impression that all seven lamps were clustered on the central shaft, with the branches being purely decorative (Exod 27:20). According to 1 Kgs 7:49, Solomon’s temple contained ten lampstands, each located in the inner court (cf. 2 Chr 4:7). The description of these lampstands is minimal, and while they are likewise said to be decorated with floral imagery, no indication is given that they were branched.
None of the biblical descriptions of the Second Temple mention the presence of a golden lampstand in the inner court, though some light producing vessel would surely have been present. A clue to its form might be found in Zech 4:1–14, which describes a golden lampstand with a bowl and seven lamps flanked by two olive trees. The seven lamps are interpreted as the eyes of Yahweh that range through all the earth (v. 10). Whether the description of this lamp reflects the actual design of lampstands in the Second Temple is in doubt.
The most obvious function of a lampstand is to hold light sources that illuminate what otherwise would have been a dark interior of a building or tent. However, the seven-branched form and ornate floral decoration of the tabernacle lampstand give the impression of tree imagery and thus point towards a more symbolic function. In ANE iconography, actual trees or cult objects in the form of stylized trees often appeared in worship scenes in order to symbolize fertility and the life-giving powers of the goddess (typically Asherah). The tree-like lampstand might thus represent a way of appropriating common religious symbolism and associating it with the worship of Yahweh rather than a foreign deity. With respect to the lampstand in the Jerusalem temple, tree imagery is far less pronounced, though tree-related iconography was present elsewhere in the temple complex, including on the side panels (1 Kgs 6:15, 18, 29) and the two freestanding columns found at the entrance to the temple (1 Kgs 7:21–22).
Inside the tabernacle, there was also a rectangular table of acacia wood, 2×1×1.5 cubits in dimension (Exod 37:10). Upon this table the high priest would arrange two stacks of six loaves of unleavened bread (Exod 30:22–23), which is referred to as the bread of the Presence (leḥem pānnîm) but sometimes translated as “the showbread.” The table was covered in blue cloth and included other objects, such as plates, dishes for incense, and bowls (Num 4:7). Responsibility for this table, along with the ark, the lampstand, the altars, vessels of the sanctuary, and the screen, fell to the Kohathites (Num 3:31). According to 1 Macc 1:22, Antiochus Epiphanes carried off this table in 170 bce. A new table was made when the Maccabees subsequently reclaimed the temple (1 Macc 4:49).
The bulk of the biblical material pertaining to rituals surrounding the table focus on the weekly preparation and removal of the bread on the Sabbath. While the bread of the Presence was not understood as food for the deity, it might well have been thought to facilitate Yahweh’s ability to rest and “be refreshed” (Exod 31:17) on the Sabbath. The weekly rituals surrounding the table also serve as a reminder of the covenant, perhaps symbolizing God’s on-going provision for Israel, or alternatively, as a way ancient Israel came to embody through ritual the memory of God’s gracious provision of manna in the wilderness (Exodus 16). In 1 Sam 21:3–6, David convinces the priest, Ahimelech, to allow his men to eat of the bread of the Presence even though it was reserved for priests. This story is referenced in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 12:1–4; Mark 2:23–26; Luke 6:1–4) in a controversy between Jesus and the Pharisees concerning whether it was lawful to pick grain on the Sabbath.
Wash Basins and the Molten Sea
The Jerusalem temple contained ten bronze wash basins, five on its north side and five on its south side. Each held 40 baths of water (approx. 200 gallons). In the description of the tabernacle, there is only one such bronze basin mentioned and it is set between the altar and the inner court (Exod 30:18–19). The dimensions of the bronze basin in the tabernacle are not given, though Exod 38:8 adds the detail that it is made of mirrors of the women who served at the entrance of the tent of meeting.
The largest and perhaps most significant wash basin in the HB is referred to as the molten sea (hayyām mûṣāq), the bronze sea (yām hannĕḥōšet), or just the sea. This enormous basin (5 cubits high and 30 cubits in circumference) was located in the SE corner of the outer court. It was said to have been crafted by Hiram of Tyre, and the Chronicler suggests that it was made from spoils of war that David had acquired (1 Chr 18:8). It was ornately decorated with two rows of gourds and lily work and was supported by four sets of three bronze oxen. There are varying accounts of how much water it could hold, with 1 Kings giving the total as 2000 baths (7:26) and 2 Chronicles giving the total as 3000 baths (4:5).
Priests used the basins for the purposes of purification. Moses, Aaron, and the sons of Aaron are said to wash their hands and feet in preparation for entering the Tent of Meeting and approaching the altar (Exod 40:30–32). The importance of such washing is underscored by Exod 30:20, which specifies that the priest must wash with water “so that they may not die.” One might infer a similar function for the molten sea, though neither its description in 1 Kings 7 nor 2 Chronicles 4 specifies that it was used for washing. In addition, the massive size of the molten sea (about 10,000 gallons, the capacity of an average above-ground pool) would have made it impractical to use for washing unless a mechanism allowed for the water to flow down from the main reservoir into small basins accessible from the ground. In light of this latter observation, it is possible that the molten sea functioned at a more symbolic level as a reference to the primordial waters of creation. According to ancient Israelite cosmology, the temple is a link between heaven and earth with its roots sinking down into the seas below. The symbolic connection between temple and water also finds resonance in Ezekiel 47, which describes water flowing eastward from below the threshold of the temple.
The Ephod and Urim and Thummim
The ephod (’ēpôd) is a sacred garment woven with gold thread and worn exclusively by the high priest. In Exodus 28 and 39 it is described in detail as a sleeveless apron with two onyx stones, each of which was inscribed with the names of half of the tribes of Israel. Its breastplate contained the Urim and Thummim. Less ornate linen ephods are worn by other cultic functionaries, such as Samuel (1 Sam 2:18) and David (2 Sam 6:4). In several cases, the ephod is associated with individuals inquiring of the LORD (1 Sam 23:9; 30:7), though it is less clear if this divinatory function is that of the ephod or the Urim and Thummim that it contained.
Outside of the priestly writings, the ephod seems to refer to something other than a garment. In Judg 8:27, Gideon fashions a golden ephod that “all Israel prostituted themselves to.” Elsewhere in Judges, an ephod is listed along with a teraphim and an idol of cast metal as items that Micah makes and puts in the charge of a family priest (18:17–20). In these two cases, it is unclear whether the ephod functions as an idol in its own right or perhaps as a covering, or garment, for an idol. In 1 Samuel, Ahijah carries an ephod into battle as a type of war palladium (1 Sam 14:3), not unlike how the ark is used in 1 Samuel 4–6. Some scholars have posited that occurrences of the term ephod in 1 Samuel are actually veiled references to the ark (Van der Toorn and Houtman 1994). Though somewhat speculative, this view gains some support from the fact that the Septuagint translates the Hebrew term ark (’ărôn) with the Greek word ephoud in 1 Sam 14:18.
Closely associated with the ephod are the Urim and Thummim. Frequently paired together, these objects are said to be utilized for the purposes of divination. Their precise form and function are difficult to ascertain. They may have been a set of wooden sticks cast to discern a positive or negative answer posed to God, or they may have consisted of a pair of dice rolled in order to provide more specific information based on which letter or symbol faced upwards. In the priestly writings, they are exclusively under the control of the high priest, who would utilize the Urim and Thummim to inquire of the LORD on behalf of others (Num 27:21). In other sources, the Urim and Thummim are consulted by non-priestly figures, including Saul (1 Sam 28:6), who uses them to gain advice about going into war. The list of individuals using the Urim and Thummim could be expanded considerably if references to those who “inquire of the LORD” (cf. Judg 1:1; 20:18; 1 Sam 10:22; 14:37; 2 Sam 2:1; 5:19) imply the use of these objects.
Illicit Ritual Objects
The HB mentions a number of ritual objects that are frequently the subject of prophetic critique and cult reform. Such objects include idols, pillars (maṣṣēbôt), the Asherah pole (or sacred poles), the bronze serpent, teraphim (Judg 17:5; 18:14, 17–20) and chariots of the sun (2 Kgs 23:11). Most often these are associated with foreign deities, though some texts suggest they were used in connection with the worship of Yahweh.
In the story of Israel’s wilderness wanderings, Moses creates a bronze serpent for the purposes of healing those who had been bitten by poisonous snakes (Num 21:4–9). In this setting, the bronze serpent functions apotropaically, warding off the effects of the very animal it was made in the image of. While this object is not referenced again in the Pentateuch, in 2 Kgs 18:4 it is listed along with the pillars and sacred poles that Hezekiah destroys as part of his cult reform. There it is called Nehustan, a transliteration that plays on the Hebrew words for bronze (nĕḥōšet) and serpent (nāḥāš). That the people had been making offerings to it suggest that the object symbolized a deity in theriomorphic form. Serpent iconography is often associated with deities in ANE iconography, and it is possible that the bronze serpent had come to represent the Canaanite deity Horon. However, in light of the story in Numbers 21, the bronze serpent might have been seen as a cultic object connected to, though not necessarily representing, Yahweh.
Often translated as “pillar” or “standing stone” the Hebrew term maṣṣēbâ is used to refer to a larger, uninscribed stone that is stood upright. In archaeological contexts, pillars are to be distinguished from stele, which are standing stones inscribed with writing. Pillars can serve a variety of functions. In some cases, a pillar functions as a burial marker (Gen 35:19–21). In other cases, it functions as a legal witness to the completion of a covenant between two parties (Gen 31:49–52). An important example of the latter is found in Exod 24:3–8, where Moses sets up 12 pillars, one each for the 12 tribes of Israel. Closely related, a pillar can be used to mark an important event, such as when Jacob commemorates his encounter with the LORD at Luz by setting up a pillar and anointing it with oil (Gen 28:18–22; cf. 35:9–15). That Jacob describes this as being “a house for God” might suggest that the deity was thought to be present in the material form of the stone such as is the case with cult statues. In none of these cases is the presence or use of a pillar called into question.
However, in many other contexts the use of pillars is sharply critiqued. Along with graven images, altars, and sacred poles, pillars are associated with the worship of foreign deities. This is why Rehoboam is critiqued for incorporating pillars into Israelite worship (1 Kgs 14:23) and why the use of pillars is listed among the “customs that the kings of Israel had introduced” that provoked the anger of the LORD and eventually led to the fall of Israel (2 Kgs 17:7–18). Similarly, the reforms of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 18:4) and Josiah (2 Kgs 23:14) target the use of pillars. In prophetic discourse, the use of pillars is a principle component of idolatry (Hos 10:2; Mic 5:13). A similar view obtains in Exod 23:24, where demolishing the pillars of the people of the land of Canaan is a way of obeying the command not to worship or bow down to their gods. In most of these cases, pillars can be understood as functioning as aniconic representations of the deity.
In the HB, the term ’ăšērâ can refer to two related but distinct items, the first of which is the proper name of a goddess (Asherah). Asherah was one of the three major goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon, along with Anath and Astarte. Though not without some ambiguity, references to the goddess are in view in texts that refer to prophets of Asherah (1 Kgs 18:19) or images of Asherah (1 Kgs 15:13; 2 Kgs 21:7) as well as in places that refer to Asherah along with Baal (Judg 3:7; 2 Kgs 23:4).
When the term ’ăšērâ is used with the definite article, it is more likely the case that the cult-object associated with Asherah is in view (often translated as the sacred pole or poles). It is possible that this is a living tree or sacred grove in view of evidence that they are said to be cut down during the reforms of Josiah (2 Kgs 23:14). In contrast, other texts refer to how the asherah is made (1 Kgs 14:15), built (1 Kgs 14:23), or erected (2 Kgs 17:10) in ways that imply it is a human-made object. Though there is some debate over the physical appearance of these sacred poles, they were likely in the form of stylized trees, an iconographic motif that symbolized the goddess Asherah.
Whatever the exact form, it is clear that these sacred poles functioned in conjunction with pillars and altars as ritual objects in local shrines. These were either sites for the worship of Canaanite deities, or alternatively they were sites at which ancient Israel incorporated syncretistic elements into the worship of Yahweh. In either case, the use of sacred poles was considered impermissible. A number of individuals are said to utilize sacred poles, including Jeroboam (1 Kgs 14:15), Rehoboam (1 Kgs 14:23), Maacah (1 Kgs 15:13), Ahab (1 Kgs 16:23), Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 13:6), and Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:3, 7). Those who destroy sacred poles are celebrated: Gideon in Judg 6:25–30, Asa in 1 Kgs 15:13, Hezekiah in 2 Kgs 18:4, and Josiah in 2 Kgs 23:4–7.
Iconographic and inscriptional evidence suggests that sacred poles could be seen as legitimate elements of Yahwistic worship. Most notably, inscriptions from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom refer to “Yahweh and his Asherah.” The interpretation of this phrase has been the occasion of much scholarly debate, with some believing that the Asherah mentioned refers to Yahweh’s female consort and others believing it refers to a cult object associated with Yahweh. In either case, extra-biblical evidence seems clearly to suggest a close and unquestioned association between Yahweh and Asherah at least at certain times and within certain contexts.
The nature of the response to idols, sacred poles, pillars, and the bronze serpent in the HB often takes the form of iconoclastic displays of violence. Hezekiah smashes (šbr) the pillars, cuts down (krt) the sacred pole, and breaks in pieces (ktt) the bronze serpent. Josiah burns (śrp) the image of Asherah and beats it (dqq) to dust, he pulls down (ntṣ) and breaks into pieces (rwṣ) foreign altars, and, like Hezekiah, he smashes (šbr) the pillars and cuts down (krt) the sacred pole. Similar responses are widely attested in ancient Mesopotamia, where cultic objects were routinely defaced, mutilated, and burned in the context of warfare. Such responses can be understood as politically or theologically motivated acts of vandalism meant to undermine the social and religious systems these objects symbolized.
Conclusion
This survey has attempted to show that close attention to ritual objects is vital to understanding Israelite religion. At the most basic level, the study of such objects provides a clearer picture of what the tabernacle or temple looked like, including the various items it contained and where they were located. In addition, the study of ritual objects contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the operation of Israel’s cultic system, especially as it relates to ritual activities surrounding sacrifices, purification, and the daily operation of the sanctuary. Further, the study of ritual objects highlights the way in which Israelite religion is maintained not only through verbal expressions but also through material objects, architecture, landscape, and embodied practices.
Several more specific conclusions emerge from this study.
First, while aniconism is often thought to be a defining and distinguishing feature of Israelite religion, it is likely the case that ancient Israelites relied on visible and material objects to access, negotiate, and structure encounters with their deity in ways not all altogether different from their neighbors. This is most evident in the HB’s treatment of the ark, which while physically bearing no resemblance to ANE cult statues, functioned in closely analogous ways. Similarly, the use of the Urim and Thummin for divination broadly parallels the ANE practice of “reading” internal organs and/or natural phenomena so as to receive messages from the gods. Even the impulse to destroy, smash, and burn illicit objects in the cult reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah is predicated on a common assumption throughout the ANE world that objects could come to be endowed with life-like agency in certain social and anthropological systems. These observations are meant to underscore that the difference between the religion of Israel and its neighbors is to be found not so much in their reliance on ritual objects but rather in the diverse ideologies that inform how such objects are used, interpreted, and responded to in different religio-historical contexts.
Second and closely related, this study makes clear that while the God to which the HB bears witness is one who can be directly and immediately experienced through public theophanies and personal dreams and visions, such modes of divine encounter are relatively rare and reserved for special individuals. More commonly, God’s real presence in the HB is mediated through concrete embodiment in the form of ritual objects and sacramental practices. These objects and practices structure and routinize the possibility of divine encounter and thus become reliable means by which God is disclosed and made available to individuals and communities alike. This observation underscores the point that divine transcendence does not imply a view of religion that is disembodied, purely ideational, or thinly verbal. Aversion to ritual objects and the concrete practices that utilize them is not an internal element of the HB but rather is a product of either Christian supersessionism or the Protestant tendency to approach the study of religion primarily in terms of written doctrines and confessions.
Third and finally, given the importance of ritual objects to ancient Israel’s worship life, careful attention must be paid to the significance of the loss of such items during the fall of Jerusalem. Babylonian forces removed all of the vessels of the temple, breaking them in pieces and extracting the precious metals from which they were made (2 Kgs 25:13–16). Other objects were carried away to Nebuchadnezzar’s palace as trophies of war (2 Chr 36:7) and later used in sacrilegious ways (Dan 5:1–4). Most immediately, the destruction of these items would have rendered Israel’s cultic system inoperative. But at a more symbolic level, it would have undermined Judahite identity, memory, and social belonging, all of which were intrinsically tied to and embodied in these ritual objects. Thus, what was lost in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple was not merely a centralized place of worship, but an inter-connected system of objects, practices, and embodied experiences by which Yahweh’s presence and holiness was generated, constituted, and made available to ancient Israel. Restoring and replacing these items in the Second Temple was therefore a way of re-establishing both the basic operation of Israel’s cultic system and also the religious identity of a people whose faith and identity were tied to these objects.