Chapter 23
Divine Presence and Absence
Introduction
Divine presence is a basic concept in ancient Near Eastern (ANE) and Old Testament (OT) religion, spirituality, and theology. It deals with the ability and will of the gods to be present with human beings. However, inherent to this concept is the opposite concept, that deities are able and willing to be absent. In the same measure as divine presence is connected with the option to communicate with the divine, divine absence is a clear sign of the disturbed or even interrupted human-divine communication. The decision about presence or absence is believed to be the prerogative of the gods. The intact human-divine relationship signifies divine presence and is the basic wish of the gods, while the damage done to this relationship is the result of human fault and runs against divine orders. It is taken for granted that humans know the divine will and that divine commands are the unquestionable foundation of human ethical conduct. In a manner, divine presence was believed to be the rule, while divine absence should always be the exception and limited in time.
Ritual and worship serve to keep the human-divine communication intact, to maintain and optimize it, and, if necessary, to repair it. This can be done in rituals of the official cult for the king, people, and the state, in the local cult for the local community, and on the private level for the individual. Priestly systems were designed to secure and safeguard the divine presence in the center of the human community and to take care of the regular human-divine communication exchange. Private veneration had more or less the same aim, although on an individual and familial level. The restoration of withdrawn divine presence and interrupted divine-human communication is believed to be possible, because even absent deities are responsive in the cosmic abodes to which they had withdrawn. They can still hear human prayer; whether they listen or answer is another question.
ANE and OT concepts of divine presence on earth envision a permanent material abode (e.g. mountains, trees, standing stones, temples, thrones) or a mobile material presence marker (cult statues, cult symbols, standards, amulets, in the OT: the ark, tent, and tabernacle). Deities maintain their cosmic dwellings (heaven, underworld) and are immaterial, not limited to geography and transcendent. A single deity can hold several dwellings on earth and in cosmic spheres at the same time.
The cosmic and earthly aspects of a deity come together at the temple. A temple is therefore the central focus of any kind of theology of presence; theology of absence connected to a temple is a cosmic disaster. There is however no “god-free” space on earth or in the world. Divine absence does not mean that there is a space where no god exists, but that there is a space where gods refuse to be.
In ANE ritual and worship, cultic statues and symbols represent the earthly body of a god. They are therefore considered to be mobile, highly vulnerable, and to have daily personal needs (e.g., cleaning, food consumption, clothing, entertainment). But in addition, the material divine bodies were believed, at least after the vivification rituals (in Mesopotamia, mis pi and pit pi), to have been born in heaven even if they had been made with divine assistance on earth. Thus, a divine statue or symbol brought the cosmic and earthly aspects of a deity together (Berlejung 1998). After taking up residence in their sanctuaries, the divine statues (symbolic, anthropomorphic, or theriomorphic in shape) functioned as a personal partner for all human-divine interactions. The statues were usually bound to their temples during the daily rituals; however, for special events or festivals they could also be mobile and “go out” in a procession. In the shape of their statues or symbols the ANE deities were divine inhabitants of their countries, cities, and sanctuaries, and shared the fate of their king, people, and priests: when the king was successful (according to the traditional interpretation because he was pious and got divine blessing and help), the temples and cults prospered and the hearts of the gods rejoiced. When the king was unsuccessful (also believed to be the result of the will of his gods, however as divine punishment) and a temple on his territory was destroyed by enemies, the gods/divine statues went into exile together with the deported people and were counted as booty (see, for example, the Assyrian deportation reliefs, in Berlejung 1998); in the worst case, which is not attested very often in the written sources, a statue was completely destroyed. This did not affect the fundamental existence of a deity, because gods always had the option to quit their earthly abode(s) or body/bodies and to move to their cosmic abode. This withdrawal of the divine existence to the cosmic sphere was, according to usual conception, limited to a certain time, the duration of which was determined by the gods themselves. When “the time was fulfilled,” divine grace was renewed and the period of wrath and divine absence was over. The gods commissioned the king to renovate the temple and construct a new (or restored) cult image. Thus, the ideal state of the divine earthly presence in the country the gods desired was restored, along with their intact communication with the king and people.
The alternation of divine presence (in prosperity) and divine absence (in times of crisis) was a common pattern of interpretation. A state crisis was considered as being the consequence of the misconduct of the king (or the people) while a personal crisis was seen as the consequence of individual sin. It was not always evident which human sins had triggered divine wrath and as a result the questioned. Doubts about the basic principle of cosmic balance and divine justice arose and theodicy became a topic of the wisdom and didactic literature, as can be seen, for example, in the so-called “Babylonian Theodicy” (1200–1100 bce) and in the post-exilic biblical books of Job and Qohelet. However, it seems as if this criticism was limited to the individual level, while political systems were still evaluated according to the traditional view.
The Levantine kingdoms of Israel and Judah shared the ANE presence and absence theology. The interplay between divine presence and blessing in good times and divine absence and punishment in bad times was the key to constructing and interpreting history that unfolds in Exodus- II Kings, and it is the underlying presupposition in the prophetic and sapiential books. The loss of the promised land and the end of the kingdoms of Israel and later Judah was interpreted as the consequence of the previous sins of the kings and/or the people against YHWH. YHWH decides about his presence as well as about his absence. The latter is, just as in the ANE belief, always limited to a certain time: in individual prayer as well as for the people in distress the main question is: how long?
How to Describe Divine Presence
Divine presence is difficult to explain and even harder to describe. All human efforts (e.g., metaphorical language and iconic imaging) are insufficient to describe divinity or divine presence, which by definition transcends them. Human perception of God is limited. Humans can hear, see, taste, and recognize god, but human limitations complicate human-divine communication. In ritual and worship, divine presence is conveyed by material markers such as temples, images, symbols, standards, and standing stones, as mentioned earlier. In the literature of the ANE and OT analogical or even paradoxical language is used to envision the divine appearance. Another way to describe divine advent or presence are theophanies. They are typically imagined as being accompanied by cosmic phenomena, as storm, volcanic activity, earthquake, smoke, fire, and convulsions of nature. YHWH can manifest himself in fire or luminous majesty (Pss 18:9.13–15; 77:19; 97:3; Isa 29:6; 30:27.30; Hab 3:4.11; Job 37:22) from which he speaks (Exod 19:21; Deut 4:33; 5:4.24.26). In addition, anthropomorphisms and theriomorphisms can be used in order to talk about divine presence, for example, gods dwell in their houses, sit on their thrones, move their hands and feet, turn their faces, or their faces darken or light up.
The movements of divine faces toward the human partner (in ANE and OT literatures) typically conveyed a deity’s readiness to communicate. This idea was rooted in the royal court and the audience with the king. To see the king face to face was a great gift and a reason to hope for royal favor; however, it could also be the moment of disgrace. The same is true for an encounter with a deity: a shining face had a positive connotation while a darkened face promised mischief. If a god turned his face away, this was the worst case.
OT texts use this imagery to refer to YHWH turning his face to his human partners, either benevolently (Job 42:5) or malevolently (Lam 4:16). A key text is Exodus 33 where, in the midst of a theophany, God says to Moses, “you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live” (33:20).
YHWH’s face clearly represents his persona. Moses is not allowed to see YHWH’s face, his persona; however, he is allowed to see YHWH’s “glory,” which is the only thing he had asked for (Exod 33:18). YHWH’s “glory” also represents his persona, but the text uses multiple expressions in an effort to talk about YHWH’s presence appropriately. YHWH’s “glory” (Exod 33:18.22, kabod), YHWH’s “name” (šēm), and his goodness, grace and mercy (Exod 33:19) are different abstractions that clearly refer to forms of YHWH’s presence that Moses can experience without any danger. The visual aspect of this encounter, however, is problematized. In v. 23 the text returns to a full set of anthropomorphisms to describe YHWH’s hand, face, front, and backside. Moses can see YHWH’s hand and backside, but he cannot see YHWH’s face. This view about the human option to see YHWH’s face is not the only one in the OT. That people see God and yet stay alive is reported several times in the OT, not only in traditions about the patriarchs (Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 26:2; 32:31; and others), but also at a crucial point within the Sinai pericope (Exod 24:9–11, compare Ezek 1:22, 26f, 10:1), and most prominently in the book of Job (42:5). In addition, to talk with god face to face, to see him or his face, is a typical request in the Psalms. According to Ps 17:15, to see YHWH’s face or visible form (tĕmûnâ) is to “satisfied” or “satiated;” according to Ps 16:11, it means to have “fullness of joy.” The vision of the divine face in the sanctuary on Zion is life-giving; it is like the water for the hart dying of thirst (Ps 42:1–3). The visual experience fulfills basic biological needs; the Psalmist is fed and vivified by God’s presence.
How to Describe Divine Absence
Neither Mesopotamian nor Old Testament texts reflect abstractly on the absence or concealment of God. Some texts show that the absence of (one) god can be experienced as a problem only under certain conditions. For example, those who assume that “there is no god” (Pss 10:4; 14:1) have no problem with divine absence. The godless are even happy about the absence of YHWH, because they fear no penalties (Ps 94:7; Ezek 8:12). Divine absence in ritual and worship is usually connected to experiences where there is no divine help. Mesopotamian texts, for example, describe individuals being abandoned by their personal gods, which disturbs or interrupts human-divine communication. This communication can be disturbed and cut off from both sides; however, it is usually believed that the gods make the decision. When the gods are neglected or when human beings ignore or act against their will, then the gods withdraw as part of the punishment for human sin (e.g., Deut 31:17; Isa 1:15; Jer 33:5; Ezek 39:24). In this pattern, divine absence is the direct re-action to human misbehavior. Humans alone are responsible for the damage done to communication with the gods. God leaves his people because they have abandoned him (Isa 1:4; 26:21), not the other way round. As mentioned previously, the divine absence from ritual and worship, earth, or humankind is considered to be for a limited period of time. Mirroring the positive effects of divine presence, divine absence results in the destabilization or even complete loss of order, safety, blessing, health, and welfare. Life-contesting forces (e.g., enemies or illnesses) take over. The king, the nation, the community, individuals, even the cosmos fall under their rule.
Divine withdrawal is often a topic in laments and can be described in terms of God’s hiding or turning away. It is especially common in the ANE and the OT to write that God conceals or turns his “face” away (Job 13:24; Pss 13:2; 30:8; 143:7; Isa 64:6; Balentine 1983). Such actions typically express the deity’s wrath and the decision to end any communication. The basic idea, as noted earlier, is rooted in the royal audience. When the king’s face darkened and he turned away, the one standing before him had good reason to believe that he had fallen out of favor with the king. In the same way, the turning away or the hiding of the divine face signaled that God had decided to interrupt the divine-human communication.
In addition to the language of “hiding the face” (sā̄tar + pā̄nîm), the Old Testament contains other general formulations that convey God’s hiddenness (Ps 10:1; 55:2; 89:47) or distance (“far away” [rḥq], Pss 10:1; 22:2; 35:22). Related to these expressions of divine hiddenness are others that indicate God does not respond to the misery of his own worshippers (Ps 22:2–3) and requests that God not be “deaf” and “silent” (Pss 35:22; 83:2) but instead “hear” and “answer” (Pss 55:2f; 102:3). Other formulations speak of God’s “leaving” (Pss 22:2; 27:9; Isa 49:14). The idea is concretely thought out in the book of Ezekiel, which reports that the “glory” of YHWH left the temple (Ezek 10:18, cf. 8:12; 9:9; and the return of God’s glory in Ezek 43:4). The idea that God withdraws from his people can also be expressed in the Old Testament, with the verbs “forget” (Pss 13:2; 42:10; 44:25) or “reject” (Pss 74:1; 88:15). Last but not least, another aspect has to be mentioned: Divine presence on earth is in ritual and worship closely linked to sacred space. As long as a deity is dwelling in a permanent abode on earth, this sacred space (and its staff) has to be pure. Ritual impurity can leads to divine absence (Ezek 5:11; 6; 8:6).
However divine absence was described, the basic idea was that gods were always able to come back, to remember, to forgive, to hear and to answer; the primary questions were, why did a god leave and how long would he remain absent. These issues are addressed in ANE texts (e.g. Ludlul bel nemeqi) as well as in the OT. Explanations are rarely provided (e.g., Ps 44:25); often it appeared YHWH was sleeping and needed to be awakened (e.g., Ps 35:23). Divine absence was more often assumed to be an act of justified punishment for human sin (e.g., Ezek 5:13–17; 13:13–16).
Against this traditional view of the “Tun-Ergehen-Zusammenhang” (the causal connection between act and consequence) stands the book of Job. The framing of the book (the Prologue in Job 1–2 and the Epilogue in 42:7–17) and the divine speeches (Job 38:1–42:6) affirm God’s presence in Job’s life. However, Job experiences God’s presence not as a blessing but as undeserved punishment. He is surrounded by life-threatening elements, social death, loss, and illness. As Job demonstrates, human beings can respond to the divine withdrawal of presence or punishment not only with confessions of guilt but also with complaints and allegations of divine injustice. The critical wisdom traditions of the ANE and the OT refer to the hiddenness of divine wisdom (Job 28:21) and the cognitive limitations of human understanding (e.g., Qoh 8:16–17). From the sage’s perspective, it is wise to come to terms with the distance and the unknowability of God (Qoh 5:1).
Manifestations of YHWH’s Presence: Standing Stones, Ark, Throne, Temple, and Calves
In the pre-deuteronomistic writings of the Torah, YHWH’s presence can be marked by standing stones (mazzebot). These stones can be erected by the patriarchs at non-urban locations. They have clear cultic functions and attest intact human-divine communication: they receive offerings (Gen 35:14), can be anointed (Gen 28:18; 35:14), can function as witnesses (replacing the deity Gen 31:51f) and are interpreted as a kind of forerunner to a later temple building (Gen 28:22). However, according to Deuteronomic legislation, YHWH “hates” this kind of worship.
According to the canonical arrangement of the Old Testament, after the Israelites entered the land of Canaan, the ark was the primary symbol of YHWH’s material and mobile presence (e.g. Josh 3:13,15,17; 1 Sam 3–4) until the temple in Jerusalem became his permanent dwelling place. From this moment on, YHWH is said to be enthroned on the cherubs (e.g., 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 2Kgs 19:15; Pss 80:2; 99:1), and the temple on mount Zion became his permanent residence (1Kgs 8:12–13; Isa 8:18; Ps 46:6) where he sat on a high, sublime, and empty throne (Isa 6:1, see also 2:2; Ezek 43:7). Biblical scholarship usually refers to the ark as a pre-Solomonic Israelite palladium for divination and war. In the people’s collective memory, it seems YHWH was from his origins basically a non-urban deity with martial aspects.
Temples, thrones, and mountains were well known in the ANE as the dwellings of gods within an urban context. Thus, with his introduction into Jerusalem, YHWH changed his character and became a city dweller. Temple-mountains were believed to be the cosmic symbol of the primordial holy hill, an axis mundi connecting cosmic and earthly spheres. Thrones were connected to royal aspects, which were attributed to YHWH as soon as he was seated in the temple in Jerusalem. Thrones also encoded the message that the enthroned person was seated in a space that was part of cosmic dimensions (see e.g., Isa 6 and Ps 93). This idea could be stressed by the iconography of a throne when wild animals, mixed creatures, or other symbols were added. This was apparently the case with the cherubim on YHWH’s throne in Jerusalem, which appear as protecting guards and bearers of the throne (1Kgs 6:23–28; 8:6–7). This imagery is well known: gods in anthropomorphic shape, seated on thrones between two cherubs, are attested in Syro-Phoenician art. It is debated how far YHWH’s throne in Jerusalem in pre-exilic times fits into this traditional ANE iconography, whether he was connected to solar symbolism, and if he was aniconic from the very beginning. The discovery of a seal impression (not a seal, thus perhaps a forgery) from Jerusalem, dated to the 9th/8th century bce, contributes to this debate (Figure 23.1).
Figure 23.1 Seal impression from Jerusalem 9th or 8th century bce.
Source: O. Keel, Die Geschichte Jerusalems und die Entstehung des Monotheismus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), fig. 191 = A. Berlejung, C. Frevel, eds., Handbuch Theologischer Grundbegriffe zum Alten und Neuen Testament (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006), fig. 68.
It depicts a throne that is not inhabited by an anthropomorphic or theriomorphic being, which some scholars have interpreted as an early empty throne. However, there is a winged solar disc fixed on a standard directly in front of the throne, which is clearly part of the ensemble. The disc forms a visual and cultic unit together with the throne as a marker of divine solar presence. That the standard is not directly placed on the seat may be the result of the perspective or of the technique of seal cutting. This seal impression is a unique find and cannot bear the burden of proof of a pre-exilic aniconic cult of the urban deity of Jerusalem or of YHWH’s solar or aniconic character. It is even possible that the seal itself had nothing to do with Jerusalem and the seal impression came with merchandise from abroad to the site.
The belief in YHWH’s presence on the throne in the temple on mount Zion was rooted in religious traditions and in temple ritual. In the temple YHWH was present for worship and communication. He was the center of a temple theology that affirmed divine presence in Jerusalem, a special location on earth. In addition, the Judeans, just as their ANE neighbors, imagined YHWH dwelling in cosmic realms. The idea about YHWH’s empty throne seems to fit better into the Persian period, since in this period empty thrones are attested in Syro-Phoenician iconography that symbolize the presence of a deity between the cherubs, however invisible to human eyes.
The situation in the pre-exilic northern kingdom Israel is not that clear. Biblical traditions mention several sanctuaries in the North, but thus far no temple has been identified. Bethel and Dan are explicitly said not to be legitimate temples, and Samaria is also disconnected from any divine presence (cf, Hos 8:5). A fundamental text is 1 Kgs 12:26–33, a polemical Deuteronomistic text. This text deals with the “sin of Jeroboam” and points out that Jeroboam not only chose the wrong cult places, he also produced dead, manufactured gods and godless sanctuaries for YHWH. For the Deuteronomistic historian, Jeroboam’s calves and their dwellings were not signs of YHWH’s presence; they were instead mere simulations of presence, thus clear indications of YHWH’s absence. The pairing of Bethel and Dan serves literarily as a merism and indicates that the Northern Kingdom in its totality was a god-forsaken country (Berlejung 2009) and completely disconnected from any YHWH presence. 1 Kgs 12:26–30a links the north with (YHWH’s) absence theology while Jerusalem claims a monopoly of (YHWH’s) presence theology (and the basis for cult-centralization, which is in the mental background of the writers). Deuteronomistic writings, especially in 1 and 2 Kings make clear that the traditional ANE conceptions that connected the making of temples and cult images with divine reward and presence and the destruction of temples and images with divine punishment and absence were systematically inverted by the OT writers. Traditional image- and temple-presence theology (and royal ideology) were turned upside down when the abstinence of graven images and temple buildings were grounded in YHWH’s will.
On the basis of these polemical and retrospective texts, we have to admit that we do not know much about any divine or YHWH presence in the Northern Kingdom, especially in Samaria, Bethel, and Dan, or in a local sanctuary in Ephraim (Judges 17–18). For the presence of divine cultic images in Samaria, scholars usually refer to the Nimrud Prism of Sargon II, which mentions the deportation of divine images from Samaria, but the images are of unknown shape and no names of deities are given. Given the biblical attestation and the lack of clear material evidence from the ANE, it is therefore impossible to decide whether YHWH was really worshipped in the form of a calf in Samaria, Bethel, and Dan, or whether the texts only want to discredit the cult of the Northern Kingdom (from a later Jerusalem perspective). 1 Kings 12 and the book of Hosea are the result of a complex literary and redactional history and can hardly be taken as historical sources without any reservations. We can only presume that the kings of Samaria and the people of Israel had their own ideas about YHWH’s divine presence in their temples and cities. Northern religious traditions about the theology of presence only sparsely survived in the canon, which has basically been written in and for Jerusalem.
Manifestations of Divine Presence: The Question of Divine Images
Ritual and worship usually address a divine being and presuppose—at least as long as the human-divine communication is believed to be intact—a divine presence. This is true for ritual and worship on all levels, whether in the official cult in urban temples, the local cult of rural high places, chapels and open air sanctuaries, or the personal cult in private houses. In the ANE, divine presence was traditionally represented by the divine image that was believed to possess a performative power that was rooted in the gods themselves. Any making of a divine image (as well as of a temple) had (according to the ANE theology of temple and divine images) to start with the inquiry of the divine will, because the conditio sine qua non for divine presence on earth was divine consent. The agreement of the gods to take an earthly seat or body was considered to be a clear sign of their positive attitude toward their worshippers. Only if the ritually correct production and the subsequent dedication rite managed to ensure the indwelling of the divine presence could the image (as well as the temple or amulet) become the representative and medium of the divine presence.
It is well known that biblical texts, for example the polemics against idols in Isaiah 40–48 and 1 Kings 12, ridicule the ANE theology of divine images (Berlejung 1998, 2009). Important characteristics and concepts of the ANE theology of images were turned upside down. According to these texts, divine images did not ensure divine presence, they provoked YHWH’s anger and his withdrawal from Israel. YHWH neither gave the order nor consented to make a divine image, but he forbade it. He only agreed with the making of the tabernacle, ark, empty throne, or temple as legitimate material representations of divine presence.
The archaeology of ancient Israel and Judah (Keel/Schroer 2005; Keel/Uehlinger 2001; Schroer 1987) clearly shows that images of living beings (humans, plants, and animals), idols of deities in anthropomorphic, theriomorphic, or symbolic shapes and hybrids (e.g. cherubs) as well as standing stones (e.g., Arad) with and without carving or painting belonged to the practical religious and daily life ancient Israel and Judah in the 1st millennium bce. At least some of these objects have to be regarded as traditional material divine presence markers, even if it is not clear which deities they concretely represent. Until the end of the monarchic period (722–587/6 bce), religious practice in Israel and Judah may have differed from the surrounding areas only as a local kind of play: the local deities of the North and the South were represented by material presence-markers (of different shapes) and worshipped, and the kings were responsible for the official cults and head of the priesthoods. These cults were centered around YHWH, who was believed to be the highest god granting order and stability in both political entities. It is a matter of debate if there were pre-exilic YHWH statues or if pre-exilic aniconism characterized the cult in Israel and Judah. The problems are well known: the relevant biblical texts that talk about an aniconic YHWH can hardly be dated without any doubts to the pre-exilic period; and no definite YHWH image (this applies also to Ashera, Milkom, Chemosh, Dagon, and others) or clear iconographic characteristics of YHWH can be identified at present. However, this does not mean that such things did not exist (Berlejung 2017).
A related matter of scholarly debate is whether the conception of divine presence without any divine image was rooted within traditional Judahite/Jerusalemite/Israelite belief about divine presence markers or was a result of the destruction of the temple (and perhaps the images inside) and the fundamental need to find alternative non-material concepts for YHWH’s presence. Perhaps already the destruction of Samaria and the deportation of the statues by Sargon II gave a first impulse into the new direction. In any case, biblical texts that wrestle with how to describe YHWH’s earthly presence suggest that the major stimulus for the discussion of alternative non-material concepts of YHWH’s presence was the fall of Jerusalem 587/6 bce. (The texts in the Torah that ban images and the polemics against idolatry in the books of Second Isaiah or Ezekiel do not antedate the Babylonian exile.) With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem biblical texts attest a changing attitude towards the widely accepted assumptions about divine presence: temple-presence and Zion-presence theology were severely affected. Image-presence theology also became doubtful, at least in the opinion of the present writer. Perhaps the loss of YHWH images and the reaction against the impressive imperial Babylonian iconic cult (cf. Isa 46:1–2) explains why some implicit aniconic tendencies in Jerusalem became more explicit in exile. In any case, traditional divine presence markers were de-materialized in exilic and post-exilic writings by developing theologies associated with Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistic conceptions of “name” (šēm) and Priestly conceptions of “glory” (kābôd), “spirit” (rûaḥ), “shekhinah,” and “Torah” (see later discussion).
It can be assumed that in the Second Temple period (from 515 bce on) the discussion referring to material images of YHWH in the Jerusalemite temple was decided: YHWH should dwell in Jerusalem and be enthroned in his temple without a cultic image or standing stone. His presence was conceptualized without any image. However, it is completely unclear how widely spread and accepted the new ideas were within the different groups of YHWH worshippers. The abstract and spiritualized concepts about YHWH’s presence and his aniconism were a late development and remained a controversial matter. At the end of a longer inner-biblical discursive development, Deuteronomy 4, one of the latest texts of the OT, still argues against the traditional and widespread concepts about divine presence in cultic images and insists that Israel could see what YHWH did (Deut 4:3) and could hear his voice, but they could not see anything except the mountain in fire, clouds and smoke (Deut 4:11–12). Humans experience YHWH’s presence by watching his divine activities and by listening to his divine words. God himself is invisible, which implies that divine presence was an auditory experience and not a visual one.
Reworking Traditional Presence Theologies in and after the Babylonian Exile
The destruction of the First Temple (587/6 bce) strongly impacted conceptions about YHWH’s presence on earth. After the destruction, different groups offered differing explanations of YHWH’s presence/absence. Very traditional within given ANE concepts was the theology of divine abandonment that attributed some sense to the disaster: because of the sins of the kings and people, YHWH had become angry and left his abode. Jeremiah 26:6–7 and 27:16–22 state that priests and elites in Jerusalem could not accept the idea that YHWH would withdraw from his residence and deliver it to the enemy. However, Jer 21:3–10 claims that YHWH joined the Babylonians and was fighting against his city. The book of Ezekiel draws on traditional ANE theological disaster management and explains the loss of the temple as the result of YHWH’s own decision to punish the polluted city where he could not dwell any more. In contrast to the fixed throne of YHWH in Jerusalem, Ezekiel 10 envisions a throne chariot as a means by which, God’s “glory” leaves Zion (Ezek 11:23). This idea of YHWH’s chariot (Ezek 1:15–25, cf. Isa 19:1; Ps 104:3) that transported and concealed the divine presence enforced the mobility of YHWH who went with the deportees to exile. In the Babylonian exile and diaspora the former conceptualizations of divine presence were transformed; instead of image- and/or temple-presence theologies, there emerged other mobile, abstract, and spiritualized concepts.
The Name of God (šēm)
“The use of name in the Book of Deuteronomy in association with the central cult site, marks a transition in Israelite thought in which previous perceptions of divine presence are being cast off in favor of a new theology” (Richter 2002, 53). The key text for the Deuteronomic conception that the name of YHWH is a mode of his presence is Deut 12:5,11: YHWH announces that he will elect a place where he will put (śym, v. 5) or make dwell (škn, v. 11) his name (compare Akkadian šuma šakanu). The purpose of the idiom is to establish a sign of possession. Human-divine communication and interaction is announced to be possible exclusively at this location: offerings, donations, and votive gifts must be placed there. Deuteronomy articulates a paradox: God is free and mobile, but also close to his people. YHWH will choose where to place his name and be present there on earth for an audience. The notion of the divine name is coterminous with YHWH himself. This idea is closely connected to ANE thoughts about sacred space and the use of divine names in ANE ritual and worship: the presence of a deity was believed to be real as soon as a priest (or any authorized person, e.g., the king) uttered or wrote down the divine name. The name also played a role in magic and everyday life (e.g. on amulets): it was believed to have performative power through the deity that was named (or/and iconically represented; Berlejung 2012, 2013; Bohak 2008). In the ANE, divine names were always closely related to divine presence; however, the conditio sine qua non was the divine consent. This is also the case in Deuteronomistic name theology, which was surely not a downgrade of YHWH’s divine presence but a full embodiment of his essence (1Kgs 9:3). There is no proof for the assumption that Deuteronomistic name theology made a theological differentiation between YHWH on the one hand and his name on the other (contra von Rad, 1962 184; Mettinger 1982, 52). Name theology de-materializes YHWH’s presence, but it did not divorce it from the temple to place it in heaven only, as has been argued. Rather, name theology affirmed the temple as the only place for YHWH’s (aniconic) earthly presence. This notion is supported by use of the divine name in combination with Jerusalem in Jeremiah (7:12–14), Ezra (6:12), and Nehemiah (1:9). Name theology is a concept that clearly refers to “real” divine presence, which can be fully experienced and heard (but not seen) in the (elected) Jerusalem temple without any danger. However, during the 3rd century bce there was an the increasing hesitation to pronounce the holy name of YHWH to mark his presence in order to avoid his pollution.
The “Glory” (kābôd)
The concept of the luminous divine “glory” (kābôd) has ANE counterparts in the terms puluhtu (“terror”) and melammu (“awe inspiring radiance”). These terms describe the brilliant aureole or nimbus that surrounds a deity or a king. Iconographically, it was implemented in the radiate wreath (Figure 23.2).
Figure 23.2 Seal impression with Ishtar in the melammu.
Source: O. Keel, C. Uehlinger, Göttinnen, Götter und Gottessymbole: Neuer Erkenntnis zur Religionsgeschichte Kanaans und Israels aufgrund bislang unerschlossener ikonographischer Quellen (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2001), fig. 287 = A. Berlejung, C. Frevel, eds., Handbuch Theologischer Grundbegriffe zum Alten und Neuen Testament (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2006), fig. 44.
In cultic images it was materialized in jewelery, dresses, and the shine of precious metals and stones. The semantics of “shining” refers not only to aesthetics but to the numinous quality. The theological use of “glory” in the OT is concentrated in the priestly code and the book of Ezekiel (1–3; 8–11; 43–44), but it also occurs in other texts especially those describing the temple in Jerusalem (e.g., Deut 5:24; Isa 6; Pss 24; 29). According to the hymnal quote in Isa 6:3, probably the oldest attestation, the glory of the Lord in the temple in Jerusalem “fills” the whole earth and brings it to life.
And one (seraph) called to another (seraph) and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.”
With terms like “splendor,” “shine,” and “sovereignty,” the Psalter develops a “semantics of glory” connected with the idea of a luminous garment of YHWH (Pss 93:1; 104:1). The glory of YHWH is characterized by the phenomenon of a visible light in the priestly Sinai story (Exod 24:16–17; 40:34–35; Lev 9:6.23) and in Ezekiel’s temple vision. Ezekiel 8–11 replaces the ancient temple-presence theology with a vision of the “glory” of YHWH leaving the temple and moving with the exiles to Babylonia. The absence of the kābôd results in the darkening of the land. This vision assumed YHWH’s absence in Jerusalem and Judah and his presence with the exiles until the punishment was fulfilled. The return of YHWH’s glory at the end of the book (Ezek 43:2–5, 9) and the establishment of a new temple in Jerusalem according to divine will in which YHWH would dwell (Ezek 40–48) was a post-exilic updating of pre-exilic temple-presence theology. Its purpose was to affirm that the kābōd “enlightened” the land when YHWH returned. In these traditions, “glory” is a hypostasis that represents YHWH himself.
Exilic and post-exilic priestly traditions in the Torah make their own point. Priestly texts in the OT are circumspect in describing YHWH’s manifest presence and appearance, but they clearly assume that YHWH dwells on earth in the tabernacle (Exod 25:8; 29:45f). The tabernacle of the priestly code is an earthly dwelling place of the divine presence; however, contrary to a temple, it is mobile. In addition to this tangible presence, priestly texts refer to YHWH’s luminous presence as the radiant “glory” or the traveling cloud and fire that hovers over the tabernacle by night and day and guides his people in the wilderness. Glory, cloud, and fire are visible signs of YHWH’s presence. “For the Priestly writers, the divine presence seems to be a mobile, semi-permanent theophany…the Priestly texts use movement to indicate permanence.” (Hundley 2011, 49). The mobilization of YHWH with glory, fire, and clouds fits into diaspora life circumstances. YHWH can always be and walk with his people. However, YHWH’s intrusion into human habitation is semi-permanent, and only continues as long as his people correctly serve him. He can always come and go, and in contrast to material symbols of divine presence, glory, fire, and clouds can move on their own; they do not need to be carried and they can neither be deported nor destroyed. They oscillate between stabilitas loci and mobility.
Even if these conceptions increased the mobility of YHWH’s presence to a considerable extent, enabling him, when dislocated from the temple in Jerusalem, to join the Babylonian Golah, this was not the final word. Post-exilic texts that describe the building of the Second temple in (the new) Jerusalem expected YHWH’s “glory” to return to Jerusalem and to be a “fire wall” around his city (cf. Zech 2:5–9). A later addition (Zech 2:14–16) interprets the presence of YHWH’s “glory” explicitly as “indwelling” in the middle of Zion. Thus, these post-exilic texts combine the mobility of divine “glory” in priestly presence theology with shekhinah theology: the mobile “glory” re-settled in a permanent residence (Lux 2014).
The Shekhinah
The term shekhinah occurs only after 70 ce in rabbinic literature. It derives from the root škn “to dwell” and means the indwelling of God in the temple or in his chosen people. YHWH’s indwelling into a divine statue is never mentioned. In rabbinic literature shekhinah and YHWH are identical; however, some texts in later rabbinic literature personify shekhinah as a mediatrix dei (Janowski 2014). The shekhinah-theology is also rooted in the ANE presence and indwelling theology linked to a divine statue (= divine body) and a temple (= heavenly house on earth). It has a long history of tradition and development and was not “invented” in the post-exilic period.
The first attestation seems to be Isa 8:18, where it is said that YHWH Sabaoth dwells on Mount Zion. In Jerusalem temple theology, YHWH inhabits the axis mundi, the symbol of the holy hill. Here the cosmic order is consolidated and preserved by YHWH against life threatening powers (compare Ps 46:4–7). In the prophecy of the 8th century, however, the idea of YHWH’s permanent residence in Zion/the temple was branded as the false trust of being “saved” by YHWH’s permanent presence (Mi 3:11). The temple’s destruction had a serious impact on shekhinah theology and caused some transformations: shekhinah theology speaks about YHWH’s dwelling not in the temple but instead in the Israelites (Ezek 43:7,9; cf. Ps 74:1–2; 1 Kgs 6:12–13; Exod 25:8–9; 29:45–46). Thus, the shekhinah becomes mobile and personal. Post-exilic shekhinah theology returns to the locally bound view, oriented to temple, Zion, and Jerusalem; however, it now features some new aspects (e.g., Haggai; Zech 1:17; 2:9.14–15; 8:2–2; Joel 4:17–21). In the Hellenistic period (333 bce–31 ce) shekhinah-theology makes a connection between wisdom, Zion, and the people of Israel. The wisdom that has been appearing as a mediator (person, hypostasis, goddess?) between YHWH and his creation (Prov 8:22–31) obeys YHWH’s order to dwell in Jacob and to resettle in Israel and on Mount Zion (Sir 24:7–12).
The Holy Spirit (Rûaḥ)
The OT describes the powerful presence of YHWH and his dynamics by referring to his outgoing “wind,” “breath,” or “spirit.” The primary term is rûaḥ (cf. the parallel term nešamâ, e.g., Isa 42:5; Job 33:4, cf. Gen 2:7), describing YHWH’s presence with its life-giving and positive aspects for creation. This spirit was transferred especially to humans and constitutes the vitality of all beings (e.g., Gen 6:3.17; 7:22; Ps 104:29–30; cf. Qoh 3:19–21). It is believed to be able to revivify dead bones in Ezek 37:5, 9–10 and 2 Macc 7:23. In its canonical form, the OT can even be read as a book of stories about the effects of YHWH’s spirit on inspired leaders such as Moses (Num 11:16–19), Joshua (Deut 34:9), the judges (e.g., Othniel, Judg 3:10; Gideon, Judg 6:34; Jephthah, Judg 11:29; Saul and David (1 Sam 16:13; 2 Sam 23:2), the early (1Sam 10:10; 19:20–24) and later prophets (e.g., Ezek 2:2; 3:12–14; 8:3) and YHWH’s servant (Isa 42:1–4). The spirit vocabulary became more prominent in the post-exilic period (MacDonald 2013). Haggai 2:5, for example (“ and my spirit will stand in your (pl.) midst”), alludes to the programmatic sentence of the Priestly code in Exod 25:8 and Exod 29:45. The spirit of YHWH is now expected to remain permanently present in the midst of the congregation, once again settled in the Second Temple. Late post-exilic texts such as Isa 11:1–9 connect the divine spirit with messianic work, and expect the divine spirit to act within the people of Israel (e.g., Ezek 36:26–27; 37:5,10,14; 39:29). Late Psalms testify that the pious expect to follow the way of the divine commandments under the guidance of the spirit and ask God to give them this gift (Pss 51:12–24; 143:10). Divine presence in the community could also be conceptualized in the form of the spirit. In Qumran (1QS 3f) the holy spirit of God portrays YHWH’s powerful presence and its effects on his people. It was the holy spirit as a gift of God that purified the sinner and the community as the chosen of the Lord. The community of 1QS describes itself as the (only pure) temple, and takes its functions (atonement and purity) on itself; the spirit was the means of atonement. By doing so, temple theology and its metaphors were interpreted as referring to a group of people, so that their community became the place of the divine presence. However, this concept was only regarded as an interim, because the restoration of an absolutely pure and future eschatological temple in Jerusalem, in which divine presence would once again reside, was still expected.
Heaven
In traditional depictions of cultic ritual in the ANE and the OT, divine presence was understood to reside on earth and in heaven. Both went hand in hand, and the temple was believed to be transparent to heaven (Isa 6). Consequently, YHWH could be addressed both in the temple in Zion and in heaven. However, with the destruction of the temple common traditions had to be rethought. In late texts, heaven may be the exclusive abode of God (Pss 11:4; 103:19; Qoh 5:1), but even this transcendent residence of YHWH is relativized by texts that state that YHWH is beyond the cosmic boundaries (1Kgs 8:27; 2 Chr 2:5; 6:18). Other post-exilic traditions shared this temple-critical view; in Isa 66:1–2 YHWH withdraws completely into heaven where he was enthroned while earth is only his footstool. From heaven he hears, sees, speaks and acts (e.g., Ex 20:22; Deut 26:15). The transition from this conception to the idea of the omnipresence of YHWH on earth, heaven, and the underworld (Ps 139:8–9; Amos 9:2) was not far off.
Post-exilic Transfers and Re-materializations of Divine Presence
The priestly code does not use only the concept of the divine “glory” (kābôd) to talk about the divine presence on earth. A complementary concept occurs in Gen 1:26, which describes the creation of human beings in the image of God, thus a mirroring of the divine glory (Ps 8). Humans are the representatives of YHWH and in a manner his earthly divine image (just as the king was in pre-exilic times). The link between the theology of divine presence and anthropology is also known from other literatures: the post-exilic sapiential reworking of the book of Psalms focused on the belief of the divine presence in individual prayer and in the community meetings of diaspora congregations worshipping YHWH (Zenger 1999). Thus, in the final redaction the book of the Psalms is conceived as a sanctuary enabling human-divine communication. From a rabbinic point of view, this can apply to the entire Torah. The Torah becomes a sanctuary in the sense that it is a sacred space where God can be approached, addressed, and praised. The Torah in its materiality is an earthly text in which lies the promise that the encounter of God and humans can occur during reading and learning. It is therefore no surprise that after the loss of the Second Temple 70 ce, synagogue worship focused on the Torah scrolls as symbols of YHWH’s presence. For example, they were kissed and treated in ways that iconic religions reserve for the cultic images of their deities. This suggests that the Torah served as a substitute divine image (cf. van der Toorn 1997) or at least as a material and mobile divine presence marker.
Another re-materialization of divine presence theology is the flame-topped Menorah. It is attested as a key cultic object in the Second Temple (in the interpretation of Zech 4:10b as the seven “eyes of YHWH ranging over the whole earth”) and later, in the synagogue, as a visible symbol of YHWH’s presence. On the basis of sources such as Josephus, Philo, and rabbinic literature it can be maintained that the Menorah was the symbol of YHWH himself, by virtue of its lights, tree of life symbolism, and even cosmological aspects (e.g. its representation of the seven planets).
Conclusion
The topic of divine absence and divine presence is embedded in the theological debate about the communication between human beings and their gods. Intact communication and divine presence belong together as do disturbed communication and divine absence. The interpretation and construction of the individual as well as collective history as result of the interplay between divine presence and absence was a basic pattern in the ANE. That human beings seek communication with the divine through prayer and other ritual means but receive no or even false answers (e.g., divination) is a problem that belongs to the debate about theodicy and the ambiguity of gods. Markers of divine presence were numerous in the ANE and the OT: they were material and immaterial, mobile and immobile, earthly and cosmic. Gods were not believed to be reduced to a single abode, and several aspects could be combined. Divine presence, traditionally believed to be located in a temple (= dwelling) and a cultic image (= divine body), could be dissolved from space and time. Experiences of divine withdrawal from the human partners, divine absence, could be described with terms of hiding, leaving, turning away or darkening the face, and other metaphors that designated the end of human-divine communication and the rejection by the god(s). This withdrawal was always believed to be for a limited time.
With the fall of Jerusalem (or already Samaria) traditional concepts of divine presence and absence were modified and transformed. Different literary traditions in the OT attest how YHWH-presence theology in pre-exilic times, which was a local kind of appropriation of traditional ANE conceptions, was transformed after 587/586 bce. Processes of mobilization, spiritualization, and abstraction and made YHWH fit for life in exile and diaspora. The rebuilding of the Second Temple in Jerusalem was overshadowed by the discussion about the mode/s of divine presence. Several answers found their way into the canon: some traditions re-connected to pre-exilic temple-, and Zion-presence theology and some re-materializations of divine presence were suggested, while other post-exilic writers argued that YHWH only dwelt in heaven or even beyond in the cosmic realm, or focused (especially in wisdom literature and Psalms) on the belief that divine presence could move into the individual human heart of the just and wise or into the community of his chosen people. However, that the ancient temple-presence theology was still vivid in the Qumran community is highlighted by 1QS 8:5–6 and the texts that express the expectation that YHWH would let a new temple descend from heaven in a new messianic era.