[BLANK FLY LEAF PAGE—SCROLL DOWN FOR TITLE PAGE ETC.

]
 BEARING YHWH’S NAME AT SINAI:
A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE NAME COMMAND OF THE DECALOGUE

by

Carmen Joy Imes

B.A. (Bible), Multnomah Bible College, 1999

M.A. (Biblical Studies), Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 2011

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to the Faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Concentration in Biblical Theology—Old Testament
at Wheaton College

Wheaton, Illinois
April 2016
Accepted:

____________________________________
Dissertation Supervisor

____________________________________
Second Reader

____________________________________
External Reader

____________________________________
Dissertation Defense Committee Chair

ii
 Disclaimer

The views expressed in this dissertation are those of the student and do not
necessarily express the views of Wheaton College.

iii
 To my mentors in biblical studies.
You bear his name with honor—not only in the classroom and the academy,
but also at home, in the public square, and in the church worldwide.

Karl Neerhof
Ray Lubeck
Karl Kutz
Rollin Grams
Karen Jobes
Sandra Richter
Daniel Block
“At the deepest level, use of God’s name is a matter of mission.”
—Terence Fretheim, Exodus
 ABSTRACT

The Name Command (NC) is usually interpreted as a prohibition of some kind of

speech: false oaths, wrongful pronunciation of the divine name, irreverent worship,

magical practices, cursing, false teaching, and the like. However, these interpretations

ignore the natural sense of the Hebrew ‫נׂשא‬, and appeal to supposed parallel ANE and

biblical texts that do not stand up to closer scrutiny. In short, the NC lacks the contextual

specification needed to support the command as speech-related. A re-examination is

sorely needed.

Taking seriously the narrative context at Sinai and the closest lexical parallels, a

different picture emerges — one animated by concrete rituals and their associated

metaphorical concepts. The unique phrase ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is one of several expressions arising

from the conceptual metaphor, ELECTION AS BRANDING, which finds analogy in the high

priestly regalia (Exod 28:38) as well as practices common to the ANE, such as inscribed

monuments, the use of seals, and the branding of slaves. It also draws on the well-attested

conceptual metaphor OBEDIENCE IS A JOURNEY, thereby illuminating the public

implications of covenant faithfulness. The image of bearing YHWH’s name offers a rich

source for theological and ethical reflection that cannot be conveyed non-metaphorically

without distortion or loss of meaning. The failure to recognize this conceptual world has

predisposed generations of interpreters to look elsewhere for the meaning of the NC and

thereby to miss its true significance.

While ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is a unique expression, its affiliation with other name-related

idioms supports this reading: ‫ נקרא־ׁשם על‬is applied both to the people of Israel and to the
vi
same entities on which the name is explicitly “placed” (‫ ׁשכן‬/ ‫ ;ׂשים‬the ark, the central

sanctuary, and the city of Jerusalem), conveying a claim to ownership. The “placing” of

YHWH’s name on Israel through the declaration of the priestly blessing (Num 6:27)

confirms her election as YHWH’s covenant partner, a status that implies her vocation to

represent him. The first two commands of the Decalogue thereby reinforce the two sides

of the covenant declaration: “I will be your God you will be my people.” The first

expresses the demand for exclusive worship and the second (the NC) calls for proper

representation. As a consequence, the NC invites a richer exploration of what it means to

be a people in covenant with YHWH—a people who bear his name among the nations. It

also points to what is at stake when Israel carries that name “in vain.”

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Scope and Need for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Historical and Theological Presuppositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Method and Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2. A HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NAME COMMAND . . 9

The Name Command as an Elliptical Expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

You Shall Not Lift Your Hand to the Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

False or Unnecessary Oaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Malicious Oaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Evidence for Oaths: ANE Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

The Evidence for Oaths: Biblical Parallels . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Leviticus 19:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Exodus 23:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Psalm 16:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Psalm 24:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Hosea 4:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Zechariah 5:4a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Jeremiah 7:9–10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

viii
 Other Problems with Oaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

You Shall Not Say the Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Non-Pronunciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

False or Unauthorized Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Magic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

You Shall Not Call Upon the Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Idolatry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Empty-Handed Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Hypocritical Worship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

“All of the Above” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

The Name Command as a Non-Elliptical Expression . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Rabbinic Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Early Christian Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Medieval and Reformation Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Interpreters from the Reformation to the Present . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Clear Advocates of the Non-Elliptical Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . 67

3. A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE NAME COMMAND: LEXICO-HISTORICAL

CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

‫ ׁשם‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

‫ ׁשם‬as a Declaration of Possession . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

‫ קרא על־ׁשם‬and ‫ קרא בׁשם‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

‫לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬, ‫לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬, and ‫ להיות ׁשמו ׁשם‬. . . . . . . . . . . 98

The Use of Names in Seals and Branding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

ix
 Dishonor of YHWH’s ‫ ׁשם‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

‫ חלל את־ׁשם‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Other Negative Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Sanctification of YHWH’s ‫ ׁשם‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

‫ נׂשא‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Psalm 16:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Exodus 28:12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

Exodus 28:29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

Aramaic Targums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Syriac Peshitta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Latin Vulgate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Summary of Findings on ‫ נׂשא‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

‫ ׁשוא‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Other Ancient Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

‫ נקה‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

LXX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Other Ancient Translations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

Excursus: Psalm 24:4 and Psalm 139:20 in Light of the Name Command . 169

Psalm 24:3–4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Psalm 139:19–20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

x
4. A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE NAME COMMAND IN THE CONTEXT OF THE

DECALOGUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

The Character of the Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

The Decalogue as Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

The Decalogue as Divine Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

The Decalogue as Treaty or Covenant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

The Decalogue as a Portrait of a Covenant-Keeping Israelite . . . . 187

The Decalogue and Israel’s Other Constitutional Documents . . . . 189

The Literary Context of the Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

The Book of Exodus as Context for the Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . 193

The Sinai Narratives as Context for the Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Deuteronomy as Context for the Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

The Decalogue as Context for the NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Microstructure: Reading the NC in the Context of the Decalogue . . . 203

Macrostructure: Reading Deuteronomy as an Exposition of the Decalogue 211

Conclusion: The Decalogue and the Name Command . . . . . . . . . . . 216

5. BEARING YHWH’S NAME AT SINAI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Conceptual Metaphor in Biblical Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

Conceptual Metaphor at Sinai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Motivation for the Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Misinterpretation of the Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

The Concept of Name Bearing at Sinai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

Exodus 23: YHWH’s Envoy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

Exodus 28: YHWH’s High Priest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

xi
 Aaron’s Regalia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Aaron’s Ordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

Aaron’s Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

The Occasion of Bearing YHWH’s Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Ritual at Sinai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

Israel’s “Regalia” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

Israel’s Role among the Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

Conclusion: Election to Representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280

Translation of the NC into English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

1. SEMANTIC OVERLAP BETWEEN ‫ נׂשא‬AND λαμβάνω . . . . . . . . . . 284

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

xii
 ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

1. Outline of Interpretive Options for the Name Command . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. Elliptical Interpretations of the Name Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. Elliptical Interpretations of the Name Command, Oaths . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Elliptical Interpretations of the Name Command, Speech.. . . . . . . . . . . 36

5. Elliptical Interpretations of the Name Command, Worship . . . . . . . . . . 47

6. Broad Application of the Name Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

7. Non-Elliptical Interpretation of the Name Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

8. Semantic Overlap of ‫ נׂשא‬and λαμβάνω . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

9. The Narrative Placement of the Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

10. Geographic Placement of the Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

11. Priestly Garments (ordered according to Leviticus 8:7–9) . . . . . . . . . . 241

xiii
 TABLES

Table

1. ANE Texts Related to False or Frivolous Oaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2. ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬in the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

3. Idioms Involving ‫ נׂשא‬. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

4. Translation Overlap of ‫ נׂשא‬and λαμβάνω . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

5. MT and Targum Onqelos (Exod 20:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

6. MT and Targum Neofiti (Exod 20:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150

7. MT and Pseudo-Jonathan (Exod 20:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

8. MT and Samaritan Targum (Exod 20:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

9. Latin Vulgate of the NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

10. Exodus 34:6–7 and the Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

11. The Name Command in the Decalogic Structure of Deuteronomy . . . . . 212

12. Conceptual Metaphors in the Exodus Decalogue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223

13. Conceptual Metaphor in the Name Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

14. Conceptual Mapping of Election in Terms of Branding . . . . . . . . . . . 226

15. Evidence of the OBEDIENCE IS A JOURNEY Metaphor . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

16. A Comparison of Priestly Garment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

17. Stated Purposes for the High Priestly Garments in Exodus 28 . . . . . . . 254

18. Passages where ‫ נׂשא‬is Translated by λαμβάνω . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

xiv
 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS

I am indebted to a host of friends whose skill in other languages enhanced my

research: Daniel Camfferman (Dutch); Richard Schultz, Eva Dittmann, and Daniel Lanz

(German); Kathleen Kepley and Jennifer McNutt (French); Adam Miglio (Akkadian,

Ugaritic); Chris Ansberry (Egyptian); the late Harry Hoffner (Hittite); Jesse Arlen

(Syriac); Paul Cable (Latin); Michael Graves (Syriac, Latin, Aramaic); and especially

Austin Surls, who cheerfully helped with Akkadian, Hebrew (both classical and modern),

and Aramaic on countless occasions and then thanked me for asking him.

I am also grateful to the scholars I have met through IBR and SBL who shared

their unpublished work and/or stimulated my thinking in new directions through personal

conversation: Andrea Weiss, Alison Gray, Monica Phillips, Jacob Lauinger, Jeffrey

Stackert, Carly Crouch, Anne Knafl, Alan Harman, Jason DeRouchie, and Joseph Lam.

Daniel Block has been an ideal mentor, from those first days of dreaming up a

topic together through the long years of grunt work to bring this to fruition. He has

modeled a generous and hospitable scholarship, taught me to write well, and pushed me

beyond what I thought I could do. I will be forever grateful for the privilege of working

so closely with him at Wheaton. Karen Jobes went above and beyond the call of duty for

a second reader, tutoring me in linguistic research and reading each chapter carefully as I

wrote it. Her personal and academic encouragement helped to make the first years of

work a joyful journey. Sandra Richter generously agreed to take over as second reader

late in the project when Dr. Jobes retired. Her expertise helped me vanquish that mortal

xv
enemy, Illegitimate Totality Transfer, and sharpened many a fuzzy sentence, bringing

clarity to the whole. Other faculty members also shaped my thinking in important ways:

John Walton, Daniel Treier, Lynn Cohick, Michael Graves, Richard Schultz, Kevin

Vanhoozer, and Adam Miglio. Dozens of others showed interest along the way, shared

resources, and asked penetrating questions, notably Austin Surls, Jordan Barrett, Mike

Kibbe, Matthew Patton, Amy Hughes, Daniel Owens, Stephen Scheidell, Michelle

Knight, and Daniel Lanz.

The technical expertise of Matthew Patton, Daniel Owens, and Daniel Lanz saved

many hours of work, and Greg Morrison and Jeremiah Coogan deserve special

recognition for their assistance in locating library resources. The librarians at George Fox

University and Multnomah University were accommodating as well. The practical help of

Nita Newing, Virginia Barbur, Verna Camfferman, and Julie Theophanes made it

possible to finish the first draft, while Willy and Angela Brandley gave generously of

themselves to keep us “warm and well fed” until we crossed the finish line.

My dear family—Danny, Eliana, Emma, and Easton—fought with me for every

page, pushing me to write, and celebrating when each was written. I cannot imagine a

stronger support team. My children have grown up with the Name Command, and can

scarcely imagine “life after dissertation.” Eliana’s help with the abbreviations and

bibliography and her companionship on “study weekends” was a great bonding

experience. Emma and Easton cheerfully encouraged me day by day. To their perennial

question— “Are you done with your dissertation yet?” —the answer is finally “yes!”

Words cannot express what Danny’s support has meant to me. He laid down his life for

me, hour after hour, so that I could faithfully answer God’s calling. His sweat shows on

xvi
every page. This crucible united our hearts and purified our love. We are stronger for it,

and I’m grateful. His partnership is every scholar’s dream.

And finally, five remarkable couples should take satisfaction in the completion of

this project: Dan and Verna Camfferman, Phil and Julie Parshall, Chuck and Vicki

Kinnaman, Mike and Maggie Rowe, Dan and Ellen Block. While a whole host of people

have encouraged us on this journey, without each of you we could not have finished. You

were our lifeline. Thank you.

In spite of help from all these remarkable people, mistakes undoubtedly remain.

After all, I am only human! May the weaknesses of this project not reflect on any of these

fine mentors and friends, who rescued me from countless errors. Soli deo gloria!

Carmen Joy Imes

April 2016

xvii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A Codex Alexandrinus (LXX)

AB Anchor Bible

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols. New York,

1992

ABRL Anchor Bible Reference Library

ACT Ancient Christian Texts

AfO Archiv für Orientforschung

AHI Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. Edited by G. I. Davies. 2 vols. Cambridge,

1991 and 2004.

AHw Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Edited by W. von Soden. 3 vols.

Wiesbaden, 1965–1981

AnBib Analecta biblica

ANE Ancient Near East

ANET2 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Edited by J. B.
Pritchard. 2nd ed. Princeton, 1955

ANF The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James

Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994

Ant. Jewish Antiquities. Josephus

AOAT Alter Orient und Altes Testament

AOTC Apollos Old Testament Commentary

ArBib The Aramaic Bible

AT Author’s Translation

ATANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments

xviii
ATSHB Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A
Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, 2005

b. ʿAbod. Zar. Babylonian (Talmud) ʿAbodah Zarah

b. Ber. Babylonian (Talmud) Berakot

b. Ḥag Babylonian (Talmud) Ḥagigah

b. Ned. Babylonian (Talmud) Nedarim

b. Pesaḥ Babylonian (Talmud) Pesaḥim

b. Šabb. Babylonian (Talmud) Šabbat

b. Šebu Babylonian (Talmud) Šebuʿot

b. Tamid Babylonian (Talmud) Tamid

b. Tem. Babylonian (Talmud) Temurah

b. Yoma Babylonian (Talmud) Yoma

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BBR Bulletin for Biblical Research

BBRSup Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement Series

BCOT Baker Commentary on the Old Testament

BDAG Danker, F. W., W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English

Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd
ed. Chicago, 2000

BeO Bibbia e oriente

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

BHQ Biblia Hebraica Quinta. Stuttgart, 2004–

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph.

Stuttgart, 1983

BIS Biblical Interpretation Series

BN Biblische Notizen

xix
BRLJ Brill Reference Library of Judaism

BSac Bibliotheca sacra

BTCB Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible

BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

CAD The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of

Chicago. Chicago, 1956–2011

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CC Calvin’s Commentaries

CC Continental Commentaries

ConBOT Coniectanea biblica: Old Testament Series

COS The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger.

3 vols. Leiden, 1997–2003

CTH Catalogue des textes hittites. Edited by E. Laroche. Etudes et

commentaries 75. Paris, 1971

DCH Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Edited by D. J. A. Clines. Sheffield,

1993–2011

DDD Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited by K. van der
Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst. 2nd ed. Leiden, 1999

DH Deuteronomistic History

DNWSI Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. J. Hoftijzer and K.

Jongeling. 2 vols. Leiden, 1995

DOTP Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T. Desmond

Alexander and David W. Baker. Downers Grove, 2003

DTIB Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Kevin J.

Vanhoozer. Grand Rapids, 2005

EA El-Amarna tablets. According to the edition of William L. Moran. The

Amarna Letters. Baltimore, 1992

EBC The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman, III and
David E. Garland. Grand Rapids, 2006–2012

ECC Eerdmans Critical Commentary

xx
EdF Erträge der Forschung

EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz, G.

Schneider. ET. Grand Rapids, 1990–1993

EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica. Edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum.

2nd ed. 16 vols. Detroit, 2007

EPSC Evangelical Press Study Commentaries

ExpTim Expository Times

FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament

FOTL Forms of the Old Testament Literature

GCS Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte

GTJ Grace Theological Journal

HALOT Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic
Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision
of M. E. J. Richardson. Study edition. 2 vols. Boston, 2001

HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament

HDT Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Edited by Gary M. Beckman and Harold A.

Hoffner. SBLWAW 7. Atlanta, 1999

Herm. Sim. Hermas Similitudes

HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament

HRCS Hatch, E. and H. A. Redpath. Concordance to the Septuagint and Other

Greek Versions of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford, 1897. Suppl., 1906.
Reprint, Graz, Austria, 1954

HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs

HSS Harvard Semitic Studies

HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual

IBHS An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K. Waltke and M.

O’Connor. Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990

ICC International Critical Commentary

Int Interpretation

xxi
Int Interpretation

IVP InterVarsity Press

JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

Jastrow Jastrow, M. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and

Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2nd ed. New York, 1903

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JBTh Jahrbuch für Biblische Theologie

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Joüon Joüon, P. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Translated and revised by T.

Muraoka. 2 vols. Subsidia Biblica 14/1–2. Rome, 1991.

JPS Jewish Publication Society

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series

KAI Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. H. Donner and W. Röllig. 2nd

ed. Wiesbaden, 1966–1969

KTU Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by M. Dietrich, O.

Loretz, and J. Sanmartín. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2nd
enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras
Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J.
Sanmartín. Münster, 1995 (= CTU)

LCC Library of Christian Classics. Philadelphia, 1953–

LCL Loeb Classical Library

LEC Library of Early Christianity

LH Laws of Hammurabi

LHB/OTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies

xxii
LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed.
with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996

LW Luther’s Works. Edited by J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehmann. 55 vols. St.

Louis, MO, 1955–1986

LXX Septuagint

Mek. Mekhilta

MT Masoretic Text

NAC New American Commentary

NC Name Command (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11)

NCBC New Century Bible Commentary

NIBCOT New International Biblical Commentary: Old Testament Series

NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NIDB New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Sakenfeld.

Nashville, 2009

NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.

Edited by W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 1997

NIVAC NIV Application Commentary

OEAE The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Edited by Donald B. Redford.

New York, 2001

OEANE The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Edited by E.

M. Meyers. New York, 1997

OED The Oxford English Dictionary. Edited by J. A. Simpson and E. S. C.

Weiner. 2nd ed. 20 vols. Oxford, 1989

OTL Old Testament Library

Pesiq. Rab. Pesiqta Rabbati

Pol. Phil. Polycarp, To the Philippians. In The Apostolic Fathers, edited and
translated by Michael W. Holmes. Grand Rapids, 2007

QD Quaestiones disputatae

xxiii
Rab. Midrash Rabbah. Edited by H. Freedman and Maruice Simon. 3rd ed.
New York, 1983 (e.g., Gen. Rab. = Genesis Rabbah)

RB Revue biblique

RBL Review of Biblical Literature

RIH Ras Ibn Hani

RIM A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I

(1114–859), The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods 2
(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 13

RlA Reallexikon der Assyriologie. Edited by Erich Ebeling et al. Berlin, 1924–
1932

SAA State Archives of Assyria

SBL Society of Biblical Literature

SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series

SBLWAW Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World

SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien

SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study

SC Sources chrétiennes. Paris, 1943–

SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary

SP Samaritan Pentateuch

ST Samaritan Targum

ST Summa Theologiæ

SVG Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae

Syr. Syriac

TBS Tools for Biblical Study

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G.

Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids, 1964–
1976

xxiv
TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. J. Botterweck
and H. Ringgren. Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E.
Green. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, 1974–

Tg(s). Targum(s)

Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos

Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

TH Theodotion (LXX)

TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with

assistance from C. Westermann. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols.
Peabody, MA, 1997

TO Targum Onqelos

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. L. Harris, G. L.

Archer Jr. 2 vols. Chicago, 1980

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

VT Vetus Testamentum

VTE Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon

VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum

WBC Word Biblical Commentary

WC Westminster Commentaries

Webster Webster’s New World College Dictionary. Edited by Michael Agnes. 4th
ed. Cleveland, 2008

WSA Works of Saint Augustine. Edited by John E. Rotelle. Brooklyn, 1990–

2009

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

y. Ber. Jerusalem (Talmud) Berakot

YOS Yale Oriental Series

xxv
ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZIBBCOT Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament.

Edited by John H. Walton. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, 2009

xxvi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

It is the remarkable impact of the Ten Commandments as a whole on two

millennia of religious and, to be sure, cultural history that has so impressed
readers and has drawn their attention more to these sixteen verses than to any
other single block of biblical laws—perhaps more than to any other part of the
Hebrew Bible.
—Douglas Knight, Law, Power, and Justice in Ancient Israel

Given the widespread familiarity with the Decalogue in Western culture, it may

come as a surprise that it is often misunderstood. This is especially true with the Name

Command (Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11; hereafter, NC).1 When asked what it means “to take

the LORD’s name in vain,” a typical response is, “It means you shouldn’t swear.” In

popular parlance, “to swear” is to utter profanity. Indeed, whether on reality TV, on the

basketball court, or in a crowded high school hallway, God’s name is frequently used for

this kind of “swearing.” However, most scholars recognize that while the flippant use of

God’s name is objectionable, the NC addresses something else. Many agree that the

meaning of the NC is uncertain, but this is where agreement ends. The number of

1
Most introductions to the Decalogue acknowledge the difficulty of numbering
the commands. For discussion, see Jason S. DeRouchie, “Counting the Ten: An
Investigation into the Numbering of the Decalogue,” in For Our Good Always: Studies
on the Message and Influence of Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block, ed. Jason S.
DeRouchie, Jason Gile, and Kenneth J. Turner (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013),
93–125. Some traditions call Exod 20:7 the “Second Commandment” and others refer to
it as the “Third Commandment.” See discussion below, pp. 208–12. To avoid confusion,
I will use the designation “Name Command,” abbreviated as NC. Unless otherwise noted,
all English translations of biblical or other texts are my own.

1
 2

meanings proposed for the NC is more than twice the number of words it contains.2 I

contend that the failure to interpret this command properly arises from a neglect of the

natural meaning of the Hebrew in its immediate literary context on the one hand, and

inattention to the conceptual metaphors that motivated its unusual phraseology on the

other. The NC is expressed identically in both versions of the Decalogue:

Exodus 20:7 // Deuteronomy 5:11

‫ לא תׂשא את־ׁשם־יהוה אלהיך לׁשוא‬You shall not bear the name of YHWH, your God, in vain,
‫ כי לא ינקה יהוה‬for YHWH will not acquit
‫ את אׁשר־יׂשא את־ׁשמו לׁשוא‬one who bears his name in vain.

The word ‫ תׂשא‬is a 2ms qal imperfect of ‫נׂשא‬, which typically means “to lift up,

carry, or bear.” The marked direct object—that which the recipients of this command

were prohibited from bearing ‫—לׁשוא‬is ‫את־ׁשם־יהוה אלהיך‬, YHWH’s name.3 ‫לׁשוא‬

indicates the manner in which the name is not to be borne, with the lamed prefix lending

the noun ‫ ׁשוא‬an adverbial sense: “in vain.” Failure to heed this warning precludes

acquittal (‫ ;)לא ינקה‬YHWH treats an infraction with utmost seriousness.

The translation of the NC proposed here requires no exegetical gymnastics, and

yet this natural rendering is usually set aside by interpreters, who evidently cannot work

out what it means. The clearest biblical occurrence of the expression ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬outside the

NC refers to the high priestly garments. The high priest was to “bear the names” of the

twelve tribes on his person to signify his role as their authorized representative before

2
Exodus 20:7 contains 17 words. Due to repetition, only 10 lexemes are utilized,
but at least 23 different meanings have been proposed.
3
‫“( אלהיך‬your God”) functions epexegetically.
 3

YHWH (Exod 28:29). 4 While he physically carried, or bore, their names, he served as an

analog to Israel’s bearing of YHWH’s name, which was conferred on them by the high

priest when he blessed them (Num 6:27). As YHWH’s chosen people and “kingdom of

priests” (Exod 19:5), they represented him among the nations. While the high priestly

analogue is not essential to the meaning of the NC, since it relies on a plain sense reading

of the Hebrew text, the high priest provides a convenient visual lexicon or model of

Israel’s vocation, unlocking a rich network of theological associations. These will be

explored in chapter 5.

Scope and Need for Research

This project engages recent scholarly literature as well as significant older works

on the Decalogue as a whole, in addition to a thorough survey of publications on the NC

in particular. Chapter 2 explores the range of interpretive options advocated by scholars

across the ages, focusing on representatives whose exposition is sufficiently detailed to

merit close interaction. A survey such as this will prepare the ground for the constructive

project that follows. The diversity of approaches and the general puzzlement expressed

by many commentators justifies this full-length exploration.

Most interpreters have read the NC as elliptical in nature. An elliptical reading

supposes that the phrase ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is shorthand for a longer expression, or that some

4
Most interpreters routinely overlook these passages. For example, Miller (The
Ten Commandments, Int (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 68) dismisses
Exodus 28 as “not relevant” to the interpretation of the NC without offering an
explanation. This is unfortunate, because the description of Aaron’s high priestly
garments offers the closest lexical and contextual parallels to the NC.
 4

information is assumed.5 Only a handful have championed an alternative, non-elliptical

reading of this command, which accepts ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬as a complete expression. This project

will refer to the non-elliptical interpretation as “representational” because it reads the NC

as prohibiting the misrepresentation of YHWH by those who bear his name. However,

rather than ruling out other interpretations, this alternate reading both includes them and

offers a firmer exegetical basis for broader application. The representational view widens

the field of reference beyond matters of speech to include behavior that “takes his name

in vain” (to use the English idiom).6 This is the first attempt in English to examine

thoroughly the various interpretations and their relationship with each other.7 It is also the

first extended exploration of the minority view that reads the command non-elliptically,

as “bearing the name,” rather than as an ellipsis for speaking it.8 Although others have

adopted the representational reading of the NC, this project is the first to test this

5
As defined by E. W. Bullinger (Figures of Speech Used in the Bible [Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1968], 1), a literary ellipsis occurs when a “gap is left in the sentence,
which means that a word or words are left out or omitted.” Ellipses are especially
common in the second line of poetic parallelism, but they can occur in other genres when
the author feels that a complete statement is unnecessary. For example, in Hos 1:2
YHWH instructs Hosea “Go. Take for yourself a woman of prostitution and [ . . . ]
children of prostitution.” Here the verb “to bear” (‫ )ילד‬is assumed. See Luis Alonso
Schökel, A Manual of Hebrew Poetics, Subsidia Biblica 11 (Rome: Editrice pontificio
Istituto biblico, 1988), 166–67.
6
On the history of this unusual English idiom, see p. 283.
7
Thomas Elßner’s historical survey (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot (Ex 20,7 /
Dtn 5,11): Bedeutung, Entstehung und frühe Wirkungsgeschichte, ETS 75 [Leipzig: St.
Benno, 1999], 32–33) includes only German interpreters and categorizes them according
to whether they conceived of the NC as specific or general.
8
To my knowledge, the only extended treatments of the NC to date are Elßner,
Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, and Fulton Johnson Coffin, The Third Commandment
(Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1898). A 22-page version of Coffin’s work was
released in 1900 (“The Third Commandment,” JBL 19 [1900]: 166–88).
 5

hypothesis systematically for its literary, lexical, grammatical, historical, and theological

plausibility. Furthermore, cognitive linguistics has not been previously employed as a

helpful model for understanding the NC. While the representational interpretation is not

the only possible reading, it offers a more satisfying explanation of the data than other

interpretations.

Historical and Theological Presuppositions

Critical scholars struggle to identify a Sitz im Leben for biblical commands,

especially the Decalogue, given the internal lack of historical reference.9 Some see it as

one of the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible; others as one of the most recent.10 Attempts

9
On the impossibility of determining the date of origin for apodictic law, see
Rifat Sonsino, “Law; Forms of Biblical Law,” ABD 4:254. The date of the Decalogue is
notoriously controversial. See, e.g., Douglas Knight, Law, Power, and Justice in Ancient
Israel, 1st ed., Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 24.
10
Conservative or progressive leanings do not necessarily determine one’s
conclusion on the compositional dating of the Decalogue. See Dennis McCarthy, Treaty
and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old
Testament, AnBib 21A (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978), 249 n. 8. Those who favor a late
date include Axel Graupner, “Die zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik:
Anmerkungen zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Forschung,” in Weisheit, Ethos und Gebot:
Weisheits- und Dekalogtraditionen in der Bibel und im frühen Judentum, Biblisch-
Theologische Studien 43 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 62; Albertus van den
Branden, “Le Décalogue,” BeO 33:2 (1991): 93–124; Eduard Nielsen, The Ten
Commandments in New Perspective (London: SCM, 1968), 131; Eckhart Otto,
Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments, Theologische Wissenschaft (Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1994), 212, 218; John Van Seters, “‘Comparing Scripture with Scripture’:
Some Observations on the Sinai Pericope of Exodus 19–24,” in Canon, Theology and
Old Testament Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, ed. G. M. Tucker
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 111–30; Joëlle Ferry, “Le Décalogue, une loi pour
l’homme?,” Transversalités 80 (December 2001): 155–70; Raymond F. Collins, “Ten
Commandments,” ABD 6:384.
Whether the Exodus or Deuteronomy version came first is unclear. Arguing for
the latter are Ronald E. Clements, Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach (Atlanta:
John Knox, 1978), 119–20; Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theology and Social History
of Old Testament Law, trans. A. W. Mahnke (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 355; Ludger
 6

to recover the original Decalogue have tended to reduce it to a series of brief, negative

statements, excising material that interrupts the apodictic cadence. Those who favor this

Ur-Decalogue fail to explain why later redactors should have tampered with the

symmetry they propose. On the other hand, Werner Kessler’s literary analysis of each

Decalogic command leads him to conclude that the Decalogue must have arisen during

the pre-Monarchic period. Not only do the lexemes and concepts fit an older period, but

the blending of civil and religious concerns seems out of place for later times.11

Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Das Verhältnis von Dekalog und Bundesbuch,” in Die Zehn

Worte: der Dekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik, ed. Michael Konkel, Christian
Frevel, and Johannes Schnocks, QD 212 (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005), 71. Many
suspect a long and complicated development culminating in the present versions,
including Hendrik Bosman, “Adultery, Prophetic Tradition, and the Decalogue,” in The
Ten Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, ed. William P. Brown, 1st ed.
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 274; Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch:
An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, ABRL (New York: Doubleday,
1992), 209; Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History
of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 312.
Those who insist on the plausibility of Mosaic origin include John Durham,
Exodus, WBC (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 282; J. J. Stamm, The Ten Commandments in
Recent Research, trans. M. E. Andrew, SBT 2/2 (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967), 39;
Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2006), 287–88; Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, OTL
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 70–74. Those arguing for the antiquity of part of it
include Cornelis Houtman, Exodus, trans. Sierd Woudstra, HCOT (Leuven, Belgium:
Peeters, 2000), 3:9; Walter J. Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights,
Rev. ed. (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 35.
Others deem the quest for an “Ur-Decalogue” hopeless. For example, Collins,
“Ten Commandments,” ABD 6:383; Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of
Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967), 236. Meredith Kline (Treaty
of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy: Studies and Commentary
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963], 21) finds historical-critical proposals for a short
original form of the Decalogue “unsatisfactory” because the covenantal elements that
best fit the historical occasion are stripped away.
11
Kessler, “Die literarische, historische und theologische Problematik des
Dekalogs,” VT 7 (1957): 13–14.
 7

Ultimately, any explanation must be held lightly. While not irrelevant to the

meaning of the Decalogue, questions of composition and dating are in large part

unsolvable, at least given the current state of knowledge. Since firm answers regarding

these issues are elusive, the final form of the text will be our object of study. Careful

attention to the way the Decalogue functions in both of its narrative settings (but

especially at Sinai) will illuminate its significance for Israel’s faith and life.12

Method and Aims

John Barton rightly affirms that each “method” of critical study offers an angle

from which to view the text, and each has both benefits and liabilities.13 For that reason,

this project approaches the NC from many different angles, attempting to read with the

grain of the text, rather than against it. Linguistic (both lexical and cognitive), narrative,

historical, and theological angles each provide important insights, facilitating a more

natural and historically defensible reading.

12
I have intentionally avoided asking, “What was its role in ancient Israel?” Little
information survives about the uses of the Decalogue in ancient Israel, though this does
not prevent some from making specific claims about its liturgical origins. See, e.g.,
Kessler (ibid., 4), who agrees with Mowinckel that the Decalogue arose in the ancient
cult for ceremonial recitation. Given the paucity of clear allusions to the Decalogue as a
whole, it seems prudent to limit analysis to what we can know—namely, the place of the
Decalogue in its current textual settings in Exodus and Deuteronomy at the head of the
rest of Israel’s laws. The Torah in its present canonical setting is the fullest expression of
Israelite faith in YHWH, rooted in his concrete historical acts on their behalf. Those
inclined to dismiss these accounts as fictitious can at least agree on the literary and
theological significance of the texts Israel preserved and transmitted as its Scriptures. On
the scarcity of allusions to the Decalogue, see Daniel I. Block, “The Decalogue in the
Hebrew Scriptures,” in The Decalogue through the Centuries, ed. Jeffrey P. Greenman
and Timothy Larsen (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 21.
13
John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, rev. and
enl. (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1996), 4–6. This project has not adopted
all his categories.
 8

Following the history of interpretation in chapter 2, chapter 3 explores the lexical

and syntactical features of the NC in conversation with the relevant history and language

of the ANE. The historical data on divine names provides a helpful context for the way

the Hebrew Bible speaks of YHWH’s name. Exhaustive studies of the key terms in the

NC provide a basis for identifying related idioms. Chapter 4 assesses the genre of the

Decalogue as the immediate literary context of the NC, and its place in the overall

narratives of Exodus and Deuteronomy, with special focus on the Sinai narratives. In

chapter 5, these results are coordinated and discussed in light of conceptual metaphor

theory with special reference to Israel’s high priest as a visual lexicon of key concepts.

A fuller discussion of each method appears in the chapter where that method is

employed. As a whole, the argument is cumulative rather than linear. This project

considers the NC from various angles, collecting evidence and answering potential

objections. I begin by demonstrating the problems with each of the other views and then

build a case for the representational view by accumulating support from various modes of

inquiry. The end result is an interpretation of the NC anchored in the literary, historical,

and theological contexts of the Bible.

 CHAPTER 2

A HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NAME COMMAND

There are no three words in the Hebrew language that have a greater variety of
meanings. . . . By the combination of these meanings an immense number of
interpretations can be put upon the passage; and, as a matter of fact, the history of
exegesis shows that nearly every possible theory has been tried at one time or
another.
—Lewis Paton, “The Meaning of Exodus XX. 7”

The variety of ways in which the Name Command (NC) has been understood

throughout history is almost dizzying. At least twenty-three distinct interpretations of

Exod 20:7 have been proposed. Most interpreters assume that the Hebrew expression ‫נׂשא‬

‫“( ׁשם‬lift up the name”) is elliptical, and ultimately, that it has something to do with

speaking the name. Differences in interpretation depend on which biblical or extrabiblical

passages are used to fill in the supposed ellipsis. Another factor is the interpretation of the

enigmatic ‫“( לׁשוא‬in vain”) that stands at the end of the clause. The NC is remarkably

pliable, in part because its three key words (‫נׂשא‬, ‫ׁשם‬, and ‫ )ׁשוא‬exhibit such a wide range

of meanings, depending on the context. As Paton noted above, the collocation of these

words in the NC has produced numerous proposals for this or that elliptical or idiomatic

expression.1

1
While Paton exaggerated, many scholars acknowledge the ambiguity of the NC.
See Lewis Paton, “The Meaning of Exodus XX. 7,” JBL 22 (1903): 201.

9
 10

Interpretive Options for the Name Command

A. Elliptical Expression

1. You shall not lift [your hand to] the name

a. You shall not swear oaths falsely
1) by affirming an untruth
2) by disavowing a truth
3) by failing to keep a promise
a) to do something
b) not to do something
b. You shall not swear oaths unnecessarily
1) by blessing unnecessarily
2) by affirming an obvious truth
3) by swearing habitually
c. You shall not swear oaths with evil intent
1) to trick someone
2) to do evil
3) selfishly
d. You shall not swear oaths by a false god
2. You shall not lift the name [on your lips]
a. You shall not say the name . . .
1) presumptuously
2) irreverently
3) unnecessarily
4) incorrectly
b. You shall not use the name . . .
1) to teach falsely
2) without authorization
3) maliciously
4) in magic
c. You shall not call upon . . .
1) an idol in the name
2) the name without a sacrifice
3) the name hypocritically
3. Some combination of the above

B. Non-Elliptical Expression: You shall not bear the name in vain

Figure 1. Outline of Interpretive Options for the Name Command

 11

The present chapter surveys these proposals, beginning with the most common

(Figure 1). Significantly, these readings of the NC cut across religious, geographic, and

chronological lines. While one might trace interpretations as they developed over time,

most are represented throughout history, making such an approach repetitive. Neither can

these interpretations be effectively organized on the basis of religious affiliation. Jews

and Christians, Catholics and Protestants, have often agreed across confessional lines

even while disagreeing within their own traditions. Accordingly, this survey presents the

advocates of a particular interpretation together—regardless of provenance or religion—

with prominence given to those offering an extended rationale for their interpretation.

One interpreter deserves special mention at the outset as the only one to offer a

full-length monograph on this command. In his published dissertation, Thomas Elßner

carefully assembles and analyses texts (both biblical and extra-biblical) that are

potentially related, offering an extended rationale for his conclusion that the NC is a late

post-Deuteronomic (exilic or early post-exilic) addition to the Decalogue. Elßner also

organizes past interpreters topically, dividing between advocates of a specific, a variable,

or a “deliberately abstract” prohibition.2 While helpful in many ways, Elßner’s analysis

of the data is at times undependable, and he has neglected to consider some of the most

important parallel passages.

The ambiguity of the NC is generally recognized. Moshe Weinfeld says, “The

exact semantic significance of ‘taking up’ the name of YHWH is unclear.”3 Waldemar

2
Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 12. His analysis of contemporary
interpreters is limited to German scholarship.
3
Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 1st ed., AB 5 (New York: Doubleday,
1991), 278. Cf. Miller, The Ten Commandments, 68; Ulrich Kellermann, “Der Dekalog in
 12

Janzen is even more pessimistic: “Our distance from the original is too great to know

precisely what the commandment meant to its first hearers or readers.”4 Herbert Huffmon

argues that the Decalogue is deliberately ambiguous, stemming from its nature as a

“foundational” law code.5 Whether the NC is actually ambiguous or intentionally broad

remains to be seen. One thing is certain: interpreters have been persistent and creative in

explicating this command.

The Name Command as an Elliptical Expression

Most scholars assume the NC is elliptical in some way, though they disagree over

what has been left out. ‫( לא תׂשא את־ׁשם־יהוה אלהיך לׁשוא‬lit., “You shall not lift up the

name of YHWH, your God, in vain”) does not seem to make sense on its own. Some

have proposed that the missing words are “your hand,” resulting in the reading, “You

shall not lift up [your hand to] the name of YHWH in vain.” Lifting the hand is

understood as an idiom for taking an oath.6 Others supply “to your lips,” with the result,

“You shall not lift up the name of YHWH [to your lips] in vain,” that is, say it for vain

den Schriften des Frühjudentums: Ein Überblick,” in Weisheit, Ethos und Gebot:
Weisheits- und Dekalogtraditionen in der Bibel und im frühen Judentum, Biblisch-
Theologische Studien 43 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 167; Paul Grimley
Kuntz, The Ten Commandments in History: Mosaic Paradigms for a Well-Ordered
Society, ed. Thomas D’Evelyn, Emory University Studies in Law and Religion (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 6.
4
Waldemar Janzen, Exodus, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, PA:
Herald, 2000), 257.
5
Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Fundamental Code Illustrated: The Third
Commandment,” in The Ten Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, ed.
William Brown, 1st ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004), 205–12.
6
Raising the hand is a gesture typical of oath taking (e.g., Deut 32:40).
Representatives of these views will be named below.
 13

purposes or in a vain manner (Figure 2).7 Since most fail to consider the possibility that

‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is coherent as it stands, the strongest arguments for an elliptical interpretation

will be treated first.

‫נׂשא ׁשם‬

elliptical

+ your hand + your lips + your lips

= swear = say = call upon

‫לׁשוא‬

falsely in an empty maliciously to a vain falsely or

manner [thing] ineffectively
= false oath = unnecessary = trick
= broken vow oath or vow = curse = hypocritically
= false teaching = irreverently = magic = idolatry
= false prophecy = without sacrifice = abuse

Figure 2. Elliptical Interpretations of the Name Command

7
Figure 2 distinguishes between these two elliptical approaches by the use of
different type (un-italicized for oath taking; italicized for other types of speech).
 14

The decision to read the NC elliptically by inserting a word or phrase is only the

beginning. Each interpretation is further differentiated from the others by how ‫ לׁשוא‬is

understood. It may be taken nominally (“to a vain thing”) or adverbially (“vainly”), and

at least three distinct adverbial senses have been proposed based on etymology and

context: empty, false, or malicious.8 Given its wide semantic range, ‫ ׁשוא‬functions as a

prism through which each interpretation is refracted, resulting in a wide array of

interpretations (Figure 2).9 Now we turn to an analysis of the first elliptical possibility

and its associated meanings.

You Shall Not Lift Your Hand to the Name

The vast majority of interpreters through the ages have thought the NC prohibits a

certain kind of oath, but they support this interpretation exegetically by different means.

Some supply the missing words “your hand”10 and interpret “lifting the hand” as an idiom

for taking an oath, while others think of it as “you shall not lift the name … to your

lips,”11 but still see oath taking as the primary referent of the resulting metaphor. To

8
See HALOT 2:1424–26. For a full discussion of ‫ׁשוא‬, see chapter 3.
9
Note that the un-italicized items in the lower boxes correspond to oath taking,
while the italicized items correspond to other speech-related interpretations. They appear
together in the same text boxes based on corresponding meanings for ‫ׁשוא‬.
10
Recent interpreters include Timo Veijola (“Das dritte Gebot [Namenverbot] im
Lichte einer ägyptischen Parallele,” ZAW 103 [1991]: 8) and Huffmon (“The
Fundamental Code Illustrated,” 207), though Huffmon suggests a second verb: “You
must not lift up (your hand and speak) the name of the LORD your God
falsely/frivolously.”
11
Notable advocates include Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 278–79; Werner H.
Schmidt, Die Zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik, ed. Holger Delkurt and
Axel Graupner, EdF 281 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993), 80;
Jeffrey Tigay, Deuteronomy [Devarim], 1st ed., The JPS Torah Commentary
 15
simplify the discussion all who advocate oath taking as the referent are grouped under

this first branch of the diagram, regardless of the “missing words” they supply or whether

they acknowledge the ellipsis (Figure 3).12

‫נׂשא ׁשם‬

elliptical

+ your hand
= swear

‫לׁשוא‬

falsely in an empty maliciously

manner
= false oath = unnecessary = trick
= broken vow oath or vow = curse

Figure 3. Elliptical Interpretations of the Name Command, Oaths

(Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996), 357 n. 79; Nahum Sarna, Exodus
[Shemot], 1st ed., The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1991), 111. Ramban (Commentary on the Torah: Exodus, trans. Charles B. Chavel [New
York: Shilo, 1973], 303) opts for “voice” rather than “lips.”
12
‫ יד‬could also be non-idiomatic to indicate the gesture preceding a blessing or
oath (Lev 9:22; Ps 134:2). For examples of hand-raising during oath taking where ‫ נׂשא‬is
the operative verb, see Blane Conklin, Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew, Linguistic
Studies in Ancient West Semitic (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011), 16.
 16
False or Unnecessary Oaths
Jewish scholars in particular have usually understood the NC to prohibit improper

oaths.13 Veijola is correct in his assessment that most Jewish interpreters have either seen

these oaths as “false” or “frivolous,”14 though many other nuances have been suggested.

Under the reading “you shall not swear oaths . . . falsely” at least three different meanings

are possible: (1) affirming an untruth,15 (2) disavowing a truth, and (3) failing to keep a

promise. The last may involve failing to do what one promised to do, or doing what one

promised not to do.16 While in the first two cases the oath is a lie,17 for the other the oath

becomes false when subsequent actions do not fulfill a promise (unless the intention of

the swearer was never to keep the oath, which makes it a lie from the beginning). Many

13
Rashi sees a double prohibition (reckless oaths and false oaths), most likely
following Tg. Onq., which uses word substitution to arrive at this interpretation. For
discussion, see Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 12. Other examples include Tg.
Ps.-J. on Deut 5:11; Tg. Onq. on Exod 20:7 and Deut 5:11; Lev. Rab. 33.6 on Lev. 25:1,
14; Ecc. Rab. 8.1 on Ecc 8:2; Num. Rab. 8.4 on Num 5:6; y. Ber. 1.4; b. Pesaḥ. 63b; b.
Šabb. 120a. Other Jewish interpreters who read the NC as regarding oaths include
Josephus, Ant. 3.91 (LCL 242); Mekhilta according to Rabbi Ishmael: An Analytical
Translation, trans. Jacob Neusner, Brown Judaic Studies 148 (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1988), Bahodesh 7, 2:77–78; Joseph Dana, “The ‘Piyyuṭ’ on the Ten Commandments
Ascribed to Saadiah Gaon,” JQR 86:3/4, New Series (1996): 5a, 367.
14
Veijola, “Das dritte Gebot,” 14.
15
See, e.g., Num. Rab. 9.12 (on Num 5:14); b. Šebu 20b.
16
For the former, see b. Pesaḥ. 63b; b. Šabb. 32b; Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the
Pentateuch: Exodus (Shemot), trans. H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver (New
York: Menorah, 1996), 423–24; Dana, “The ‘Piyyuṭ’ on the Ten Commandments,” 5a,
367; Sarna, Exodus, 111. For the latter (improper vows), see b. Tem. 3a–b and b. Šabb.
32b.
17
Rashi (M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann, trans., Pentateuch with Targum
Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary (London:
Shapiro, Vallentine & Co., 1948), 1:104) calls this “declaring something . . . to be
different from what it is.”
 17

scholars have advocated one or another of these readings, or all of them combined.18 Still

others include oath taking in a longer list of possible violations of this command.19 An

affirmation of an obvious truth might also be a “frivolous” or “unnecessary” oath.20 The

apocryphal book of Sirach prohibits habitual and false swearing in the name; the

statement, “the one who swears and uses names all the time will never be cleansed from

sin” (ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας οὐ μὴ καθαρισθη; Sir 23:9), may allude to the sanction expressed in the

18
Jewish scholars who speak of the NC as swearing falsely include Philo, On the
Decalogue 7.82–95, trans. F. H. Colson, LCL 320 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press; London: St. Edmundsbury, 1937), 49–55; b. Šeb. 20b, 38b–39b; y. Šeb. 3.10; y.
Ber. 1.4; Mekhilta according to Rabbi Ishmael, Bahodesh 7, 78; Ramban, Commentary
on the Torah: Exodus, 303; Benno Jacob, The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus, trans.
Walter Jacob (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992), 558; Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation
in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988), 344; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 67; Sarna,
Exodus, 111. For a helpful survey of the history of this interpretation, see James L.
Kugel, The Bible as It Was (Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1997), 391–93.
Other advocates include Hilaire of Poitiers, Sur Matthieu I 4,23, trans. Jean
Doignon, SC 254 (Paris: Cerf, 2007), 143; Cyprian, Testimonies 12, ANF 5:536; Aquinas,
ST 2a2æ 100.11; Calvin, Institutes, II.8.22; ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis
Battles, LCC 20 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967); John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten
Commandments, trans. Benjamin W. Farley (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 84; and more
recently Schwienhorst-Schönberger, “Das Verhältnis von Dekalog und Bundesbuch,” 59;
William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40, 1st ed., AB 2A (New York: Doubleday, 2006), 174;
Dominik Markl, Der Dekalog als Verfassung des Gottesvolkes: die Brennpunkte einer
narrativen Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch in Exodus 19–24 und Deuteronomium 5
(Freiberg: Herder, 2007), 112; Telford Work, Deuteronomy, BTCB (Grand Rapids:
Brazos, 2009), 79.
19
Those who suggest that the command applies broadly will be treated below
under the heading “all of the above.”
20
See Josephus, Ant. 3.91 (LCL 242); Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus
3.79.1, trans. Claude Modésert and Chantal Matray, SC 158 (Paris: Cerf, 2008), 279, line
28; Ramban, Commentary on the Torah: Exodus, 303; Maimonides, Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth of
Maimonides, trans. Charles B. Chavel (New York: Soncino, 1967), 60; Calvin Harm.
Pent. 2, CC 2:408; Calvin, John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments, 84–85;
Kellermann, “Tora für die Völker,” 180; John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew
Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 129.
 18

NC (μὴ καθαρίσῃ; LXX Exod 20:7). According to the Talmud, even an unnecessary

blessing in YHWH’s name was proscribed (b. Ber. 33a; b. Yoma 70a; cf. b. Tamid 33b).

Malicious Oaths
Based on proposed Arabic (sâʾa = “to be bad”) and Ethiopic (săyĕʾ = “crime”)

cognates, some suggest a malicious sense for ‫ׁשוא‬.21 On this basis, they claim the NC

prohibits swearing oaths with evil intent, that is, to trick someone, to promise to do evil,

or to be selfish.22 Alternatively, J. A. Motyer treats ‫ ׁשוא‬as a noun meaning “idol,”

arguing that the command warns against swearing oaths “by a false god.”23 The

inadequacies of these readings will be explored below.

The Evidence for Oaths: ANE Parallels

The case for oath taking has been founded on two major lines of evidence: ANE

parallels and biblical parallels. Timo Veijola notes an Egyptian votive stela dating to the

13th century BCE that preserves the prayer of a workman named Neferʾabu who “swore

falsely” and “mispronounced” the name of his god, Ptah (Table 1). For this grave sin,

21
The principal similarities between these words and ‫ ׁשוא‬consist of an s-class
consonant in first position and a glottal stop in last position (hamza in Arabic, aleph in
Hebrew, and alf in Ethiopic). The bilateral Old South Arabic root took a medial ‫ ו‬in
Hebrew and a medial jaman (= yod) in Ethiopic. For brief discussions, see Sigmund
Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I (Amsterdam: Schippers, 1961), 56; and Coffin, “The Third
Commandment,” 168. M. A. Klopfenstein (Die Lüge nach dem Alten Testament [Zürich:
Gotthelf, 1964], 315) regards the etymological relationship with Arabic and Ethiopic as
certain, though he erroneously transcribes the Arabic as sāʿa, with an ʿain rather than ͗alif.
22
On tricky oaths, see b. ʿAbod. Zar. 28a and b. Yoma 84a. On imprecatory
curses, see discussion below. For ‫ לׁשוא‬as “selfishly,” see George A. F. Knight, Theology
as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Edinburgh: Handsel, 1976), 137.
23
J. A. Motyer, The Message of Exodus: The Days of Our Pilgrimage (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005), 224.
 19

Neferʾabu was blinded, either literally or figuratively.24 Like the NC, mistreatment of a

god’s name resulted in punishment. Furthermore, the syntactical structure of Neferʾabu’s

prayer is comparable to the NC [neutral transitive verb + direct object (“name”) + divine

name + pejorative prepositional phrase]. However, aside from a concern with the divine

name, this syntactical shell lacks lexico-semantic parallels.25 Nefer-abu’s prayer employs

a verbum dicendi that relates his offense specifically to swearing, while the NC is worded

more generally, using a verb that does not normally denote speaking.26

Huffmon adduces several similar examples from ancient Mesopotamia in which

people are said to have “sworn frivolously” by their gods (Table 1).27 Elßner notes at

least two others.28 One text deals with harem laws of the Assyrian court, assigning the

death penalty to a quarreling woman who swears blasphemously in the name of god. Four

other texts represent prayers to an angry god, protesting innocence or ignorance of sin. A

Sumerian proverb makes a similar statement. Like Neferʾabu’s prayer, the problem with

these so-called parallels is that the syntactical similarities with the NC veil the virtual

24
Veijola, “Das dritte Gebot,” 4–5. Also noted by Schmidt, Die Zehn Gebote, 81.
For an English translation, see Elizabeth Frood, Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt,
SBLWAW 26 (Atlanta: SBL, 2007), 223–25. The hieroglyphic text appears as #589 in T.
G. H. James, Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, etc., Part 9 (London: Trustees of
the British Museum, 1970), Plate 31, 36 and 31A.
25
For further discussion, see Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 168.
26
Verbum dicendi is Elßner’s term of choice for speech-related verbs.
27
Huffmon, “The Fundamental Code Illustrated,” 209. For texts, see W. G.
Lambert, “Dinger.šà.dib.ba Incantations,” JNES 33:3 (1974): 274.24, 278.87, 289.12; W.
G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1960), 39.21–22.
28
Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 155–69.
 20
Table 1. ANE Texts Related to False or Frivolous Oaths
Provenance Text Transliteration Translation
13th c. BCE Neferʾabu Stela ink s ʿrḳ m ʿḏ3 n I am a man who swore falsely
Egypt from Deir El- Ptḥ … dm rn n by Ptah. . . . [Stop]
Medina29 Ptḥ m ʿḏ3 pronouncing the name of Ptah
falsely.
12th c. BCE Middle Assyrian šu[m il]e ana blasphemously swear by the
Assyria Palace Decree, §10 masikte taz⸗ name of the god
zakrūni
12th c. BCE Middle Assyrian ana la kitte . . . not in truth . . . he shall not
Assyria Palace Decree, §11 šu]m ile lu la swear by the name of the god.
izakkar
10th–7th c. Dinger.šà.dib.ba niš-ka kab-tu a solemn oath I lightly
BCE Incantations, 1.2430 qal-liš [a]z-za- uttered/swore
Assyria kar
10th–7th c. Dinger.šà.dib.ba [k]i-ma ša like the one who lightly swore
BCE Incantations, 1.8731 nīš(mu) ili-šú a solemn oath by his god
Sumeria kab-tu q[à-liš]
iz-ku-ru
10th–7th c. Dinger.šà.dib.ba, Ki-ma šá ni-iš as from one who lightly swore
BCE “Eršaḫunga Prayer,” ili-šú qal-liš [iz- an oath by his god
Assyria 1232 ku-ru
14th–12th c. “Poem of the niš ili-šú kab- he lightly swore a solemn oath
BCE Righteous Sufferer,” ti qal-liš iz-kur by his god
Mesopotamia 2.21–2233

29
For bibliography on the first three texts, see above. All transliterations appear in
the form presented by the source, with the exception of bold text, which highlights key
words relevant for this discussion.
30
Lambert, “Dinger.šà.dib.ba Incantations,” 274. Most MSS were found in
Assyria, but may be translations of older Sumerian texts. See ATSHB, 102. See also Alan
Lenzi (ed., Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction, ANEM 3 [Atlanta:
SBL, 2011], 434–35, 442–43), where this line reads, “I repeatedly swore a solemn oath
on your life in vain.”
31
Lambert, “Dinger.šà.dib.ba Incantations,” 278. This text reflects an Akkadian
translation of a Sumerian original. See discussion in ibid., 270.
32
Lambert, “Dinger.šà.dib.ba Incantations,” 289.
33
Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 39. For an alternate English
translation, see “The Poem of the Righteous Sufferer,” trans. Benjamin R. Foster, COS
1.153:488.
 21

absence of lexical cognates (aside from the “name of god” in the harem text, and “god” in

most of the other examples), such as the Egyptian šw. In principle, the Egyptian cḏ3

(“falsely”) or the Akkadian qalliš (“lightly”) or ana la kitte (“not in truth”) might serve as

a functional cognate to the Hebrew ‫ׁשוא‬. However, each of these texts clearly refers to

speech, the “false” or “frivolous” words are explicitly oaths, and none uses a verbal idiom

analogous to ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬to express this.34 Since the chief ambiguity of the NC is the

meaning of the phrase ‫נׂשא ׁשם‬, none of these texts is able to clarify its meaning, other

than to illustrate a shared cognitive world in which divine names deserved respect.

We can only call these parallel texts if we first establish on other grounds that the

expression ‫“( נׂשא ׁשם‬lift up the name”) in the NC means “to swear an oath.” If so, these

ANE texts would be very close conceptually.

The Evidence for Oaths: Biblical Parallels

In order to establish that ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬means “to swear an oath,” many interpreters

appeal to potential parallels in the Hebrew Bible. Most commonly cited are Lev 19:12,

Exod 23:1, Ps 16:4, Ps 24:4, Hos 4:2, Zech 5:3–4, and Jer 7:9.35 I will examine each of

these and evaluate their suitability as parallels to the NC, beginning with Lev 19:12.

34
Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 168, 283) suggests that the Egyptian
text is syntactically parallel to the NC but admits that the former contains a verbum
dicendi while the latter does not. For other examples of divine names in oaths, see Bendt
Alster, “The Instructions of Urninurta and Related Compositions,” Orientalia 60 (1991):
150; lines 19, 22–23, 32; Itamar Singer, Hittite Prayers, SBLWAW 11 (Atlanta: SBL,
2002), 32, no. 4a (CTH 373), §3; 43, no. 5 (CTH 375), §29–30; Erica Reiner, Šurpu: A
Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations, AfO 11 (Osnabrück: Biblio, 1970),
20, line 44; 27–28, line 87; 42, line 60.
35
Less frequently cited are Num 14:30; Deut 5:20; 1 Kgs 8:31; 2 Sam 14:11; Isa
48:1; 59:4; Hos 10:4; Ps 15:3; 59:13; 139:20; 144:8; and Prov 30:9.
 22
Leviticus 19:12
‫ ולא־תׁשבעו בׁשמי לׁשקר‬And you shall not swear by my name falsely
‫ וחללת את־ׁשם אלהיך‬and [thereby] profane the name of your God.
‫ אני יהוה‬I am YHWH.

Leviticus 19:12 prohibits false swearing in YHWH’s name. It mirrors the NC

syntactically36 and shares a similar context: laws communicated to Israel by Moses at

Sinai (Lev 19:1), including several that recapitulate Decalogic commands.37 Since Lev

19:12 indicates that YHWH’s name is at stake, the impulse to connect it with the NC is

natural.38 However, apparent similarities between Leviticus 19 and the Decalogue should

not blind us to their unique emphases. Leviticus 19:12 explicitly and unambiguously

condemns false oaths with the verb ‫“( ׁשבע‬to swear an oath”)39 and the phrase ‫לׁשקר‬

(“falsely”). Since neither ‫ ׁשבע‬nor ‫ ׁשקר‬occurs in the NC, we would need to establish on

other grounds that the NC concerns “false swearing.”40

36
Negative particle ‫ לא‬+ 2mp verb + ‫ ׁשם‬+ prepositional phrase with ‫ ל‬prefix.
37
The commands have variations in wording, but cover many of the same issues:
honor parents and observe Sabbaths (v. 3), no idols (v. 4), no stealing or deception (v.
11), no slander (v. 16), no endangering a neighbor’s life (v. 16).
38
Benjamin Kilchör (Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von
Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri, Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für
Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 21 [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015],
56) is among those who associate the NC with Lev 19:12. However, he later
demonstrates that the NC concerns far more than oral invocation of YHWH’s name,
saying, “One can desecrate God’s name under any circumstances” (ibid., 106, AT).
Unfortunately, his vague translation of ‫“( נׂשא‬mißbrauchen”; ibid., 96) obscures this
conclusion.
39
LXX manuscripts preserve several variants for ὀμεῖσθε (= ‫ )ׁשבע‬regarding theft
rather than swearing (John William Wevers, ed., Leviticus, Septuaginta: Vetus
Testamentum Graecum 2/2 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986], 212).
40
We might conclude preliminarily that Lev 19:12 and the NC are related, in that
both concern proper use of YHWH’s name, but that the NC applies more broadly.
Milgrom (Leviticus 17–22, AB 3A [New York: Doubleday, 2000], 1634) agrees that Lev
 23
Exodus 23:1
‫ לא תׂשא ׁשמע ׁשוא‬You shall not bear a false report.
‫ אל־תׁשת ידך עם־רׁשע‬You shall not set your hand with the wicked
‫ להית עד חמס‬to become a malicious witness.

At first glance, Exod 23:1 appears a more likely parallel to the NC. As part of the

Book of the Covenant given at Sinai, it shares the lexemes ‫ נׂשא‬and ‫ ׁשוא‬with the NC, as

well as the negative particle ‫לא‬. Though it lacks ‫ׁשם‬, ‫“( ׁשמע‬report” or “hearsay”) is

linked assonantally and could echo the NC through an intertextual play on words.41 This

possibility is reinforced by syntax that mimics an abbreviated NC.42 However, unlike the

NC, the center of gravity for Exod 23:1 rests on interpersonal relationships and lacks a

Godward focus (cp. Exod 22:27[28]). Instead of “the name of YHWH, your God,” the

direct object in Exod 23:1 is “a false report”; the name of God does not seem to be at

stake.43 Interestingly, LXX Exod 23:1 renders ‫ נׂשא‬as παραδέξῃ, meaning “receive” or

“accept.” If this translation is accurate, then the prohibition is not to listen to unfounded

19:12 is “not equivalent” to the NC, but concerns a particular violation of it. He suggests
(ibid., 1602) that Leviticus disconnects this statement from those alluding to other
Decalogic commands (vv. 3–4) in order to facilitate this application. The link between
theft and false oaths in vv. 11–12 suggests the influence of Lev 5:21–24[6:2–5], where
the two misdeeds are also linked. However, see Richard Averbeck, “‫א ָׁשם‬,”ָ in NIDOTTE
1:560.
41
The Hebrew text appears stable here (BHS). Note the phonological parallelism
in the first two lines of Exod 23:1: ‫ אל־תׁשת‬exhibits a metathesis of ‫לא תׂשא‬, while ‫עם־‬
‫ רׁשע‬echoes ‫ׁשמע ׁשוא‬. Word choice could have been influenced by sound pairing.
42
Negative particle ‫ לא‬+ Qal imperfect 2ms of ‫( נׂשא‬with imperatival force) +
noun direct object. Exodus 23:1 lacks the direct object marker (‫ )את‬as well as the
prefixed preposition ‫ל‬. As a result, ‫ ׁשוא‬appears as a noun construct with the direct object
rather than the object of a preposition functioning adverbially, as in the NC.
43
For discussion of the Sitz im Leben, see Propp, Exodus 19–40, 273.
 24

rumors.44 This interpretation fits the contextual warning not to “pervert justice” by

joining wicked people against the innocent or accepting bribes (23:2–8). The command

against false witness (20:16) therefore provides a closer semantic parallel than the NC.45

Psalm 16:4
‫ ירבו עצבותם אחר מהרו‬They multiply their pains, exchange other [gods],46
‫ בל־אסיך נסכיהם מדם‬I will not pour out their drink offerings of blood,47
‫ ובל־אׂשא את־ׁשמותם על־ׂשפתי‬nor will I lift up their names upon my lips.

The collocation of the key lexemes ‫ נׂשא‬and ‫ ׁשם‬in this psalm invites comparison

with the NC. The structure of the verse is also remarkably similar: a negated form of ‫נׂשא‬

+ direct object marker ‫ את‬+ a form of ‫ ׁשם‬+ a prepositional phrase. Given these rare

syntactical and lexical parallels with the NC, some interpreters posit that Ps 16:4 clarifies

44
See LXX, Tgs., Mek. kaspāʾ 2 and b. Pesaḥ 118a (ibid.).
45
The potential allusion to the NC may emphasize that responsibility for a
neighbor’s reputation (Exod 20:15; 23:1) is analogous to the charge not to misrepresent
YHWH (Exod 20:7). However, neither passage explicitly concerns oaths.
46
Rashi (Mayer I. Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, BRLJ 18 [Boston:
Brill, 2004], 226) translates, “May there increase the sorrows of those who are disloyal to
You, [and] who are zealous in and devoted to the service of another god.” Charles Briggs
(A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, ICC [Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1906], 1:119–20) suggests, “They shall multiply their sorrows, who hurry
backwards.” He prefers to think of these apostate worshippers as the antecedent of “their
names.” The psalmist refuses to have anything to do with them.
47
This verse is supremely difficult to translate, as all commentators acknowledge.
For example, Erhard Gerstenberger, Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic
Poetry, FOTL (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), XIV:89. With characteristic creativity,
Mitchell Dahood (Psalms I: 1–50, AB [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965], 88) suggests
that ‫ מדם‬consists of a partitive followed by a “Northern contracted dual for ‘hands’” to
yield: “I surely will not pour libations to them from my hands.” However, Hans-Joachim
Kraus (Psalms 1–59, CC [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993], 237) points out that pagan blood
rituals are known to us from Isa 66:3, so we need not seek emendation.
 25

what is elliptical in the NC by specifying that the names are carried on the lips, thereby

proscribing a speech-related offense.48 Although Psalm 16:4 does not explicitly mention

swearing, some further suggest that the expression “lift up their names upon my lips” is

metonymical for taking an oath in the names of other gods.49

However, divine names were invoked for a wide variety of purposes, not just

swearing (see Josh 23:7). Furthermore, the verb ‫ נׂשא‬is capable of a variety of senses

when used idiomatically. Sometimes the same collocation is capable of vastly different

meanings.50 Context is key to determining meaning. In Ps 16:4b, a pagan cultic ritual

seems to be in view.51 The Psalmist seeks to identify with faithful worshippers (v. 3)

while dissociating from the apostate (v. 4).52 In this context, limitation to oaths demands

stronger justification. Neither can we rationalize limiting the NC to speech in general on

the basis of this passage.53 Psalm 16 is a poetic text far removed from the Sinai

narratives, which mitigates its usefulness as a parallel.54

48
Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 42, 277) notes ‫ נׂשא‬is not ingressive,
but refers to the whole utterance, unlike other occasions where ‫ נׂשא‬is speech-related.
49
See Markl, Der Dekalog als Verfassung des Gottesvolkes, 111.
50
An extreme example, ‫( נׂשא ראׁש‬Gen 40:13, 19) can mean “to reinstate” or “to
behead”!
51
See Kraus, Psalms 1–59, 235. Gerstenberger (Psalms: Part 1, XIV:91)
concludes it is a “loyal decision against idolatry.”
52
For discussion, see Nancy deClaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth
LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 179.
53
For discussion, see below, p. 34.
54
Another barrier to comparison is that the pejorative connotation of the phrase
‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬in the NC is dependent upon ‫ׁשוא‬, which is invariably negative. Psalm 16:4 lacks
a marker indicating that the speech act is inherently pejorative. The problem the psalmist
seeks to avoid is speaking the names at all, thereby calling them to remembrance. In that
 26
Psalm 24:4
‫נקי כּפים‬ One with innocent hands
‫ובר־לבב‬ and a pure heart,
‫אׁשר לא־נׂשא לׁשוא נפׁשי‬ who does not lift up my soul55 in vain
‫ולא נׁשבע למרמה‬ and does not swear deceitfully.

On the other hand, Ps 24:4 may justify a limitation to false oaths. The description

of the righteous supplicant seems to echo the NC with the collocation of ‫לא‬, ‫ נׂשא‬and

‫לׁשוא‬, and supplies a parallel line describing the righteous as one who does not “swear

deceitfully.”56 For many, this pairing provides sufficient evidence to argue that the NC

case a parallel with the NC is more difficult to understand; what would it mean to
pronounce YHWH’s name, or call him to remembrance ‫?לׁשוא‬
55
This translation follows the kethib reading of BHS (‫)נפׁשי‬, but a number of MSS
prefer ‫“( נפׁשו‬his soul”). If the latter is accepted, then Ps 24:4 may describe the righteous
supplicant as one who does not appeal to YHWH in an empty manner (i.e., “lift up his
[own] soul in vain”; cp. Ps 25:1). Any connection with the NC would then be remote.
However, if YHWH is taken to be the speaker in v. 4, responding to the liturgical
question of v. 3, then ‫ נפׁשי‬is a poetic pronoun of self-reference by YHWH (cf. Lev
26:11; Isa 1:14; Ezek 23:18). A third voice responds in v. 6b, addressing YHWH directly,
which implies his participation. Though ‫ ׁשם‬does not appear in v. 4 and ‫ נפׁש‬is not strictly
a synonym of ‫ׁשם‬, both words can function metonymically to refer to YHWH (e.g., Deut
28:58; Isa 30:27). Craig Broyles (Psalms, NIBCOT [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999],
132) concurs that ‫ נפׁשי‬is the correct reading in light of the parallel with the NC. Contra
Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 110.
56
Both LXX Ps 24:4 and LXX NC employ ἐπὶ ματαίῳ, found nowhere else in the
LXX, to translate ‫לׁשוא‬. Both passages also contain forms of καθαρὸς and λαμβάνω. While
these similarities cannot prove a relationship between them, they point to the possibility
of a history of reading them together. See Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 110.
Others who argue for a relationship between Ps 24:4 and the NC include Rolf Rendtorff,
The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament, trans. David E. Orton,
TBS 7 (Leiden: Deo, 2005), 487; J. Clinton McCann, “The Book of Psalms,” in NIB
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), IV:773; A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms: Psalms (1–72),
NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 1:203; Avrohom Chaim Feuer, Sēfer Tehillîm:
A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and
Rabbinic Sources (Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1995), 299.
 27

also prohibits false swearing.57 However, the case for synonymous parallelism demands

re-examination. Psalm 24:4 consists of two pairs of lines, each answering the questions,

“Who may go up on the mountain of YHWH? And who may stand in the place of his

holiness?” (v. 3). The first two bicola are cast in precise grammatical parallelism, each

focusing on one body part modified by one adjective.58 The last two lines are longer,

consisting of a negative particle + verb + adverb, and has seven syllables. Structurally

and grammatically, the AA'BB' pattern is clear, but this does not mean that lines B and B'

are semantically parallel.59 Our interpretive work does not end when we identify parallel

lines; it begins there, as we wrestle with their interplay.

In the case of Ps 24:4, lines A and A' are related, but not identical. The righteous

are characterized by “innocent hands” (signifying righteous behavior) as well as by

“purity of heart” (signifying righteous intentions).60 Both inwardly and outwardly the

57
For example, M. R. Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” ZAW 81 (1969): 80; Herbert
Chanan Brichto, The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible, JBL Monograph Series
13 (Philadelphia: SBL, 1963), 65; Schmidt, Die Zehn Gebote, 81; David Stec, ed., The
Targum of Psalms, ArBib 16 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2004), 62 n. 3; Propp,
Exodus 19–40, 174.

Cf. David Hirsch and Nehama Aschkenasy, “Translatable Structure,

58

Untranslatable Poem: Psalm 24,” Modern Language Studies 12:4 (1982): 26.
59
On the dynamic function of parallelism, see James Kugel, The Idea of Biblical
Poetry: Parallelism and Its History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998),
52; Adele Berlin, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, rev. and exp. ed. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008), 135. Structurally parallel lines are not necessarily semantically parallel.
Grammatically related lines provoke deeper thought about the dynamics of their semantic
relationship. See also Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry (New York: Basic, 1985),
9–10; Knut Martin Heim, Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the
Nature of Poetry, BBRSup 4 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 27.
60
Among those who have noted these complementary referents is Christopher
Wright, Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
 28

righteous are free from hypocrisy.61 Perhaps line 3 further describes the results of inner

purity by describing the righteous as “loyal to God,” while line 4 indicates a neighborly

disposition: the righteous have “no intention of harming or misleading their neighbor.”62

Semantically, this interpretation results in an ABB'A' chiasm. The nature of this parallel

should caution us against reading the meaning of line 4 back into line 3, as many have

done.63 Psalm 24:4 does not prove that the NC prohibits false oaths. We must decide on

other grounds what it means to “lift a name” or “lift a soul.”64

Hosea 4:2
‫ אלה וכחׁש ורצח וגנב ונאף‬Cursing and lying and murder and stealing and adultery
‫ פרצו ודמים בדמים נגעו׃‬They break through and bloodshed follows bloodshed.

Hosea 4:2 lists five violations of covenant faithfulness (see 4:1), all of which

relate to the neighbor: cursing, lying, murder, stealing, and adultery. The latter three use

the same lexemes as the Decalogue, though in a different order, while ‫“( אלה‬cursing”)

2004), 376. Neither ‫ בר‬nor ‫ נקי‬connotes ritual purity; the concern is moral. For
discussion, see deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner, Psalms, 250.
61
See also Rodney K. Duke, “Form and Meaning: Multi-layered Balanced
Thought Structures in Psalm 24:4,” TynBul 62:2 (2011): 215–32.
62
Broyles, Psalms, 129.
63
Some argue that ‫“( נׂשא‬lift up”) is a synonym for ‫“( ׁשבע‬swear”). For example,
Lehmann, “Biblical Oaths,” 80; John Currid, A Study Commentary on Exodus, Vol. 2:
Exodus 19–40, EPSC (Webster, NY: Evangelical, 2000), 40; Thomas B. Dozeman,
Commentary on Exodus, ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 487–88; b. Ḥag 14a.
However, even if Ps 24:4 echoes the NC, the parallel lines describe two different qualities
of the righteous supplicant, leaving no reason to equate ‫ נׂשא‬and ‫ׁשבע‬.
64
The righteous either do not exalt YHWH falsely in worship (cf. Ps 25:1), or
they do not bear him before others hypocritically. For a defense of the latter option, see
deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner, Psalms, 250–51.
 29

and ‫“( כחׁש‬lying”) are unique.65 Given the potential that Hos 4:2 echoes the Decalogue, it

is fair to ask whether either of these unique terms alludes to the NC. In principle, ‫אלה‬

(“cursing”) could relate to the NC, but it offers no direct links.66 As an objectionable

speech-act, ‫ אלה‬is most likely a curse pronounced on a neighbor without warrant (see,

e.g., Ps 10:7; 1 Sam 14:24), or a binding agreement made under pretense (see Hos 10:4).

Here the association with lying (4:2) and emptiness (10:4) suggests that it could involve

false testimony under oath against someone (cf. Lev 5:1), making it probable that the

command against false witness is in view (Exod 20:16; Deut 5:20).67 Hosea 4:2 offers no

decisive gloss for the NC.

Zechariah 5:4a
[‫הוצאתיה ]האלה‬ “I will make [the curse] go forth,”
‫נאם יהוה צבאות‬ declares YHWH of hosts.
‫ובאה אל־בית הגנב‬ “And it will enter the house of the one stealing
‫ואל־בית הנׁשבע בׁשמי לׁשקר‬ and the house of the one swearing falsely by my name.”

65
Murder, stealing, and adultery (‫ )ורצח וגנב ונאף‬correspond lexically to the three
shortest decalogic commands, though the order is different; adultery precedes stealing in
the Decalogue (‫לא תרצח‬, ‫לא תנאף‬, and ‫)לא תגנב‬. Hosea’s order is both unique and stable
in the MSS. See Joseph Ziegler, Duodecim prophetae, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum
Graecum 13 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 153–54.
66
In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ אלה‬typically refers to a curse resulting from breach of a
covenant agreement (Isa 24:6; Jer 23:10). However, sometimes the covenant itself is
called an ‫ אלה‬by way of synecdoche (Gen 26:28; Ezek 16:59), as is an adjuration to
testify in a legal setting (Lev 5:1; Prov 29:24), since both are accompanied by a curse.
67
The Exodus version of the command condemns falsehood (‫)ׁשקר‬, while in
Deuteronomy the witness is merely “empty” (‫ ;ׁשוא‬cf. Hos 10:4).
 30

In Zech 5:4, a curse (‫ ;אלה‬cf. Hos 4:2) resulting from covenant disobedience will

destroy those who steal or “swear falsely by my name” (‫)הנׁשבע בׁשמי לׁשקר‬.68 While

YHWH’s “name” may seem reminiscent of the NC, this is a standard oath formula (cf.

Deut 6:13; Isa 48:1) and therefore suffers from the same problems as the other supposed

parallels.69

Jeremiah 7:9–10
‫“ הגנב רצח ונאף‬Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery,
‫והׁשבע לׁשקר וקטר לבעל‬ and swear falsely, and burn incense to Baʿal
‫והלך אחרי אלהים אחרים‬ and walk after other gods
‫אׁשר לא־ידעתם׃‬ whom you have not known,
‫ובאתם ועמדתם לפני בבית הזה‬ then come and stand before me in this house
‫אׁשר נקרא־ׁשמי עליו‬ over which my name has been proclaimed,70
‫ואמרתם נצלנו‬ and say, ‘We are delivered!’—
‫למען עׂשות את כל־התועבות האלה׃‬ in order to do all these abominations?”

68
Among those who see here a clear allusion to the NC is Thomas McComiskey,
“Zechariah,” in Thomas McComiskey, ed., The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and
Expository Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 1095. Contra Elßner
(Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 139–40), who says the two lack shared vocabulary or
concerns.
69
Deuteronomy 6:13 reads ‫ובׁשמו תׁשבע‬, clarifying that oaths are to be taken “by
(means of) his name” (cf. 10:20). Here the prefix ‫ ב‬is instrumental, as in Lev 19:12; Deut
10:20; 1 Sam 20:42; Isa 48:1; Jer 12:16; Zech 5:3–4. See DCH 8:241. To take an oath by
the name of YHWH is to call upon him as a witness. YHWH’s ‫ ׁשם‬is not the only
guarantor of an oath in the Hebrew Bible. Oaths are also sworn by YHWH directly (e.g.,
Josh 2:12), by ‫( אלהים‬e.g., Gen 21:23), and by the “life of the eternal one” (‫;בחי העולם‬
Dan 12:7). On oath formulas, see Conklin, Oath Formulas.
Advocates of the “false swearing” view also assume ‫“( ׁשוא‬vain”) and ‫ׁשקר‬
(“false”) are interchangeable. They usually support this lexical claim by comparing both
versions of the command against false witness; while Exod 20:16 reads ‫ׁשקר‬, Deut 5:20
reads ‫ׁשוא‬. For example, Veijola, “Das dritte Gebot,” 8. For further discussion of ‫ׁשוא‬, see
chapter 3.
70
For a justification of this translation, see below, p. 119.
 31

Jeremiah 7:9 condemns a list of crimes similar to Hos 4:2 (theft, murder, adultery,

and false swearing), with the addition of idolatrous worship.71 Jeremiah’s concern was

religious hypocrisy: the Israelites regularly violated covenant stipulations, all the while

assuming that YHWH’s temple guaranteed indemnity. The order of these crimes in MT

Jer 7:9 differs from the MT Decalogue (theft is moved from third to first place).

However, in LXX Jer 7:9, the order has been adjusted to mimic the MT Decalogue

(murder, adultery, theft, unjust swearing). However, “swearing” remains in fourth

position, suggesting a possible correspondence to the command against false witness

rather than the NC. This impression is bolstered by other biblical passages where murder,

adultery, and theft are mentioned, followed by false witness (cf. Matt 19:18; Mark

10:19).72 Furthermore, both MT Jer 7:9 and Exod 20:16 use the adjective ‫ ׁשקר‬to describe

the objectionable speech. Therefore, Jeremiah’s “false swearing” likely echoes the

command against false witness, rather than the NC.

Although oath-related interpretations of the NC are common, the approach is

problematic. Without unambiguous support from the passages usually cited (Lev 19:12,

Exod 23:1, Ps 16:4, Ps 24:4, Hos 4:2, Jer 7:9, or Zech 5:3–4), the exegetical argument for

oath taking seems tenuous. To interpret the NC as prohibiting “false swearing,”

71
The order of violations in MT Jer 7:9 (theft, murder, adultery) is unique,
departing from virtually every other known list of Decalogic prohibitions, with the
exception of a single Greek MS 84 of Exodus. See John William Wevers, ed., Exodus,
Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 2/1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1991), 243. However, most MSS of LXX Jer 7:9 (except for Origen’s Syrohexaplaric
recension and the Lucianic recension) correct to the order of the MT Decalogue. See
Joseph Ziegler, ed., Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae, 2nd ed., Septuaginta:
Vetus Testamentum Graecum 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976), 184.
Perhaps Greek MS 84 offers a witness to the Vorlage known by Jeremiah.
72
Luke 18:20 corroborates the order of LXX Deut Decalogue as well.
 32

interpreters must conclude that ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is an elliptical expression or an idiom that refers

to taking oaths. If ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬was an idiom, we would expect to see it in oath-taking

contexts. However, neither the Hebrew Bible nor other ANE texts provide any clear

examples. If the statement had intended to prohibit inappropriate oaths, it could have

been expressed much more transparently, as, for example, in Lev 19:12. Furthermore, the

oath-taking interpretation of the NC creates a possible contradiction with Lev 5:20–

26[6:1–7], which explicitly provides acquittal for those who swear falsely.73 In the NC,

acquittal is expressly denied.

Other Problems with Oaths

The NC also poses a syntactical problem for the oath-taking view. To

disambiguate the allegedly elliptical expression interpreters supply an object such as ‫יד‬

(“hand”) for the verb ‫נׂשא‬. However, ‫ נׂשא‬already has a marked direct object, ‫את־ׁשם־יהוה‬.

To supply another object one must disconnect ‫ את‬from ‫ ׁשם‬and make ‫ ׁשם‬the object of a

missing preposition, without which the sentence is unintelligible (“You shall not lift up

the hand [to/in] the name”). This solution is far more complicated than the

representational reading proposed here.74

In addition to these lexical and syntactical issues, the oath-taking view is difficult

contextually. It overlooks the wide range of practices associated with YHWH’s “name”

73
Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2011), 335.
74
Supplying “your lips” rather than “your hand” avoids the syntactical problem
just noted because the addition is an indirect rather than direct object. However, it raises
other problems.
 33

in the Sinai narratives, as well as the rest of the Hebrew Bible.75 Furthermore, the

prophets implicate a wide range of objectionable behavior, not just false swearing, when

they decry the profanation of the name.76

To summarize, exegetical support for the oath-taking interpretation of the NC is

weak.77 Those who interpret it as an elliptical expression referring to oaths often appeal

to supposed ANE or biblical parallels, but these are only legitimate parallels if one first

establishes that ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬refers to oaths. While this interpretation is possible, the oath-

taking view overlooks the most straightforward meaning of the expression and the closest

lexical parallels.78

75
Moses speaks in his name (Exod 5:23; cf. 3:15) and proclaims the name (Deut
32:3). Through Israel YHWH makes his name known (Exod 9:16); they are to remember
his name (Exod 20:24; cp. 23:13); swear by his name (Deut 6:13; 10:20); and come to the
place for his name (Deut 12:5, 11). The Levites are to bless in his name (Deut 10:8; 21:5)
and minister in his name (Deut 18:5, 7). Prophets speak in his name (Deut 18:19, 20, 22).
The people have had his name proclaimed over them (Deut 28:10) and must fear the
name (Deut 28:58).
76
See, e.g., Isa 52:5–6; 48:9–11; Jer 34:15–16; Mal 1:6–14; Ezek 20:9, 14, 22;
36:20. Cf. Jer 14:14–15; 23:16–17, 25.
77
For a similar critique, see Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 17, 271–72.
Though Conklin (Oath Formulas) did not discuss the NC, two of his examples illustrate
why it cannot be elliptical for “raise the hand and swear.” Ezekiel 36:7 exhibits a direct
object marker appended to “hand.” In Ezekiel 20:5–6, the one to whom the oath was
made is preceded by a lamed prefix rather than a direct object marker. Neither is
grammatically compatible with the NC.
78
Though interpreters eagerly adduce parallel passages to explain the NC, few
discuss Exod 28:12, 29, 36–38, which prescribe the names the high priest is to bear, even
though it shares a narrative setting with the Decalogue in the instructions at Sinai.
 34
You Shall Not Say the Name

Non-Pronunciation
Some who see a broader frame of reference for the NC posit that it refers to

speaking, using, or calling upon the name of YHWH by lifting it to or on the lips.79 The

most often cited evidence for this reading is Ps 16:4: “Nor will I lift up their names on my

lips” (‫)ובל־אׂשא את־ׁשמותם על־ׂשפתי‬.80 This proposed parallel avoids the syntactical

problems associated with the oath-taking interpretation (i.e., the double direct object)

because, like the NC, the verb ‫ נׂשא‬has ‫ ׁשם‬as the marked direct object. In Ps 16:4, this

phrase is further modified by ‫“( על־ׂשפתי‬upon my lips”). Since Ps 16:4 presumably refers

to the names of other gods, the contexts are sufficiently similar to warrant a

comparison.81

79
Assuming the ritual potency of a name, Erik Hornung (Conceptions of God in
Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many, trans. John Baines [Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1971], 88) suggested that pronunciation of some divine names was
forbidden. Siegfried Morenz (Egyptian Religion, trans. Ann E. Keep [Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1973], 21–22) agreed that some “secret” names were dangerous to
pronounce. He mistakenly based this conclusion on the supposed taboo surrounding the
name YHWH. In his view, since YHWH was clearly a personal name and should not be
pronounced, this suggested that Egyptian deities were also known by their real names.
Morenz’ argument was flawed in several respects: (1) He assumed, rather than proved,
that ancient Israelites were not to pronounce YHWH’s name. (2) He based this
conclusion on late evidence [Masoretic vowel pointing]. (3) He assumed continuity
between the Egyptian pantheon and Israelite worship of YHWH, despite fundamental
differences. (4) He assumed that the name YHWH is equivalent to the secret names of
Egyptian gods, even though YHWH’s name was openly revealed to the Israelites,
whereas the Egyptian gods had both secret and public names by which they were known.
80
See, e.g., Schmidt, Die Zehn Gebote, 80; Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-
Verbot, 41, 101, 277.
81
The text is laconic, leaving ambiguity about what names the psalmist refuses to
speak. The names could be those of the wicked or their gods.
 35

However, we need not limit the NC to speech on the basis of this potential parallel

by supposing that the NC contains an ellipsis of a longer expression, [‫נׂשא ׁשם ]על־ׂשפת‬.

Just as probably, Ps 16:4 narrows the application of the phrase ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬hyperbolically to

speech with the addition of ‫על־ׂשפת‬, underscoring loyalty to YHWH: “nor will I [even]

lift their names to my lips.”82 Nonetheless, many have read the NC in light of Ps 16:4,

which allows for a variety of interpretations, depending on whether one translates ‫ ׁשוא‬as

“falsely,” “emptily,” or “maliciously,” or as a substantive, meaning “idol.” The results

denoted here in italics correspond roughly to those under the category of oath taking

above (Figure 4).

Some argue the NC warns Israelites not to say the name presumptuously83 or

irreverently.84 The Talmud preserves lengthy discussions regarding proper occasions

when the name might be pronounced. Many Rabbis contended that any pronunciation of

82
Advocates of this interpretation include F. Crüsemann, Bewahrung der
Freiheit: Das Thema des Dekalogs in sozialgeschichtlicher Perspektive, Kaiser Traktate
78 (München: Kaiser, 1983), 51; John Goldingay, Psalms 1–41, BCOT (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2006), 230. Because the psalmist refuses idolatry, he is able to “drink
of the cup of blessing provided by God” in v. 5. See Peter Craigie, Psalms 1–50, 2nd ed.,
WBC (Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2004), 157. For another example of an
implied “even,” see Exod 21:4: “If a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor so as
to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from my altar, so that he may die.” Such an
offender must face his consequences no matter where he may be found. Elßner’s
discussion (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 99–100) of this passage is problematic. He
notes structural parallels with the NC and concludes that in neither case was the name to
be mentioned (i.e., “raised”). However, the NC assumes the name will be raised, and
warns covenant members not to do so falsely.
83
Work, Deuteronomy, 79; John Sailhamer, The Pentateuch as Narrative: A
Biblical-Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 286; James Burton
Coffman, The Ten Commandments: Yesterday and Today (Westwood, NJ: Revell, 1961),
45.
84
Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Carlisle, PA:
Versa, 2007), 138.
 36

the name outside the temple by anyone other than a priest was unnecessary and therefore

constituted a violation of the NC.85 In effect, any utterance of the name by laypeople

incurred guilt.86 Weinfeld, a modern Jewish interpreter, suggested that the NC “might

imply not to use God’s name for any declaration and oath at all.”87

‫נׂשא ׁשם‬

elliptical

+ your hand + your lips + your lips

= swear = say = call upon

‫לׁשוא‬

falsely in an empty maliciously

manner
= false oath = unnecessary = trick
= broken vow oath or vow = curse
= false teaching = irreverently = magic
= false prophecy = without sacrifice = abuse

Figure 4. Elliptical Interpretations of the Name Command, Speech

85
b. Ned. 7b, 8b, 10a–b; b. Ber.33a; b. Yoma 70a.
86
b. ʿAbod. Zar. 18a; b. Tamid 33b; b. Tem. 3a–b. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 431)
insists that the Jewish practice of non-pronunciation does derives elsewhere. However,
the rabbis discussed penalties for wrongful pronunciation in light of the NC.
87
Moshe Weinfeld, “The Decalogue: Its Significance, Uniqueness, and Place in
Israel’s Tradition,” in Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, ed. E.
B. Firmage, B. G. Weiss, and J. W. Welch (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 6.
 37

This view is not limited to Jewish scholars. Fifth-century Christian theologian

Theodoret of Cyrus argued that the command proscribed unnecessary use of God’s name

“outside of teaching or prayer or apart from some urgent need.”88 John Calvin included

oath taking as a common frivolous use of God’s name, but he extended it to any use of

God’s name that detracts from his character.89

The non-pronunciation of God’s name as a sign of reverence arose late in Israel’s

history.90 For the NC to prohibit the pronunciation of the name YHWH would put it at

odds with its literary context at Sinai, in which YHWH’s name is repeatedly invoked.

The Levites were to pronounce his name in their blessings (Num 6:24–27). The people

were to remember or mention his name (‫ ;זכר‬Exod 20:24) but not the names of other gods

(‫ ;זכר‬Exod 23:13). Deuteronomy records a command to swear oaths by YHWH’s name

(‫ ;ׁשבע‬Deut 6:13). These instructions are inconsistent with a wholesale prohibition of

saying the name.91

88
Theodoret of Cyrus, The Questions on the Octateuch: On Genesis and Exodus,
Question 41, ed. John F. Peiruccione, trans. Robert C. Hill, LEC 1 (Washington, D. C.:
Catholic University of America Press, 2007), 293; cf.; Victor P. Hamilton, “‫ׁשוְ א‬,”
ָ TWOT
908.

Calvin, Harm. Pent., CC 2:409; John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten

89

Commandments, 96.
90
Reticence to use the name YHWH in Ecclesiastes, Esther, and the Elohistic
Psalter can be explained without reference to the NC. For discussion, see Elßner, Das
Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 194–204, 286–87. On the absence of the Tetragrammaton in
the New Testament, see R. Kendall Soulen, The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity:
Distinguishing the Voices (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011), 1:177–89, 194–
210. Julius Boehmer lists 2,000 examples of “reserve before the name of God” (ibid., 277
n. 2, citing Die neutestamentliche Gottesscheu und die ersten drei Bitten des Vaterunsers
[Halle: Richard Mühlmann, 1917]).
91
See Paton, “Exodus XX. 7,” 202; Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 63;
John H. Walton, “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document,” in
 38
False or Unauthorized Teaching
A related cluster of interpretations has received more attention in recent years.

These also take the NC as an elliptical expression referring to speech, but suggest that a

specific kind of speech is proscribed—namely, unauthorized or false teaching or

prophecy that is nonetheless stamped with YHWH’s name (“Thus says YHWH”). Again

the specific aim of the command depends on the meaning of ‫ׁשוא‬. Some take it as “false”

(“you shall not use the name to teach falsely”) or “empty” (“you shall not use the name

without authorization”). Any use of YHWH’s name for selfish advantage could be

included here, whether it involves deceit or pretense. Some take ‫ ׁשוא‬to mean

“maliciously,” so the NC prohibits cursing or deceiving others.92 Some associate ‫ׁשוא‬

Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention, ed. Daniel I. Block (Nashville: Broadman &
Holman, 2008), 315. The Psalms are replete with exhortations to know YHWH’s name
(Ps 91:14), call on the name (Ps 63:5 [4]; 105:1; 116:4), declare the name (Ps 22:23 [22]),
cause his name to be remembered (Ps 45:18 [17]), bless the name (Ps 100:4; 145:1), sing
to his name (Ps 66:2; 68:5 [4]), and praise and exalt the name (Ps 7:18 [17]; 34:4 [3];
54:8 [6]; 96:2; 113:1; 148:5).
In addition, people of faith deliberately used the name by including YHWH
theophorically in personal names. Biblical texts testify that Yahwistic theophoric names
were common in Israel from the monarchic period forward. These echoes of the name
“YHWH” suggest that its pronunciation was not considered taboo, even in the exilic and
post exilic periods. Some names that exemplify this are ‫“( אדניהו‬YHWH is my lord,” 1
Kgs 1:8), ‫“( יהוׁשפט‬YHWH has judged,” 1 Kgs 22:41; 2 Chr 17:1), and ‫“( נחמיה‬YHWH
has comforted,” Neh 1:1). Note that Moses renamed Hoshea (‫הֹוׁשע‬ ֵׁ = “he saves”; Num
ֻׁ ְ‫“ = י‬YHWH saves”) in light of the exodus. A “Yahwizing” impulse is
13:8) Joshua (‫הֹוׁשע‬
also seen in the adapted form ‫ יהוסף‬in Ps 81:6: the author/scribe of this Psalm has put a
Yahwistic prefix on a historically non-Yahwistic name (‫)יוסף‬. For further analysis of the
geographical provenance and historical attestation of Israelite theophoric names, see
Jeaneane D. Fowler, Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative
Study, JSOTSup 49 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1988), esp. 365–366; Jeffrey H. Tigay, “Israelite
Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays
in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. Patrick D. Miller Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean
McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 157–94.
92
For an interpretation including all three senses of ‫“( ׁשוא‬selfishly, maliciously or
foolishly”), see Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 262.
 39

with magical practices and read the NC as an injunction against using YHWH’s name in

magic.93

Houtman reads the NC as prohibiting anything said in YHWH’s name that

YHWH does not support. Although he agrees that ‫ לא תׂשא‬is elliptical, referring to

speech, he sees no reason to limit this to “swearing an oath,” and insists that “in vain” is a

weak rendering of ‫לׁשוא‬. Instead ‫לׁשוא‬

relates both to the manner in which something is done and to the purpose for
which it is done: someone, consciously, while invoking YHWH’s name, makes a
statement that is not supported, cannot be supported by YHWH’s authority. The
impression is created that YHWH stands behind what is affirmed, while in reality
such is not the case. So one’s fellow citizens are misled and harmed, if not
directly, at least indirectly. Because, when the truth is violated and one can no
longer depend on fellow citizens, the moral fiber holding society together
unravels.94

He applies this command to court cases, prayer, prophetic teaching in YHWH’s name,

and worship.95

Other interpreters include “spiritual abuse” as a violation of this command. For

example, based on a supposed malicious sense to ‫ׁשוא‬, Harrelson restates the command,

“Do not use the power of religion to harm others.” 96 The NC would then relate most

93
Representatives of each view are identified below.
94
Houtman, Exodus, 3:36.
95
Ibid., 36–37.
96
Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and Human Rights, 194. For further
discussion, see below, p. 44. Aside from magic and cursing, Harrelson (ibid., 64) includes
spiritual abuse and false teaching as potential misuses of the name. Cf. Duane
Christensen, Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9, 2nd ed., WBC 6A (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2001), 114. Martin Luther (A Simple Way to Pray, in Devotional Writings II, ed. Gustav
K. Wiencke, trans. Carl J. Schindler LW 43 [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968], 195, emphasis
 40

directly to those in positions of leadership. If one assumes the Decalogue is directed only

toward landowning males, this application may be warranted.97

Some early Christian interpretations of the NC are difficult to categorize, but they

seem to belong here under “false teaching.” A few church Fathers read the NC

christologically. For them, “taking the LORD’s name in vain” meant refusing to

acknowledge the divinity of Jesus. This view arose from a typological interpretation of

the Decalogue where the commands were divided into groups of three and seven,

corresponding respectively to the two greatest commands. Augustine explains, “Just as

the three first belong to the love of God, so the seven others are assigned to love of

neighbor.”98 The number three is then taken to represent the Trinity, with one command

pertaining to each member. The NC corresponds to Christ, therefore warning us “against

thinking of the Son of God as creature.”99 Tertullian also interpreted the NC

mine) saw the Roman Catholic Church as the prime culprit in the violation of this aspect
of the NC. In a sample prayer modeled on the Lord’s prayer, he said,

Destroy and root out the abominations, idolatry, and heresy of the Turk, the pope,
and all false teachers and fanatics who wrongly use thy name and in scandalous
ways take it in vain and horribly blaspheme it. They insistently boast that they
teach the word and the laws of the church, though they really use the devil’s
deceit and trickery in thy name to wretchedly seduce many poor souls throughout
the world, even killing and shedding much innocent blood, and in such
persecution they believe that they render thee a divine service.
97
Aquinas rejected “false teaching” as a viable interpretation for this very reason.
If the NC prohibits false teaching, only leaders are liable rather than all Israelites. See
Aquinas, ST 1–2.100.5 ad 3). This section is reprinted in Brown, The Ten
Commandments, 54. For more on the addressees of the Decalogue, see chapter 4.
98
Augustine, Sermons II (20–50) on the Old Testament, ed. John E Rotelle, trans.
Edmund Hill, WSA 3/2 (Brooklyn, NY: New City, 1990), 33.2; 155.

Ibid., 33.3; 155. Cf. Wilhelm Geerlings, “The Decalogue in Augustine’s

99

Theology,” in The Decalogue in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Henning Graf
 41

christologically.100 Much later, Luther accused Jews of breaking this command by not

acknowledging the deity of Jesus.101 His name must not be associated with anything less

than his true identity. Since the denigration of Christ is heresy, failure to acknowledge his

deity counts as false teaching. A more recent proponent of this notion is Ephraim Radner,

who says that the execution of Christ was the ultimate “envainment” of the name.102

Magic
Another view, which has become increasingly popular over the past century,

associates the NC with magic. The view is at least as old as the Protestant

Reformation,103 but was revived in the mid-20th century by Mowinckel.104 He assumed a

Hegelian model of religious development where later expressions developed from earlier

Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, LHB/OTS 509 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), Sermon 8,
115.
100
Tertullian, Against Praxeas 7, trans. Ernest Evans (Great Britain: T. & A.
Constable, 1948), 138; see also ANF 3.7.602 (trans. Holmes).
101
Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies, in The Christian in Society IV, ed.
Franklin Sherman, trans. Martin H. Bertram, LW 47 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 286.

Ephraim Radner, “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain,” in I Am the Lord Your
102

God: Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments, ed. Carl E. Braaten and
Christopher R. Seitz (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 88.
103
See Calvin, Institutes II.8.22 [LCC 20:389]; Henning Graf Reventlow, “The
Ten Commandments in Luther’s Catechisms,” in The Decalogue in Jewish and Christian
Tradition, ed. Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, LHB/OTS 509 (New York:
T&T Clark, 2011), 141; Albrecht Peters, Ten Commandments, trans. Holger K. Sonntag,
Commentary on Luther’s Catechisms (St. Louis: Concordia, 2009), 150.
104
Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I, 50–58; followed by Gerhard von Rad,
Deuteronomy: A Commentary, trans. Dorothea Barton, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1966), 57.
 42

“primitive psychology.”105 Mowinckel saw in Israel’s primitive history evidence for

speech against one’s neighbor intended to bring misfortune. This kind of magic or

cursing depends on an etymological association of ‫ ׁשוא‬with the Arabic root sâʾa. Since

the Arabic means “to be bad or evil,” the hypothetical Hebrew cognate would also have

evil connotations. Mowinckel justified this association by citing occurrences of ‫ ׁשוא‬in

parallelism with other malicious words in the Hebrew Bible.106 He did not deny the sense

of “emptiness” for ‫ׁשוא‬, or “lie,” but insisted that they share the same core sense of

“troublemaker” and would have been closely associated in the ancient mind. For

Mowinckel, “This trouble is a trouble especially caused by spells.”107 As modern scholars

have become more aware of the pervasiveness of magical practices in the ancient world,

this reading has gained adherents.108

105
Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I, 50, AT.
106
He cites Isa 59:4; Hos 12:12; Zech 10:2; Ps 41:7; and Job 11:11. While these
are negative contexts, to define a word based on its parallels is fundamentally flawed.
‫ ׁשוא‬need not mean “malicious” in any of these cases.
107
Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I, 56–57, AT. His prime example is Isa 5:18,
where he relies on Ezek 13:17–21 to supply a magical sense for “cords,” but the pairing
of ‫ בחבלי הׁשוא‬with ‫“( וכעבות העגלה‬cart ropes”) makes this interpretation dubious.
Klopfenstein (Die Lüge, 315–16) rejects Mowinckel’s equation of ‫ ׁשוא‬with magical
practices, but he follows Mowinckel’s interpretation of the NC. He posits a range of
interpretations for ‫ׁשוא‬, from empty to lying to evil. Context determines which sense
pertains in a given case (ibid., 317–20). However, for Klopfenstein (ibid., 119–20, AT)
even lying is “characterized by far more than theoretical disagreement, but also by
practical harmfulness and the actual corruption of the person.”
108
Based on its occurrence in Isaiah 1:13 parallel to ‫“( תועבה‬abomination”),
Harrelson (The Ten Commandments and Human Rights, 63) concluded that ‫ ׁשוא‬connotes
“active power for harm.” He translated ‫ ׁשוא‬here as “destructive” or “offensive.”
However, it could just as easily mean “meaningless” or “worthless.” See chapter 3 for
discussion.
 43

Anthony Phillips also defended the “magic” interpretation.109 Phillips’ discussion

of the Decalogue centered on its role in Israel’s covenant with YHWH. Breach of any of

these commands constituted criminal behavior that put the entire society at risk because

the covenant was violated.110 Phillips recognized that “‫ ׁשוא‬can mean quite generally any

worthless purpose,” but insisted that since the other commands of the Decalogue are

specific, this one must be specific as well. He rejected the idea that it could refer to

blasphemy or false oaths, the former because it would have “amounted to suicide,”111 and

the latter because “every oath contained an implicit self-curse,” making a command

against either unnecessary.112 Instead Phillips followed Mowinckel and others in seeing

the NC as a prohibition of magical practices, since it invoked the divine name.113 In

particular, he read the NC as an injunction against cursing one’s neighbor.114

109
Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the
Decalogue (New York: Schocken, 1970). Cf. Harrelson, The Ten Commandments and
Human Rights, 61–66; Branden, “Le Décalogue,” 110–12; Martin Noth, Exodus: A
Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), 163; Rad,
Deuteronomy, 57; Kessler, “Die literarische, historische und theologische Problematik
des Dekalogs,” 9; Christensen, Deut 1:1–21:9, 114; Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy,
NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 149.
110
Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 154.
111
Phillips (ibid., 55) argues that blasphemy is not the subject of Leviticus 24, but
rather an example of private cursing during a fight “with the evident aim of gaining
control over the adversary through magical force,” therefore violating the NC.
112
For a similar argument against the oath-taking interpretation, see Brichto, The
Problem of “Curse,” 59–63. Phillips’ omission of Lev 19:12 in his discussion casts doubt
on his reasoning.
113
Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 54.
114
Cf. b. Tem. 3a–b.
 44

Van den Branden advocates a magical reading because it avoids the substantial

overlap with the command against false witness. If the first two commands regulate

proper worship (one God, no idols) then a prohibition of magical practices within the cult

makes sense.115 Although Van den Branden supports his reading by appealing to ANE

magic texts, these do not offer specific parallels to the NC. For example, he cites

Vandier, who highlights the primacy of names in ancient magic: “The magician is a man

who knows the names; he knows those of men he wants to affect, but he knows also and

especially the real name of each of the gods. This is the secret of his power.”116 While

names of the gods played a role in magic in the ancient world, the idea that the NC

addresses this issue has yet to be established.

John Walton offers a helpful corrective. Although he does not deny the role of

magic in the ancient world, he erases the boundary between “magic” and “religion,”

arguing the two were viewed as one. He insists, “ʽInvoking’ a god by name is not

inherently a magical act; even in biblical religion Yahweh’s name may be legitimately

invoked.”117 Therefore, any wrongful invocation of YHWH’s name, whether in oaths,

115
Ironically, van den Branden (“Le Décalogue,” 110–12) also allows that ‫ׁשוא‬
could refer to idols, resulting in almost complete overlap with the previous command.
116
Jacques Vandier, La Religion Égyptienne, Les anciennes Religions orientales 1
(Paris: Presses Univeritaires de France, 1944), 199; Édouard Dhorme, Les Religions de
Babylonie et d’Assyrie, Les anciennes Religions orientales 2 (Paris: Presses Univeritaires
de France, 1949); both cited by Branden, “Le Décalogue,” 110 n. 44–45, AT.
117
Walton, “Interpreting the Bible,” 315.
 45

teaching, or magic, is covered by this command. The NC warns against exploiting God’s

power for one’s own ends.118

While the magical use of the name may fit well with the ANE environment, the

argument to limit the NC to magic stands on thin lexical foundations. If magic or false

teaching is in view, then the formulation of the NC with such generic terminology is

strange. Sorcery could have involved many practices, only some of which would have

involved the divine name.119 Furthermore, as shown above, the use of the name in magic

is only one of many possible uses of the name, and contextual clues are lacking to

indicate that magic is in view (e.g., ‫)חבר ;כׁשף‬. The “deliberately broad wording” of the

NC suggests that we should not rule out other practices associated with the divine

name.120 Lexically speaking, we cannot limit the NC to magic, though it may well violate

this command.121

Manfred Görg suggested that the magical misinterpretation arose from a wrong

assumption about the etymology of ‫ׁשוא‬. Rather than tracing it to nš’ II, a root meaning

118
Ibid., 318–19. See also John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the
Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2009), 156–57.
119
As argued by Meir Bar-Ilan, “‘They shall put my name upon the people of
Israel’,” HUCA 60 (1989): 27 n. 30.
120
Graupner, “Tora für die Völker,” 64, AT.
121
Schmidt, Die Zehn Gebote, 83. Those who are unconvinced by the magical
interpretation include Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological
Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 411; Huffmon, “The Fundamental
Code Illustrated,” 207 n. 10.
 46

“to be deceived,”122 Görg noted an overlooked Egyptian cognate šwi, meaning “to be

empty.” He found this cognate to be a suitable basis both for the Egyptian noun šw,

“void,” and the Hebrew ‫ׁשוא‬.123 However, like other critics of the magical view, he did

not dismiss it entirely, suggesting that specific applications of the NC to magic are

appropriate.124 He suspected that early Greek and Latin translations of the NC employed

a legitimate form of “semantic specification.”125 All these elliptical readings take this

potential for specification too far by limiting the application of the NC to speech.

You Shall Not Call Upon the Name

Before we test the possibility of a non-elliptical reading, other elliptical

interpretations deserve mention. Several interpreters take the NC to mean “you shall not

call upon the name.” Some of these suppose it is elliptical (i.e., “lift the name to your

lips”), while others read the phrase, “lift up the name,” as a metonymical idiom for

calling on God in prayer. Still others understand ‫ ׁשוא‬as a term for “idol,” so the NC

would prohibit idolatrous worship. Again, the range of senses for ‫ ׁשוא‬allows for vastly

different interpretations, from idolatry to improper sacrifice to hypocritical worship

(Figure 5).

122
As Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 46) does. Relying on Sawyer,
Gesenius-Buhl, and Klopfenstein, he associates ‫ ׁשוא‬with Arabic, Ethiopic, Northwest
Semitic, and Hamitic cognates that range in meaning from “empty” to “evil.”
123
Manfred Görg, “Missbrauch des Gottesnamens,” BN 16 (1981): 16–17.
Although Görg credits Gesenius-Buhl for this overlooked cognate, I was unable to locate
a note to that effect in any of the editions I consulted (including 1834, 1876, 1899).
124
Ibid., 17.
125
Ibid., 17 n. 14, AT.
 47
Idolatry
Those who interpret ‫ ׁשוא‬as “idol” have ancient support. Seeking to protect God’s

name from association with idols, Tertullian (late 2nd–early 3rd century) declared guilty

those who refer to idols as “gods” because “the Law forbids us to call them gods and to

apply this Name in vain [in vano].”126 Clement of Alexandria (2nd century) announced

‫נׂשא ׁשם‬

elliptical

+ your hand + your lips + your lips

= swear = say = call upon

‫לׁשוא‬

falsely in an empty maliciously to a vain falsely or

manner [thing] ineffectively
= false oath = unnecessary = trick
= broken vow oath or vow = curse = hypocritically

= false teaching = irreverently = magic = idolatry

= false prophecy = without sacrifice = abuse

Figure 5. Elliptical Interpretations of the Name Command, Worship

126
Tertullian, On Idolatry, 10, 5–6, trans. J. H. Waszink and J. C. M. Van
Winden, SVG 1 (New York: Brill, 1987), 41. Cf. 20, 3 (SVG 1:63) and ANF 3.10.67 and
3.3.636 (trans. S. Thelwall).
 48

that the NC warns not to “transfer His title to things created and vain [ἐπὶ τὰ γενητὰ καὶ

µάταια], which human artificers have made.”127

Two modern interpreters have argued for this view. In 1939, W. E. Staples argued

on lexical grounds that the NC prohibits idolatry.128 However, his lexical discussion is

baffling. Citing Isa 5:26, Num 14:30, and Gen 19:21, Staples concluded that ‫ נׂשא‬meant

“give.”129 How he arrived at this conclusion is unclear. He lists a series of euphemisms

for “idol” in the Hebrew Bible, concluding that ‫“ ׁשוא‬is used explicitly for an idol” in Jer

18:15 and Ps 24:4. He might be correct about Jer 18:15, but “idols” are not the only

possible referent of ‫ׁשוא‬. YHWH laments, “For my people have forgotten me, they burn

offerings ‫לׁשוא‬, so they have fallen in their ways, the ancient paths.”130 The phrase could

indicate that the Israelites were offering burnt sacrifices to “vain things” (i.e., idols), as

Staples suggests, or “vainly” (i.e., ineffectively) to other gods. If the latter, YHWH

laments the futility of their apostasy (see v. 12). While ‫ קטר לׁשוא‬likely refers to

idolatrous practices in Jer 18:15, given the piel form of ‫קטר‬, elsewhere in Jeremiah ‫לׁשוא‬

127
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.16 (ANF 2:512, trans. A. Cleveland Coxe).
128
He admits that “an illegal purpose” could be in view, but finds that an
injunction against idolatry fits better in the literary and historical context. On the
Decalogue as a summary of 8th century BCE prophetic teaching, see W. E. Staples, “The
Third Commandment,” JBL 58 (1939): 325–26.
129
Ibid., 328.
130
Virtually all occurrences of ‫( קטר‬piel) refer to idolatry, while ‫( קטר‬hiph)
usually denotes the worship of YHWH (with a handful of exceptions: 1 Kgs 3:3; 11:8;
12:33; 13:1–2; 2 Kgs 16:13–15; Hos 2:15). A ‫ ל‬prefix consistently designates the party to
whom the offering is directed—namely, other gods (e.g., Jer 1:16; 44:17). See DCH
7:243. For discussion, see Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 50, 53. On the other
hand, ‫ לׁשוא‬often appears in Jeremiah with the adverbial sense “ineffectively” (see Jer
2:30; 4:30; 6:29; 46:11). If ‫ לׁשוא‬is adverbial here rather than substantive, idolatry is not
precluded. It simply emphasizes that incense burned to other deities is ineffective.
 49

has nothing to do with idolatry. In fact, ‫ ׁשוא‬indisputably means “idol” only twice in the

Hebrew Bible, both times in construct with ‫הבל‬.131 In regard to Ps 24:4, Staples has

simply assumed what he is trying to prove. No clear evidence here commends this

interpretation over the alternatives. The verbs ‫ נׂשא‬and ‫ קטר‬cannot be equated. Without

unambiguous support from either of these passages, Staples’ case for the NC as a

prohibition of idolatry is speculative.

But Staples is not the only modern advocate of this view. Calum Carmichael

views Israelite laws as “the result of scribal art in formulating rules about problems

derived from a scrutiny of national traditions.”132 In The Origins of Biblical Law, he

extends that thesis to the ‫מׁשפטים‬, among which he includes the Decalogue. He reads the

NC as a deliberately formulated response to the golden calf incident. Aaron supposedly

“lifted up YHWH’s name” to the calf idol by referring to it as YHWH (Exod 32:4–5).133

His eventual punishment was death (Num 20:24). The Israelites were warned not to

repeat his error.134 However, this connection also relies on the dubious interpretation of

131
Psalm 31:7; Jon 2:9. In Jer 18:15, the piel form of ‫ קטר‬connotes idolatry. See
chapter 3.
132
Calum M. Carmichael, The Origins of Biblical Law: The Decalogues and the
Book of the Covenant (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), 1.
133
The text does not explicitly say that Aaron “lifted YHWH’s name” to the calf,
but the correlation is implicit. After fashioning the image, the people announced, “This is
your God, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” Aaron responded by
building an altar and proclaiming a “festival for YHWH” (‫)חג ליהוה‬, complete with burnt
offerings (‫ )עלה‬and fellowship offerings (‫)ׁשלם‬. Apparently he felt the golden calf was
compatible with YHWH worship.
134
Carmichael, Origins of Biblical Law, 33–34. Louis Hartman (“God, Names
of,” EJ 7:675) supports this view, arguing that the NC is “more likely” about idolatry
than the common alternatives, “false swearing,” or the pronunciation of God’s name.
 50

‫ לׁשוא‬as “to an idol.” Not only are the lexical arguments in favor of idolatry

unconvincing, but it also seems redundant to have two injunctions against idolatry side-

by-side in the Decalogue’s seminal list of commands.135 The previous command (Exod

20:4–6) categorically prohibits the worship of idols.

Empty-Handed Worship
Lewis Paton creatively suggested that the NC refers to “worship without

sacrifice.” Like Staples and Carmichael, he supposed that the phrase “lift up the name of

YHWH” meant to call upon him in worship. By comparing the NC with other passages

where ‫ נׂשא‬indicates speech, he concluded that it must refer to crying out loudly.136 But

for Paton the adverbial use of ‫ ׁשוא‬indicates the worshipper is empty-handed.137 By

comparing the Decalogue with other law collections in the Hebrew Bible, he claimed to

have discerned a structural pattern common to each collection where laws relating to

idolatry are followed by laws about sacrifice, and then Sabbath.138 Based on that pattern,

135
Also noted by Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law, 54.
136
Paton, “Exodus XX. 7,” 205. However, ‫ נׂשא‬does not occur independently in
any of the passages he cites. He admits that ‫ נׂשא‬only refers to loud and expressive speech
when accompanied by another word like “weeping,” “lamentation,” or “prayer.” In only
two biblical passages could ‫ נׂשא‬possibly mean “utter”: Exod 23:1 and Ps 15:3. Paton
argues that both of these refer “not to uttering a false report or a reproach, but to
receiving one.” He rightly points out that if the NC targeted such a “false report” it would
belong in the second half of the Decalogue rather than the first, where the focus is
Godward.
137
He insists that the preposition ‫ ל‬attached to ‫ ׁשוא‬indicates either time, result, or
direction, never purpose (ibid., 208). Contra Ronald Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An
Outline, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1976), §277; Christo H. J. van
der Merwe, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze, A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar,
Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3 (New York: Sheffield, 2002), §39.11.II; Joüon §168c;
IBHS §11.2.10d.
138
Paton, “Exodus XX. 7,” 209.
 51

since the NC follows a prohibition of images, it should concern sacrifice. Paton assumed

that in ancient Israelite religion “every calling upon Yahweh should be accompanied with

a sacrifice of some sort.”139 His only evidence is Exod 34:20b, which reads, “And they

shall not be seen before me empty-handed [‫]ריקם‬.”140 However, this verse lacks any

connection to the NC. Though perhaps every trip to the tabernacle included a sacrifice,

we have no indication that the NC is cultic or that ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬should be limited to temple

worship. Furthermore, it is doubtful that every prayer needed to be accompanied by a

sacrifice. In the Psalms as well as biblical narratives, people often called upon God

without any mention of a sacrifice.141

Paton rightly complained that others interpret ‫ נׂשא‬too specifically when they read

it as “taking oaths,” and ‫ ׁשוא‬when they connect it to “magical practices,” but his proposal

is equally narrow. Like others, Paton overlooked the closer parallel with the high priestly

garments in Exodus 28. Furthermore, his so-called structural pattern is questionable.142

139
Paton, “Exodus XX. 7,” 209.
140
Ibid. The statement is also found in Exod 23:15.
141
See, e.g., Pss 31:17; 63:4; and 105:1. Narrative examples include Judg 15:18; 1
Chr 4:10; Lam 3:55; and Jdt 6:21.
142
True, Exodus 34 instructs Israel regarding the worship of other gods (vv. 13–
16), the making of idols (v. 17), and cultic celebrations (vv. 18–26), in that order.
However, Leviticus 19 does not exhibit the neat pattern Paton suggests. As many have
pointed out, the laws lack an obvious order. Instructions regarding parents and Sabbaths
precede the command against idolatry (vv. 3–4), which is then followed by laws about
sacrifices (vv. 5–8), and then instructions to care for the vulnerable in the community (vv.
9–10). Stealing, lying, and swearing follow that (vv. 11–12). So while Paton is right that
sacrifices follow idolatry in Leviticus 19, no discernible progression precedes or follows
this. In fact, Decalogic prohibitions are scrambled throughout the chapter, making it a
strange source for a structural analogy. See John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas:
Word, 1992), 308.
 52

Paton over-generalizes his lexical and structural conclusions to bolster his reading of the

NC. While his view is hypothetically possible, it lacks direct support.143

Hypocritical Worship
The final elliptical view understands the NC as a prohibition of hypocritical

worship. Like Paton’s “worship without sacrifice,” this view sees “lifting up the name of

YHWH” as a reference to worship. However, unlike Paton, proponents of this

interpretation do not read ‫ לׁשוא‬in a temporal and concrete sense as “empty-handed,” but

as an abstract adverb of manner, “hypocritically.” Gordon McConville suggested that the

phrase could refer to “false, manipulative” worship.144 People who publicly call upon

YHWH without meaning it or only in order to get their own way lift up his name ‫לׁשוא‬.

While this interpretation avoids some of the problems with Paton’s view, it reads ‫נׂשא ׁשם‬

as an idiom for worship without clear justification for doing so.

King Alfred’s civil law code based on the Decalogue, which dates between 890

and 940 CE, reads, “You (must) not call upon my name in vain because you (will) not be

143
See, e.g., H. A. McNeile, The Book of Exodus, 3rd ed., WC (London: Methuen
& Co, 1931), 117–18.
144
J. G. McConville (Deuteronomy, AOTC [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
2002], 128) supposes the NC has to do with “the worship of other gods.” For an
application to prayer, see Peter Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, NICOT (London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1976), 156). Cf. James K Bruckner, Exodus, NIBCOT (Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 184. At first Schüngel-Straumann (Der Dekalog — Gottes
Gebote?, SBS 67 (Stuttgart: KBW, 1973), 96–97) suggests that the NC prohibits
ritualistic use of God’s name in worship, but she later includes many other arenas in
which the name might be misused, such as magic, false swearing, and unauthorized
preaching.
 53

innocent in my presence if you call upon my name in vain” [AT].145 This rendering

comes closest to the non-elliptical interpretation that will be tested in the rest of this

work. However, it still limits the application of the command to speech. Those who take

YHWH’s name on their lips are in danger of calling upon him in vain or hypocritically.

This limitation to speech is not required by the context.

“All of the Above”

Before examining the non-elliptical interpretation, we must assess the view of a

growing group of interpreters who allow the polyvalence of the NC to stand. They

recognize that God’s “name” was employed for a variety of purposes in Israel’s religious

and social life. One might “lift the name” in a variety of ways, for a variety of reasons.

Above all, ‫ ׁשוא‬is sufficiently vague to cast doubt on a narrow application. As Radner

insists, “The prohibition against taking the Lord’s name ‘in vain’ easily takes aim at the

very center of every act we do and at its motivation in the human heart, even and

especially as these motivations clothe themselves with religious goals.”146 Accordingly,

Radner and many others avoid a single application, such as swearing falsely, worshipping

idols, or using magic. Instead, they proscribe “all (or some combination) of the above.”

Alfred’s laws are preserved in two manuscripts, H: “Ne minne naman ne cig
145

þu on ydelnesse forðam þu ne byst unscyldig wið me gif þu on idelnesse (ge)cygst minne

naman”; and E: “Ne minne noman ne cig ðu on idelnesse forðon þe ðu ne bist unscyldig
wið me gif ðu on idelnesse cigst minne noman.” See F. Liebermann, Die Gesetze der
Angelsachsen (Scientia Aalen, 1960), 26–27. Cig is from ciegan, which means “to call,
name, to call upon, invoke.” My translation utilized John R. Clark Hall, ed., A Concise
Anglo-Saxon Dictionary for the Use of Students (New York: Macmillan, 1894).
146
Radner, “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain,” 80. See also Cassuto, Exodus,
243; Richard D. Nelson, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster,
2002), 81; Houtman, Exodus, 3:36.
 54

For example, in his lengthy discussion of the NC, Patrick Miller sees oath taking

as the primary issue. However, the ambiguous wording of the command compels him to

extrapolate other misuses of the name: in worship, blessing, cursing, prayer, swearing,

false prophecy, irreverence, and Christology.147 His interpretation is broad enough to

account for virtually any spoken misuse of the divine name.

Martin Luther cited the NC at least twenty-one times in his collected works. He

applied it to a wide range of activities, including false oaths (LW 4:336; 13:218; 22:504),

false teaching (10:462; 27:119; 43:195), prayer (4:361) and sacraments (34:85; 36:300f,

360; 40:292; 54:12), blasphemy (34:85), and the general behavior of those who call

themselves Christians (29:58; 46:24, 33).148

While others provide similar lists of speech-acts covered by the NC, 17th-century

Puritan theologian Thomas Watson’s may be the most complete. According to Watson,

the tongue is the prime offender, encompassing various modes of speech including

irreverence, hypocrisy, profanity, false worship, unbelieving prayer, the use of Scripture

by wicked people, oaths (either excessive, unnecessary, vile, or false), false authorization,

unseemly speech, rash vows, speaking evil of God, and making promises one does not

intend to keep.149

147
Miller, The Ten Commandments, 81–114.
148
Luther (LW 47:286) even accused Jews of breaking this command by not
acknowledging the deity of Jesus. Since his interpretation goes beyond speech, we will
consider his views again under the non-elliptical reading of the NC below.
149
Thomas Watson, The Ten Commandments, rev. ed. (London: Banner of Truth,
1965), 85–91. The only interpretations he omits are magic, idolatry, unlawful
pronunciation, and the failure to acknowledge Jesus’ divinity.
 55

Although some insist the NC is ambiguous or broad enough to include a variety of

potential locutions, others limit the sense to one meaning while extending the

implications of the NC to a broader range of behaviors. According to John Durham, the

NC “is couched in language deliberately chosen to permit a wide range of application,

covering every dimension of the misuse of Yahweh’s name.”150 Thomas Aquinas argued,

“Not just any sort of use of God’s name is forbidden by the commandment, but that

precisely whereby it is invoked for the purpose of confirming a person’s word by way of

an oath. . . . We can, however, take it as a corollary that every misuse of God’s name is

thereby prohibited.”151 Whereas Durham locates the breadth of meaning in the command

itself, Aquinas encompassed a broader field only by extension.152

Thomas Elßner, whose monograph is the only full-length work in print on the NC,

argues that ANE and biblical parallels adduced by most interpreters are unpersuasive

because they needlessly constrict the scope of the NC.153 For Elßner the NC is

150
Durham, Exodus, 288.
151
Aquinas, ST 2a2æ, 122.3.2, trans. T. C. O’Brien (Westminster: Eyre &
Spottiswoode, 1972) 41:301, emphasis mine.
152
Coffin (“The Third Commandment,” 188) advocated a broad interpretation by
arguing for a diachronic shift in the meaning of ‫ׁשוא‬. Though he admits that ‫ ׁשוא‬does not
occur often enough to trace clear development, he nevertheless concludes that ‫ ׁשוא‬was
first malicious or false, connected particularly with oath taking. He attributes later
reticence to pronounce YHWH’s name to the shift in meaning for ‫ ׁשוא‬to “profane” or
“empty.” Interestingly, though Coffin spent the bulk of his time on ‫ׁשוא‬, he never allowed
for “idol” as a possible meaning. Coffin’s overall thesis depended heavily on the
evolutionary development of monotheism and its superiority over other ANE religions.
However, if we accept the non-elliptical reading of the NC, then no practical
difference results from translating ‫ ׁשוא‬as malicious, deceitful, false, or empty. Each
indicates a form of hypocrisy.
153
Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 12–28) interacts almost exclusively
with German scholars.
 56

intentionally broad enough to prohibit a wide range of speech-related offenses by which

the name of YHWH might be abused.154 While his work is commendable, his conclusion

ultimately rests on the faulty assumption that the collocation with ‫ ׁשם‬makes ‫ נׂשא‬an

improper verbum dicendi, without explaining why the same phrase (‫ )נׂשא ׁשם‬in Exod

28:12, 29 does not involve speech.155 Though he admits the lack of evidence in the

Pentateuch or DH for the use of ‫ נׂשא‬as an improper verbum dicendi,156 Elßner focuses

his analysis of ‫ נׂשא‬on its occurrences in later “stereotyped phrases” involving speech

(e.g., ‫נׂשא קול‬, “raise a voice”; ‫נׂשא מׁשל‬, “proclaim an oracle”; ‫נׂשא קינה‬, “raise a

complaint”; etc.), concluding that the NC is a later exilic addition to the Decalogue.157 He

discusses a few phrases in which ‫ ׁשם‬is not speech-related, such as ‫( חלל ׁשם‬Lev 18:21;

22:32) and ‫( טמא ׁשם‬Ezek 43:7, 8), where the name is defiled through actions rather than

words, but neglects to consider how the NC might function similarly.158 Instead, Elßer

suggests the Decalogic context evoked a poetic mode of discourse that may be

154
Ibid., 65, 84.
155
Ibid., 41. Elßner (ibid., 43–44) claims that ‫“ ׁשם‬in principle involves . . .
pronunciation.” However, three of his four examples of ‫ ׁשם‬without a suffix do not
involve a spoken name (Num 17:18[3]; 1 Kgs 1:47; 2 Kgs 14:27). His fourth example
could involve speech, but not necessarily (2 Kgs 16:24). Ibid., 97–98.
156
Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 98. He also admits that aside from Ps
16:4, “no further evidence [is] attested in the Old Testament of the syntagmatic
relationship ‫ׁשמותם‬/‫בל נׂשא את ׁשם‬/‫ לא‬with the semantic import ‘mention the
name/names.’” See ibid., 101, AT.
157
Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 37–41, 276. Strangely, he misses
several occasions where ‫ נׂשא‬indicates speech: 1 Kgs 8:31; 2 Kgs 9:25; 2 Chr 6:22; and
Jer 9:17. On his view of the date of the NC, see ibid., 102, 151–52, 281–82.
158
Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 73–78.
 57

euphemistic for abuse of the name.159 In the end, his work is helpful in countering some

of the faulty interpretations of the NC, but Elßner fails to offer a robust alternative.160

The Name Command as a Non-Elliptical Expression

The majority of interpreters assume that the NC prohibits some type of speech,

perhaps because names are often spoken entities. However, as we shall see in chapter 3,

“name” can denote one’s fame or reputation, as well as (in certain idioms) a written or

oral claim to ownership. A few interpreters have recognized this semantic breadth,

though they have not always known how to justify their conclusion that the NC involves

more than speech. Some have supposed that the NC is elliptical and its primary concern

is oath taking, but its application may be extended to include other behavior.

Those who have attempted to read the NC non-elliptically focus on ‫ נׂשא‬and ask,

“What might it mean to ‘lift up’ or ‘bear’ YHWH’s name? And what would constitute

bearing his name ‫ ”?לׁשוא‬Name-bearing does not necessarily preclude other applications

of the NC, since “bearing the name” could have implications for both words and actions.

As Figure 6 shows, “bearing the name” is a broader, behavioral interpretation of the NC

that includes speech-related interpretations within it. This interpretation reads the NC in

light of the concept that YHWH’s name was proclaimed over Israel (e.g., Num 6:27;

Deut 28:10; 2 Chr 7:14) to indicate their elect status. Accordingly, they represented him

159
Ibid., 85. Cf. Lev 24:11, 16; Job 1:5; 2:9. If Leviticus 24 illustrates a narrow
application of the NC, as Elßner suggests, then why must Moses inquire of YHWH? His
other examples are unpersuasive because ‫ ברך‬is inherently positive, but is used in place
of “curse.” In the NC, ‫ נׂשא‬becomes pejorative with the addition of ‫( לׁשוא‬ibid., 69).
160
His translation of the NC is odd: “You must not minimize the name of YHWH
thy God, as if he were a vain [thing].” See Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 174.
“Minimize” seems to have the opposite sense as ‫נׂשא‬.
 58

Saying the Name

Bearing the Name

Swearing in
the Name

Figure 6. Broad Application of the Name Command

‫נׂשא ׁשם‬

elliptical non-elliptical

+ your hand + your lips + your lips

= bear
= swear = say = call upon

‫לׁשוא‬

falsely in an empty maliciously to a vain falsely or

manner [thing] ineffectively
= false oath = unnecessary = trick
= broken vow oath or vow = curse = hypocritically
= false teaching = irreverently = magic = idolatry
= false prophecy = without sacrifice = abuse

Figure 7. Non-Elliptical Interpretation of the Name Command

 59

by “bearing his name” among the nations. This non-elliptical, or “representational,”

interpretation reads the NC as an injunction against misrepresenting YHWH. Those who

bear his name must not do so “in vain” (Figure 7).

Rabbinic Interpretation
In the Pesiqta Rabbati, a series of Jewish Scripture lessons for use on feast

days,161 the NC is clearly associated with swearing falsely.162 However, the rabbis seek to

distinguish this command from its “apparent repetition” in Lev 19:12. They offer three

additional interpretations: (1) false teaching/authority,163 (2) misrepresentation,164 and (3)

superfluous oaths.165 The second relates most directly to our concern here. The rabbis

explain, “You are not to put on tefillin and wrap yourself in your prayer shawl, and then,

disregarding the name of the Lord, go forth and commit transgressions.”166 Since the

tefillin, or phylacteries, symbolize the name of God,167 they should only be worn by one

161
Although William Braude (Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and
Special Sabbaths, Yale Judaica 28 [New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968], 2–5)
argues that the Pesiqta Rabbati was written during the 7th century CE, an editorial note
by Mordecai Margulies claims the section on the Decalogue dates to 3rd-or-4th-century
CE Palestine.
162
Ibid., Pesiq. Rab. 27.4; 543.
163
Ibid., Pesiq. Rab. 22.4; 457.
164
Ibid., Pesiq. Rab. 22.5; 458.
165
Ibid., Pesiq. Rab. 22.6; 465.
166
Ibid., Pesiq. Rab. 22.5; 458.
167
The front of a head teffilla bears the letter ‫ש‬, and the knot is traditionally tied
in the shape of the letter ‫ד‬, with the end of the strap representing the letter ‫י‬. Taken
together, these letters spell ‫( שדי‬shaddai), or “Almighty.” For the arm teffila, the strap is
 60

who is committed to obeying Torah. Similarly, the Babylonian Talmud linked Deut 28:10

to the tefillin: “And all the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is

called upon thee [‫]ׁשם הי נקרא עליך‬, and they shall be afraid of thee.”168 The Talmud also

connects these four crimes: “vain oaths, false oaths, profanation of the Divine Name, and

the desecration of the Sabbath.” An editor’s footnote reads, “Any unworthy action which

reflects discredit upon Judaism—since Judaism is blamed for it—is regarded as

profanation of the Divine Name.”169

Elsewhere the rabbis decided that God no longer performed miracles in answer to

their prayers because they did not uphold the sanctity of God’s name with their very

lives.170 In the first Talmudic example (b. Ber. 6a), the NC was closely linked with the

profaning of God’s name. The second (b. Šabb. 33a) touched on the biblical idea that the

people of God were responsible for bringing honor to the name by the way they lived.

This behavioral focus is also evident in b. Pesaḥ. 53b, where Hananiah, Mishael, and

Azariah sanctified the name by going into the fiery furnace. A footnote reads, “This is

one of the great principles of Judaism: a man must by his actions sanctify the Divine

Name.”171 This principle expresses well the representational reading of the NC, and the

connection between them is at least implied by the footnote on b. Šabb. 33a, cited above.

wrapped in the shape of a shin, with knots in the shapes of ‫ ד‬and ‫י‬. For this reason, the
teffilin may not be worn by the impure. See Louis Isaac Rabinowitz, “Teffilin,” EJ
19:578.
168
b. Ber. 6a; see Rabinowitz, “Teffilin,” EJ 19:578.
169
b. Šabb. 33a (151 n. 12; cf. ʾAbot 5.9 and 4.4).
170
b. Ber. 20a.
171
b. Pesaḥ. 53b (261 n. 5; trans. H. Freedman, emphasis mine).
 61

Although Jewish interpreters have almost always read the NC as an injunction against

false swearing, the wider biblical theme that the Israelites bore the name of YHWH and

thus represent him to the nations was not forgotten.

Early Christian Interpretation

Some early Christian interpreters also connected God’s name to his people’s

behavior.172 Second Clement calls for repentance for hypocrisy, “so that the Name (τὸ

ὄνομα) may not be blasphemed on our account” (2 Clem 13:1).173 This blasphemy results

from disobedience:

For when the pagans hear from our mouths the oracles of God, they marvel at
their beauty and greatness. But when they discover that our actions are not worthy
of the words we speak, they turn from wonder to blasphemy, saying that it is a
myth and a delusion. (2 Clem 13:3)

The author of this anonymous work did not explicitly connect the NC with a behavioral

interpretation, but he freely associated the behavior of believers with God’s name, or

reputation.174 Similarly, to the Philippians Polycarp wrote of “those who bear the name of

the Lord hypocritically” (τῶν ἐν ὑποκρίσει φερόντων τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου; Pol. Phil.

6:3b), and those “through whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed” (per quem nomen

domini blasphematur; Pol. Phil. 10:3a).

172
For now I will treat only extra-biblical Christian texts.
173
Second Clement 13:2 cites LXX Isa 52:5 verbatim, which speaks of God’s
name being blasphemed among the nations. All citations from the Apostolic Fathers are
taken from Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007).
174
On issues of authorship, see ibid., 132.
 62

The Shepherd of Hermas made the connection between the NC and believers’

behavior more explicit. Toward the end of his writings, Hermas gave a series of parables

that portrayed believers in Jesus as those who received (λαμβάνω; cf. LXX Exod 20:7)175

his name in baptism, making them “bearers” of that name (Herm. Sim. 9.16.3; 93:3b–

4a).176 This privilege of having “the Name of the Son of God proclaimed over” them was

available to people from all nations who heard and believed (Herm. Sim. 9.17.4; 94:4).

However, some were later found unworthy because they “have the Name (ὄνομα μὲν

ἔχουσιν), but are devoid of faith, and there is no fruit of truth in them” (Herm. Sim.

9.19.2; 96:2). Any shameful behavior after baptism profaned the name; Hermas insisted,

“If you bear (φορῇς) the Name but do not bear his power, you will bear his Name in vain

(εἰς μάτην ἔσῃ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ φορῶν)” (Herm. Sim. 9.13.2; 90:2, emphasis mine).177

But those worthy of special honor were “those who suffered for the Name of the Son of

God” (Herm. Sim. 9.28.2; 105:2). To them the angel said, “You who suffer for the sake of

the Name ought to glorify God, because God has considered you worthy that you should

bear (βαστάζω) this Name and that all your sins be healed” (Herm. Sim. 9.28.5; 105:5; cf.

1 Pet 4:14–16).178 Hermas seemed to echo the NC deliberately with the rare phrase “in

175
See chapter 4 for a fuller discussion of the NC in the LXX.
176
On baptism as “sealing” with the name, see Carolyn Osiek, The Shepherd of
Hermas: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 206, 235, 238. See
esp. Herm. Sim. 9.16.3–7; 93:3–7.
177
Cf. LXX Exod 20:7. The “power” corresponds mostly to the fruits of the
Spirit—namely, faith, self-control, power, patience, sincerity, innocence, purity,
cheerfulness, truth, understanding, harmony, and love. See Herm. Sim. 9.15.2; 92:2.
178
Osiek (Shepherd of Hermas, 251) notes that believers carried (φορέω) the
name as their “long-term identity,” while other characters in the vision bore heavy weight
 63

vain” (εἰς μάτην),179 specifically connecting it with the notion of “bearing” (φορέω and

βαστάζω) the name after “receiving” (λαμβάνω) it in baptism. The echoes are

unmistakable, though Hermas disambiguated the notion of “carrying.”

Hermas was not the only early interpreter to have understood the NC this way. In

his restatement of the commands of the Decalogue, Clement of Alexandria deliberately

expanded the NC by using two Greek words to represent the Hebrew ‫נׂשא‬, which most

often means to “lift up,” “bear,” or “carry.” Evidently he recognized that λαμβάνω fails to

capture unambiguously the idea that the name is carried by God’s people. Of the NC he

said, “Now the second word is declaring it is necessary not to receive (λαμβάνω) nor to

carry (ἐπιφέρω) the great majesty of God, which is the Name . . . upon vain, created

things.”180 By warning Christians not to confer the name of YHWH upon something

made by humans, Clement’s view aligns with the “idolatry” view of Staples and

Carmichael discussed above. However, Clement did not read the NC elliptically; he did

not interpret it strictly as speech; and he was not content with the LXX translation of ‫נׂשא‬

as λαμβάνω. Both Clement and Hermas took ‫ נׂשא‬in its most natural sense as “lift up” or

“carry,” while Hermas provides early evidence of the representational interpretation.

(βαστάζω). The switch to βαστάζω indicates that because of persecution the name “has
become a burden that brings on suffering.” Both verbs occur in Herm. Sim. 9.14.6; 91:6.
179
Cf. ἐπὶ ματαίω, LXX Exod 20:7. The word μάτην (“in vain”), identical to
Herm. Sim. 9.13.2 (90:2), is found only twice in the New Testament in that form (Matt
15:9; Mark 7:7). It is the adverbial form of the adjective ματαίῳ occurring in LXX Exod
20:7 and Deut 5:11.
180
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.16.137.3, in Clemens Alexandrinus 2,
Stromata Buch I–VI, ed. Otto Stählin, GCS 15 (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1906), 501, line 15, my
translation, taking the last phrase as a hendiadys (cf. Eph 3:12, “bold access”). Accessed
online at http://books.google.com/books?id=n1wPAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&
source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false.
 64
Medieval and Reformation Interpretation
The notion of baptism as the act of stamping or sealing believers with Jesus’ name

is also found in medieval exegesis of the NC. In a series of lectures given by St.

Bonaventure in 1267, he attributed oath taking to the literal interpretation of the

command, but he also explored the spiritual interpretation: “Listen, you who have been

marked by the name Christian, a character has been imprinted on you by the power of the

name of God, but later when you sin, you void the power of the sacrament.”181 He

outlined three ways the sacrament could be violated: (1) by not believing in the first

place, (2) by not being ready for the sacrament, and (3) by becoming apostate.182 Thomas

Aquinas took a similar view. Though he also referred to false oaths as the primary sense

of the NC, he said that if, after baptism, “thou dost return to thy sins, God’s name has

been taken in vain.”183 This application to behavior also appears in his Summa

Theologiæ, where he linked the NC with Col 3:17: “God’s name is invoked for many

purposes—in praise, in performing miracles and in fact generally in all our words and

actions; All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do ye in the name of the Lord.”184

181
Bonaventure, St. Bonaventure’s Collations on the Ten Commandments, trans.
Paul J. Spaeth (St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 1995), 56.
182
Ibid. These three roughly correspond to the possible senses of ‫ׁשוא‬: false,
empty, and malicious. Kuntz (Ten Commandments in History, 36) writes that, according
to 14th-century Englishman Richard Rolle, the NC is violated whenever Christians
participate in the Eucharist unworthily.
183
Thomas Aquinas, The Commandments of God: Conferences on the Two
Precepts of Charity and the Ten Commandments, trans. Laurence Shapcote (London:
Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1937), 37.
184
Aquinas, ST 2a2æ, 122.3.2 (trans. O’Brien, 297–99), italics his.
 65

These moves to interpret the NC more broadly exhibit the right instinct, but lack

exegetical justification.

Martin Luther’s ubiquitous use of the NC has already been mentioned. Here we

need only to explain his extension of its application beyond speech to behavior. He

clearly saw both Jews and Christians as bearing the name of God and linked the NC with

the Lord’s Prayer, “hallowed be your name” (Matt 6:9). If we pray for the sanctification

of God’s name, then we also must work so that we do not dishonor the name we bear.185

For Luther the implications were practical. In The Christian in Society III, Luther

appealed to the peasants and urged them not to take up arms against their rulers because

they “bear the name of God” by calling themselves Christians. He warned, “Now you

know that the name, word, and titles of God are not to be assumed idly or in vain, as he

says in the second commandment.”186 Similarly, his basis for condemnation of the Jews

is that “they bore God’s name,” making their rejection of Jesus all the more serious.187

Here Luther’s thinking is clearly in line with the representational interpretation.

Interpreters from the Reformation to the Present

Puritan Thomas Watson (c. 1620–1686) included hypocrisy in his extensive list of

violations of the NC, saying, “When we profess God’s name, but do not live answerably

to it, we take it in vain.”188 Later Matthew Henry adopted virtually the same position:

185
LW 46:33.
186
“Admonition to Peace,” LW 46:24.
187
LW 47:286.
188
Watson, The Ten Commandments, 85.
 66

“We take God’s name in vain . . . by hypocrisy, making a profession of God’s name, but

not living up to that profession. Those that name the name of Christ, but do not depart

from iniquity, as that name binds them to do, name it in vain; their worship is vain (Matt.

15:7–9), their oblations are vain (Isa. 1:11, 13), their religion is vain (Jam. 1:26).”189

More recently John Stott insisted that we not limit the NC to speech:

His holy name can be dragged in the mud by our careless use of language, and
most of us would do well to revise our vocabulary from time to time. But to take
God’s name in vain is not just a matter of words—it’s also about thoughts and
deeds. Whenever our behavior is inconsistent with our belief, when what we do
contradicts what we say, we take God’s name in vain. To call God “Lord” and
disobey him is to take his name in vain. To call God “Father” and be filled with
anxiety and doubts is to deny his name. To take God’s name in vain is to talk one
way and act another.190

Writing to lay audiences, Stott, Henry, and Watson all insisted that the NC cannot be

restricted to speech. Though they provided no exegetical basis for doing so, they

effectively stepped beyond the elliptical interpretation into the realm of the non-elliptical,

representational view.

R. Kendall Soulen arrives at this same conclusion about the NC by looking at the

biblical theme of the name of God and how the people of God are to interact with his

name. His argument is thematic rather than lexical.191 For example, he associates the NC

with the desecration of the name decried by Isaiah and Ezekiel, and says that it “warns

Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Peabody,

189

MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 284.

190
John R. W. Stott, Basic Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 81.
191
For R. Kendall Soulen (“The Blessing of God’s Name,” 47–61 in Roger Van
Harn, ed., The Ten Commandments for Jews, Christians, and Others [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007], 49), oath taking is the natural concern of this command, but the
language is sufficiently broad to include other applications.
 67

Israel away from any word or deed that belies or belittles the integrity with which God

speaks and acts in God’s own name.”192

Clear Advocates of the Non-Elliptical Interpretation

In 1989, Jewish scholar Meir Bar-Ilan rejected the idea that the NC is “symbolic

or metaphorical” in favor of what he called a “concrete” or “tangible” reading, similar to

that employed by those who wear phylacteries as a concrete fulfillment of Deut 6:4–9.193

In connection with the Priestly Blessing of Num 6:24–27, Bar-Ilan posited the existence

of an ancient ceremony whereby the priests actually wrote the name of YHWH on the

bodies of those receiving the blessing. His lexical evidence for this is not convincing. He

depended heavily on the double transmission of tradition (both oral and written).194 He

adduced as evidence the story of Cain, on whom YHWH “put a mark” (‫ ;ׂשים אֹות‬Gen

4:15), and the vision of Ezekiel where the angel is told to “set a mark” on the foreheads

of the righteous (‫ ;תוה תו‬Ezek 9:4).195 On the basis of these and other passages, he says

that the priests are literally to “put” (‫ ;ׂשים‬i.e., “write”) YHWH’s name on the Israelites

192
Ibid., emphasis mine. Harrelson (The Ten Commandments and Human Rights,
66) does not argue exegetically for a representational interpretation of the NC, but his
conclusion precisely expresses what the representational interpretation entails: “If people
want to know more about the God of Israel, they should be able to look to the people
redeemed from bondage in Egypt and find out about that God.”
193
Bar-Ilan, “They shall put my name,” 27. Cf. John Huehnergard and Harold
Liebowitz, “The Biblical Prohibition Against Tattooing,” VT 63 (2013): 74.
194
Bar-Ilan, “They shall put my name,” 22.
195
Ibid., 23–24. Cf. Sandra Jacobs, “The Body Inscribed: A Priestly Initiative?,”
in The Body in Biblical, Christian and Jewish Texts, ed. Joan E. Taylor, Library of
Second Temple Studies 85 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 11–13.
 68

(Num 6:27).196 Extrapolating from this, the NC warned those who “take up the name”

(i.e., on their body) not to profane that name by failing to obey God’s commands.197 This

interpretation avoids the anomalous translation of ‫ נׂשא‬as “utter” or “swear,” and

consequently the overlap with the command against false witness, and fits better with the

immediate context in the Decalogue.198

However, Bar-Ilan stretched the evidence, claiming that “the writing of the name

YHWH upon the body was very widespread in ancient times.”199 While we have some

indication of such practices, most passages he cites are figurative, visionary, or

susceptible to other interpretations. His strongest evidence for a physical inscription on

the Israelites may be the high priestly regalia (Exodus 28), but there the inscribed name

of YHWH was intended to set the priest apart from the people as their representative. If

everyone literally wore YHWH’s name, then the significance of the high priestly

medallion might have been lost.200 Furthermore, Bar-Ilan’s interpretation seems to imply

that only those who still bore the priestly writing legibly could actually violate the NC.

A few others have offered exegetical warrant for the representational view. In

1952, A. J. Wagner argued briefly that the current popular interpretation of Exod 20:7 did

not do justice to the Hebrew. His discussion centered on the Hebrew word ‫נׂשא‬,

196
Other passages he cites to illustrate bodily inscriptions include Isa 44:5; Job
31:35; Isa 49:15–17; Song 8:6; and Hag 2:23.
197
Bar-Ilan, “They shall put my name,” 28.
198
Ibid., 27, 30.
199
Ibid., 24.
200
Though all Israelites were ‫( עם־קדׁש ליהוה‬Deut 26:19), the high priest’s literal
bearing of YHWH’s name uniquely qualified him to bear sanctuary-related sin (Exod
28:36–38).
 69

suggesting that it could mean “to bear or carry” the name of God—that is, to claim

allegiance to him. The command warns God’s people not to do so falsely. He supposed

that this straightforward reading of the NC got off track very early and became associated

with oath taking and later with profanity.201 Wagner does not explain why; he simply

raises the issue and calls for re-assessment.

Allan Harman (1988) and Daniel Block (2011) independently develop this view,

marshaling lexical, contextual, and theological evidence for a representational reading.202

Harman insists that the LXX rendering of the NC does not lend itself readily to

blasphemy, but fits more naturally with the idea of “receiving” the name (i.e., in order to

bear it).203 Furthermore, in no other passage does ‫ נׂשא‬mean “to speak” without extra

modifiers.204 Harman also argued that “falsely” is an inadequate translation of the broader

word ‫ׁשוא‬, which usually refers to “emptiness” or “worthlessness.”205 Both Harman and

Block contend that the closest parallel expression to ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is Exod 28:12, 29, which

201
A. J. Wagner, “An Interpretation of Exodus 20:7,” Int 6 (1952): 228–29; cited
by Merrill, Deuteronomy, 149 n. 36, though Merrill does not fully appropriate Wagner’s
point.
202
Allan M. Harman, “The Interpretation of the Third Commandment,” RTR 47
(1988): 1–7; Daniel I. Block, “Bearing the Name of the LORD with Honor: A Homily on
the Second Command of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11),” BSac 168
(2011): 20–31; reprinted in Daniel I. Block, How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies
in the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 61–72. Harman
(“Interpretation of the Third Commandment,” 4) contends that this reading supports the
Decalogic structure of Deuteronomy, which he adopts for his later commentary. See
Allan M. Harman, Deuteronomy: The Commands of a Covenant God, Focus on the Bible
(Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2007), 78.
203
Harman, “Interpretation of the Third Commandment,” 2.
204
Ibid., 3.
205
Ibid., 1, 4–5.
 70

describes Aaron’s high priestly breastpiece.206 Just as the high priest “bears the names” of

the twelve tribes on his person and so represents them before YHWH, so Israel bears the

divine name. Furthermore, the word ‫“( ׁשם‬name”) is more than a spoken appellation.

Most significant for the NC, several idioms that include ‫ ׁשם‬involve affixing a name to a

person, place, or object to indicate ownership.207 Numbers 6:27 announces that in

pronouncing the priestly blessing, YHWH’s name was figuratively “placed” upon the

Israelites. The idea that Israel belonged to YHWH and that his name had been

“proclaimed over her” implied a responsibility to represent him well among the

nations.208

Harman and Block have much in common with Bar-Ilan, but they offer a more

satisfactory interpretation of the NC, insofar as they avoid the historical and exegetical

tensions of Bar-Ilan’s concrete interpretation. Harman’s and Block’s representational

reading appears solid lexically, contextually, and theologically.

The present task is to assess the validity of the representational interpretation

advanced by both Harman and Block, while providing more detailed substantiation. Only

a full-length monograph can do justice to the complexity of the issues involved—

contextual, historical, lexical, and theological. The weight of the history of interpretation

may pull against the representational reading of the NC, but as a viable alternative it

deserves full consideration. Chapter 3 offers a detailed lexical and historical analysis of

206
Ibid., 4; Block, “Bearing the Name,” 63.

Harman, “Interpretation of the Third Commandment,” 3; Block, “Bearing the

207

Name,” 63.

Harman, “Interpretation of the Third Commandment,” 3–4; Block, “Bearing

208

the Name,” 64, 66.

 71

the NC, followed by a careful look at the character of the Decalogue and its literary

context in chapter 4. Then, with the help of cognitive linguistics, chapter 5 examines the

theological import of the NC.

 CHAPTER 3

A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE NAME COMMAND:

LEXICO-HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The name of God, therefore, is freighted with all the power and holiness that is
God’s. The community that cannot make anything to represent God and cannot
put anything in God’s place is freely given the name of God as representation and
manifestation of the reality of God. This is how God is known, in and through the
name YHWH.
—Patrick Miller, The Ten Commandments

Having explored the history of interpretation of the NC, the present chapter

engages its key lexemes with a view toward a constructive proposal. This chapter begins

with an exploration of the variety of meanings for the Hebrew word ‫ׁשם‬, both on its own

and as part of idiomatic expressions. Following this, I will examine each of the other key

words in turn, focusing on how each is used in the Hebrew Bible and the earliest

translations. Chapter 5 will evaluate the motivation for the unusual phrase ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬in light

of conceptual metaphor theory and explore the Sinai narratives for the most illuminating

parallels.

First, a few comments are necessary about the narrative setting. Careful attention

to Moses’ multiple ascents and descents in the narrative of Exodus 19 and 20 presents a

literary framework in which Moses was with the people at the base of the mountain when

72
 73

YHWH spoke the Ten Words (see Exod 19:24–25; 20:21).1 Between these bookends of

descent and ascent, the Decalogue itself is portrayed as direct divine speech (20:1).

The NC is expressed in 2nd-person masculine singular form, signaling each

individual Israelite’s responsibility to obey. The recapitulation of the command is

distinctive; the repetition of the salient admonition encloses a threat of punishment for the

rebellious (‫)כי לא ינקה יהוה את אׁשר־יׂשא את־ׁשמו לׁשוא‬. A sanction such as this is unique

to the first two commands of the Decalogue, binding them together and underscoring the

seriousness of violation.2 Like the NC, the previous command is grounded in YHWH’s

character: “You shall not worship them [i.e., other gods, v. 3] or serve them, for I,

YHWH, am a jealous God, attending to the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the

third and fourth [generation] of those who reject me” (Exod 20:6). God himself will

punish offenders.

The direct object marker (‫ )את־ׁשם־יהוה‬makes clear that “name” is the object of

the negated verb ‫ נׂשא‬and that the name in question is YHWH.3 The addition of ‫אלהיך‬

underscores the covenantal relationship that forms the basis for this command. YHWH is

1
The narrative structure of this section of Exodus is particularly challenging. See,
e.g., Van Seters, “‘Comparing Scripture with Scripture.’”
2
Not only do these commands share a threat of punishment, but the language
employed in each command together echoes YHWH’s self-description in Exod 34:6–7.
For a detailed analysis of this allusion, as well as an argument that Exod 20:3–6 expresses
a single command, making the NC the second command, see below, pp. 174 and 217.
3
Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 77) points out the tendency of pre-
masoretic scribes to insert a Paseq, or vertical separator, between words that express
opposites. See, e.g., Ezek 43:8b, where “name of YHWH” is separated from the
governing verb ‫“( טמא‬defile”). Building on this observation, we note that no Paseq
appears in either version of the NC, suggesting that the verb ‫ נׂשא‬is not inherently
derogatory. It is not the “bearing” that is problematic, but rather “bearing . . . in vain.”
 74

not a random despotic deity demanding respect, but rather Israel’s own God, the one who

rescued her from Egypt (Exod 20:2).4 Given the complexity of the investigation, we will

first consider the word ‫ ׁשם‬and the variety of idioms in which it is employed.

Exodus 20:7 // Deuteronomy 5:11

‫ לא תׂשא את־ׁשם־יהוה אלהיך‬You shall not bear the name of YHWH, your God,
‫ לׁשוא כי לא ינקה יהוה‬in vain, for YHWH will not acquit
‫ את אׁשר־יׂשא את־ׁשמו לׁשוא‬one who bears his name in vain.

‫ׁשם‬
The designated object of ‫ נׂשא‬in the NC is ‫את־ׁשם־יהוה‬. Though the translation of

‫ ׁשם‬as “name” is straightforward, its significance requires elucidation.5 The linguistic and

historical analysis that follows will explore the ways that the Hebrew Bible speaks of the

name of YHWH as well as the range of ways that names functioned in the ancient world.

The inherent danger in such an enterprise is illegitimate totality transfer. However, the

4
The phrase ‫יהוה אלהיך‬, ubiquitous in Deuteronomy, is also at home in Exodus,
appearing 8x with the singular 2nd person pronominal suffix and 4x with the plural.
Elßner’s analysis of this phrase is skewed by his failure to include the plural. He claims
‫ יהוה אלהיך‬is absent from Leviticus and Numbers, though the phrase ‫ יהוה אלהיכם‬appears
28x. He states that ‫ יהוה אלהיך‬is a Deuteronomic expression, but that in the NC one
cannot separate ‫ יהוה‬from ‫את־ׁשם‬, a phrase he dates to the post-exilic period, overruling
the Deuteronomic character of the overall expression. See ibid., 102–3, 277. But note,
e.g., Exod 10:8 and Deut 4:29, where ‫ יהוה אלהיכם‬is introduced by the direct object
marker ‫את־‬.
5
Translation of ‫ ׁשם‬in the LXX (ὄνομα), Targums (‫ )ׁשם‬and other ancient versions
(Syriac, šm; Latin, nomen) is likewise predictable. Johan Lust (A Greek-English Lexicon
of the Septuagint [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992], 334) and T. Muraoka (A
Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint [Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2009], 498–99), both
define ὄνομα as “name, fame, reputation.” Perhaps due to the influence of Greek
philosophy, several lexicons embrace the old idea that a name contains a person’s
essence. See BDAG 712; L. Hartman, “ὄνομα,” EDNT, 2:519; Bietenhard, “ὄνομα,”
TDNT, 5:243.
 75

goal here is to develop sensitivity for the variety of ‫–ׁשם‬related idioms employed and

possible meanings available to the biblical writer so that we may select the most

appropriate and likely interpretation for the NC, given shared lexical, syntactic, and

contextual factors.

The word ‫ ׁשם‬occurs 864 times in the Hebrew Bible,6 with roughly forty-four

percent of these occurrences referring to YHWH.7 Usually ‫ ׁשם‬signals a simple

appellation,8 as in, “YHWH is his name” (‫ ;יהוה ׁשמו‬Exod 15:3). As with human names,

YHWH’s proper name uniquely identified him.9 God revealed his personal name,

YHWH, to Moses (Exod 3:15), indicating how people were to identify and address him

(Exod 3:15b; 20:24).10 Since YHWH’s name came to be associated with his acts on

6
See DCH 8:422–31; Allen P. Ross, “‫ׁשם‬,”
ֵׁ NIDOTTE 4:147–51; Reiterer,
Ringgren, and Fabry, “‫ׁשם‬,”
ֵׁ TDOT 15:128–176; A. S. van der Woude, “‫ׁשם‬,”ֵׁ TLOT
3:1348–67; cf. Hoftijzer and Jongeling, “šm1,” DNWSI 1155–59. The Akkadian cognate
ֵׁ šumu, carries almost the same range of meaning: “name, fame, reputation, [a
for ‫ׁשם‬,
pronoun], offspring, item” (CAD 17:284–97; cf. AHw 3:1274–75). As in Hebrew,
Akkadian names can be bestowed, honored, profaned, praised, invoked, erased, made
known, or forgotten. See Hayim ben Yosef Tawil, An Akkadian Lexical Companion for
Biblical Hebrew: Etymological-Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Supplement on
Biblical Aramaic (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2009), 404–7.
7
By my count, YHWH’s ‫ ׁשם‬is mentioned 379x, not counting the
angelic/theophanic appearances in Gen 32:30 and Judges 13.
8
I am using “appellation” as defined by Webster (68): “a name or title that
describes or identifies a person or thing; designation.”
9
A previous generation conceived of the name as capturing the “essence” of a
person. See above, p. 74 n. 5. Today scholars are more cautious about making this
equation, but many emphasize names’ ritual or magical power. See Denise M. Doxey,
“Names,” OEAE 2:490. Knowledge of someone’s name was thought to give access or
even control over them. See also Dozeman, Exodus, 486; Schüngel-Straumann, Der
Dekalog, 94; Vandier, La Religion Égyptienne, 199.
10
In contrast, YHWH promised to cut off the worship of other gods so that their
names would no longer be remembered (Hos 2:19[17]; Zech 13:2, both ‫ זכר‬niphal).
Without cultic attention, the gods themselves would be forgotten. The Israelites were not
 76

Israel’s behalf, its connotations rested on a history of divine action rather than

etymology.11 When nations heard what YHWH had done for the Israelites, they

concluded that he was committed to Israel as a people (Josh 9:9; cf. 1 Kgs 8:41–43; cf.

1QM 11, 14).

The word “name” can also refer metonymically to YHWH (e.g., Ps 18:50[49]),12

or to his fame, reputation (e.g., Exod 9:16),13 or authority (Exod 5:23).14 In rare poetic

to ‫ הזכיר‬the names of other gods in any way, either through speaking them aloud (Exod
23:13) or by swearing by them, serving them, or bowing down to them (Josh 23:7). The
expressions ‫( זכר ׁשם‬qal or niphal) and ‫( הזכיר ׁשם‬hiphil) have to do with “remembering”
a name or “causing him to be remembered.” HALOT 1:270; Martin Rose, “Name of
God,” ABD 4:1002. In the Hebrew Bible, people often expressed a desire to know the
name of God or his messengers (Gen 39:29; Exod 3:13, 15; 6:3; Judg 13:6, 17–18; Ps
9:11; Isa 64:1; cf. Test. Levi 5:5). In the ANE knowing a god’s name was a mark of
privilege, with attendant responsibilities to treat it carefully. See the “Legend of Isis and
the Name of Re,” trans. Robert K. Ritner, COS 1.22:33–34.
11
Walther Zimmerli, I Am Yahweh (Atlanta: John Knox, 1982), 81–82. Cf. Austin
D. Surls, Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus: From Etymology to
Literary Onomastics (Ph.D. diss., Wheaton College, 2015).
12
The metonymic use of ‫ ׁשם‬for a person applies exclusively to YHWH in the
Hebrew Bible. His name was loved (Ps 5:12; cf. 11QPsa 19, 12), praised (1 Chr 16:35; Ps
7:18), serenaded (2 Sam 22:50; Ps 9:3), blessed (Job 1:21; Ps 96:2), glorified (1 Chr
16:29; Isa 24:15; cf.1QSb 4, 28), thanked (Ps 44:9; 122:4), sought (Ps 83:17), feared
(Deut 28:58; Neh 1:11; Ps 61:6; Isa 59:19), honored (Ps 86:9, 12), exalted (Ps 34:3; Mic
5:3; 1QM 14, 4), trusted (Ps 20:8; Isa 50:10), thought about (Mal 3:16), waited for (Ps
52:11) and called upon (Gen 4:26; 1 Kgs 18:24; etc., 25x total). Offerings (Isa 60:9) and
incense (Mal 1:11) were presented to his name. The nations gathered to it (Jer 3:17) and
someday even they would call upon the name of YHWH (Zeph 3:9). The name was a
refuge (Zeph 3:12) or strong tower (Prov 18:10; cf. 1QSb 5, 28), and a protection for the
righteous (Ps 20:2; 91:14; 124:8). According to Van der Woude (“‫ׁשם‬,”ֵׁ TLOT 3:1365),
‫ ׁשם‬sometimes functioned as a personal pronoun.
13
See also 2 Sam 7:23, 26; 1 Chr 17:21; Neh 9:10; Ps 106:8; Isa 63:12, 14; Jer
32:20; Dan 9:15. For ‫ ׁשם‬as metonymy for human fame, reputation, or memory, see
Reiterer, “‫ׁשם‬,”
ֵׁ TDOT 15:146–47.
 77

passages the name almost takes on a hypostatic quality, but even here ‫ ׁשם‬may be read as

metonymic for YHWH himself (e.g., Isa 30:27; Deut 28:58b).15

‫ ׁשם‬as a Declaration of Possession

‫נקרא ׁשם על‬

A standard naming formula used throughout biblical literature is ‫קרא ׁשם‬, with the

qal form of ‫ קרא‬followed by ‫ ׁשם‬as the object in apposition to the given name (“to call a

name X”; e.g., Exod 2:10; 17:7).16 More important for this project is a variation of this

standard formula: the niphal of ‫ קרא‬with ‫ ׁשם‬as the subject followed by the preposition ‫על‬

attached to a pronominal suffix. To distinguish between these phrases, I will include the

prefixed ‫ נ‬when referring to the standard (qal) naming formula. ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬appears

14
To act in YHWH’s name (‫ )בׁשם־יהוה‬was to represent him and carry out his
will. This idiom also applies to human delegations (e.g., 1 Sam 25:5; 1 Kgs 21:8; Esth
3:12, 8:8, 10).
15
Cf. Ps 75:2; 4 Esdras 7:60. So also Sandra L. Richter, The Deuteronomistic
History and the Name Theology: lĕšakkēn šĕmô šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near
East, BZAW 318 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 11; van der Woude, “‫ׁשם‬,” ֵׁ TLOT 3:1363. In
Isa 30:27, ‫ ׁשם‬may be a later anti-anthropomorphic addition. See HALOT 2:1551.
16
This formula is ubiquitous in Genesis (57x), but occurs frequently in other OT
books as well, with a special concentration in Isaiah 58–62, showing the diachronic
persistence of the formula. Cf. Hossfeld and Kindl, “‫ק ָרא‬:
ָ VII. Naming,” TDOT 13:126).
Most occurrences involve a birth or naming a place to remember an event there. In one
case someone assigned a name to YHWH using this expression; Hagar called YHWH ‫אל‬
‫“( ראי‬the God who sees”; Gen 16:13). ‫ קרא ׁשם‬once means “remember” (Ruth 4:14).
Another version of this formula, more common with corporate naming, lacks ‫ ׁשם‬and
introduces the object with ‫ל‬. Occasionally both ‫ ׁשם‬and ‫ ל‬appear for emphasis. For
example, Gen 2:20; Isa 62:2; 65:15; Ruth 4:17. For discussion, see DCH 7:296; Hossfeld
and Kindl, “‫ק ָרא‬:ָ VII. Naming,” TDOT 13:126, 130.
 78

twenty-one times in the Hebrew Bible.17 Careful consideration of military and legal

contexts will clarify what the idiom means when YHWH’s name is the subject. In the

first example, Joab attempted to motivate King David to resume military leadership when

the latter was preoccupied with family affairs:

2 Samuel 12:28
‫ ועתה אסף את־יתר העם‬Now gather the remainder of the people
‫ וחנה על־העיר ולכדה‬and encamp against the city and capture it,
‫ פן־אלכד אני את־העיר‬lest I capture the city myself
‫ ונקרא ׁשמי עליה‬and my name is proclaimed over it.

David’s abdication of leadership left open the possibility that Joab, his army commander,

would receive credit for a victory. Joab’s statement was ambiguous about who would

declare his name. By giving the king fair warning, he could not be charged with sedition.

Perhaps he planned to do so himself, thereby claiming the captured city of Rabbah as his

17
Twice a similar phrase (‫בׁשם‬+‫ )קרא‬is used with the same import, resulting in 23
total occurrences. See Isa 43:7; 48:1; cf. 63:19. Although ‫( קרא בׁשם‬qal) normally means
“call on the name,” these two cases use the niphal form, resulting in the reflexive
meaning “called by the name.” While ‫( קרא ׁשם‬qal) is more common in early texts, ‫קרא‬
‫( ׁשם על‬niphal) predominates during and after the exile. See Hossfeld and Kindl, “‫ק ָרא‬:ָ
VII. Naming,” TDOT 13:126–27. Reiterer (“‫ׁשם‬,” ֵׁ TDOT 15:146–47) fails to list ‫נקרא ׁשם‬
‫ על‬separately from other expressions involving ‫קרא‬. He also blurs the distinction between
YHWH calling people by name and calling them by his name (ibid., 155). The former
indicates appointment to a task while the latter indicates a claim to ownership. For
discussion of ‫נקרא ׁשם על‬, see Hossfeld and Lamberty-Zielinski, “‫ק ָרא‬: ָ VIII. Property
Law,” TDOT 13:131; Louis Jonker, “‫קרא‬,” NIDOTTE 3:973; HALOT 2:1130; Richter,
DH and Name Theology, 84; Roland de Vaux, “Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir
son nom,” in Das ferne und nahe Wort: Festschrift L. Rost, ed. Fritz Maass (Berlin:
Alfred Töpelmann, 1967), 219–28; Van der Woude, “‫ׁשם‬,” ֵׁ TLOT 3:1363; Johannes
Goldenstein, Das Gebet der Gottesknechte: Jesaja 63,7—64,11 im Jesajabuch
(Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 105; Wolfgang Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie
in Jes 56–66: eine Untersuchung zu den literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln
des Jesajabuches (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1994), 300.
 79

own.18 Or perhaps he simply anticipated that others would recognize him as the

conquering hero, making his name famous in Rabbah. Either way, David would miss out

on an opportunity to secure his own political power.

Isaiah 4:1 applied the same idiom to a legal marriage arrangement:

‫והחזיקו ׁשבע נׁשים באיׁש אחד‬ For seven women will seize one man
‫ביום ההוא לאמר‬ in that day, saying,
‫לחמנו נאכל וׂשמלתנו נלבׁש‬ “We will eat our own food and wear our own clothes,
‫רק יקרא ׁשמך עלינו‬ only let your name be proclaimed over us.
‫ אסף חרּפתנו‬Take away our reproach!”

Here the prophet spoke of a coming day of judgment for Judah in which so many men

would fall in battle that a leadership vacuum would result (3:6–7, 12, 25). In that day,

widows would greatly outnumber the available men and would band together and beg to

be taken under the legal and social protection of a husband by having him claim them as

his own.19 In this way they could avoid public disgrace. The women would not give up

their own personal names in exchange for a man’s name; instead, they would take on his

name as a designation of a proper marital relationship (most likely using the formula “X,

18
Joab’s warning makes sense as an oral claim to ownership and need not imply a
stone inscription (2 Sam 12:28). Jair’s naming of a captured city after himself (Havvoth-
jair) uses nearly the same expression; though qal rather than niphal (‫;ויקרא אתם על־ׁשמו‬
Deut 3:14). Psalm 49:12[11] employs a variation, perhaps inspired by phonological
parallelism (‫)קראו בׁשמותם עלי אדמות‬. Isaiah 48:2 employs the idiom in reverse. There the
Israelites “call themselves after the holy city” (‫)מעיר הקדׁש נקראו‬. For other examples of
cities named after people, see Gen 4:17 (Enoch  Enoch); Gen 24:10 (Nahor  Aram-
naharaim, or the city of Nahor); Josh 19:47 (Dan  Dan); Josh 21:11 (Arba  Kiriath-
arba); and 1 Kgs 16:24 (Shemer  Samaria); cf. 2 Sam 18:18 (Absalom’s monument).
19
Hossfeld and Lamberty-Zielinski, “‫ק ָרא‬:
ָ VIII. Property Law,” TDOT 13:131.
 80

wife of Y”), reflecting his claim on them and their security in him.20 Here the oral nature

of this claim is obvious.

In light of these examples involving human names, we may consider contexts in

which the idiom ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬involves YHWH’s name (Table 2). The phrase is only

associated with a handful of entities: the ark (2 Sam 6:2 // 1 Chr 13:6); the temple (1 Kgs

8:43 // 2 Chr 6:33; Jer 7:10, 11, 14, 30; 32:34; 34:15); Jerusalem (Jer 25:29; Dan 9:18–

19); the Israelites (Deut 28:10; 2 Chr 7:14; Isa 63:19; Jer 14:9; Dan 9:19; cf. cf. 4Q504 1

II, 12); Jeremiah (Jer 15:16); and, on one unusual occasion, the nations (Amos 9:12).

While some have suggested the phrase ‫ ׁשם יהוה נקרא על‬means YHWH’s name is read

upon these entities, implying a physical inscription,21 the entire phrase ‫ׁשם יהוה נקרא על‬

appears to be lexicalized as a recognition of ownership.22 The declaration of a name over

20
For example, 2 Sam 11:3: “Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the
wife of Uriah the Hittite?” In keeping with the conventions of a patriarchal society,
Bathsheba was identified in relation to male authority. Cf. Gen 24:51; Jdg 4:17; 2 Kgs
22:14. Tobit 3:8 may provide another legal example, though in Greek. According to
Codex Sinaiticus a woman was married to seven husbands without “being named by one
of them” (i.e., without taking their names; καὶ ἑνὸς αὐτῶν οὐκ ὠνομάσθης). In most other
MSS ὠνομάσθης reads ὠνάσθης, “to gain benefit from.” See Tobit, Septuaginta: Vetus
Testamentum Graecum 8/5 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 82.
21
See Meir Bar-Ilan, “Magic Seals Upon the Body among Jews in the First
Centuries CE (Hebrew),” Tarbiz 57 (1987): 41; idem, “They shall put my name”; Jacobs,
“The Body Inscribed,” 12. Cf. Daniel I. Block, “No Other Gods: Bearing the Name of
YHWH in a Polytheistic World,” in The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and
Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 246.
22
I prefer the translation “proclaimed over” to “read upon.” Though ‫ קרא‬can
mean “read” in the qal (e.g., Deut 17:19 and 31:11, which refers to public proclamation
of written texts), only twice does the niphal of ‫ קרא‬clearly mean “read” (Esth 6:1; Neh
13:1; HALOT 2:1131). Neither matches the grammar of ‫נקרא ׁשם על‬. In both cases a
document is read aloud to someone, which explains the passive niphal. Still, given the
relative rarity of niphal ‫ קרא‬we might posit a correspondence between niphal and qal, in
which case a variety of other syntactical correspondences might be expected. In the qal,
the object of ‫( קרא‬i.e., that which is being “read”) is marked in one of four ways: (1) the
 81

(‫ )על‬something constitutes an oral claim reminiscent of a physical inscription or branding,

as the following examples demonstrate.

Table 2. ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬in the Hebrew Bible

‫נקרא ׁשם על‬ Deut Sam Kgs Isa Jer Dan Amos Chron
secular use x x 2
ark x //x 2
xxx
temple x //x 8
xxx
Name of city x xx 3
YHWH people of
x x x x x 5
Israel
person x 1
nations x 1
1 2 1 2 9 3 1 3 22

We will explore each category to which this phrase was applied in the order listed in

Table 2, beginning with the ark.

2 Samuel 6:2
‫ויקם וילך דוד‬ And David got up and went
‫וכל־העם אׁשר אתו‬ and all the people who were with him
‫מבעלי יהודה‬ from Baʿalah of Judah
‫להעלות מׁשם את ארון האלהים‬ to bring up from there the ark of God
‫אׁשר־נקרא ׁשם‬ over which a name is proclaimed —
‫ׁשם יהוה צבאות‬ the name of YHWH of armies
‫יׁשב הכרבים עליו‬ enthroned on the cherubim.

direct object marker ‫( את‬Deut 31:11; 2 Kgs 5:7; 22:16; 23:2 = 2 Chron 34:30; Jer 29:29;
36:6, 10; 51:63), (2) a pronominal suffix (2 Kgs 19:14; 22:8, 10; Jer 36:15, 21), (3) the
preposition ‫( ב‬Deut 17:19; Jer 36:13, 14?; Hab 2:2; Neh 8:3, 8, 18; 9:3; 2 Chron 34:18),
or (4) no marker at all (Exod 24:7; Josh 8:35; Isa 34:16; Jer 6:8). Isaiah 34:16 belongs in
the final category because the compound preposition ‫ מעל‬technically marks the object of
the verb ‫“( דרׁש‬consult”; DCH 2:474), rather than ‫קרא‬. The ‫ב‬-prefix may indicate an
emphasis on reading only a selection of a particular document.
 82
1 Chronicles 13:6
‫ויעל דויד וכל־יׂשראל בעלתה‬ And David and all Israel went up to Baʿalah,
‫אל־קרית יערים אׁשר ליהודה‬ to Kiriath Jearim, which belongs to Judah,
‫להעלות מׁשם את ארון האלהים‬ to bring up from there the ark of God,
‫יהוה יוׁשב הכרובים‬ (of) YHWH enthroned on the cherubim,
‫אׁשר־נקרא ׁשם‬ which is called a name.

The subtle differences between these parallel texts cannot mask their basic similarity;

they describe the same event. In 2 Sam 6:2, ‫ ׁשם‬lacks the pronominal suffix we might

expect, but its definiteness is signaled by the appositional phrase “the name of YHWH of

armies, enthroned on the cherubim.” This may explain why Chronicles employs ‫ׁשם‬

without any suffix and lacks the prepositional phrase ‫עליו‬, resulting in a unique, shortened

expression (‫)נקרא ׁשם‬.23 Since ‫ עליו‬was already separated from ‫נקרא ׁשם‬, the latter is all

that remained of the original idiom after the Chronicler shifted Samuel’s appositional

phrase forward. Even so, ‫ נקרא ׁשם‬clearly referred to the name YHWH.24

These are the only cases where the ark was associated with YHWH’s name. The

occasion was significant; as the most treasured object of the tabernacle, housed in its

inner sanctum, the ark was thought to be the footstool of YHWH’s throne and guarantee

of his presence. Its twenty-year absence from the tabernacle jeopardized YHWH’s

presence among his people (see 1 Sam 4:3, 21). Powerful signs accompanied its sojourn

in Philistine territory, implying that it remained an object of YHWH’s attention (1 Sam

5:1–6:21). David brought it back to his city, ostensibly in hopes of securing YHWH’s

23
Other parts of 1 Chr 13:6 are laconic: ‫ויקם‬, ‫וילך‬, and ‫ צבאות‬are all missing.
24
Yet we have no evidence that YHWH’s name was inscribed on the ark. Given
the precise detail of the tabernacle instructions, the absence of a directive to inscribe the
ark with YHWH’s name makes such an inscription unlikely (Exod 25:10–22). This idiom
must then denote oral ascription.
 83

blessing on his reign as king (see 1 Sam 6:12). When the ark returned, the narrator

commented that David was “settled” in his palace, having “rest” on all sides (2 Sam 7:1).

The temple was also attributed to YHWH using the idiom ‫נקרא ׁשם על‬. A few

examples will suffice:

1 Kings 8:43 // 2 Chronicles 6:3325

‫ אתה תׁשמע הׁשמים מכון ׁשבתך‬Now may you hear in heaven your dwelling place
‫ ועׂשית ככל אׁשר־יקרא אליך הנכרי‬and do according to all the foreigner calls to you
‫ למען ידעון כל־עמי הארץ את־ׁשמך‬so all the peoples of the earth will know your name,
‫ ליראה אתך כעמך יׂשראל‬to fear you as your people Israel [do],
‫ ולדעת כי־ׁשמך נקרא‬and to know that your name is proclaimed
‫ על־הבית הזה אׁשר בניתי‬over this house that I built.

In a prayer punctuated with references to the name, Solomon used the phrase ‫ׁשמך נקרא‬

‫ על־הבית‬to reiterate that the temple he built for YHWH was the legitimate cult site.26 He

hoped that even foreigners who prayed to YHWH at his temple would discover this, and

in so doing would come to know YHWH’s name. That is, they would know that he, and

not another god, was Israel’s deity, and that Solomon’s temple was the authorized place

of worship.27 Answered prayers would confirm YHWH’s authorization of this place.

25
These parallel passages are nearly identical, particularly with reference to our
key phrase.
26
The Apocrypha make similar statements. The temple was built in his name (Sir
47:13), in a place sanctified for his name (3 Macc 2:9), and was said to have his name
proclaimed over it (τὸν οἶκον οὗ ἐπεκλήθη τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, Bar 2:26; 1 Macc 7:37).
Cf. 1 Esd 4:63: “The temple where his name is named upon it” (τὸ ἱερόν οὗ ὠνομάσθη τὸ
ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ). This expression likely indicates an oral declaration of ownership:
“This temple is YHWH’s.”
27
Appealing to Jer 7:4, Block (“No Other Gods,” 253 n. 63) speculates that the
temple might have had an inscription on the foundation or above the door declaring it to
 84

Note that ‫ ׁשם‬is being used in two distinct ways here, first to identify YHWH (metonymy)

and then in our key idiom to denote his possession of the temple. The activation of both

senses in the same text is a brilliant play on words that provides rhetorical continuity to

Solomon’s prayer.

As Table 2 shows, the phrase ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬was a favorite of Jeremiah’s. He drew

on two Deuteronomic ideas—that YHWH claimed the central sanctuary as his own and

that he claimed the people of Israel as his own—both using the same idiom. By

extension, he could apply ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬to the city of Jerusalem because it housed the

temple, and to himself as a faithful Israelite.28 Here is a prime example:

Jeremiah 7:9–12 (cf. 7:14, 30)

‫הגנב רצח ונאף‬ Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery
‫והׁשבע לׁשקר וקטר לבעל‬ and swear falsely and sacrifice to Baʿal
‫והלך אחרי אלהים אחרים‬ and walk after other gods
‫אׁשר לא־ידעתם‬ whom you have not known,
‫ובאתם ועמדתם לפני בבית הזה‬ and then come and stand before this house
‫אׁשר נקרא־ׁשמי עליו‬ over which my name is proclaimed
‫ואמרתם נצלנו‬ and say “We are delivered!” —
‫למען עׂשות את כל־התועבות האלה‬ so that you may do all these abominable things?
‫המערת פרצים היה הבית הזה‬ Is this house—over which my name is
‫אׁשר־נקרא־ׁשמי עליו בעיניכם‬ proclaimed—a robbers’ hideout in your eyes?

be ‫היכל יהוה‬, declaring to all the name of the divine resident. However, the narrative lacks
detailed building instructions to confirm this (1 Chron 28:11–19).
28
See also Jer 25:29; cf. Ezek 48:35. Note Hossfeld and Lamberty-Zielinski,
“‫ק ָרא‬:ָ VIII. Property Law,” TDOT 13:131. William Holladay (Jeremiah 1: A
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 1–25, Hermeneia
[Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986], 458–59) avers that Jeremiah’s application of the idiom to
himself evokes marriage imagery (cf. Isa 4:1). Since he was celibate for the sake of his
ministry (16:2), Jeremiah’s “joy” (‫ )ׂשׂשון‬and “delight” (‫ )ׂשמחה‬in YHWH could be
compared to a bridal couple’s (see Jer 7:34 and 16:9). Cf. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–
20, AB 21A (New York: Doubleday, 1999), 744.
 85
‫ גם אנכי הנה ראיתי נאם־יהוה‬Look, I myself have seen it,” declares YHWH.
‫סכי לכו־נא אל־מקומי אׁשר בׁשילו‬ “For go now to the place which is in Shiloh
‫אׁשר ׁשכנתי ׁשמי ׁשם בראׁשונה‬ where I placed my name at first,
‫וראו את אׁשר־עׂשיתי לו‬ and see what I have done to it
‫מפני רעת עמי יׂשראל‬ in the face of my people Israel’s wickedness.”

Jeremiah 7:9–12 is an important passage for at least three reasons. First, it draws attention

to the link between obedience to covenant principles, highlighting five of those outlined

in the Decalogue, and the official cult site, which belongs to YHWH. An immoral

lifestyle was incompatible with worship of YHWH.29 Second, it describes the general

state of moral degradation into which Israel had fallen. While the holiness of YHWH’s

temple should have deterred immoral behavior, instead the Israelites relied on the temple

in their midst to guarantee their immunity to punishment, treating it as a robber’s hideout.

Their disregard for YHWH’s “place” would result in the forfeiture of their own security

in the land.30 Third, and most importantly for this project, Jeremiah 7 demonstrates the

lexical overlap between the two idioms, ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬and ‫לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬. Shiloh was

identified as the first cult site where YHWH “placed his name,” and the temple in

Jerusalem as the replacement site “over which his name was proclaimed.” “Placing the

name” was perceived as the conceptual equivalent to an oral declaration of ownership.31

This equation will become significant for the discussion that follows.

29
On the Decalogic echoes in Jer 7:9–10, see discussion on p. 30.
30
Richter, DH and Name Theology, 91–93.
31
This conclusion is corroborated by Jer 44:26, where ‫ נקרא‬is used for the oral
invocation of YHWH’s name in an oath. Similarly, in Ps 49:12 the qal of ‫ קרא‬+ ‫על‬
indicates that people had claimed land as their own (‫“ ;בׁשמותם‬by their names”). Here the
syntax of our idiom is taken over by the qal expression to indicate a vocal claim.
 86

Jeremiah 32:34
‫ ויׂשימו ׁשקוציהם‬But they set up their detestable things
‫ בבית אׁשר־נקרא־ׁשמי עליו‬in the house over which my name is proclaimed
‫ לטמאו‬to defile it.

YHWH’s claim was exclusive; the declaration of his name over his “house” entailed the

rejection of all other gods and their images.32 For the Israelites to introduce idols into the

temple defiled it, violating YHWH’s sovereign right.

Jeremiah 34:15–16a
‫ותׁשבו אתם היום‬ But you yourselves returned recently
‫ותעׂשו את־היׁשר בעיני‬ and you did the right thing in my eyes
‫לקרא דרֹור איׁש לרעהו‬ by each man emancipating his neighbor,
‫ותכרתו ברית לפני‬ and you made a covenant before me
‫בבית אׁשר־נקרא ׁשמי עליו‬ in the house over which my name is proclaimed.
‫ותׁשבו ותחללו את־ׁשמי‬ Yet you turned and profaned my name
‫ותׁשבו איׁש את־עבדו‬ by each man bringing back his slave,
‫ואיׁש את־ׁשפחתו‬ and each man his maidservant

In contrast to Jer 32:34, occasionally Israel did what was right within the temple walls.

Here they covenanted before YHWH to release Israelite slaves. However, their behavior

outside the temple profaned YHWH’s name because it violated their sworn commitment

by reinstituting slavery. Thus, the name of YHWH was made a witness to falsehood. This

example demonstrates that the first idiom (‫ )נקרא ׁשם על‬was not completely lexicalized so

that the use of “name” was merely coincidental. The second phrase (‫ )חלל את־ׁשם‬was

evoked precisely because “name” links it with the first, providing another potent word

play, though two distinct meanings of ‫ ׁשם‬are employed. The first phrase underscores

32
‫ ׁשקוצים‬was invariably associated with idolatry (cf. Deut 29:16; 1 Kgs 11:5).
 87

YHWH’s rightful possession of the temple while the second emphasizes the damage done

to his reputation. The shared lexeme ‫ ׁשם‬is sufficiently multivalent to be harnassed for

divergent purposes while providing rhetorical continuity to the prophet’s message.

Jeremiah 25:29
‫כי הנה‬ “For look,
‫בעיר אׁשר נקרא־ׁשמי עליה‬ on the city over which my name is proclaimed,
‫אנכי מחל להרע‬ I am beginning to bring calamity.
‫ואתם הנקה תנקו‬ As for you, will you possibly avoid punishment?
‫לא תנקו‬ You will not go unpunished,
‫כי חרב אני קרא‬ because I am summoning a sword
‫על־כל־יׁשבי הארץ‬ against all the inhabitants of the land/earth,”
‫נאם יהוה צבאות‬ declares YHWH of armies.

In Jer 25:29, the city of Jerusalem was the object claimed by YHWH as his own.

Jeremiah spoke to the kings of all the nations surrounding Jerusalem (25:18–26), warning

them of YHWH’s impending judgment. The consequences of Israel’s sin would extend

beyond the temple to the entire city. If his claim on Jerusalem did not preclude its severe

punishment, how much more would the nations suffer his wrath? That which belonged to

YHWH was only protected if he continued to be honored there.33

Deuteronomy 28:9–10
‫ יקימך יהוה לו לעם קדוׁש‬YHWH will establish you as his own holy people
‫ כאׁשר נׁשבע־לך‬just as he swore to you
‫ כי תׁשמר את־מצות יהוה אלהיך‬if you keep the commands of YHWH your God
‫ והלכת בדרכיו‬and walk in his ways

33
On YHWH “choosing” Jerusalem, see 1 Kgs 11:13, 32, 36; 14:21; 21:7; 23:27;
2 Chr 6:6; 12:13; 33:7; Zech 1:17; 2:16; 3:2. For another example, see discussion of
Daniel below.
 88
‫ וראו כל־עמי הארץ‬And all the peoples of the earth will see
‫ כי ׁשם יהוה נקרא עליך‬that the name YHWH was proclaimed over you,
‫ ויראו ממך‬and they will be afraid of you.

Now we have come full circle to the only occurrence of the phrase ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬in the

Pentateuch, in the heart of the covenant blessings (Deut 28:10). Here a whole group of

people—rather than a single object or an individual—was said to belong to YHWH. Just

as Joab was on the verge of being known as the conqueror of a city (2 Sam 12:28), so

YHWH would be known as the one to whom Israel owed her existence as a nation. The

hiphil of ‫ קום‬underscores his role as prime actor; YHWH was responsible for Israel’s

status as a holy people. Under the right conditions, YHWH’s claim on Israel would

inspire fear among the nations (cf. v. 7).34 However, these lavish blessings depended

upon Israel’s obedience to covenant stipulations (vv. 1–2, 9b, 13b, 14). Here the concept

of YHWH’s reputation is not specifically expressed using a “name” idiom. Instead one

almost has the sense that YHWH’s brand on Israel is legible; the peoples “see” it (i.e.,

YHWH’s name) and are afraid.35 Later in this chapter, covenantal breach was depicted as

a failure to “fear this honored and fearsome name” (‫;ליראה את־הׁשם הנכבד והנורא הזה‬

28:58)—that is, YHWH himself—and would result in an avalanche of curses. Belonging

to YHWH required the Israelites to honor his “name.” Again, this shared lexeme (‫)ׁשם‬

34
While normal syntax is verb-subject-object (VSO), here ‫ ׁשם יהוה‬appears before
the verb for emphasis. It is either a noun construct (“name of YHWH”) or epexegetical
(“name, YHWH”).
35
At the same time, Deut 28:10 makes especially clear ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬that cannot be
translated “the name is read upon.” The nations’ recognition of Israel’s status before
YHWH did not depend on the legibility of a forehead inscription, but on the quality of
covenant obedience. This passage would present a strange mixed metaphor if the nations
were to “see” that YHWH’s name is “read” on Israel. Usually (though not always) when
‫ קרא‬indicates reading, the emphasis falls on aural proclamation (e.g., Neh 8:8).
 89

provided a convenient homiletical connection for the distinct concepts of name as

metonymy and as a sign of possession.

Four other passages join Deuteronomy in applying the idiom ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬to the

people of Israel:36

Isaiah 63:19a
‫ היינו מעולם לא־מׁשלת בם‬We have become those over whom you have not ruled,
‫ לא־נקרא ׁשמך עליהם‬those over whom your name has not been proclaimed.

Isaiah 63:19 is controversial because its laconic style creates ambiguity. A few

translations and commentators follow the Targums, reading it as a contrast between

Israel and the nations: while Israel belongs to YHWH, others do not.37 A much larger

group follows the LXX, perceiving it as a comparison between Israel and the nations. She

has become just like those who do not belong to YHWH.38 The wider context of the

lament, which depicts Israel’s downward slide, favors the latter interpretation.39 The

36
Baruch and Maccabees also apply the translated idiom to Israel (τὸ ὄνομά σου
ἐπεκλήθη ἐπὶ Ισραηλ, Bar 2:15; 2 Macc 8:15).
37
See KJV; NIV; Bruce Chilton, trans., The Isaiah Targum, ArBib 11
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2005), 122; Edward J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, NICOT
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 3:489.
38
See LXX; Vulg.; NRSV; NASB; Peter Höffken, Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40–
66, Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes Testament 18 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1998), 234; Lau, Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66, 299–300; Goldenstein, Das
Gebet der Gottesknechte, 104); Joseph Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 56–66, AB 19B (New York:
Doubleday, 2003), 253; Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary,
ECC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 579.
39
For an extended discussion of the context, see Torsten Uhlig, The Theme of
Hardening in the Book of Isaiah, FAT 2/39 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 294–314.
On the tendency of LXX Isaiah to allow context to influence the translation, see Ronald
Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of
the Septuagint of Isaiah (Boston: Brill, 2008), 134.
 90

prophet chose to depict this moral turpitude by comparing Israel with those who did not

and never had borne YHWH’s name. Israel’s elect status had been all but reversed.40 A

request for a theophany reminiscent of Sinai follows, by which YHWH might once again

adopt Israel for himself as a people. Re-adoption would hardly make sense if Israel’s

status had not degenerated.41 On the basis of YHWH’s fresh appearance, his name would

be made known to his enemies (Isa 63:19b–64:1[2]). YHWH’s identity or reputation and

his possession of Israel are again rhetorically linked via ‫ׁשם‬.

Jeremiah and Daniel both appealed to YHWH’s reputation in their prayers:

Jeremiah 14:7a, 9
‫“ אם־עונינו ענו בנו‬Though our sins testify against us,
‫ יהוה עׂשה למען ׁשמך‬YHWH, act for the sake of your name.”

‫למה תהיה כאיׁש נדהם‬ “Why are you like a man astonished,
‫כגבור לא־יוכל להוׁשיע‬ like a warrior not able to save?
‫ואתה בקרבנו יהוה‬ Yet you are in our midst, YHWH,
‫וׁשמך עלינו נקרא‬ and your name over us is proclaimed.
‫ אל־תנחנו‬Do not lay us aside!”

The syntax also favors the comparative interpretation. The lack of ‫ אׁשר‬or ‫כי‬
emphasizes the severed ties between YHWH and Israel. While the predicative use of an
unmarked relative clause is common in Arabic, it is uncommon in Hebrew. IBHS (338)
gives two examples: Jer 2:8 reads, “They followed (those who) cannot help (‫ואחרי לא־‬
‫)יועלו הלכו‬,” while Isa 65:1 says, “I was sought by (those who) had not asked ( ‫נדרׁשתי‬
‫ ;)ללוא ׁשאלו‬I was found by (those who) did not seek me (‫)נמצאתי ללא בקׁשני‬.” Cf. Joüon
157a, 158d.
40
The shocking theme of YHWH as enemy of his own people appears frequently.
For example, Isa 31:2–4; 50:11; Jer 21:4–6; Ezek 5:5–17; Hos 6:1; 13:1; Lam 2:5; 3:10–
11.
41
See Irmtraud Fischer, Wo ist Jahwe?: Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7—64,11 als
Ausdruck des Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk,
1989), 57.
 91

Jeremiah appealed for God to act on Israel’s behalf for the sake of his own name (14:7a).

The syntax of ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬is doubly marked by bringing both the subject (‫ )ׁשמך‬and

prepositional phrase (‫ )עלינו‬before the verb, stressing the bond put into effect by

YHWH’s claim on Israel. Although she belonged to him, Israel was languishing.

YHWH’s reputation was at stake; therefore his response was critical. The distinct

concepts of possession and reputation are again rhetorically linked by the lexeme ‫ׁשם‬.

Daniel 9:18–19
‫הטה אלהי אזנך וׁשמע‬ “Incline, O God, your ear and hear.
‫פקחה עיניך וראה ׁשממתינו‬ Open your eyes and see our desolations
‫והעיר אׁשר־נקרא ׁשמך עליה‬ and the city over which your name is proclaimed,
‫כי לא על־צדקתינו‬ for not because of our righteousness
‫אנחנו מפילים תחנונינו לפניך‬ do we cause our supplications to fall before you,
‫כי על־רחמיך הרבים‬ but because of your great compassion.
‫אדני ׁשמעה אדני סלחה‬ Lord, hear. Lord, forgive.
‫אדני הקׁשיבה ועׂשה אל־תאחר‬ Lord give attention and act. Do not delay.
‫למענך אלהי כי־ׁשמך נקרא‬ For your sake, God, for your name is proclaimed
‫ על־עירך ועל־עמך‬over your city and over your people.”

Daniel applied the idiom both to the city of Jerusalem and to the people of Israel. He also

alluded to the priestly blessing, asking YHWH to “let his face shine” on them again,

thereby reaffirming that they belonged to him (v. 17; cf. Num 6:23–27).42 Like Jeremiah,

Daniel entreated YHWH to have compassion for his own sake (‫ ;למען אדני‬v. 17).43 In this

42
See also John Goldingay, Daniel, WBC 30 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996),
254–55.
43
Like Daniel, Baruch’s prayer recalled how God had “made himself a name” by
bringing Israel out of Egypt (Bar 2:11), after which Israel sinned and was scattered
among the nations. He prayed, “Hear, Lord, our prayer and our supplication and deliver
us for your sake and give us grace before those who carried us into exile, in order that all
the earth may know that you are the Lord our God because your name is proclaimed over
 92

case ‫ ׁשם‬does not occur, demonstrating that the association of the concepts of possession

and reputation does not depend on a single lexeme, but is rather conceptual. In v. 19, ‫ׁשמך‬

appears in front of the verb to underscore the importance of YHWH as owner. The

pronominal suffixes on both city and people reinforce YHWH’s ownership. Because he

was associated with both entities, it was in his own interest to restore them, in spite of

their sin (9:5–11).44 The desolation of Jerusalem reflected negatively on YHWH’s

sovereignty.

2 Chronicles 7:1445
‫ויכנעו עמי‬ And if my people humble themselves,
‫אׁשר נקרא־ׁשמי עליהם‬ over whom my name is proclaimed,
‫ויתפללו‬ and pray,
‫ויבקׁשו פני‬ and seek my face,
‫ויׁשבו מדרכיהם הרעים‬ and turn from their wicked ways,
‫ואני אׁשמע מן־הׁשמים‬ then I myself will hear from heaven,
‫ואסלח לחטאתם‬ and I will forgive their sin,
‫וארפא את־ארצם‬ and I will heal their land.

Israel and over his descendants” (Bar 2:14–15, emphasis mine; cf. 3:5–8; Sir 36:17; Pr
Azar 1:10–11; 20–22; 2 Macc 1:27). Baruch combines language from Daniel 9 with
echoes of Jeremiah and Deuteronomy. See David deSilva, Introducing the Apocrypha:
Message, Context, and Significance (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 203.
44
The psalmists often appealed to YHWH to act on their behalf for the sake of his
name (‫)למען ׁשמו‬. They pled for forgiveness (Ps 25:11; 79:9), guidance (Ps 31:4[3]),
intervention (Ps 109:21), and preservation (143:11) because of his reputation.
45
On the text critical issues created by the absence of this statement in the parallel
1 Kings text, see H. G. M. Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, NCBC (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1982), 225; Ralph W. Klein, 2 Chronicles: A Commentary, Hermeneia
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 110; Sara Japhet, I & II Chronicles: A Commentary, OTL
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 614.
 93

In spite of covenant unfaithfulness on Israel’s part, in the midst of God’s judgment, he

promised restoration if they repented. This possibility was rooted in the fact that

YHWH’s name had been proclaimed over them. They were his people. The Chronicler

also assured Israel of his presence among them by saying that his “eyes” and “heart”

would always be at the temple (v. 16). Although he promised to “hear from heaven,” his

was not a distant claim to ownership, but implied his attentive presence. Verse 16

connects the concepts of election and name, saying, “I have chosen (‫ )בחרתי‬and

consecrated this temple so that my name may be there forever (‫להיות־ׁשמי ׁשם עד־עולם‬,

emphasis mine).”46 Thus, in concert with 1 Kgs 9:3, the Chronicler identified three

aspects of YHWH’s disposition toward the Israelites in v. 16: his name (claim to

ownership), his eyes (attentive presence),47 and his heart (consistent will to forgive).48

Amos 9:12
‫“ למען יירׁשו את־ׁשארית אדום‬For they will possess the remnant of Edom
‫ וכל־הגוים‬and all the nations
‫ אׁשר־נקרא ׁשמי עליהם‬over whom my name is proclaimed,”
‫ נאם־יהוה עׂשה זאת‬declares YHWH, who does this.

46
For an overview of other Hebrew terms used to express the concept of election,
see Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology, trans. Leo G. Perdue, OTL
(Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995), 1:31–33. I follow Preuss (ibid., 1:37) in
defining “election” in relation to YHWH’s historical acts on Israel’s behalf rather than as
a “supratemporal or primeval divine decree.” Through the mighty acts of YHWH in
Egypt and in the exodus YHWH demonstrated his election of Israel (Deut 4:37–38).
47
YHWH’s attention did not guarantee immunity; he responded as he “saw” fit
(e.g., cp. 1 Chr 19:13; 21:7; 2 Chr 16:9). Subsequent kings were judged according to
whether they did “what was right” or “what was evil in the eyes of YHWH” (e.g., 2 Chr
20:32; 21:6; 22:4; 24:2).
48
The Chronicler often described loyal commitment or will with reference to ‫לב‬.
For example, 1 Chr 12:39; 17:9; 28:9; 29:9; 2 Chr 6:14; 30:12.
 94

A final occurrence of the idiom ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬breaks with the pattern seen thus far.

Amos 9:12 shockingly suggests that YHWH had claimed some from among the Gentiles

as his own, applying to the nations (‫ )הגוים‬the otherwise nationalistic epithet, “over whom

my name is proclaimed.”49 This notion was so scandalous to the Jews of antiquity that the

Targum rearranged the sentence to make Israel the subject.50 New Testament apostles

appealed to this passage as the clearest proof that Gentiles might join the people of God

apart from conversion to Judaism (Acts 15:15–18). If YHWH had proclaimed his name

over them, as evidenced by their faith in him, they were automatically part of the

believing community, without a need for circumcision.

The preceding survey of passages where the idiom ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬refers to the name

of YHWH is consistent with its occurrences in 2 Sam 12:28 and Isa 4:1. Rather than

simple “naming” or renaming, the idiom ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬denotes a claim of ownership put

into effect by oral declaration.51 The proclamation that Israel belonged to YHWH need

49
The ambiguity of the Hebrew allowed diverse interpretations. The MT reads,
“that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations over whom my name is
proclaimed” (‫)למען יירׁשו את־ׁשארית אדום וכל־הגוים אׁשר־נקרא ׁשמי עליהם‬. This statement
could imply military domination; ‫ ירׁש‬appears in military contexts and the hiphil means
“dispossess” (e.g., Deut 2:12, 21–24; Judg 1:19). However, in Amos 9:12 the object of
possession is people (“the remnant of Edom”) rather than territory, even though the verb
is qal. For land possession, see Gen 15:7; 28:4; Num 15:13; Deut 1:8.
50
Cf. Kevin Cathcart and Robert Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets,
ArBib 14 (Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989), 96 n. 38. For discussion, see Christopher
Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 495–97.
51
Cf. HALOT 2:1130: “an expression of ownership and control.” See also Lau,
Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66, 299–300; Michael Hundley, “To Be or Not To
Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic
History,” VT 59 (2009): 533–55; Walter Kaiser, “‫ׁשם‬,”
ֵׁ TWOT 2:934.
 95

not imply a written inscription or brand on Israel that could actually be “read.”52 By the

exilic and post-exilic periods, ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬became a standard way to refer to Israel’s

covenantal status. Even when applied to inert objects such as the temple, the focus was

on the covenant relationship implied by YHWH’s official residence among the Israelites.

Its recurrent association with YHWH’s identity and reputation is not surprising given the

potential for rhetorical exploitation of the frequently shared lexeme ‫ ׁשם‬and the natural

overlap between these concepts.

‫ קרא על־ׁשם‬and ‫קרא בׁשם‬

A cluster of expressions similar to ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬involve the adoption of a legal

heir. The syntax is slightly different, owing to different circumstances, but the concept is

related: a person’s name is legally attached to someone else. Here the preposition ‫ על‬or ‫ב‬

is attached directly to ‫ ׁשם‬as the object, rather than subject, of ‫( קרא‬niphal). As with the

previous idiom, the following examples include both human and divine applications. The

first examples are from Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh:

Genesis 48:5–6
‫ועתה ׁשני־בניך הנולדים לך‬ Now your two sons who were born to you
‫בארץ מצרים עד־באי אליך מצרימה‬ in the land of Egypt before I came to you to Egypt
‫לי־הם אפרים ומנׁשה‬ are mine—Ephraim and Manasseh—
‫כראובן וׁשמעון יהיו־לי‬ just as Reuben and Simeon are mine.
‫ומולדתך אׁשר־הולדת אחריהם‬ But your children who are born after them
‫לך יהיו‬ will be yours,
‫על ׁשם אחיהם‬ according to the name of their brothers
‫ יקראו בנחלתם‬they will be named in their inheritance.

Contra Bar-Ilan, “Magic Seals,” 41; idem, “They shall put my name”; Jacobs,
52

“The Body Inscribed,” 12.

 96

Here Jacob orally claimed his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, as his own sons in

regard to inheritance and land distribution. However, their future siblings (yet unborn)

would not share this generational promotion; instead, they would inherit from their older

brothers.53 As a result, Ephraim and Manasseh became eligible to receive Jacob’s

blessing before he died:

Genesis 48:16b
‫ ויקרא בהם ׁשמי‬And may my name be named on them
‫ וׁשם אבתי אברהם ויצחק‬and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac,
‫ וידגו לרב בקרב הארץ‬and may they multiply in the midst of the earth.

The blessing includes a variation of the idiom ‫נקרא ׁשם על‬. Here instead of ‫ על‬we find a

‫ב‬-prefix, which can also mean “on” (see Ps 101:6; Isa 66:20).54 The covenant blessings of

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob became theirs because of this legal “adoption,” that they

might multiply greatly. The jussive force of Jacob’s blessing implied his desire that these

boys continue to be known as his even after his death.

Among the returnees to Judah after the exile was a priest who had taken the

family name of his wife’s ancestor, Barzillai. It utilizes the same syntax as Gen 48:6.

Ezra 2:61 (//Neh 7:63)

‫ומבני הכהנים‬ And from the sons of the priests,
‫בני חביה בני הקוץ בני ברזלי‬ the sons of Habaiah, sons of Hakkoz, sons of Barzillai
‫אׁשר לקח מבנות ברזלי הגלעדי‬ (who took from the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite a wife,
‫אׁשה ויקרא על־ׁשמם‬ and was called by their name).

53
Their promotion is either alongside or in place of their uncles, Reuben and
Simeon. For discussion, see Kenneth Mathews, Genesis 11:27—50:26, NAC (B&H,
2005), 874–80; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC (Dallas: Word, 1994), 453–65;
E. A. Speiser, Genesis, AB 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 357.
54
DCH 2:82; HALOT 1:104.
 97

A matriarchal lineage is found nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible.55 The post-exilic

Barzillai may have been motivated by the inheritance and favor available through his

wife’s family. The ancestral Barzillai was a wealthy man, both loyal and generous to

King David, and therefore a recipient of royal favor.56 However, the consequent loss of

the second Barzillai’s priestly ancestry resulted in his exclusion from priestly privileges

(Ezra 2:62 // Neh 7:64).57

In these examples, ancestry was legally altered by a change in family name,

expressed with the idiom ‫( קרא על־ׁשם‬niphal). A related example involving YHWH’s

name is found in the book of Isaiah:

Isaiah 43:7
‫ כל הנקרא בׁשמי‬Everyone called by my name,
‫ ולכבודי בראתיו‬and for my glory whom I created,
‫ יצרתיו אף־עׂשיתיו‬whom I formed, even whom I made.

Note that the verb ‫ קרא‬is again niphal, indicating that these were people over whom

YHWH’s name had been proclaimed. They were identified as belonging to him, created

especially to bring him glory.58

55
Joseph Blenkinsopp (Ezra-Nehemiah, OTL [Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1998], 92) calls the situation “quite exceptional.” Cf. F. Charles Fensham, The
Books of Ezra & Nehemiah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 56.
56
See 2 Sam 17:27–29; 19:31–39; 1 Kgs 2:7. Cf. 1 Esd 5:38.
57
So Williamson, 1 and 2 Chronicles, 37. Since priestly records were lost,
consultation of the Urim and Thummim was necessary to discern YHWH’s will on how
to proceed (Ezra 2:63 // Neh 7:65). The purity of the priesthood and therefore the well-
being of the entire nation was at stake. Cf. Lev 22:12, which excluded a priest’s daughter
from eating priestly food if she married outside the tribe.
58
For discussion, see John Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66, NICOT
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 142.
 98

Though the syntax varies, the expressions listed here participate in the same

conceptual world as ‫נקרא־ׁשם על‬, a world where tangible property and legitimate social

relations were often governed by oral claims.59

‫לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬, ‫לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬, and ‫להיות ׁשמו ׁשם‬
In addition to the above expressions (‫נקרא ׁשם על‬, ‫קרא על־ׁשם‬, and ‫)קרא בׁשם‬,

which express a claim to ownership, another cluster of related idioms function similarly:

‫לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬, ‫לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬, ‫להיות ׁשמו ׁשם‬.60 With these, YHWH explicitly claimed

ownership of two entities, the same entities “over which his name was proclaimed”: the

place of worship and the people of Israel. However, prior to the “placing” of YHWH’s

name in the land, he called for the removal of other names.

That ANE rulers were concerned about this prospect is evident from the standard

closing statement on stone monuments that calls down curses on anyone who removes

59
By “conceptual world” I do not suggest an ontological reality for ‫ׁשם‬, but rather
a mental association or structure of thought triggered by the key word ‫ ׁשם‬and the shared
subject matter of these idioms. Though we cannot reduce an idiom to the sum of its parts,
research demonstrates that even unrecognized conceptual metaphors related to “highly
conventional metaphorical expressions” trigger associations that shape the way we think
and talk. See Zoltán Kövecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2010), 40–42. Even if these Hebrew idioms do not point to a
practice involving an inscribed name, the activation of a shared source domain (CLAIMING
OWNERSHIP BY INSCRIBING a NAME) naturally evokes name-related metaphorical
mappings, whether conscious or not. For more on conceptual metaphor theory, see below,
chapter 5.
60
The phrases ‫ לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬and ‫ לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬may have lexicalized in part due to
the pleasing alliteration of ‫ ׁש‬and ‫מ‬. For a discussion of phonological influence in
lexicalization, see Ian Wilson, “Merely a Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy,” in
Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 23.
 99

the ruler’s name.61 While the Hebrew expressions that involve cutting off, wiping out, or

removing a name almost always refer to the death of descendants so that a person’s

memory dies out, in two places the physical removal of an inscribed stone may be

implied.62 Both Deut 7:24 and 12:3 employ the expression ‫אבד את־ׁשם‬:

61
One Neo-Assyrian example (“Sabaʾa Stela,” trans. K. Lawson Younger, in COS
2.114E:274) reads,

A later prince who takes this stela from its place; whoever covers (it) with dirt or
puts (it) in a Taboo House, or erases the name of the king, my lord, and my name,
and writes his own name; may Aššur, the father of the gods, curse him and
destroy his seed (and) his name from the land.

For other examples from various locations and times in the ANE, see COS 2.32
(Phoenicia), 2.91 (lines 119–51; Old Akkadian), 2.111 (lines 118–57; Late Old
Babylonian from Mari), 2.114A (lines 11b–19; Neo-Assyrian). See also KAI 2:37–38,
text 26A, iii.13–iv.1; COS 1.113:416, colophon; Annick Payne, Iron Age Hieroglyphic
Luwian Inscriptions, SBLWAW 29 (Atlanta: SBL, 2012), 71–72, 2.3.5 Karkamiš
A11b+c, §19–25; ibid., 83–84, 2.3.9; Karkamiš A6, §1–7, 27–31; ibid., 93–94, 2.4.3 Tell
Ahmar 6, §1–2, §8–9; §29; LH xlix 18–80, in M. Roth, Law Collections from
Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, SBLWAW 6 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 136–37. Cf.
Richter, DH and Name Theology, 155, 184–203; Sandra L. Richter, “The Place of the
Name in Deuteronomy,” VT 57 (2007): 344–46.
Though this attitude toward effacement was common to all ANE cultures, it did
not deter everyone. In Egypt, Akhenaten boldly removed the name of the god Amun from
every monument, replacing it with the name of Aten. This act was tantamount to claiming
that Amun had never existed. See Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, 199.
In a similar power play centuries later in Mesopotamia, Esarhaddon inscribed his own
name and the name of Aššur on cult images of other peoples. See Nathaniel B. Levtow,
Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel, Biblical and Judaic Studies from the
University of California, San Diego 11 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 166–67.
62
For example, ‫אבד את־ׁשם‬: Ps 41:6[5]; ‫מחה את־ׁשם‬: Deut 9:14; 25:6; 29:19; 2
Kgs 14:27; Ps 9:6[5]; 109:13; cf. Exod 17:14 (the object is ‫ זכר‬rather than ‫ ;)ׁשם‬Deut
25:19; Judg 21:17; ‫כרת ׁשם‬: Ruth 4:10; Isa 14:22; ‫ׁשמד את־ׁשם‬: 1 Sam 24:22; Isa 48:19;
cf. 2 Sam 14:17. For a different matter, see Hos 2:19 (‫)סור את־ׁשם‬, where the names of
false gods were “removed” from Israel’s vocabulary.
 100

Deuteronomy 7:24
‫ונתן מלכיהם בידך‬ And he will give their kings into your hand
‫והאבדת את־ׁשמם‬ and you will destroy their names
‫מתחת הׁשמים‬ from under the heavens.
‫לא־יתיצב איׁש בפניך‬ No one will be able to stand before you
‫עד הׁשמדך אתם‬ until you have exterminated them.

Since other physical objects were to be destroyed—images to be burned, altars broken,

and sacred stones (‫ )מצבת‬smashed (vv. 5, 25)—destroying the kings’ names could

include destroying or effacing physical monuments that bore their names, representing

their claim to sovereignty over the territory. At the very least, Israel’s destruction of kings

in the land of Canaan was to be so comprehensive that the names of those rulers would be

forgotten.

Deuteronomy 12:3
‫ ונתצתם את־מזבחתם‬And you shall tear down their altars,
‫ וׁשברתם את־מצבתם‬and shatter their sacred pillars
‫ואׁשריהם תׂשרפון באׁש‬ and their asherah poles you shall burn with fire
‫ופסילי אלהיהם תגדעון‬ and the images of their gods you shall cut to pieces
‫ואבדתם את־ׁשמם‬ and you shall destroy their names
‫מן־המקום ההוא‬ from that place.

Here divine, rather than royal, names are in view. As in Deut 7:24, to destroy their names

could indicate the extent of destruction (they will no longer be remembered) or it could

involve effacing or obliterating physical cult inscriptions.63 The author contrasts this

destruction with YHWH’s own selection of a proper cult site (v. 5), saying that he will

“establish his name” there. If a physical inscription was intended, then Israel was called

63
Cf. Num 33:52 (‫ ;)ׁשמד‬2 Kings 10:26–28.
 101

upon to destroy the names of the Canaanite gods by smashing the altars and sacred stones

on which they were engraved (12:3) in order to clear the way for YHWH’s own inscribed

name (12:5).64 The Israelite craftsmen who built the tabernacle were nowhere instructed

to write, embroider, or engrave YHWH’s name, except on the high priest’s medallion, so

it is not clear whether such an inscription was made.65 Nevertheless, whether oral or

written, the transfer of sovereignty to YHWH is implied.

Now we return to the three virtually synonymous idioms introduced above. The

first of these, ‫לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬, appears primarily in Deuteronomy, referring six times as a

“sentence appellative” to the place YHWH would choose as a central cult site (Deut

12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2).66 The implications are spelled out in part in Deut 26:1–2:

Deuteronomy 26:1–2
‫והיה כי־תבוא אל־הארץ‬ And when you have come into the land
‫אׁשר יהוה אלהיך נתן לך נחלה‬ that YHWH your God is giving you as a possession
‫וירׁשתה ויׁשבת בה‬ and you possess it and you are dwelling in it,
‫ולקחת מראׁשית‬ then take some of the firstfruits
‫ כל־ּפרי האדמה‬of all the fruit of the ground
‫ אׁשר תביא מארצך‬that you bring in from the land
‫ אׁשר יהוה אלהיך נתן לך‬that YHWH your God is giving you,

64
So Richter, “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy,” 345–46; Richter, DH
and Name Theology, 209–10; Sandra L. Richter, “Placing the Name, Pushing the
Paradigm: A Decade with the Deuteronomistic Name Formula,” in Deuteronomy in the
Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, edited by Konrad Schmid and
Raymond F. Person Jr., 64–78 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 71 n. 29.
65
This absence of stone inscription may indicate an early desire for a centralized
sanctuary. If the “place” where YHWH put his name was the high priest’s forehead, then
the only legitimate cult site would be wherever he served. But see Block, “No Other
Gods,” 253 n. 63.
66
For a helpful explanation, see ibid., 252–55. The idiom also occurs in Deut
12:11; 14:23; 16:2, 6, 11; 26:2; cf. Ezra 6:12; Neh 1:9; Jer 7:12; 11QT 45, 12; 47, 4; 53,
9–10; 56, 5.
 102
‫ וׂשמת בטנא והלכת אל־המקום‬and put [it] in a basket and go to the place
‫ אׁשר יבחר יהוה אלהיך‬where YHWH your God will choose
‫ לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬to put his name there.

The “place” (‫ )המקום‬would be selected (‫ )בחר‬by YHWH, and as a centralized cult site it

would unite all the Israelites in their new land. Significant acts of worship were to take

place in this authorized location, requiring regular travel as soon as military tasks were

accomplished and the territory was firmly in their grasp (‫ ;ירׁש‬26:1).67

Nehemiah 1:9 applies the phrase ‫ לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬to the temple in Jerusalem, while in

Jeremiah YHWH applies it to the tabernacle at Shiloh, calling it “my place where … I

placed my name at first” (Jer 7:12).68 Proponents of so-called “Name Theology” point

most often to this phrase as evidence for their view that YHWH’s hypostatic name took

up residence in the temple instead of his own personal presence.69 They claim that later

biblical authors realized YHWH could not be fully present because of his transcendence,

and so they spoke of him putting his name there instead as a token. As many argue, this

67
Aside from bringing firstfruits, the Israelites were to celebrate Passover there
(Deut 16:2–6) and the Festival of Weeks (Deut 12:10–11), as well as bring any burnt
offerings, sacrifices, tithes, and special gifts (Deut 12:11; 14:23).
68
Jeremiah 7:12 is the only example in the latter prophets of any of these three
idioms.
69
Notable proponents of Name Theology include Gerhard von Rad, Studies in
Deuteronomy, trans. David Stalker (Chicago: Regnery, 1953), 38–39; Moshe Weinfeld,
Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972),
193, 197; Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem
and Kabod Theologies, trans. Frederick H. Cryer, ConBOT 18 (Lund: Gleerup, 1982),
78–79; F. Dumermuth, “Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und ihren
Voraussetzungen,” ZAW 70 (1958): 59–98.
 103

thesis is problematic on several levels, though we must chiefly reckon here with its

failure to account for the borrowed idiom (and later with its abuse of metaphor).70

Sandra Richter re-evaluated “Name Theology” by means of comparative Semitic

study of the idiom, ‫( לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬traditionally translated, “to cause his name to dwell

there”; e.g., KJV). After exploring this phrase in cognate languages, Richter concluded

that the idiom was borrowed from the Akkadian (šuma šakānu) monumental tradition

where it designated ownership of a place through an inscribed name.71 That the idiom

was known in Canaan is clear from EA 287:60–63, which reads, “The king has placed his

name [šakaan šùmšu] in Jerusalem forever, he cannot abandon it—the lands of

Jerusalem.”72 This public declaration implied the king’s responsibility to care for what he

owned. A city under siege or region in chaos reflected negatively on the king’s military

strength. The presence of numerous victory stelae in the Levant with the inscribed names

of conquering kings reinforces the connection between this phrase and the monumental

70
Several scholars have argued persuasively against this notion. Gordon
McConville (“God’s ‘Name’ and God’s ‘Glory,’” TynBul 30 [1979]: 149–63) pointed out
that “name” and “glory” were alternative ways of speaking about God’s presence; in
ordinary settings Israel worshipped God’s “name,” while during a theophany his “glory”
was on display. More recently, Peter Vogt (Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance
of Torah: A Reappraisal [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006], 192–97) demonstrated
that the focus of Deuteronomy 12 on YHWH’s “name” (e.g., v. 5) corresponds to its
rejection of the “names” of other gods (v. 3). The point is not the nature of his presence,
but his exclusive sovereignty.

Richter, DH and Name Theology, 7. On the lexicography of the phrase šuma

71

šakānu with examples relating to boundary stelas, see CAD 17:293.

72
William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1992), 328. For the original text, see Shlomo Izre’el, The Amarna Letters, 2000.
Accessed 13 February 2014. Online: http://humanities.tau.ac.il/semitic/index.php/
research/el-amarna. S. Dean McBride (The Deuteronomic Name Theology [Ph.D. diss.,
Harvard University, 1969], 117) says of EA 287:60–63 that “name . . . implies sovereign
presence and authority which the Egyptian ruler has obligated himself to maintain.”
 104

tradition.73 Richter suggests that biblical Hebrew borrowed this idiom to refer to claims

of ownership with or without an actual inscription.74 As she insists, if the biblical idiom

denotes a claim to sovereignty, attempts to interpret the phrase as a reference to YHWH’s

hypostatic name (vis à vis his actual presence) are illegitimate.75 YHWH’s “name” was

73
A monument from Hadd-Yith’i contains both the Akkadian and Aramaic
phrases side-by-side, reinforcing the conclusion that western Semitic borrowed the idiom
from Akkadian. See Richter, DH and Name Theology, 202–3. On the complex ritual
significance of boundary monuments, see Ann Shafer, “Assyrian Royal Monuments on
the Periphery: Ritual and the Making of Imperial Space,” in Ancient Near Eastern Art in
Context: Studies in Honor of Irene J. Winter by Her Students, ed. Jack Cheng and Marian
H. Feldman, CHANE 26 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 133–159.
74
Roland de Vaux (“Le Lieu que Yahvé a choisi”) concluded that the same
expressions denoted YHWH’s ownership, but he neglected their Akkadian provenance.
75
McConville (“God’s ‘Name’ and God’s ‘Glory,’” 162–63) suggested that
Deuteronomy established YHWH’s priority over against potential rivals. Accordingly,
“name” was a more appropriate descriptor than “glory,” which is associated with God’s
theophanic presence. Since other gods were false, they had no glory comparable to
YHWH’s. Those who see a sharp distinction between glory and name often associate the
ark with YHWH’s presence or glory (see Deut 10:8). McConville (ibid., 149–52) drew on
2 Sam 6:62 as counter evidence; there the ark itself was said to have had the name
proclaimed over it. Like Richter, he preferred to understand the name as a legal
expression of ownership compatible with “Glory” theology. For a recent argument
linking the ark with divine presence, see Wilson, “Merely a Container?”
Other opponents of this form of “Name Theology” include Wilson, Out of the
Midst of the Fire, SBLDS 151 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995); Vogt, Deuteronomic
Theology, 113–59; Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible, 594; Raymond Dillard and
Tremper Longman, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1994), 103; Soulen, The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity, 154; John Goldingay,
Isaiah, NIBCOT (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 117, 173–74; van der Woude,
“‫ׁשם‬,”
ֵׁ TLOT 3:1360–62; Reiterer, “‫ׁשם‬,”ֵׁ TDOT 15:156; Bietenhard, “ὄνομα,” TDNT,
5:256, but see 258. Eichrodt (Theology of the Old Testament, 41–42, 44) suggested that
“Name Theology” emerged only in later Judaism. That is, YHWH’s name became a
guarantee of his presence and power without restricting his sovereignty. Cf. Jer 7:4.
 105

not an alternative to his active presence.76 Rather, as part of these idioms, his name

identified him as the rightful owner.

The second idiom, ‫לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬, is collocated with an abbreviated form of ‫לׁשכן‬

‫ ׁשמו ׁשם‬in Deut 12:5, referring to the central worship site.

Deuteronomy 12:5
‫ כי אם־אל־המקום‬But to the place
‫ אׁשר־יבחר יהוה אלהיכם‬where YHWH your God will choose
‫ מכל־ׁשבטיכם‬from among your tribes
‫ לׂשום את־ׁשמו ׁשם לׁשכנו‬to put his name there, to place it,
‫ תדרׁשו ובאת ׁשמה‬you shall seek, and there you shall come

Richter contends that the now redundant ‫ לׁשכנו‬is the result of a scribal gloss ( ‫לׂשום ׁשמו‬

‫ )ׁשם‬of the unfamiliar Akkadian calque (‫ )לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬that eventually made it into the text

76
Moreover, we need not assume that the concept of ownership espoused by this
idiom precludes “presence.” Later passages, such as 2 Chr 20:9, preclude absolute
separation: “If evil comes upon us, sword, judgment, or pestilence, or famine, we will
stand before this house and before you (‫ )ולפניך‬because your name is on this house ( ‫כי‬
‫)ׁשמך ּבבית הזה‬, and we will cry out to you in our distress and you will hear and you will
save” (emphasis mine). Here the personal presence of YHWH is guaranteed at the temple
precisely because he has claimed it as his own. This is also evident in Deuteronomy 12,
where name-placing idioms are most prominent. Verse 7 indicates that worship done in
the place where YHWH will “put his name” (‫ ;לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬12:5) would be carried out
“before YHWH” (‫)לפני יהוה‬. Wilson (Out of the Midst of the Fire, 204–205) rightly
concludes that Deuteronomy 12–26 does not emphasize divine transcendence, and that
YHWH was portrayed as immediately present at the central worship site, the “place of
the name.” Cf. Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology, 113–59. Anne Knafl (Forms of God,
Forming God: A Typology of Divine Anthropomorphism in the Pentateuch [Ph.D. diss.,
University of Chicago, 2011], 117–31, 264–74) builds on Wilson’s and Richter’s work to
criticize “Name Theology” by focusing on the phrase ‫ לפני יהוה‬in Deuteronomy. Knafl
demonstrates that Deuteronomy shows no evidence of correcting traditional beliefs about
YHWH’s presence at the cult site. Instead, it allows the idea of YHWH’s presence to
coexist with the borrowed Akkadian idiom (‫ )לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬denoting sovereignty. Cf.
idem, “Deuteronomy, Name Theology and Divine Location” (paper presented at the
annual meeting of the SBL, Atlanta, November 2010).
 106

itself.77 While it was meant to clarify the meaning of subsequent uses of the obscure

phrase throughout the chapter, the inclusion of both phrases side-by-side ultimately

proved confusing.78

The full phrase ‫ לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬appears twice more in Deuteronomy (12:21; 14:24),

acknowledging that the journey to the chosen place of worship may be far for some

Israelites. The Samaritan Pentateuch employs ‫ לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬instead in both cases, and the

LXX renders ‫ לׂשום‬as ἐπικαλέω, the word normally used to translate ‫לׁשכן‬. These

examples further corroborate Richter’s contention that the two phrases were

interchangeable at some time in Israel’s history.79 In Kings and Chronicles, ‫לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬

occurs frequently to indicate that YHWH had indeed “placed” his name as he promised—

not only on the temple (1 Kgs 9:3; 2 Chr 6:20; 33:7), but also on the city of Jerusalem in

which the temple was built (1 Kgs 11:36; 2 Kgs 21:4, 7; 2 Chr 12:13; 33:7). 80 These

were the same entities “over which his name was proclaimed” (‫)נקרא ׁשם על‬, offering

independent support for Richter’s conclusion that “placing the name” was equivalent to a

legal claim of ownership.81

77
Richter (DH and Name Theology, 46–48) follows Tov (Textual Criticism of the
Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. ed. [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001], 42) in repointing ‫ל ִׁׁש ְכנֹו‬,ְ an
otherwise unattested noun, to read ‫לׁש ְכנֹו‬,ְ an infinitive construct of ‫ ָׁשכן‬with a 3ms suffix.
78
Richter, DH and Name Theology, 63, 217.
79
Ibid., 45. According to the Göttingen LXX and BHQ Deuteronomy, both texts
are stable.
80
YHWH also claimed Shiloh by placing his name there (Jer 7:12). Three times
this expression was an alternate naming or name-change formula for people (Abimelech,
Jdg 8:31; Jacob/Israel, 2 Kgs 17:34; and Abraham, Neh 9:7).
81
Richter (DH and Name Theology, 205) situates the Akkadian phrase and its
Hebrew cognate in a military context, emphasizing that YHWH “captured this new
territory” and “claimed it as his own.” Cf. G. J. Wenham, “Deuteronomy and the Central
 107

The third idiom, ‫להיות ׁשמו ׁשם‬, is a “periphrastic reflex” of the previous idioms,

first appearing in Solomon’s dedicatory speech. Significantly, the Chronicler used it in

place of ‫( לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬cp. 1 Kgs 9:3 // 2 Chr 7:16; 2 Kgs 21:4 // 2 Chr 33:4). Substitution

also works in the other direction, showing that the phrases were interchangeable (cp. 1

Kgs 8:29 // 2 Chr 6:20).82 While ‫ לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬and ‫ לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬emphasize the act of

claiming ownership, ‫ להיות ׁשמו ׁשם‬highlights the resulting state of belonging to YHWH.

First Kings 23:27 is worth citing in full:

‫ויאמר יהוה‬ And YHWH said,

‫גם את־יהודה אסיר מעל פני‬ “Even Judah I will remove from my presence,
‫כאׁשר הסרתי את־יׂשראל‬ just as I removed Israel,
‫ומאסתי את־העיר הזאת‬ and I will reject this city
‫אׁשר־בחרתי את־ירוׁשלם‬ that I had chosen—Jerusalem—
‫ואת־הבית אׁשר אמרתי‬ and the house, of which I said,
‫יהיה ׁשמי ׁשם‬ ‘My name will be there.’”

This bleak passage indicates the impermanency of covenant benefits. Judah faced

removal from the land and rejection of the elect place, precipitated by the sins of King

Manasseh (v. 26). Here election (‫ )בחר‬is again associated with YHWH’s placing of his

name (‫ )יהיה ׁשמי ׁשם‬and the privilege of being in his presence (‫)מעל פני‬. The collocation

of election language with all three of these name idioms is hardly coincidental. Of the

Sanctuary,” TynBul 22 (1971): 114. The purpose of the ceremony envisioned in

Deuteronomy 27 was to signal YHWH’s (and Israel’s) claim to Canaan in fulfillment of
his covenant promises to the ancestors at the site where those promises were made (Gen
12:7; cf. Josh 24:1). Whether or not Mt. Ebal represented the first of a series of sites that
were marked as “the place” that YHWH would claim is debated. For an affirmative
interpretation, see Richter, “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy”; for a more cautious
view, see Daniel I. Block, “‘What Do These Stones Mean?’ The Riddle of Deuteronomy
27,” JETS 56:1 (2013): 17–41.
82
Richter, DH and Name Theology, 48–51. See also 2 Kgs 23:27; 2 Chr 6:5–6.
 108

roughly 90 texts in the Hebrew Bible where YHWH chose (‫ )בחר‬someone or something,

at least 24 are directly connected with Richter’s key name idioms (‫לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬, ‫לׂשום‬

‫ׁשמו ׁשם‬, and ‫)להיות ׁשמו ׁשם‬, with 17 more occurrences referring to “the place” using a

shorthand expression (e.g., ‫ ;המקום אׁשר יבחר‬Josh 9:27), bringing the total count to

almost half.83 The election of the place for a central sanctuary was a prime concern of the

biblical history, and the standard means of expressing this involved a name-idiom.

Beyond this collocation, YHWH’s other elect entities included priest (10x), king (19x),

and the whole nation of Israel (14x).84 Note the correspondence between two of the main

entities YHWH “chose” (‫—)בחר‬place and people—and the primary name-idioms ( ‫לׂשום‬

‫ ׁשמו ׁשם‬and ‫)נקרא ׁשם על‬. Significantly, a variation of ‫ לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬was applied to the

nation of Israel via the priestly blessing,85 providing a lexical bridge for the associated

concepts of election expressed by the idioms ‫ לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬and ‫נקרא ׁשם על‬:

83
Other shorthand expressions include ‫“( מקום ׁשם־יהוה‬the place of the name of
YHWH”; Isa 18:7) and ‫בית לׁשמי‬, designating the temple as “a house for my name.” The
latter occurs at least 35x in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles (e.g., 2 Sam 7:13; 1 Kgs 8:16–
20; 1 Chr 22:7–10), indicating YHWH’s ownership of the sanctuary and his attentive
presence there. Malachi 1:11 relativizes “the place” by speaking of a day in which
incense would be offered to YHWH’s name “in every place” (‫)בכל־מקום‬.
84
‫ בחר‬is rare in the Sinai narratives, occurring only in disputes over Aaron’s
leadership; twice he is confirmed as the “chosen” priest (Num 16:5, 7; 17:20). However,
election language proliferates in Deuteronomy. Cf. Preuss, OT Theology, 1:27–28. The
DH employs Deuteronomic language, eager to identify the chosen king and the chosen
place, and affirming Levites as the legitimate temple functionaries. YHWH “chose” both
the people of Israel (e.g., Deut 4:37; 14:2; Isa 14:1; Ezek 20:5) and a central place of
worship (city/temple, Deuteronomy 12 passim, 1 Kgs 8:16, 44, 48; 2 Chr 12:13; Zech
1:17). In addition, YHWH “chose” Abram (Neh 9:7), the king (Deut 17:15; 1 Sam 10:24;
David, 1 Chr 28:4; Ps 89:20–21[19–20]; Solomon, 1 Chr 28:5–6, 10; Zerubbabel, Hag
2:23), the priests/Levites (Deut 18:5; 21:5; 1 Chr 15:2; Ps 105:26), Isaiah’s “servant” (Isa
43:10; 49:7), and the land of Israel (Ps 47:5[4]).
85
The discovery of 6th–7th c. BCE silver amulets inscribed with this blessing at
Ketef Hinnom suggests its apotropaic quality was taken seriously. See Jacob Milgrom,
 109

Numbers 6:24–27
‫דבר אל־אהרן ואל־בניו לאמר‬ “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying,
‫כה תברכו את־בני יׂשראל‬ ‘Thus you are to say to the Israelites;
‫אמור להם‬ say to them,
‫יברכך יהוה ויׁשמרך‬ “May YHWH bless you and protect you.
‫יאר יהוה פניו אליך ויחנך‬ May YHWH smile at you and be gracious to you.
‫יׂשא יהוה פניו אליך ויׂשם לך ׁשלום‬ May YHWH show you favor and grant you peace.”’
‫וׂשמו את־ׁשמי על־בני יׂשראל‬ So they shall set my name on the Israelites,
‫ואני אברכם‬ and I myself will bless them.”

The blessing in YHWH’s name was the vehicle for “placing that name upon” his chosen

people. Only the chosen priests were to pronounce it, and the blessing was directed not

toward humanity as a whole but to the Israelites in particular. The unique Hebrew idiom

by which YHWH characterized this blessing (‫)וׂשמו את־ׁשמי על‬, in conjunction with a

triple repetition of his name, suggested a transformation of status. Israel was thereby

Numbers [Ba-midbar], The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: JPS, 1990), 52.
Recent reevaluation of the amulets increases the likelihood of an apotropaic function; the
last line apparently calls YHWH the “rebuker of [E]vil.” So Lewis, “ʿAthtartu’s
Incantations,” 211. The amulets may also represent a concrete application of the
command to “place the name” on Israel. So Aaron Demsky and Meir Bar-Ilan, “Writing
in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism,” in Martin Mulder, ed., Mikra: Text, Translation,
Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 17; Jacobs, “The Body Inscribed,” 11–
13.
For a helpful discussion of the priestly blessing and later allusions to it, see
Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 329–34. For detailed exegesis and discussion of text
critical issues, see P. A. H. de Boer, “Numbers 6:27,” VT 32 (1982): 1–13. However, de
Boer (ibid., 13) does not follow the lead of the evidence he cites for the meaning of the
phrase, ‫וׂשמו את־ׁשמי על‬. While his examples indicate a symbolic naming or name change
(Abram to Abraham, Gen 17:5 and Neh 9:7; Abimelech, Judg 8:31; Jacob to Israel, 2 Kgs
17:34; Daniel and friends to Babylonian names, Dan 1:7), de Boer emends the
consonantal text to propose this reading: “And when they shall name me The Most High
of the Israelites, I, on my part, will bless them.” Baruch Levine (Numbers 1–20, AB 4A
[New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993], 228) also downplays the significance of
YHWH’s name here, seeing it as a simple invocation.
 110

claimed as YHWH’s own and positioned to receive his grace, protection, favor, and

peace.86

The association of YHWH’s name with his chosen people seems analogous to his

choosing a central site for worship. Both involve election for a particular purpose.87 And

for both that election is expressed by “placing the name” upon the chosen entity. As

pointed out above, Jer 7:9–12 correlates the expressions ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬and ‫לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬,

applying both to the cult site, and demonstrating that “to call a name over” and “to place

the name” accomplish the same thing: YHWH has claimed ownership.88 As I will argue

in chapter 5, branding is the most appropriate and fruitful conceptual background by

which we can make sense of the otherwise strange expression in the NC: ‫נׂשא ׁשם‬. A

people who have had YHWH’s name proclaimed over them in an act of oral branding

must not subsequently bear that holy name “in vain.”

The Use of Names in Seals and Branding

As discussed above, monumental inscription (or re-inscription) was one means of

declaring ownership. Names were also affixed to objects by means of seals and to people

by means of branding or tattoos. All three practices shed light on the current project.

86
See TNK. The rabbis discussed how linking YHWH’s name with Israel
motivated his discipline, so that his name might not be profaned. See Num. Rab. 5.6 on
Num 4:18; H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, eds., Midrash Rabbah, 3rd ed. (New York:
Soncino, 1983), 5:148–50. Deuteronomy 28:8–11 reiterates the connection between name
and blessing, while Ps 67:1–2 elaborates the missional implications.
87
On election, see above, p. 101 n. 46.
88
Bar-Ilan (“Magic Seals,” 41; “They shall put my name”) argued that priests
literally wrote YHWH’s name on Israelite foreheads. However, Num 6:27 need not
require a physical inscription. Instead, it could indicate an oral claim to ownership, as
with ‫נקרא ׁשם על‬.
 111

According to the archaeological record, the use of seals in Israel was

widespread.89 Unlike other ancient civilizations where seals were primarily or even

exclusively pictoral, seals in Israel during the 7th–6th centuries BCE usually bore

inscriptions.90 A primary function of these seals was to indicate ownership, especially

between 1000 and 500 BCE.91 As is widely known, the vast majority of seals feature the

lamed inscriptionis, or personal name prefixed with a lamed, indicating possession.92 For

example, one typical Hebrew seal reads lḥnn bn ḥlqyhw hkhn, or “Belonging to Ḥanan,

son of Ḥilqiyāhu, the priest.”93 A seal such as this would have been used to stamp

89
Keel and Uehlinger (Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel,
10, 405) count over 8,500 seals or seal impressions found in Israel, with examples
spanning her entire history. Magness-Gardiner (“Seals,” OEANE 4:510) observes that the
largest concentration dates to the Early Bronze period, well before the Patriarchs. These
were used for decorating pottery, rather than for commerce.
90
Hundreds of inscribed Israelite seals and seal-impressions have been unearthed.
See Graham Davies, “Some Uses of Writing in Ancient Israel in the Light of Recently
Published Inscriptions,” in Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in Honour
of Alan R. Millard, LHB/OTS 426 (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 155–74. For
transcriptions of Hebrew and other inscribed seals, see “Seals and Seal Impressions,”
trans. Jeffrey H. Tigay and Alan R. Millard, COS 2.70–79:197–204. Cf. Alan Millard,
“Owners and Users of Hebrew Seals,” Eretz Israel 26 (1999): 131; idem, “The Corpus of
West Semitic Stamp Seals: Review Article,” IEJ 51 (2001): 81. The prohibition of
images in Israel’s worship may have contributed to the aniconic nature of Israel’s seals.
One of the covenant curses directly pertains to the work of an engraver, warning that any
skilled craftsman who fashions idols shall be cursed (Deut 27:15). The worship of
YHWH did not capture everyone’s allegiance in ancient Israel, as both the Bible and the
material culture attest (see Keel and Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in
Ancient Israel), but perhaps the skill of engraving was so specialized that a greater
control was possible over production.
91
Millard, “Owners and Users of Hebrew Seals,” 129.
92
A brief perusal of AHI (esp. 1:396–416; 2:172–86) confirms the ubiquity of this
practice. Cf. Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendeles, Inscribed Seals, 9.
93
See Nahman Avigad and Benjamin Sass, Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals,
2nd ed. (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997), 59–60, #28; AHI
1:100.734; COS 2.79:204.
 112

physical property or important documents, functioning as a signature.94 Another function

was to “authenticate commercial transactions,” letters, or other documents.95 Seals

inscribed with the king’s name were sometimes given to those with delegated authority

(e.g., Gen 41:42; Esth 3:12, 19; 8:2, 8, 10; Dan 6:18).96 Other seals were held by

administrative officers and bore their own names. Still others belonged to individual

citizens.

Most seals were owned and wielded by humans,97 but some bore a divine name.

Only a few such seals have been discovered,98 and it is unclear whether they were votive

seals or were actually used to make impressions.99 Several were attributed to the god

Aššur, but they do not appear to have been used in the temple. Collon suggests they were

94
Similarly, over a thousand stamped jar handles unearthed in Israel bear the
inscription, lmlk, or “Belonging to the king.” Much discussion surrounds the function of
these jars. Sparks (ATSHB, 455) attributes them to King Hezekiah, who anticipated
Sennacherib’s invasion by preparing for a siege. For details, see Andrew G. Vaughn,
Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of Hezekiah,
Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4 (Atlanta: SBL, 1999); Nadav Na ͗aman, “Hezekiah’s
Fortified Cities and the ‘LMLK’ Stamps,” BASOR 261 (1986): 5–21; COS 2.77:202. For
color photographs, see Philip J. King and Lawrence E. Stager, Life in Biblical Israel,
Library of Ancient Israel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 312–13.
95
Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendeles, Inscribed Seals, 7.

A. R. Millard, “Königssiegel,” RlA 6:140. Note the geographic and

96

chronological spread of these examples.

For a discussion of kings’ seals, see A. R. Millard, “Königssiegel,” in RlA

97

6:135–40.
98
The number of Mesopotamian seals depicting deities increased during the
Akkadian dynasty. See Magness-Gardiner, “Seals,” OEANE 4:511.
99
Noted by R. Opificius, “Gottessiegel,” RlA 3:577–79.
 113

used to seal official documents in the City Hall.100 A cone-shaped Edomite seal dating

from the late seventh to the early sixth century bears this inscription: “belonging to

Qosa,” the principal Edomite deity, using the lamed inscriptionis.101 This phrase may

indicate that the bearer was devoted to Qosa’s service and acted as his representative.

Similarly, a seal of Moabite provenance bears the name “Kemosh.”102 Either of these

may be abbreviated theophoric names, as Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendels suggest, but they

could also be complete. Divine seals are also mentioned in Hittite prayers and diplomatic

texts.103 For this project it is important to note that a single seal, inscribed with someone’s

name, could be used to make impressions on a variety of objects for various purposes,

functioning as a virtual signature. Each impression would then display the name of the

seal-owner. In rare cases, that owner could be the deity. 104

100
Dominique Collon, First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 131. Opificius (“Gottessiegel,” RlA 3:577–
79) discussed not only the Aššur seals but also two belonging to Ea, which Wiseman felt
were proper “Gottessiegel.” Inscribed clay tablets held in the British Museum mention
both seals. See ibid., 580. Cf. John 6:27. Other seals belonging to deities were apparently
not intended to make impressions because their inscriptions are not carved in reverse.
Some may have been intended as jewelry for the statue. See ibid., 578. Others would
have been placed before the god as votive offerings. However, according to Collon (First
Impressions, 131), seals carved only with the name of a god were not votive but rather
personal divine seals.
101
Philip J. King, Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 1993), 62. Some suppose that Qos is an abbreviation for a
personal name; e.g., the Edomite king named Qawsgabri (COS 2.73:201).
102
Hestrin and Dayagi-Mendeles, Inscribed Seals, 144; cf. 17 (Moabite seal of
Kemosh ͑am [son of] Komosh ͗el the scribe).
103
Singer, Hittite Prayers, 25, no. 2 (CTH 389.2), §6; Gary M. Beckman and
Harold A. Hoffner, Hittite Diplomatic Texts, SBLWAW 7 (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1999), 123, 18C §28.
104
In an interesting use of metaphor, 4 Esdras speaks of Israel as having been
sealed (4 Esd 2:38; 10:23). Fourth Esdras 2:16 also declares that God will recognize his
 114

In addition to stone inscriptions and stamp seals that claimed ownership, names

were affixed to living property by means of branding. Human branding was widespread

in the ancient world.105 Owners branded their slaves to indicate ownership as early as

2000 BCE, and people were sometimes branded or tattooed with “the name or symbol of

the deity” to show their dedication to temple service or a desire for divine protection.106

This mark was usually on the back of the hand or wrist, but could also be on the head,

ears, or face.107 Ishtar’s symbol was a star, whereas Marduk and Nabu were represented

by a spade and a stylus, respectively.108

name in the elect and raise them from the dead. Perhaps he has in mind a seal impression.
In Codex Sinaiticus, Tobit 11:14 reads, “May his great name be upon us” (γένοιτο τὸ
ὄνομα τὸ μέγα αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς). The phrase is lacking in other MSS. See Hanhart,
Septuaginta: Tobit, 151.
105
See, e.g., KAI 2:283, text 233, line 12; Muhammad A. Dandamaev, Slavery in
Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the Great (626–331 B.C.), ed. M. A. Powell
and D. B. Weisberg, trans. V. A. Powell (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press,
1984), 229–34.
106
See ibid., 488–89; A. Guillaume, “Is 44:5 in the Light of the Elephantine
Papyri,” ExpTim 32 (1920): 377–78. Further examples of slaves whose hands were
branded with their owner’s names are listed in CAD 17:287, 292. On the distinction
between personal and temple slaves, see Mathew Stolper, “Inscribed in Egyptian,” in
Studies in Persian History: Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis, ed. Maria Brosius and
Amélie Kuhrt, Achaemenid History XI (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten, 1998), 135.
107
For a discussion of various methods of branding or tattooing, see Nili S. Fox,
“Marked for Servitude: Mesopotamia and the Bible,” in A Common Cultural Heritage:
Studies on Mesopotamia and the Biblical World in Honor of Barry L. Eichler, ed. Grant
Frame et al. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2011), 268; Joachim Oelsner, Bruce Wells, and
Cornelia Wunsch, “Neo-Babylonian Period,” in Raymond Westbrook, ed., A History of
Ancient Near Eastern Law (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 2:927, 932; Dandamaev, Slavery in
Babylonia, 229–34, 488–89; Guillaume, “Is 44:5,” 377–78. For a helpful summary of the
functions of human branding, see Sandra Jacobs, The Body as Property: Physical
Disfigurement in Biblical Law, LHB/OTS 582 (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 205–11.
108
Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia, 488–89.
 115

No concrete evidence confirms the branding of slaves in ancient Israel, but

several texts allude positively to the idea of a brand or tattoo as a symbol of dedication to

God and/or divine protection.109 In Gen 4:15, “YHWH put a mark on Cain ( ‫ויׂשם יהוה לקין‬

‫ )אות‬so that anyone finding him would not smite him.” The content of the mark or sign

and method of affixation are unknown, but the apotropaic function is evident.110 In the

book of Isaiah the prophet speaks of a future day in which God’s Spirit would renew his

people and many would claim allegiance to him:

Isaiah 44:5
‫זה יאמר ליהוה אני‬ This one will say “I am YHWH’s!”
‫וזה יקרא בׁשם־יעקב‬ and that one will be called by name, “Jacob.”
‫וזה יכתב ידו ליהוה‬ This one will write on his hand, ‘Belonging to YHWH’
‫ובׁשם יׂשראל יכנה‬ And by the name ‘Israel’ he will be called an honorary name.

Eager to belong to YHWH, they would brand themselves both orally and physically with

YHWH’s name.111 Note that both claims use the designation from the high priestly

109
See Fox, “Marked for Servitude,” 276. The Jewish branding of foreign slaves
is known from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. For examples, see Jacobs, “The
Body Inscribed,” 7. However, Jacobs’ logic falters in her discussion of texts from the
Sinai narratives, where she assumes Israel’s leaders were physically marked ( ‫והמה‬
‫ ;בכתבים‬Num 11:24–26; ibid., 12–13). It is more natural Moses’ gathering of the elders
involved an invitation list. If the priestly blessing was accompanied by a physical mark,
then all Israelites would have been marked, neutralizing the elders’ uniqueness. Jacobs’
alternate interpretation, where the document is a “divine ledger” (cf. Exod 32:32–33), is
equally flawed because it would also have included all covenant members, not just the
leaders.
110
The expression ‫ ׂשים אות‬corresponds to the Akkadian šamâtu, used to describe
the branding of temple slaves. See Raymond Philip Dougherty, The Shirkûtu of
Babylonian Deities, YOS 5–2 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923), 85; Jacobs,
The Body as Property, 213–14.
111
Reading ‫ יקרא‬and ‫ יכנה‬as passive verbs with Symmachus (for ‫)יקרא‬, and with
the Syriac, Tgs., and Vulg. (for ‫)יכנה‬. This shift simply involves a change in vocalization.
 116

medallion: ‫ליהוה‬. Whether or not this vision was literally enacted, it communicates a

renewed desire to belong to YHWH and the sealing of that allegiance through a physical

brand or tattoo.112

The most elaborate biblical text involving a tattoo is found in Ezekiel:

Ezekiel 9:3a–4
‫ ויקרא אל־האיׁש הלבׁש הבדים‬And he called to the man wearing linen
‫ אׁשר קסת הספר במתניו‬who had a writing kit at his side,
‫ ויאמר יהוה אלו‬and YHWH said to him,
‫עבר בתוך העיר‬ “Pass through the midst of the city
‫בתוך ירוׁשלם‬ through the midst of Jerusalem
‫והתוית תו על־מצחות‬ And mark with a mark on the foreheads
‫האנׁשים הנאנחים והנאנקים‬ of the men who sigh and groan
‫על כל־התועבות‬ over all the abominations
‫הנעׂשות בתוכה‬o that are being done in its midst.”

The final verb is lacking in most LXX manuscripts. Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva
(Invitation to the Septuagint [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005],133) prefer the
Alexandrian reading: “And another one will write, I am God’s.” However, the Hebrew
Vorlage likely contained the Tetragrammaton. The Isaiah Tg. softened the Hebrew to
read “I am of the fearers of YHWH,” but in both phrases the Tetragrammaton was
retained. See Chilton, Isaiah Targum, 87.
Scholars debate whether this refers to Jews or Gentiles. Some rabbis used Isa 44:5
to show parity between God’s love for Gentile proselytes and for Israel. For example,
Num. Rab. 8.2 on Num 8:6. Indeed, the verb ‫ כנה‬designates an honorary title or name
(DCH 4:434–35). Cf. 2 Esdras 1:22–24, where God threatened to give his name to other
nations because Israel had blasphemed it. Cf. Guillaume, “Is 44:5,” 378. Alternatively,
Block (“The View from the Top: The Holy Spirit in the Prophets,” in Presence, Power,
and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, ed. David G. Firth and
Paul D. Wegner, 202–6. [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011]) sees the pouring out
of the Spirit as a sign of covenant renewal for Israel, whereby he again claims them as his
own. Cf. Isa 32:15; Joel 3:1–2 [2:28–29]; Ezek 39:29; Zech 12:10. See also Oswalt,
Isaiah 40–66, 168.
112
Another Isaianic text describes God tattooing himself to show his commitment
to Israel: “See, on the palms I have inscribed you (‫ ;)חקתיך‬your walls are before me
continually” (49:16).
 117

In Ezekiel’s vision a scribe with an inkpot or writing case (‫)קסת הספר‬113 was to

physically “mark with a mark on the foreheads” all those distressed by the sin of

Jerusalem (9:4). This mark signaled their fidelity to YHWH. Here ‫ תו‬could refer to the

last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. In paleo-Hebrew ‫ תו‬was written as and used to

denote “possession or affiliation,” especially to a divine being.114 Alternatively, the

‫ תו‬could denote someone’s personal signature or identifying mark. For example, after Job

made his case for innocence, he certified its authenticity by declaring,

Job 31:35
‫ מי יתן־לי ׁשמע לי‬Who will give me a hearing?
‫ הן־תוי ׁשדי יענני‬Look—my signature;115 may Shaddai answer me
‫ וספר כתב איׁש ריבי‬and my adversary write an indictment!

113
‫קסת‬, a loanword from the Egyptian (gšti), refers to a “writing kit” with a niche
for a pen and recessed areas for ink. For a description, see G. R. Driver, Semitic Writing:
From Pictograph to Alphabet, 3rd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1976), 86–87;
cf. Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2005), 305; Walther Zimmerli, Ezekiel 1, trans. Ronald E. Clements, Hermeneia
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), 224; DCH 7:272.
114
HALOT 2:1693. For extensive ANE evidence of forehead pendants inscribed
with a ‫תו‬, see Othmar Keel, “Zeichen der Verbundenheit: Zur Vorgeschichte und
Bedeutung der Forderungen von Deuteronomium 6,8f. und Par.,” in Mélanges Dominique
Barthélemy: Études Bibliques Offertes A L’Occasion de son 60 Anniversaire, OBO 38
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981), 194–212.
115
Another possibility is that ‫ תו‬indicates Job’s “desire” (‫ ;תוה‬otherwise
unattested), in which case the verse would read “Look, my desire is that Shaddai would
answer me.” See DCH 8:597, 599; Driver, Semitic Writing, 206–7. HALOT 2:1694
rejects this suggestion in favor of Fohrer’s view that Job’s ‫ תו‬is analogous to the finger
nail impressions on Babylonian clay tablets. See Georg Fohrer, Das Buch Hiob, KAT 16
(Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963), 443. Fohrer (Ezechiel, HAT 13 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1955], 54) compares this mark to the branding of slaves, resulting in an identification that
someone belongs to YHWH and enjoys his protection. Jacobs (The Body as Property,
203) translates it “[my] tav of Shaddai,” which she understands apotropaically. If she is
correct, Job appeals to God’s signature upon him as grounds for divine deliverance.
 118

Likewise, in Ezekiel the mark on the foreheads of the righteous may have been YHWH’s

signature, denoting that they belonged to him and thereby came under his protection (cf.

Isa 44:5).116 While Ezekiel does not explicitly state that the content of the mark is

YHWH’s name, it is possible, given the ancient practice of tattooing temple slaves with

the name of the deity, the use of ‫ תו‬to mean signature in Job, and the echoes of this

passage in Rev 14:1, where the mark of the divine name is explicit.

In addition to physical branding, the notion of oral “branding” is also attested in

the ANE; more to the point, calling a name over someone is explicitly compared to a

brand. A royal inscription from Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076 BCE) claimed that Shamash

appointed him as ruler, and that his people were subjects of the god Enlil, “whose name

was proclaimed over the princes.”117 Apparently, this statement claimed ownership as

well as suzerainty, and offers a close parallel with Israel as those “over whom YHWH’s

name was proclaimed” and who were expected to serve him loyally. In an Akkadian text

the god Gibil names things, and thereby decrees their fate. One line reads, “Whatever is

called by a name, you brand.”118 Here the concept of oral branding is explicit, though it

probably refers to the branding of an entity with its own name rather than the deity’s.

Dishonor of YHWH’s ‫ׁשם‬

Clearly the NC prohibits mistreatment of YHWH’s name. While ‫ נׂשא‬is not

inherently negative, as we shall see below, to ‫ נׂשא ׁשם לׁשוא‬is a crime worthy of

116
Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 307.
117
The Akkadian reads: “ša si-qir-šu UGU ma-li-ki.MEŠ né-bu-ú.” See A. Kirk
Grayson, “Tiglath-pileser 1:A.O.87,” RIM 13, lines 1.33–35.
118
Reiner, Šurpu, 53, line 14.
 119

punishment. Now I will examine expressions involving ‫ ׁשם‬where the governing verb is

unambiguously negative to see whether any patterns emerge regarding the mistreatment

of YHWH’s name. At least seven such negative verbs are attested: ‫חלל‬, ‫בזה‬, ‫טמא‬, ‫נקב‬,

‫קלל‬, ‫תפׂש‬, and ‫נאץ‬. The most common is ‫חלל‬.

‫חלל את־ׁשם‬
‫ חלל‬is a verbal homonym with four or five apparently unrelated meanings.119 Here

the meaning is “to profane, or make profane use of [the name]”; the collocation with ‫ׁשם‬

occurs fourteen times in biblical literature. Leviticus 19:12, already discussed above (p.

22), explicitly connects the profanation of YHWH’s name with false swearing by his

name (cf. CD XV 2, 3). Similarly Jeremiah 34:15–16 (see above, p. 86), describes the

violation of a covenant made at the temple. The repossession of released slaves profaned

YHWH’s name because the covenant had been made at his house (the “place of the

name”), and likely in his name. These examples involve failure to honor his spoken

name. However, a variety of other behaviors, none involving speech, also profaned his

name, suggesting that in these cases “name” is used metonymically for YHWH’s

reputation.120

119
‫ חלל‬I = “to profane”; II = “to begin”; III = “to be pierced”; IV = “to play the
flute”; V = “to tremble.” DCH 3:234–36.
120
For an exploration of all 19 occurrences of the phrase ‫חלל ׁשם‬, see Jacob
Milgrom, “The Desecration of YHWH’s Name: Its Parameters and Significance,” in
Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical
Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed.
Chaim Cohen et al. (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2008), 1:69–81.
 120

Leviticus 20:2b–3 (cf. 18:21)

‫איׁש איׁש מבני יׂשראל‬ Any one of the Israelites
‫ומן־הגר הגר ביׂשראל‬ or from the foreigners sojourning in Israel
‫אׁשר יתן מזרעו למלך מות יומת‬ who gives of his offspring to Molech shall surely die;
‫עם הארץ ירגמהו באבן‬ the people of the land shall stone him with stones.
‫ואני אתן את־פני באיׁש ההוא‬ And I will set my face against that man
‫והכרתי אתו מקרב עמו‬ and cut him off from the midst of my people
‫כי מזרעו נתן למלך‬ because from his offspring he gave to Molech
‫למען טמא את־מקדׁשי‬ so defiling my sanctuary
‫ולחלל את־ׁשם קדׁשי‬ and profaning my holy name

Leviticus 18:21 and 20:3 both indicate that child sacrifice profaned YHWH’s name, but

the syntax is least ambiguous in the latter, with ‫ למען‬linking the abominable action and its

result: sanctuary and name were profaned. The defilement of both sanctuary and name

naturally related because the sanctuary was the “place where YHWH put his name.”

Given YHWH’s absolute claim on Israel’s worship, the worship of other gods (here

Molech) violated his sovereignty and the pagan practices associated with this apostasy

clouded YHWH’s reputation.

Leviticus 21:1, 5–6 (cf. 22:2, 32)

‫ויאמר יהוה אל־מׁשה‬ And YHWH said to Moses,
‫אמר אל־הכהנים בני אהרן‬ Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron,
‫ואמרת אלהם‬ and say to them,
‫לנפׁש לא־יטמא בעמיו‬ ‘For a corpse do not defile yourself among his people.’
‫לא־יקרחו קרחה בראׁשם‬ . . . They are not to shave a bald spot on their head
‫ופאת זקנם לא יגלחו‬ and the corners of their beards they are not to cut
‫ובבׂשרם לא יׂשרטו ׂשרטת‬ and on their flesh they are not to cut an incision
‫קדׁשים יהיו לאלהיהם‬ Holy, they are, to their God,
‫ולא יחללו ׁשם אלהיהם‬ so they shall not profane the name of their God
‫כי את־אׁשי יהוה‬ because with the offering by fire to YHWH
‫לחם אלהיהם הם מקריבם‬ the bread of their God they bring near
‫והיו קדׁש‬ and they are holy.
 121

Purity laws for priests included restrictions on their marriages and funerary involvement.

Contact with dead bodies, traditional mourning practices, and even movement outside the

sanctuary area were limited in order to maintain personal purity and thereby preserve the

holiness of their sacrifices.121 Leviticus 22:2 likewise instructs priests to “treat with awe”

(‫נזר‬, niphal) the sanctuary offerings, “so they do not profane my holy name” ( ‫ולא יחללו‬

‫)את־ׁשם קדׁשי‬. To safeguard these offerings, a variety of practices are proscribed, such as

eating sacred offerings while unclean or offering them to one outside the priestly family

(22:3–16). More broadly, every Israelite was to ensure that offerings were free of defects

and were offered in an acceptable way (22:17–30). The instruction was repeated for the

benefit of the entire community:

Leviticus 22:32
‫ ולא תחללו את־ׁשם קדׁשי‬Do not profane my holy name,
‫ ונקדׁשתי בתוך בני יׂשראל‬that I may be sanctified in the midst of the Israelites
‫ אני יהוה מקדׁשכם‬I am YHWH who sanctifies you.

The holiness of the entire nation (notice the plural verb ‫ תחללו‬and plural pronominal

suffix on ‫ )מקדׁשכם‬required them to interface with YHWH in a carefully prescribed

manner so that the name (i.e., YHWH’s reputation) would not be profaned.

Ezekiel 20:39
‫ ואתם בית־יׂשראל‬As for you, house of Israel,
‫ כה־אמר אדני יהוה‬this is what the Lord YHWH says:

121
Jacobs (“The Body Inscribed,” 4–6, 8, 14–15) associates bodily incisions with
tattoos (see Lev 19:28), but suggests the latter is not a mourning rite. Rather, because
pagan temple servants were branded, any tattoo on the Levites would contradict their
dedication to YHWH. Cf. Huehnergard and Liebowitz, “The Biblical Prohibition against
Tattooing,” 69, 77.
 122
‫ איׁש גלוליו לכו עבדו‬Go, each one serve his filthy idols.
‫ ואחר אם־אינכם ׁשמעים אלי‬And later, if you fail to listen to me—
‫ ואת־ׁשם קדׁשי לא תחללו־עוד‬but my holy name you shall no longer profane
‫ במתנותיכם ובגלוליכם‬with your gifts and your filthy idols.

Here Israel’s sin was idolatry.122 A sarcastic encouragement to continue in their

abominable behavior is followed by a half-expressed threat123 and then a promise to

supersede their punishment with his grace. The uncleanness of their worship profaned

YHWH’s reputation.

Although profanation of the name was usually a feature of cultic violations (as the

examples above demonstrate), Amos extended profanation of the name to a variety of

moral infractions.124

Amos 2:6–8
‫ כה אמר יהוה‬Thus says YHWH,
‫“ על־ׁשלׁשה פׁשעי יׂשראל‬For three transgressions of Israel,
‫ ועל־ארבעה לא אׁשיבנו‬even for four I will not relent.
‫ על־מכרם בכסף צדיק‬For they sold the innocent for silver,
‫ ואביון בעבור נעלים‬the needy for a hidden bribe.125

122
The Hebrew ‫ּלּולים‬
ִׁ ִׁ‫ ג‬is likely derived from the consonants of ‫גלל‬, which means
“to roll,” with the vowels of ‫( ִׁׁש ֻׁק ִׁצים‬cf. Ezek 5:11; Nah 3:6, “detestable thing, filth”), and
by extension here connotes “dung pellets.” This is one of Ezekiel’s favorite derogatory
words to refer to idols, occurring 39x in the book. “Filthy idols” attempts to convey the
sense of the word as well as its referent. For discussion, see Block, Ezekiel 1–24, 226.
Joüon (§177e) notes that asyndetic constructions are common with joint imperatives.
123
This passage probably contains the apodosis of a maledictory curse lacking its
protasis. See Joüon §165a. As such it could be translated, “And later, you will certainly
listen to me, and my holy name you shall no longer profane.” The persistence of Israel’s
spiritual adultery is so unthinkable that Ezekiel cannot express it.
124
Cf. Shalom M. Paul, Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos, Hermeneia
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 83.
 123
‫ הׁשאפים על־עפר־ארץ‬They trample upon the dust of the earth
‫בראׁש דלים‬ on the heads of the poor,
‫ודרך ענוים יטו‬ and thrust aside the path of the oppressed,
‫ואיׁש ואביו ילכו אל־הנערה‬ and a man and his father go to the same maiden
‫למען חלל את־ׁשם קדׁשי‬ with the result that my holy name is profaned,
‫ועל־בגדים חבלים‬ and upon pledged garments
‫יטו אצל כל־מזבח‬ they thrust [themselves] down beside every altar
‫ויין ענוׁשים יׁשתו בית אלהיהם‬ and they drink levied wine in the house of their god!”

The grammar requires that these indictments against Israel function together, each

describing another aspect of the social injustice characteristic of Israelite society. In each

line another constituent is placed before the verb, linking it to the preceding statement so

that the whole list becomes a single portrait of a people plagued by social injustice (cf.

Amos 8:4–6). Economic oppression and callous treatment of the poor went hand in hand

with sexual impropriety,126 abusing the vulnerable by taking the bodies of young women,

the garments of debtors, and the resources of the powerless at will in order to facilitate

pagan practices.127 Older and younger generations collaborated in this blatant sin.

125
For a detailed linguistic argument that ‫ נעלים‬is not the dual of the noun ‫נעל‬,
“sandal,” but rather a conjugated form of the verb ‫עלם‬, “to hide,” see ibid., 78.
126
While the expression ‫ הלך אל‬is not used elsewhere to describe sexual activity,
Paul (ibid., 82) argues that it does here, noting cognate phrases in Akkadian (ana alāku)
and Aramaic (‫ )אזל על‬where both imply intercourse.
127
Paul (ibid.) offers a detailed argument against any cultic connotations of the
sexual act, citing the lack of “sexual overtones” in v. 8 and the absence of cultic
vocabulary in v. 7. However, the pairing of “going in” (v. 7) and “stretching out” (v. 8)
could imply as much. I have translated ‫ יטו‬as “thrust [themselves] down” in order to
highlight the parallel use of ‫ יטו‬in v. 7. Minimally, lying down by the altar is portrayed as
another violation of social justice, as the echo of ‫ יטו‬underscores.
 124

This egregious behavior resulted in exile, but even then YHWH’s “name”

continued to be profaned. Ezekiel wrote from the vantage point of the exile:

Ezekiel 36:20
‫ויבוא אל־הגוים אׁשר־באו ׁשם‬ And when they came to the nations where they went,
‫ויחללו את־ׁשם קדׁשי‬ they profaned my holy name
‫באמר להם‬ by having it said of them,
‫עם־יהוה אלה‬ “These are the people of YHWH,
‫ומארצו יצאו‬ but they came out of his land.”

The immediate context reinforces that Israel was responsible for profaning YHWH’s

name through blatant covenant violations involving bloodshed and idolatry (v. 18, 31).

Because of the close association between YHWH and Israel, their disastrous fate (i.e.,

exile) damaged his reputation. The NLT captures well the import of this verse: “These

are the people of the LORD, but he couldn’t keep them safe in his own land!” Yet the

nations’ assessment of Israel’s situation was inaccurate. Rather than proof of YHWH’s

impotence, the exile was the consequence of Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness. As v. 17

explains, “When the house of Israel was dwelling in their own land, they defiled it by

their ways and by their deeds” (cf. v. 19). Ultimately, God’s people deserved expulsion;

exile was among the covenant curses for failure to obey (cf. Lev 26:14–15, 33; Deut

28:15, 36–37, 64). Israel’s fate reflected negatively on YHWH because it appeared to

other nations that YHWH was either incompetent or had intentionally reneged on his

covenant promises.

In summary, Israel profaned YHWH’s name (‫ )חלל את־ׁשם‬through a variety of

objectionable behaviors. On the one hand, cultic infractions were naturally name-

profaning because they were carried out in direct violation of cultic regulations at the

“place of the name.” These infractions included child sacrifice (Lev 18:21; 20:3), failure
 125

to follow proper protocol for sacred offerings (Lev 21:6; 22:2, 32), broken agreements

sworn in the temple (Jer 34:15–16), and idolatrous worship (Ezek 20:39). On the other

hand, the social injustice outlined by Amos (2:7) and the exile itself (Ezek 36:20–21)

profaned YHWH’s name because his reputation was staked on their obedience. Their

behavior was unseemly for those belonging to him, and their fate created the impression

that YHWH had failed to protect his people.128

Other Negative Expressions

Other expressions where a negative verb is paired with YHWH’s name as an

object exhibit a similar range of implicated behavior. As in the examples from Leviticus

above, the priests despised (‫ )בזה‬his name by disregarding YHWH’s instructions

regarding the sacrificial system.129

Malachi 1:6–7
‫ בן יכבד אב ועבד אדניו‬A son honors his father and a servant his master.
‫ואם־אב אני איה כבודי‬ Then if I am a father, where is my honor?
‫ואם־אדונים אני איה מוראי‬ and if I am a master, where is my respect?
‫אמר יהוה צבאות לכם‬ says YHWH of armies to you,
‫הכהנים בוזי ׁשמי‬ priests who despise my name.
‫ואמרתם במה בזינו את־ׁשמך‬ But you say, ‘How have we despised your name?’
‫מגיׁשים על־מזבחי לחם מגאל‬ By approaching my altar with desecrated bread.
‫ואמרתם במה גאלנוך‬ Yet you ask ‘How have we desecrated you?”
‫באמרכם ׁשלחן יהוה נבזה הוא‬ By saying the table of YHWH is despised.

128
Cf. 4 Esdras 10:22; Jdt 5:20–21; Sir 36:22; 2 Macc 1:27. John Evans (An
Inner-Biblical Interpretation and Intertextual Reading of Ezekiel’s Recognition Formulae
with the Book of Exodus [Th.D. diss., University of Stellenbosch, 2006], 292) also
recognizes both aspects of the desecration of YHWH’s name: “the detestable practices of
his people” and “the punishment of exile.”
129
See Milgrom, “Desecration of YHWH’s Name,” 75.
 126

Malachi 1:6–7 is explicit about the manner in which YHWH’s name was mistreated.

Here the priests were at fault for offering defiled food on YHWH’s altar (i.e., blind, lame,

or diseased animals; v. 8), and verbally treating the sacrificial system with contempt.130

These actions resulted in a loss of blessing (Mal 2:2). To fail to honor God properly by

giving him the best animals was equivalent to desecrating the name itself. Note the

metonymic use of ‫ ׁשם‬for YHWH. Dishonor and disrespect were unworthy of him.131

Ezekiel 43:7–8 is equally explicit about the causes for defilement of YHWH’s

name. There the people defiled YHWH’s name (‫ )טמא את־ׁשם‬through spiritual-political

prostitution (‫ ;זנות‬i.e., trying to attract favors from other nations; cf. Ezekiel 23) and by

disregarding sacred space, crowding it with other buildings and littering it with the

apparatus of a royal funerary cult (‫)בפגרי מלכיהם במותם‬.132 These indictments do not

concern their words, as one might expect with the defilement of a name, but rather their

abominable actions (‫)בתועבותם אׁשר עׂשו‬, which tarnish his reputation.

130
For further discussion, see ibid.
131
However, Malachi spoke of a future, righteous remnant who would commit to
be YHWH’s covenant people (Mal 2:5; 3:16). God promised to spare this remnant from
judgment and adopt them as his treasured possession (‫)סגלה‬, just as he did at Sinai (Mal
3:17–20[3:17–4:2]). This new remnant would bring honor to his name among the nations
by living righteously and serving faithfully. Their designation as the ‫ סגלה‬represents a
significant development in OT theology. Elsewhere the term is applied to the entire
nation to indicate their elect status in contrast to the nations (e.g., Exod 19:5–6). Here
only a subgroup of faithful Israelites will receive the honored title. For discussion, see
Pieter Verhoef, The Books of Haggai and Malachi, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987), 322.
132
It is not clear whether stelae were set up in the temple precinct in honor of
dead kings, in which case ‫ פגר‬refers to “lifeless masses,” or whether royalty were buried
on or near temple grounds, in which case ‫ פגר‬means “corpses.” For discussion, see Block,
Ezekiel 25–48, 582–86; cf. Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, AB 3B (New York:
Doubleday, 2001), 2317; idem in conversation with Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel’s Hope: A
Commentary on Ezekiel 38–48, (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012), 110–11.
 127

Another expression can involve speech. An Israelite of mixed descent cursed (‫נקב‬

/ ‫ )קלל‬YHWH’s name and received the death penalty:

Leviticus 24:11a, 15–16

‫ ויקב בן־האׁשה היׂשראלית‬And the son of the Israelite woman designated
‫ את־הׁשם ויקלל‬the name and disparaged [it]
‫ ויביאו אתו אל־מׁשה‬and they brought him to Moses

‫ איׁש איׁש כי־יקלל אלהיו‬Anyone who disparages his God

‫ונׂשא חטאו‬ will bear his sin
‫ונקב ׁשם־יהוה מות יומת‬ One who designates YHWH’s name shall certainly die;
‫רגום ירגמו־בו כל־העדה‬ Let all the witnesses certainly stone him
‫כגר כאזרח‬ —whether foreigner or full citizen—
‫בנקבו־ׁשם יומת‬ on account of his designating the name he shall die.

The collocation ‫ נקב ׁשם‬often indicates someone expressly designated by name for a

task,133 but that meaning makes little sense here. However, for at least two reasons we

need not suppose a different root (such as ‫ )קבב‬to explain the negative use of ‫ נקב‬in

Leviticus 24. ‫ נקב‬usually means either “bore through,” “establish,” or “denote.”134 A

negative instantiation of the third meaning is operative here. First, the Akkadian cognate,

naqabu, is undoubtedly negative (“to deflower, rape”).135 Second, v. 16 clearly employs

the qal active participle of ‫נקב‬, making its appearance in v. 11 more probable. Most likely

‫ נקב‬is euphemistic for open disparagement of YHWH (cf. Job 2:9), since the

unambiguously negative ‫ קלל‬is never paired directly with “YHWH” in the Hebrew Bible

133
With a ‫ ב‬prefix—Num 1:17; 1 Chr 12:32[31]; 16:41; 2 Chr 28:15; 31:19; Ezra
8:20; cf. Isa 62:2.
134
HALOT 1:718–19.
135
Ibid. Cf. perhaps also Job 3:8; Prov 11:26.
 128

(though note LXX 1 Sam 3:13). This may also explain the narrator’s avoidance of the

name “YHWH” in his statement of the offense (vv. 11, 16). The meaning of ‫ נקב ׁשם‬in

the present context is clarified in v. 15, which announces the oracular judgment based on

this case: anyone who “disparages his God” (‫ )כי־יקלל אלהיו‬is guilty.

Elßner avers that the need for divine revelation regarding this case suggests that it

lacks precedent; therefore, Leviticus 24 cannot relate to the NC.136 However, the question

at hand is whether the otherwise clear prohibition against cursing God (‫ ;קלל‬Exod 22:27)

applied to someone of mixed descent.137 Ultimately, the man’s parentage did not excuse

him from the death penalty (see Lev 24:22; cf. Lev 20:9). Yet it was not to be imposed

merely because he pronounced the name, something encouraged elsewhere (e.g., Deut

6:13), but because the man disparaged it. Note that the man did not curse his human

antagonist in the name or by the name (cp. 1 Sam 17:43). Rather he abused the name

directly and verbally (Lev 24:15; cf. Exod 22:27).138 This same phrase, ‫קלל אלהים‬,

appears in 1 Sam 3:11–14 with reference to the sons of Eli, who mishandled their sacred

136
Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 79–80.
137
For discussion, see Jonathan Vroom, “Recasting Mišpātîm: Legal Innovation
in Leviticus 24:10–23,” JBL 131:1 (2012): 27–44. Alternatively, Richard Averbeck
suggested (in personal conversation) that the need for clarification arises because the
exact penalty had not yet been specified.
138
Contra Brichto (The Problem of “Curse,” 150), who argues that the context of
this passage as well as the parallel expression in 1 Sam 3:11–14 suggest that the man’s
mistreatment of another human “may be and is regarded as an act of qillel ʾelōhīm.” Cf.
Lev 19:14. For further discussion of Leviticus 24, see Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27, 2107–8;
Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979),
311; Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 101; John Hartley, Leviticus, 404, 408–9; Gary
Alan Long, “‫נקב‬,” NIDOTTE 3:149–50; Brichto, The Problem of “Curse,” 143–50, 200–
202.
 129

roles as YHWH’s priests.139 Thus ‫ קלל הׁשם‬described an inappropriate utterance in Lev

24:11 (cf., v. 15) and ‫ קלל אלהים‬a series of actions unbefitting YHWH’s priests in 1 Sam

3:13.

Proverbs 30:9 contains the only collocation of ‫ תפׂש‬with ‫ׁשם‬. Normally, ‫תפׂש‬

means “to seize, capture, or handle,” but here it means “to handle disrespectfully,

profane.”140

Proverbs 30:8–9
‫ׁשוא ודבר־כזב הרחק ממני‬ Emptiness and words of falsehood keep far from me;
‫ראׁש ועׁשר אל־תתן־לי‬ poverty or riches do not give me.
‫הטריפני לחם חקי‬ Let me devour my portion of bread.
‫פן אׂשבע וכחׁשתי‬ Lest I am satiated and deny
‫ואמרתי מי יהוה‬ by saying, “Who is YHWH?”
‫ופן־אורׁש וגנבתי‬ Or lest I become impoverished and steal,
‫ותפׂשתי ׁשם אלהי‬ thus profaning the name of my God.

The sage asked God to supply his daily needs, not too much and not too little, so that his

speech and actions would be pure. If satiated, he might deny YHWH. If impoverished, he

139
See also 1 Sam 2:27–36. This reading of 1 Sam 3:13 follows the LXX θεόν
rather than the MT’s ‫מקללים להם‬. The MT may reflect a scribal emendation to mitigate
the idea that YHWH failed to punish immediately one who cursed him or to avoid saying
“cursing God.” This verse is listed along with 10 other instances of scribal “euphemism”
in the Mekhilta. For discussion, see Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 65–67;
Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983), 30. Alternatively,
the loss of the ‫ א‬could have been accidental, since we might expect the scribes to change
“curse” to “bless” rather than “God” to “themselves.” So M. A. Zipor, “Some Notes on
the Origin of the Tradition of the Eighteen tiqqûnê sôperîm,” VT 44 (1994): 91–92.
140
DCH 8:668. On the shared ethical context of ‫ חלל‬and ‫תפׂש‬, see Rick Byargeon,
“Echoes of Wisdom in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9–13),” JETS 41 (1998): 363.
 130

might resort to stealing.141 Either course of action—one involving speech and one

entailing behavior—would profane YHWH’s name.

The final expression to consider is ‫נאץ ׁשם‬. YHWH’s enemies treated his name

irreverently (‫ )נאץ‬by oppressing his people and destroying his sanctuary.

Psalm 74:10, 18 [piel]

‫ עד־מתי אלהים יחרף צר‬How long, God, will the adversary revile (you)?
‫ ינאץ אויב ׁשמך לנצח‬The enemy treats your name irreverently without end.

‫ זכר־זאת אויב חרף יהוה‬Remember this: enemies revile YHWH.

‫ ועם נבל נאצו ׁשמך‬And foolish people treat your name irreverently.

Psalm 74 calls YHWH to remember his covenant with Israel for twin reasons (vv. 2, 20).

First, his enemies have profaned (‫ )חלל‬the “dwelling place of your name” (‫;מׁשכן־ׁשמך‬

v.7; cf. v.3),142 leaving YHWH open to mockery. YHWH’s reputation was at stake

because the official cult sites had been decimated (v. 8). Second, YHWH’s people were

afflicted and vulnerable (v. 19–21). YHWH’s name and his people are not explicitly

linked in this Psalm, but the connection is implied. The reviling of the name involved the

destruction of both the temple and the “people of your inheritance” (v. 2).

141
Michael V. Fox (Proverbs 10–31, AB 18B [New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2009], 859) connects the name and stealing because a thief tends to lie under oath.
See also Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 336), who argues that an oath is necessary for the
claimant to prove ownership in cases where the thief is unknown or denies wrongdoing.
For a more nuanced reading, see Averbeck, “‫א ָׁשם‬,”ָ NIDOTTE 1:560. However, the
concept of name-bearing provides an alternative explanation. Stealing is immoral, and
any immorality performed by those who bear YHWH’s name damages his reputation.
While stealing directly precedes profanation, and therefore is closely associated with it,
the syntactical symmetry in the four lines of v. 9 also links the denial, “Who is YHWH?,”
with profanation of the name.
142
‫ מׁשכן־ׁשמך‬appears to be a reflex of the idiom ‫לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬.
 131

Isaiah 52:5b [hithpolel]

‫“ כי־לקח עמי חנם‬For my people are taken away undeservedly.
‫ מׁשליו יהילילו נאם־יהוה‬Those ruling them howl,” declares YHWH.
‫“ ותמיד כל־היום ׁשמי מנאץ‬Constantly, all day, my name is treated irreverently.”

Israel’s exile brought abuse on YHWH. He seemed either powerless or unwilling to

rescue those who claimed to belong to him. Through the prophet, he assured his people

that they would again experience his salvation (v.10). For our purposes, the important

feature in this passage is the connection between the exile and the mistreatment of

YHWH’s name.143 This instance appears to be verbal; YHWH’s name was spoken

irreverently to cast him in a negative light. However, it retains conceptual links with Ezek

36:20, where “name” may be metonymic for YHWH or his reputation rather than

referring to a spoken appellation; in both cases Israel’s devastation reflected negatively

on YHWH because of the intimate association between them.144

Similarly, the reputation of gods in the ANE was bound up with the fate of the

lands and people with whom they were identified.145 Gods were obligated to protect their

possessions. A Hittite text notes that the Sun-goddess of Arinna chose Hatti for herself as

her own land.146 Her ownership explains why a supplicant could pray, “All the

surrounding lands have begun to attack Hatti. Let this become a further reason for

143
See also Jer 14:21.
144
See also Milgrom, “Desecration of YHWH’s Name,” 78.
145
Hundley, “To Be or Not To Be,” 545. Ran Zadok (“Names and Naming,”
OEANE 4:93) suggested that theophoric names might evoke the protection of a god, but it
is impossible to be certain.
146
Singer, Hittite Prayers, 97, no. 21 (CTH 383), §1.
 132

vengeance for the Sun-goddess of Arinna. Goddess, do not degrade your own name!”147

In this case, military defeat would spell defamation for the sun-goddess.148 Around the

15th century BCE, an Akkadian scribe spoke of Ishtar’s exalted name and then prayed for

her to alleviate his suffering, “May your very great forgiveness be with me! May those

who see me in the street magnify your name.”149 Ishtar’s reputation was associated with

her treatment of a devotee. If that man prospered, Ishtar would be glorified by observers.

This exploration of the mistreatment of YHWH’s name sheds light on the current

study. YHWH’s name (sometimes metonymic for YHWH himself or his reputation) was

disparaged both inside and outside the cultic apparatus, through violations involving a

range of both words and actions. Especially significant is the association between Israel’s

behavior, Israel’s fate, and YHWH’s reputation. When Israel acted badly, YHWH was

brought into disrepute. When Israel suffered devastation, YHWH was mocked. Perhaps

the expression ‫ נׂשא ׁשם לׁשוא‬participates in this field of discourse wherein the close

association between YHWH and Israel put YHWH’s “name” at risk because of Israel’s

covenant unfaithfulness.

147
Ibid., 51, no. 8 (CTH 376A), §4, emphasis mine.

The “Treaty between Shattiwaza of Mittanni and Suppiluliuma I of Hatti”

148

(Beckman and Hoffner, HDT, 53–54, 6B, §11) outlined the benefits for humans:

“Thus says Prince Shattiwaza and indeed also the Hurrian: If we observe this
treaty and oath of His Majesty, Suppiluliuma, Great King, King of Hatti, Hero,
Beloved of the Storm-god, the gods whose names we have invoked shall go with
us, exalt us, protect us, and be good to us.”
149
Anna Elise Zernecke, “A Shuilla: Ishtar 2, ‘The Great Ishtar Prayer’,” in
Lenzi, Akkadian Prayers and Hymns, 284, lines 100–101. See also ANET2 385, lines
100–101.
 133
Sanctification of YHWH’s ‫ׁשם‬

Twice the Hebrew Bible speaks of the sanctification of YHWH’s name, once

explicitly contrasting this to the profanation of his name among the nations. In theory, his

name would be sanctified when his people honored him again.150 Isaiah announced on

YHWH’s behalf, “They will sanctify my name (‫ ;)יקדיׁשו ׁשמי‬They will sanctify the Holy

One of Jacob” (Isa 29:23b). The empty worship (v. 13) and crooked behavior (vv. 15,

20–21) of God’s people would be purified by a fresh work of God among them and their

children (v. 23a). His reputation would be restored by Israel’s proper worship. They

would begin treating him as he deserved.

According to Ezekiel, since such behavior was not forthcoming, YHWH would

take matters into his own hands. Contrary to Israel’s beliefs, the “present theological

crisis” that YHWH was determined to resolve was not the exile per se but rather the

resulting desecration of his name.151

Ezekiel 36:22–23
‫ לכן אמר לבית־יׂשראל‬Therefore, say to the house of Israel,
‫‘ כה אמר אדני יהוה‬Thus says the Lord YHWH:

150
On both occasions, sanctification of the name is a future promise rather than a
present reality. The link between personal holiness and sanctification of the name is
implicit in the psalmist’s prayer: “Lead me in right paths for your name’s sake” (Ps 23:3).
151
Block, Ezekiel 25–48, 351–52. Verses 23b–38 are lacking in P967, on which
see Johan Lust, “Textual Criticism of the Old and New Testaments: Stepbrothers?,” in
New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel, ed. A. Denaux,
BETL 161 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002), 28–30; Ashley S. Crane, Israel’s
Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–39, VTSup 122 (Leiden:
Brill, 2008), 230–44. However, since proto-MT fragments of Ezekiel from Masada and
Qumran predate P967 by over 200 years, it is likely that both editions of Ezekiel
coexisted for some time. See Hector Patmore, “The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel:
The Implications of the Manuscript Finds from Masada and Qumran,” JSOT 32:2 (2007):
231–42.
 134
‫ לא למענכם אני עׂשה בית יׂשראל‬Not for your sake am I acting, house of Israel,
‫כי אם־לׁשם־קדׁשי‬ but rather for my holy name,
‫אׁשר חללתם בגוים‬ which you profaned among the nations
‫אׁשר־באתם ׁשם‬ where you went.
‫וקדׁשתי את־ׁשמי הגדול‬ For I will sanctify my great name
‫המחלל בגוים‬ that was profaned among the nations,
‫אׁשר חללתם בתוכם‬ which you profaned in their midst.
‫וידעו הגוים כי־אני יהוה‬ And the nations will know that I am YHWH,
‫נאם אדני יהוה‬ declares the Lord YHWH
‫בהקדׁשי בכם לעיניהם‬ when I am sanctified by you before their eyes.

Here the sanctification of YHWH’s name and the sanctification of YHWH are one and

the same, confirming that “name” is used metonymically for YHWH.152 The verses that

follow unveil YHWH’s drastic plan to sanctify his own name by cleansing Israel from

sin, giving them a heart transplant, bestowing the Spirit, and renewing the covenant,

resulting in the fruitfulness of the land, the restoration of Israel’s cities, and the

installation of a Davidic shepherd (36:24–37; cf. 39:25–29). Divine action is paramount.

However, the dishonor to YHWH would not be fully resolved until the Israelites

themselves took YHWH’s decrees seriously, resulting in the sanctification of YHWH’s

reputation in the sight of the nations (36:27). Ultimately, the nations would realize that

the exile was not due to YHWH’s impotence or his betrayal, but rather Israel’s rebellion

(39:23–24). Israel’s repentance and covenant restoration would demonstrate YHWH’s

true identity to the nations (Ezek 36:23, 28, 31). Thus, the sanctification of YHWH’s

name would require dramatic action on God’s part resulting in Israel’s appropriate

response.

152
It is also further evidence against “Name Theology.”
 135

In sum, the phrase “name of YHWH” appears in a variety of senses in the Hebrew

Bible—as a linguistic unit that refers directly to YHWH through metonymy, as a

metonymic reference to his fame, reputation, or authority, and in various idioms that

indicate his claim to ownership. Several facts should be very clear by now. First, “name”

is not limited to a spoken appellation. Second, the proliferation of texts regarding the

“place of the name” and the people “called by his name,” as well as their juxtaposition in

key texts involving the priestly ministry indicates that Israel’s identity as a people is

bound up with YHWH’s claim on them, and thereby with his “name.” Third, the range of

behaviors by which God’s people do damage to his reputation suggests that the warning

of the NC against the abuse of YHWH’s name ought to be considered with reference to

these broader concerns.

‫נׂשא‬
Of the critical words in the NC, ‫ נׂשא‬is arguably the most crucial to define. Given

its broad range of meaning and almost limitless idiomatic combinations, it is not

surprising to find it the locus of most discussion on this verse. ‫ נׂשא‬occurs 658 times in

the Hebrew Bible, with wide distribution across the canon. The most common meaning

of ‫ נׂשא‬is “to lift up” or “to carry.”153 In the Hebrew Bible, a variety of objects were

carried or transported, such as the components of the tabernacle (Exod 25:14) or offerings

(Deut 14:24).154 Less often ‫ נׂשא‬means “to take” (i.e., steal or take as plunder [Num

153
For specific studies of the term, see DCH 5:758–70; HALOT 1:724–27; Victor
Hamilton, “‫נׂשא‬,” NIDOTTE 3:160–63; Stoltz, “‫נׂשא‬,” TLOT 2:769–74; Fabry, “‫נָ ָׂשא‬,”
TDOT 10:24–40; cf. Jacob Hoftijzer and K. Jongeling, “nšʾ1,” DNWSI 760–63.
154
Other objects that were “carried” include children (Gen 21:18; 2 Kgs 4:36–37),
corpses (Judg 16:31; Amos 6:10), a standard (Jer 4:6; 50:2), tribute (2 Sam 8:2, 6; Ps
 136

16:15]). Occasionally it has the sense of “wear” [an ephod] (1 Sam 2:28; 14:3; 22:18).155

‫ נׂשא‬was also the verb of choice for bearing intangible objects: a blessing (Ps 24:5), a

curse (1 Kgs 8:31, in some MSS), honor (Zech 6:13), slander (Ps 15:3), anger (Mic 7:9),

reproach (Ps 69:8; Jer 15:15), a false report (Exod 23:1), iniquity or sin (Lev 5:1; 19:17),

and knowledge (Job 36:3).156

Certain forms of speech regularly occur as a direct object of ‫נׂשא‬: weeping (Gen

21:16), a loud cry (Num 14:1), an oracle (2 Kgs 9:25), a lamentation (Jer 7:29), a ‫( מׁשל‬or

“discourse”; Job 27:1), and sometimes a prayer (2 Kgs 19:4). “To lift up a voice” is to

call out loudly (Judg 9:7). In poetic texts, ‫ נׂשא‬occasionally indicates the act of speaking

without a direct object, though the transitive nature of ‫ נׂשא‬would seem to require one (Isa

3:7; 42:2, 11). However, in each case the context offers clear indicators that ‫ נׂשא‬refers to

a speech-act (see underlined lexemes below). The terse constraints of poetry result in an

elliptical expression. In no case does ‫ נׂשא‬function as a verbum dicendi without

contextual clues.157

96:8), building materials (1 Kgs 15:22), and wood (Lam 5:13). Aside from the NC and
not counting idiomatic expressions such as “lift up the eyes,” ‫ נׂשא‬means “lift up” or
“carry” at least 60x in the Pentateuch.
155
Though the usual word for “wearing” is ‫( לבׁש‬e.g., Deut 22:11). Propp (Exodus
19–40, 432) suggests that ‫ נׂשא‬may have described “wearing” the ephod because it was
“suspended from the shoulders.”
156
Similarly, the word ‫ נׂשא‬is used figuratively in the sense of “enduring” or
emotionally “bearing” a burden (Exod 18:22; Num 11:12–17; Deut 1:9; Isa 1:14). Even
the land “bore up” under the people (Gen 13:6; 36:7; cf. Prov 20:31). As in English, trees
“bore” fruit (Joel 2:22; Hag 2:19). Ironically, Israel physically “carried” her idols (Amos
5:26), but YHWH “carried” his people (Exod 19:4; Deut 1:31; Isa 40:11; 46:3–4; 63:9).
157
Contra Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 43–44). See above, p. 56 n.
155.
 137
Isaiah 3:7
‫יׂשא ביום ההוא לאמר‬ He will lift up in that day, saying,
‫לא־אהיה חבׁש‬ “I will not be the one who binds [wounds].
‫ובביתי אין לחם ואין ׂשמלה‬ In my house there is no bread and no coat.
‫לא תׂשימני קצין עם׃‬ Do not set me as ruler of the people.”

Isaiah 42:2
‫ לא יצעק ולא יׂשא‬He will not cry out nor will he lift up;
‫ ולא־יׁשמיע בחוץ קולו׃‬his voice will not be heard in the streets.

Isaiah 42:11
‫יׂשאו מדבר ועריו‬ Let the wilderness and its cities lift up
‫חצרים תׁשב קדר‬ —the villages where Kedar dwells—
‫ירנו יׁשבי סלע‬ Let the people dwelling in Selah cry aloud
‫מראׁש הרים יצוחו׃‬ from the mountaintops let them shout.

A wide range of other idioms involving ‫ נׂשא‬are attested in the Hebrew Bible

(Table 3).158 Here similar idioms are grouped together for ease of comparison:

Table 3. Idioms Involving ‫נׂשא‬

to strike Ps 10:12
to fight against 2 Sam 18:28; 20:21
to signal Isa 49:22
“To lift the hand”
to pray Ps 28:2; 63:5; Lam 2:19
(‫)נׂשא יד‬159
Exod 6:8; Num 14:30;
to swear
Ezek 20:5–6
to see Gen 24:63

158
I define “idiom” as a phrase whose meaning is more than the sum of its parts.
Here I follow Arthur Gibson (Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis [London:
Sheffield Academic, 2001], 111), though he overstates the case by insisting that an idiom
must be “completely ossified.” On the potential for reactivation of common metaphors,
see Andrea Weiss, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the
Book of Samuel, VTSup 107 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 193.
159
For further discussion, see chapter 2.
 138
to show respect 2 Chr 32:23
“To lift the eyes”
to show favor/
(‫)נׂשא עיני‬160 Lev 19:15; 2 Kgs 3:14
favoritism
to restore to office Gen 40:13
to kill by beheading Gen 40:19
“To lift a head”
to register in a
(‫)נׂשא ראׁש‬ Num 4:22
military list
to be encouraged Job 10:15
“To lift one’s own head” 2 Sam 2:22; Job 11:15;
to face someone
(‫)נׂשא ראׁש‬ 22:26
Of YHWH: “to lift his face”
to show favor Num 6:26; cp. Deut 10:17
(‫)נׂשא פנה‬
“To lift one’s own face”
to arrogate oneself 1 Kgs 1:5; cf. 2 Kgs 14:10
(‫)נׂשא פנה‬
“To lift someone else’s face”
to accept Gen 32:21[20]; cf. Gen 4:7
(‫)נׂשא פנה‬
“To lift oneself” Exod 35:21, 26; 36:2; Deut
to desire something
(‫)מתנׂשא‬ 24:15; Prov 19:18
“To lift one’s heart/soul” to to flee to YHWH
Ps 25:1; 86:4; 143:8
YHWH (‫ נפׁש‬/‫)נׂשא לב‬ for protection161
“To lift [someone else’s] soul” i.e., “to take a life”; 2 Sam
to kill that person
(‫)נׂשא נפׁש‬ 14:14
“To lift [YHWH’s] soul”
to represent [YHWH] Ps 24:4 (see below)
(‫)נׂשא נפׁש‬
“To lift up (i.e., take) a woman”
to marry a woman Judg 21:23
(‫)נׂשא אׁשה‬
“To lift up a kingdom” to exalt or establish a
2 Sam 5:12; 1 Chr 14:2
(‫)ממלכה נׂשא‬ kingdom

160
A unique idiom found 4x only in Esther is “to lift up grace in someone’s eyes”
(‫ = ;נׂשאת חן בעיני‬to find favor; e.g., Esth 2:15).
161
Michael Barré (“Mesopotamian Light on the Idiom nāśāʾ nepeš,” CBQ 52
[1990]: 46–54) argued on the basis of Sumerian and Akkadian parallels that when
YHWH was the object of ‫נׂשא נפׁש אל‬, the correct translation is “to flee for protection to
(Yahweh), to seek refuge in (Yahweh).”
 139

In addition to all these idioms, ‫ נׂשא‬is frequently collocated with ‫ עון‬to denote

bearing sin or the forgiveness of sin (66x total).162 The former draws on the broader

metaphorical concept of sin as a burden.163 Those who sinned were weighed down with

iniquity until it was forgiven. The expression “to bear sin” (‫ )נׂשא עון‬is common in the

cultic contexts of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel. In the Day of Atonement

ritual described in Leviticus 16, the sins of the community were placed upon the head of

a goat, which “bore” (‫ )נׂשא‬the sin into the desert, far from the community.164 However,

non-cultic passages manifest a lexicalized version of ‫ נׂשא‬meaning “forgive” (e.g., Gen

162
Baruch Schwartz (“Term or Metaphor: Biblical nōśē ʻăwōn/pešaʻ/ḥeṭ,” Tarbiz
63 [1994]: 150) claimed that ‫ נׂשא עון‬was a figurative expression for sin’s effect on an
individual and the community. Rather than posit two distinct meanings for the idiom ‫נׂשא‬
‫עון‬, as others had done, one meaning “to bear punishment” and the other “to forgive,”
Schwartz insisted that the meaning of ‫ נׂשא עון‬depended on its subject, that it could mean
either “to bear sin” or “to bear away sin,” and that guilt rather than punishment was in
view. See ibid., 168, 170; Baruch J. Schwartz, “The Bearing of Sin in Priestly
Literature,” in Pomegrantes & Golden Bells, ed. D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A.
Hurwitz (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 10; contra Jacob Milgrom in
conversation with Daniel I. Block, Ezekiel’s Hope, 150.
Drawing on Schwartz’ work, Gary Anderson (Sin: A History [New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 2009], 27–28) traces the metaphorical concepts that describe sin
and its removal. Early in Israel’s history, sin was perceived as a burden to be carried, and
forgiveness lifted that burden. However, with the increased use of Aramaic, this
metaphor was eclipsed by another: sin as a debt to be repaid. The Tgs. render the Hebrew
‫ נׂשא עון‬with the Aramaic ‫“( קבל חוב‬to assume a debt”). For example, Lev 5:1. Anderson
(ibid., 4, 19) follows Schwartz in seeing a unity of sense between the two dimensions of
the phrase ‫נׂשא עון‬.
163
Chapter 5 offers a fuller introduction to metaphorical concepts.
164
The goat bore the sins of the community, not the priesthood, whose sins were
absolved through blood rites prior to the goat ritual. See Baruch A. Levine, Leviticus, JPS
Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: JPS, 1989), 106–7. The full range of the people’s sins
was included (‫את־כל־עונת בני יׂשראל ואת־כל־פׁשעיהם לכל־חטאתם‬: Lev 16:21). See Hartley,
Leviticus, 241.
 140

50:17; Ps 32:1; Hos 1:6; cf. CD 318).165 By “lexicalized,” I mean that in these passages

the underlying metaphorical concept of sin as a burden is all but lost and ‫ נׂשא‬functions as

a “fixed” or “frozen” idiom that mean “forgiveness.”166 As I discuss below, the presence

of both an active metaphorical concept and a lexicalized expression in Biblical Hebrew

involving ‫ נׂשא‬will prove illuminating for this project.

In addition to these data from the Hebrew Bible, the Akkadian cognate, našû,

exhibits almost the same semantic range as the Hebrew ‫נׂשא‬. Not only did it usually mean

“to lift” or “to carry,” but it was also employed similarly with regard to punishment,

meaning both “to bear [a punishment]” and “to remove [evil].”167 A precise lexical

parallel to the phrase ‫“( נׂשא ׁשם‬lift up the name”) is not yet attested in Akkadian.168

165
Joseph Lam (The Metaphorical Patterning of the Sin-Concept in Biblical
Hebrew [Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2012], 154, 166) rejects the idea that the
meaning of ‫ נׂשא‬in the idiom ‫ נׂשא עון‬depends on its subject, arguing on source-critical
grounds that ‫ נׂשא עון‬refers to bearing sin when used in priestly literature, but is
lexicalized elsewhere as “forgive.” To substantiate his claim for lexicalization, Lam lists
examples where ‫ נׂשא‬means “forgive” without contextual clues regarding burden-bearing,
and where the object or recipient is preceded by a ‫ל‬-prefix. He argues cogently that the ‫ל‬
signals syntactic conflation of ‫ נׂשא‬with ‫סלח‬, whose object normally takes a ‫ ל‬prefix.
Since the lexicalization of ‫ נׂשא‬created a “near-synonym” of ‫סלח‬, it began to behave
syntactically in the same way. Ibid., 181–85; cf. Preuss, OT Theology, 178; Fabry, “‫נָ ָׂשא‬,”
36. Lam then lists passages lacking the phrase ‫ נׂשא עון‬where sin is perceived as a weight,
showing that the concept of sin as a burden was independent of this metaphor. See also
Joseph Ching Po Lam, review of Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History, RBL (2010).
166
This metaphorical concept of sin as a burden was revived when Ezekiel
illustrated the bearing of iniquity with a physical sign act (Ezek 4:4–5; 14:10). Block
(Ezekiel 1–24, 176–80) argues convincingly that Ezekiel’s “bearing of iniquity” was not
expiatory, but rather a retrospective dramatization of Israel’s 390 years of sin for which
they must suffer punishment. Contra G. A. Cooke, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951), 52–53.
167
Lam (Metaphorical Patterning of the Sin-Concept, 268) notes that Akkadian
našû never precisely means to “forgive” sin.
168
Tawil, Akkadian Lexical Companion, 249–50.
 141

However, našû can mean “to take, accept, receive [something from . . . someone].” It can

also mean “to wear [clothing, a crown]” or “to bear [. . . a brand],” or “to wear or carry [a

symbol],”169 a notion to which I will return.

With this general survey of ‫ נׂשא‬in mind, it remains to consider the meaning of the

expression ‫נׂשא ׁשם‬. Aside from the NC, only three passages speak of lifting or bearing a

name (Exod 28:12, 29; Ps 16:4).170 We have already discussed Ps 16:4 in chapter 2. A

brief review will suffice here.

Psalm 16:4
‫ ירבו עצבותם אחר מהרו‬They multiply their pains, exchange other [gods],171
‫ בל־אסיך נסכיהם מדם‬I will not pour out their drink offerings of blood,172
‫ ובל־אׂשא את־ׁשמותם על־ׂשפתי‬nor will I lift up their names upon my lips.

169
CAD lists two examples for “bearing a brand,” both of which include the
Akkadian šindu (“brand”) and šumu (“name”). By itself našû did not mean “to bear a
brand,” but it could mean this as part of a longer expression (CAD 11:80, 86).
170
Several words semantically related to ‫ נׂשא‬are paired with ‫ׁשם‬. The name
YHWH is exalted (‫רום‬: Ps 34:4[3]; Neh 9:5; ‫ׂשגב‬: Ps 148:13) and majestic (i.e., lifted up;
‫גאון‬: Mic 5:3). Each of these examples implies the lifting up or exalting of the name. ‫נׂשא‬
also appears in parallel to ‫ רום‬on several occasions (Num 24:7; Isa 13:2; 33:10; 38:23[//2
Kgs 19:22]; 49:22; Hab 3:10; Prov 30:13). However, ‫ נׂשא‬never clearly means “exalt” in
the qal; all the possible cases are intransitive (i.e., reflexive) and uncertain (Hos 13:1; Ps
89:23; 139:20), making it unlikely that the NC bears the meaning, “You shall not exalt
the name of YHWH your God in vain.” See DCH 5:768.
171
Rashi (Gruber, Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, 226) interprets this line as
“May there increase the sorrows of those who are disloyal to You, [and] who are zealous
in and devoted to the service of another god.” Briggs (Psalms, 1:119–20) suggests, “They
shall multiply their sorrows, who hurry backwards.” For him these apostate worshippers
are the antecedent of “their names.” The psalmist refuses to engage with them.
172
On the difficulties in this verse, see above, p. 24 n. 47.
 142

The psalmist claims that YHWH is his only Lord (v. 2), and that he would have nothing

to do with those who followed other [gods] (v. 4a). He refuses to participate in their cultic

rituals (v. 4b), and will not even “lift their names” upon his lips (‫ובל־אׂשא את־ׁשמֹותם על־‬

‫ ;ׂשפתי‬v. 4c). By mentioning “lips,” the psalmist narrows the phrase to specify that a

speech act is in view. Not only did he reject the very thought of participating in idolatrous

cults, but he also refused even to pronounce the names of other gods. If Ps 16:4 employs

the same expression as the NC, its concretization of the metaphorical concept

underscores a contrast: those who “bear” YHWH’s name may not “bear” the names of

other gods, even on their lips.

Given their proximity to the Decalogue, Exod 28:12 and 29 are crucial to this

discussion. The neglect of these priestly passages in discussions of the NC is puzzling.

They share with the NC the verb ‫ נׂשא‬followed by the direct object marker ‫ את‬and the

noun ‫ׁשם‬. Not only is this the closest lexical match to the NC, but the shared context of

the Sinai Narratives of Exodus makes them an obvious choice for potential parallels. In

terms of narrative analysis, these are geographical and chronological co-texts with the

NC and therefore deserve close examination.

Exodus 28:12
‫וׂשמת את־ׁשתי האבנים‬ And you are to put the two stones
‫על כתפת האפֹד‬ upon the shoulders of the ephod,
‫אבני זכרן לבני יׂשראל‬ stones of remembrance for the sons of Israel,
‫ונׂשא אהרן את־ׁשמותם‬ and Aaron shall bear their names
‫ לפני יהוה על־ׁשתי כתפיו‬before YHWH upon his two shoulders
‫ לזכרן׃‬for a memorial.
 143
Exodus 28:29
‫ונׂשא אהרן את־ׁשמות בני־יׂשראל‬ So Aaron shall bear the names of the sons of Israel
‫בחׁשן המׁשפט על־לבו‬ on the breastpiece of decision upon his heart
‫בבאו אל־הקדׁש‬ when he enters into the holy [place]
‫לזכרן לפני־יהוה תמיד׃‬ as a memorial before YHWH regularly.

In chapter 5, I will reflect further on the practical and theological significance of

Exod 28:12, 29, but for now it is important to note that in these texts ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is not an

idiom or figurative expression; the high priest literally and physically “bore” or “wore”

the names of the Israelite tribes engraved on the precious stones on his shoulders and

breastpiece.173 He carried them as he went about his duties “before YHWH.” As long as

the high priest performed his duties in the holy place, YHWH would be reminded of his

covenant commitment to his people. Though the expression ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is not repeated there,

the high priest also wore the inscribed name of YHWH with the lamed inscriptionis on

his forehead medallion. The medallion signaled his responsibility for guilt related to

cultic service so the people could be acceptable to YHWH (Exod 28:36–38).174

173
The significance of this article of clothing is reflected by the amount of textual
space devoted to it, more than any other priestly garment. See Hamilton, Exodus, 486.
‫“( זכרון‬remembrance”) appears twice in Exod 28:12; both the high priest and YHWH are
reminded of the Israelites—the high priest as representative and YHWH as benefactor.
See Sarna, Exodus, 179, 183. According to Philip Jenson (Graded Holiness: A Key to the
Priestly Conception of the World, JSOTSup 106 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992],
128), the inscribed stones reminded YHWH to intervene on Israel’s behalf. The
inscriptions on the high priestly garments (forehead, shoulders, and breastpiece) may be
analogous to the command for Israelites to write the torah on their foreheads, arms, and
hearts (Exod 13:9, 16; Deut 6:6–8). See Propp, Exodus 19–40, 524.
174
Hamilton (Exodus, 492) mistakenly suggests that ‫ נׂשא עון‬means “remove
iniquity” in v. 38, but “bear responsibility” in v. 43. Instead, both indicate that Aaron
“bore iniquity” for sanctuary-related infractions, while his prescribed offerings later
absolve him of guilt (e.g., Lev 16:11–14). Propp (Exodus 19–40, 448–50) argues that
Aaron bore all of Israel’s transgressions, which he yearly transferred to the scapegoat.
 144

With this general understanding of ‫נׂשא‬, we turn to the NC. Chapter 2 pointed out

the problems with reading this command elliptically. Obviously ‫ נׂשא‬could occur in

idiomatic expressions of oath taking (“to lift a hand”) or speech (“to lift to the lips” or “to

lift one’s voice”). However, in the case of the NC, the former possibility is grammatically

unlikely, because the specified direct object of ‫ נׂשא‬is the “name” (‫)את־ׁשם־יהוה‬, not hand.

The NC also lacks the requisite contextual clues to indicate that speech is in view (e.g.,

“to say,” “cry out,” “voice,” or “lips”). If the expression is not elliptical, then the basic

meaning of “bear” or perhaps even “wear” should be considered. Analogous to Aaron’s

bearing the names of the tribes and the name of YHWH on his person, Israel bore

YHWH’s name. Aaron’s “bearing the names” was not idiomatic. He physically carried

them on the ephod. For Israel the name of YHWH was not physically legible, but had

been proclaimed over them in an act of oral branding (Num 6:27; see chapter 5). Like the

placing of his name on the central sanctuary, this proclamation indicated they belonged to

him. The NC warned them not to “bear” the name ‫ יהוה אלהיך‬in vain. The inclusion of

the epithet ‫“( אלהיך‬your God”) reinforced the covenant relationship on the basis of which

this command was given. They were not to bear the name of their covenant God in vain.

LXX
We have considered the meaning of ‫ נׂשא‬in its other occurrences in the Hebrew

Bible as well as its Akkadian cognate našû, finding that in both languages the basic

meaning was “to bear” or “carry,” with a wide range of possible idiomatic uses. Ancient

Bible translations show how the earliest interpreters of the NC understood this word. The

Old Greek translations invariably render ‫ נׂשא‬in Exod 20:7 and Deut 5:11 with forms of
 145

λαμβάνω.175 For the NC, the texts of both the MT and the LXX are stable, suggesting that

‫ נׂשא‬appears in the Vorlage of the LXX. However, λαμβάνω was by no means the only

option available to translators. In other contexts, the LXX used no fewer than 99 different

Greek words to translate ‫( נׂשא‬qal).176 Like ‫נׂשא‬, λαμβάνω exhibits a broad semantic

range—it was used to translate 36 different Hebrew words.177 Of these, the most common

is ‫“( לקח‬to take”). However, λαμβάνω renders ‫ נׂשא‬157 times (Table 4 and appendix).

With words as flexible as ‫ נׂשא‬and λαμβάνω, we will do well to determine the extent of

overlap between the meanings of these two words and the other conditions under which

λαμβάνω was used to translate ‫( נׂשא‬Figure 8).178

Table 4. Translation Overlap of ‫ נׂשא‬and λαμβάνω

‫נׂשא‬ 99 Greek Words

157x

36 Hebrew Words λαμβάνω

175
“Old Greek translations” refers to the MSS represented in the Göttingen
Septuagint, including Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, collectively known for our
purposes as the LXX. On these passages see Wevers, Septuaginta: Exodus, 241; John
William Wevers, ed., Deuteronomium, Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 3/2
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977), 111; and Fridericus Field, Origenis
Hexaplorum (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 1:115, 281.
176
T. Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint
(Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2010), 283.
177
HRCS 2:847.
178
For a table including all 157 passages where λαμβάνω translates ‫נׂשא‬, see the
appendix.
 146

Both Lust and Muraoka define λαμβάνω primarily as “to take,” or “to take hold

of.”179 Most of the other possible definitions for λαμβάνω involve acquisition (to procure,

to fetch, to seize, to capture, to take in marriage, to pick up, to choose), but it can

also mean “to pronounce or utter,” “to carry,” “to overpower,” “to consider,” “to

undertake,” “to take away,” and “to remove.”180 As a translation of ‫נׂשא‬, λαμβάνω can

mean “take up [a taunt/lament]” (Ezek 19:1; Hab 2:6), “take away [a dead body]” (Amos

6:10), or “pick up [a child]” (Gen 21:18; 31:17 [e.g., to place (upon a camel)]), “to take

up” (Gen 27:3; Josh 4:8 [i.e., “pick up”]), “register [people]” (Exod 30:12; Num 3:40),181

bear [sin]
bear [name(s)]
carry [objects]
carry off [plunder]
‫נׂשא‬ take up [a lament] λαμβάνω
register [people]
show favor
take [a wife]

Figure 8. Semantic Overlap of ‫ נׂשא‬and λαμβάνω

179
Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, 423–24; Lust, Greek-English Lexicon, 276.
180
For pronunciation or utterance, Muraoka (Greek-English Lexicon, 424) lists
the NC as well as passages that talk about “lifting up a dirge” or “taking up insults.”
However, he marked this section with an asterisk, indicating uncertainty. Similarly, Lust
(Greek-English Lexicon, 276) mentions Mic 2:4, where the word refers to “taking up a
taunt.”
181
Or, “lift the head” (MT; cf. Num 4:2, 22; 26:2; 31:26, 49). According to
Delling (“λαμβάνω,” TDNT 4:6), λαβὲ (τὸ κεφάλαιον) is one of several Hebraisms in the
LXX that does not correspond to wider Greek usage.
 147

“show favor” (Mal 1:9; 2:9; Jer 52:31),182 and “take away” or “carry off” (in the sense of

seizing or stealing something; Num 16:15; 2 Kgs 5:21; Isa 8:4). Occasionally it denotes

“getting” or “receiving” (Ps 24:5 [LXX 23:5]; 82:2 [LXX 81:2]; Ecc 5:18; Hab 1:3; Zech

6:13). It can even mean “to accept” (1 Chr 21:24), “to carry” (Num 11:12; 1 Chr 15:15; 2

Chr 5:4), or “to bring” (Deut 12:26), and is consistently used in Leviticus and Numbers

for “bearing [sin/reproach/insults].”183 Most significantly, in addition to its appearance in

both versions of the NC, λαμβάνω appears in Exod 28:29 [LXX 23] for Aaron’s bearing

the names of the tribes.184

While the idea of “taking” predominates, as mentioned above, “receiving” is

attested in the Psalms and Minor Prophets. This latter sense is also present in classical

Greek for both literal and figurative expressions. In two examples from Plato, λαμβάνω

was combined with ὄνομα to mean “called by [a] name” (i.e., “take/receive/come to be

known by a name”).185 By the time of the NT, “receive” was its primary sense, especially

in “theologically significant” contexts, such as receiving glory, honor, the Spirit, grace,

etc.186 The book of Revelation contrasts the worshippers of the beast, who “receive [or

182
Lit., “lift the face” (MT); “receive the face” (LXX).
183
Leviticus 5:1, 17; 7:18; 16:22; 17:16; 19:8, 17; 22:9; 24:15; Num 5:31; 9:13;
14:34; 18:1, 22, 23, 32; 30:16.
184
See above, n. 178. This analysis is based on HRCS.
185
Plato, The Statesman, 305d (LCL, Plato, vol. 8, 175, trans. Harold N. Fowler,
emphasis mine): “quite properly called by special names” (κατὰ τὴν ἰδιότητα τῶν
πράξεων τοὔνομα δικαίως εἴληφεν ἴδιον, emphasis mine). Crasis occurred here with the
definite article and ὄνομα. Cf. Plato, Symposium, 173d (LCL, Plato, vol. 3, trans. W. R.
M. Lamb, 84–85.
186
Delling, “λαμβάνω,” TDNT 4:5–6; cf. A. Kretzer, “λαμβάνω,” EDNT 2:336.
As noted in chapter 2, Hermas speaks of baptism as “receiving” the name (εἰ μὴ λάβοι τὸ
 148

bear] the mark of his name” (τις λαμβάνει τὸ χάραγμα τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ; Rev 14:11),

with servants of God who bear his seal on their foreheads (Rev. 3:12; 7:2–3; 14:1).

In sum, while “receive” is a relatively rare meaning of λαμβάνω in the LXX, it is

sometimes appropriate for passages where it translates ‫נׂשא‬.187 Its attestation in classical

and later Greek means we cannot rule out the sense of “receive” with respect to the NC.

Plato used it to refer to the “naming” process.188 However, even more prominent in the

LXX is the sense of “carry” or “bear,” especially in the Pentateuch (and again in Ezekiel)

which often speaks of bearing sin. Ultimately we cannot know whether the translators of

the LXX saw the name of God as something Israel received or something she

carried/bore (or both), but either sense fits the interpretation advocated here. λαμβάνω

never refers to taking an oath in any corpus,189 and only concerns an utterance when other

clear contextual clues are present (e.g., “take up a lament”).190 The prevailing tendency of

the LXX to translate ‫ נׂשא‬as λαμβάνω for carrying objects, carrying off plunder, bearing

sin, and Aaron’s bearing the names suggests that the LXX NC would have conveyed this

sense for ancient readers.

ὄνομα τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ; Herm. Sim. 9.12.4; 89.4, cf. 8), alluding to the NC (Herm. Sim.
9.13.2; 90:2). Cf. BDAG 583–85; Osiek, Shepherd of Hermas, 235, 238.
187
Delling, “λαμβάνω,” 4:6.
188
See p.155 above.
189
In two cases a minor textual emendation (from ‫ נׁשא‬to ‫ )נׂשא‬would result in
someone “taking up an imprecation” (1 Kgs 8:31; 2 Chr 6:22), but the context makes
clear that curses are in view. λαμβάνω was apparently not used for oath taking in
Classical Greek.
190
Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 6) agrees that λαμβάνω is not a
verbum dicendi, but its semantic range includes “lifting” or “bearing.”
 149
Aramaic Targums
The Targumic translations of both versions of the NC exhibit typical

characteristics. As demonstrated below, in most cases a fairly literal translation of the

Hebrew was supplemented with additional material. Sometimes a single word—usually

‫ נׂשא‬or ‫—ׁשוא‬was replaced. This is not surprising, since these two words carry the most

freight semantically in this verse and are subject to such a wide range of interpretations.

Table 5. MT and Targum Onqelos (Exod 20:7)191

‫ לא תׂשא את־ׁשם־יהוה אלהיך לׁשוא‬TM
‫בׁשמא דיוי אלהך למגנא‬ ‫ לא תימי‬MT
‫לא ינקה יהוה את אׁשר־יׂשא את־ׁשמו לׁשוא׃‬ ‫ כי‬TM
‫בׁשמיה לׁשקרא׃‬ ‫דיימי‬ ‫ית‬ ‫יוי‬ ‫ ארי לא יזכי‬MT

Targum Onqelos (ca. 50–150 CE), the oldest and least expansive of the Targums,

reads ‫“( ימי‬to say, swear”) for ‫ נׂשא‬and ‫“( ׁשקר‬false”) for the second occurrence of ‫ ׁשוא‬in

Exod 20:7 (Table 5).192 These substitutions disambiguate the verse considerably by

narrowing its field of reference to false and unnecessary swearing.193 The translation fits

the characterization of Onqelos given by Flesher and Chilton, who observe that though

Onqelos typically contains no expansions, it tends not to give the most literal rendering of

191
Critical text according to Alexander Sperber, ed., The Bible in Aramaic Based
on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts, Vol. 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum
Onkelos (Leiden: Brill, 1959), 122. Aside from morphological differences, the same text
is presented by A. Berliner, ed., Targum Onkelos (Berlin: Gorzelanczyk, 1884), 82.
192
Interestingly, the first occurrence of ‫ ׁשוא‬in this verse is rendered ‫מגן‬, which
literally means “for nothing, in vain,” while the second is ‫“( ׁשקר‬lie, falsehood”). Michael
Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period,
Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 2 (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan University
Press, 1990), 291, 565. Cf. Jastrow 580, 729.
193
So also Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 8.
 150

the Hebrew.194 Clearly the translator understood Exod 20:7 as an injunction against false

swearing.

Table 6. MT and Targum Neofiti (Exod 20:7)195

‫לׁשוא‬ ‫את־ׁשם־יהוה אלהיך‬ ‫לא תׂשא‬ MT
‫על־מגן‬ ‫אלהיה‬ ‫גבר מנכון ית ׁשמה דייי‬ ‫עמי בני יׁשראל לא יסב‬ TN
‫לׁשוא׃‬ ‫אׁשר־יׂשא את־ׁשמו‬ ‫את‬ ‫לא ינקה יהוה‬ ‫ כי‬MT
‫ׁשמה דייי אלהיה על־מגן ׃‬ ‫ארום לא מזכי ייי ביום דינא רבא ית מן די יסב‬ TN

The next oldest are the Palestinian Targums (ca. 200–300 CE), including both

Neofiti and the so-called Fragmentary Targums. Neofiti’s “painstakingly literal

translation” preserves the ambiguity of the original Hebrew, and supplements it just as it

does elsewhere (Table 6).196 Rather than using a verb for “swearing,” Neofiti employs the

more precise ‫“( נסב‬to lift up, take, carry, or bear”) in Exod 20:7.197 The most significant

addition is “on the great day of judgment,” which explains why immediate punishment is

not evident for violations of the NC.

194
Paul Flesher and Bruce Chilton, The Targums: A Critical Introduction (Waco,
TX: Baylor University Press, 2011), 83.
195
Critical text according to Alejandro Díez Macho, trans., Neophyti 1: Targum
Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Tomo II: Éxodo, Textos y Estudios Consejo
de Redacción 8 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1970), 129.
Tg. Neofiti on Deuteronomy is almost identical, except for “man” (‫)אנׁש‬, the transposition
of the particle ‫ ית‬from line 1 to 2, and the replacement of “his God” (‫ )אלהיה‬in line 2 with
“holy” (‫)קדיׁשה‬. See Alejandro Díez Macho, trans., Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS
de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Tomo V: Deuteronomio, Textos y Estudios 11 (Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1978), 59.
196
Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 75.
197
Jastrow 915. Sokoloff (Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 352–53)
lists “to take, to remove, to receive, to marry, or to buy.”
 151

The Fragment Targums are more expansive, as one might expect, since they

anthologize Targumic readings that diverge from the Hebrew Bible. In spite of the variety

of extant expansions, these fragments seem to “share a tradition of common translation,”

as Flesher and Chilton suggest.198 However, they differ from Neofiti by reading “swear”

(either ‫ׁשבע‬, ‫ימי‬, or both) for ‫ נׂשא‬and by providing justification for the command.199

Table 7. MT and Pseudo-Jonathan (Exod 20:7)200

‫אלהיך לׁשוא‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫את־ׁשם־‬ ‫לא תׂשא‬ MT
‫אלקכון על מגן‬201 ‫עמי בני יׁשראל לא יׁשתבע חד מנכון בׁשום מימריה דייי‬ PJ
‫אׁשר־יׂשא את־ׁשמו לׁשוא׃‬ ‫את‬ ‫לא ינקה יהוה‬ ‫כי‬ MT
‫ארום לא מזכי ייי ביום דינא רבא ית כל מאן דמׁשתבע בׁשמיה על מגן׃‬ PJ

The latest of the Targums, known as Pseudo-Jonathan (ca. 300–400 CE), includes

elements of both Targumic streams in its translation of Exod 20:7, as it typically does

elsewhere (Table 7).202 First, Pseudo-Jonathan retains the interpretive specification of

swearing found in Onqelos and the Fragment Targums. Second, Pseudo-Jonathan

incorporates Neofiti’s additions (“My children, people of Israel” and the reference to “the

198
Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 81.
199
Critical text according to Michael L. Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the
Pentateuch according to their Extant Sources, AnBib (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980),
76:2:84; Michael L. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the
Pentateuch (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), 1:267, 277.
200
Critical text according to David Rieder, ed., Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum
Jonathan Ben Uziel on the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Salomon’s, 1974), 112.
201
‫ אלקא‬was an alternate form of ‫( ֱאלֹוה‬Jastrow, 73).
202
Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 88.
 152

great day of judgment”). Its avoidance of anthropomorphism is more pronounced than

other Targums; memra separates name and YHWH (Table 7).203

Table 8. MT and Samaritan Targum (Exod 20:7)204

‫לא תׂשא את־ׁשם־יהוה אלהיך לׁשוא‬ TM
‫לא תסבל ית שם יהוה אלהך למגן‬ TM
‫לא ינקה יהוה את אׁשר־יׂשא את־ׁשמו לׁשוא׃‬ ‫כי‬ TM
‫ית שמה למגן׃‬ ‫דיסבל‬ ‫הלא לא יזכי יהוה ית‬ TM

A final text that must be considered is the Samaritan Targum to the Pentateuch

(ST). For the NC, the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) reflects MT exactly (Table 8).205

However, since the ST shows no evidence of influence from other Targumic traditions in

either direction, it offers an independent witness to the meaning of the NC.206 As

elsewhere in the ST, here we find a “highly literal” translation of the Hebrew, without

expansion or transposition.207 The only substitution is the demonstrative pronoun ‫הלא‬

203
Implying that to speak YHWH’s name would be presumptuous, but to refer to
the “name of the word of YHWH” was acceptable, as long as one did not do it in vain.
204
The two extant MSS for the ST, J and A, are identical for Exod 20:7, except
that A lacks the particle ‫ ית‬to represent the direct object marker preceding “one who
bears” in line 2. Critical text according to Abraham Tal, The Samaritan Targum of the
Pentateuch: A Critical Edition; Part 1: Genesis, Exodus, Texts and Studies in the
Hebrew Language and Related Subjects (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1980), IV:302–
3. MS J of Deut 5:11 is identical to J of Exod 20:7. See Abraham Tal, The Samaritan
Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition; Part 2: Leviticus, Numeri,
Deuteronomium, Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related Subjects (Tel-
Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1981), V:321.
205
Critical text according to Abraham Tal and Moshe Florentin, eds., The
Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and the Masoretic Version (Tel Aviv: The Haim
Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2010), 254–55, 538–39.
206
See Flesher and Chilton, The Targums, 126.
207
See ibid., 347. Abraham Tal (“The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch,” in
Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient
 153

(“this one”) for the conjunction ‫כי‬, creating a resumptive expression.208 For ‫נׂשא‬, the ST

has the conceptual equivalent ‫“( סבל‬to carry, bear, or support”), which in the Hebrew

Bible always refers to a burden, or the act of bearing a burden.209 The resulting

translation is as follows: “You shall not bear the name of YHWH your God in vain, [for]

this one YHWH will not acquit, [one] who bears his name in vain” [AT].

In sum, the Targums preserve at least two interpretive traditions for the NC. One,

represented by Onqelos, the Fragment Targums, and PJ, construes the verse more

narrowly as an injunction against false oaths. The other, preserved independently by

Neofiti and the ST, retains the breadth of the MT and suggests (or at least allows for) the

representational reading in which YHWH’s name must not be carried in vain.

Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Mulder [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004],
201) suggests that the “ʻslavish’ literalness” sometimes veils “subtle midrashic
interpretations,” indicating that the translators were more adept than some have thought.
208
‫ הלא‬is an “affirmative particle,” according to Sokoloff (Dictionary of Jewish
Palestinian Aramaic, 165). Jastrow (352) takes ‫ הלא‬as a variant of ‫הלה‬.
209
‫ סבל‬appears 20x in the MT. Twice ‫ סבל‬appears where we might expect ‫נׂשא‬,
speaking of the “bearing of iniquity” (Isa 53:11; Lam 5:7). ‫ סבל‬is further associated with
‫ נׂשא‬in 1 Kgs 5:29 and Neh 4:11 (men who “carry burdens”; ‫ ;)נׂשא סבל‬and Isa 53:4
(where ‫ נׂשא‬parallels ‫)סבל‬. Occasionally the LXX leaves ‫ סבל‬untranslated or subsumes it
in an idiomatic expression (2 Chr 2:1; Isa 9:3; 10:27; 14:25; 46:4a, 7; 53:4). Three times
‫ סבל‬is translated ἄρσις (1 Kgs 5:29; 11:28; Ps 81:7 [LXX 80:7]), and once νωτοφόρων
(“one who carries on the back”; 2 Chr 2:17). Cf. 2 Kgs 8:9, where ἄρσις translates ‫מׂשא‬
(“load” or “burden”). In Isa 46:4, YHWH twice “carries” Israel, using the verbal form of
‫סבל‬. The second of these is translated by ἀναλαμβάνω, providing another possible
analogy with the NC, where ‫ נׂשא‬becomes λαμβάνω.
 154
Syriac Peshitta
The Syriac Peshitta (ca. 150 CE) draws on the first of these Jewish exegetical

traditions by narrowing the reference of Exod 20:7 to oaths.210 A literal translation is as

follows: “You shall not swear by the name of the Lord your God in falsehood” [lʾ ymy

bšm dy mry ʾlh bdglw].211 This reading obviously interprets the Hebrew ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬as an

idiom meaning to “take an oath” (Syr. ymʾ), which is not surprising given the flexibility

demonstrated by Syriac translators.212

Latin Vulgate
The NC provides an interesting exemplar of Jerome’s translation method in the

Latin Vulgate. The Pentateuchal books were among the last that Jerome translated, and so

exhibit a freer style than his earlier work. Therefore, we should not be too surprised by

the differences between his translations of Exod 20:7 and Deut 5:11.213 His free rendering

employs different Latin words for ‫נׂשא‬, ‫ׁשוא‬, and ‫( נקה‬Table 9). In fact, stylistic variety is

evident even within a single passage; Exod 20:7 and Deut 5:11 each contains two

210
While the exact time and location of the Syriac translation is debated, Jewish
exegetical influence on the Peshitta Pentateuch is widely recognized. Here, as elsewhere
in the Pentateuch, the LXX shows no influence, and the reading matches Tg. Onq. See
Peter B. Dirksen, “The Old Testament Peshitta,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading
and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed.
Martin Mulder (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004), 260, 277, 279, 284.
211
Translation from the critical text: The Old Testament in Syriac according to
the Peshitta Version, The Peshitta Institute (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 1:163.
212
See Dirksen, “The Old Testament Peshitta,” 259. For this meaning of ymʾ, see
J. Payne Smith, ed., A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1998), 193.
213
The latter half of the NC is quite different; only three of the thirteen words
from Exod 20:7b recur in Deut 5:11b, and these in a different order.
 155

different Latin expressions for ‫ׁשוא‬.214 While Jerome followed the Old Latin in the first

half of Exod 20:7, he reworked the rest of the verse.215

Table 9. Latin Vulgate of the NC216

Exodus 20:7 Deuteronomy 5:11
non adsumes nomen Domini Dei tui in vanum non usurpabis nomen Domini Dei tui frustra
nec enim habebit insontem Dominus eum quia non erit inpunitus
qui adsumpserit nomen Domini Dei sui frustra qui super re vana nomen eius adsumpserit

The Exodus version preserves the breadth of the MT (“You shall not assume217

the name of the Lord your God in vain”), while the version in Deuteronomy comes closer

to an oral interpretation of the command (“You shall not employ218 the name of the Lord

214
Both vanus and frustra can mean either “empty” or “false.” Frustra appears
second in Exod 20:7 and first in Deut 5:11, while vanus occupies the other place. On
Jerome’s preference for stylistic variety, see Michael Graves, “Vulgate,” in Textual
History of the Bible, ed. Emanuel Tov and Armin Lange (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
215
The Old Latin of Exod 20:7 reads “non assumes nomen Dei tui in vanum : non
enim mundabit eum Dominus qui sumit nomen ejus in vanum.” See Pierre Sabatier,
Bibliorum Sacrorum latinæ versiones antiquæ seu Vetus Italica (Regis Typographum &
Bibliopolam, 1743). Old Latin lacks Deuteronomy 5:11.
216
Critical text according to Robertus Weber and Roger Gryson, eds., Biblia
Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatum Versionem, 5th ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007).
The Douay Rheims of 1609 is identical (except qui became gui; Swift Edgar, ed., The
Vulgate Bible, Vol. 1: The Pentateuch, Douay Rheims Translation, Dumbarton Oaks
Medieval Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 380–81, 904–5).
217
Pliny the Younger (61–114 CE; Letters, 4.15.3 [Bibliotheca Teubneriana,
Schuster, 1952]) wrote of a good citizen who “assumed the name of his grandfather”
(avi quoque nomen assumpsit) in spite of their differences. Accessed with Perseus 6/7/13.
Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 10) translates adsumes as heranziehen (“use”),
hinzunehmen (“accept”), or zu Hilfe nehmen (“utilize”).
218
That is, vocally. So Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 10. Cicero (106–
43 BCE; In Verrum 5.162 [Peterson, Oxford Classical Texts, 1917]) wrote of a man
being beaten who made repeated entreaties to his Roman citizenship (“he employed
[usurpo] the name [of his] city”; sed cumimploraret saepius usurparetque nomen
civitatis). Accessed on Perseus 6/7/2013: Cicero. M. Tvlli Ciceronis Orationes: Divinatio
in Q. Caecilivm. In C. Verrem Recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit
 156

your God for nothing”). In spite of these differences, assumo reappears in Deut 5:11b,

linking the meanings more tightly. In the end, both of Jerome’s versions of the NC allow

for a representational interpretation. Indeed, they convey this possibility more clearly

than any modern-day English translations.

Summary of Findings on ‫נׂשא‬

This study of ‫נׂשא‬, including its idiomatic uses, its Akkadian cognate (našû), its

collocation with ‫ׁשם‬, and its rendering in the earliest translations (LXX [λαμβάνω], the

Samaritan Targum, Neofiti, and the Latin Vulgate), suggests the meaning “to bear” or

“carry,” or possibly “receive.” Only in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Onqelos, the Fragment

Targums, and the Peshitta was ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬clearly taken as an idiom meaning “to swear.”

The idea that a name could be borne is plausible, given the similar meaning of cognate

words in Aramaic, Akkadian, Greek, and Latin. In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ נׂשא‬never refers to

oath taking, and never refers to speech without explicit contextual cues.

‫ׁשוא‬
‫ ׁשוא‬occurs 53 times in the Hebrew Bible, including 36 times as an unprefixed

noun,219 and once as a proper name (1 Chr 2:49).220 It is most common in the latter

Gvlielmvs Peterson Rector Vniversitatis MacGillianae. William Peterson. Oxford. e

Typographeo Clarendoniano. 1917. Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis.
219
This total includes occurrences where it appears in construct or is linked with a
direct object marker, but without a prefix.
220
If a verbal form of ‫ ׁשוא‬exists, it may mean deception or the exaction of tribute.
Linguists are unsure of the proper root of the form ‫ י ִׁשא‬in Ps 89:23 or ‫ י ִׁשי‬in Ps 55:16, so
either might be irrelevant to this study. See HALOT 2:1424–25. For a few interpretive
options, see deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner, Psalms, 677; Mitchell Dahood,
Psalms II: 51–100, AB (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968), 317.
 157

prophets, Job, and Psalms. Though ‫ ׁשוא‬is technically a substantive, when prefixed with a

lamed preposition it can have an adverbial sense.221

The meaning of the unprefixed noun ranges from “emptiness”222 or

“ineffectiveness,”223 to “falseness,”224 concepts that are not mutually exclusive. In the

context of interpersonal, legal disputes, ‫ ׁשוא‬describes a testimony with no grounding in

reality (Exod 23:1; Deut 5:20; Isa 59:4; Ps 35:17).225 Six times ‫ ׁשוא‬appears in construct

with ‫ דבר‬to indicate unreliable speech (Isa 59:4; Ezek 13:8; Ps 12:3; 41:7; 144:8, 11).226

The word is often found in parallel with speech-related terms that mean “falsehood” or

221
On the adverbial sense of the lamed prefix, see IBHS 11.2.10d (e.g., 1 Kgs 5:5;
Gen 30:30; 2 Sam 18:5; Isa 8:6). HALOT 1:509 lists several examples, all from the
Pentateuch, of adverbial expressions where lamed is prefixed to a noun (e.g., Gen 33:14;
Exod 24:10). A clear example of an adverbial lamed is found in Lev 25:18, where the
Israelites are encouraged to carry out faithfully God’s commands, “so that you may dwell
upon the land securely (‫)לבטח‬.” Curiously, DCH includes no comparable category.
Perhaps the adverbial sense is carried primarily by semantics rather than syntax.
222
Job 7:3; Job 15:31; 35:13 (perhaps ineffective here); Ps 119:37 (worthless); Isa
30:28 (worthlessness; i.e., chaff); Hos 10:4; 12:12 (worthless).
223
Ps 60:13[11]; 89:48[47]; 108:13[12]; 127:1–2; Isa 1:13; Mal 3:14. Shepherd
(“‫ׁשוא‬,” NIDOTTE 4:53–55) sees “ineffectiveness and falseness” as the most basic senses
of the word.
224
Usually in relation to speech: Exod 23:1; Deut 5:20; Job 11:11; 31:5; Ps 12:3;
26:4; 41:7; 144:8, 11; Prov 30:8; Isa 59:4. In Ezekiel ‫ ׁשוא‬refers to false visions or
oracles—that is, visions YHWH has not given and oracles he has not spoken: Ezek
12:24; 13:6–9; 13:23; 21:28; 21:34; 22:28. Cf. Lam 2:14.
225
Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 48) argues the NC is not strictly legal
because of the (theological) prohibition of foreign gods in the immediate context.
226
Markl (Der Dekalog als Verfassung des Gottesvolkes, 112) suggests that ‫ׁשוא‬
always connotes a particular use of language (e.g., dishonesty, falsehood, futility). He
cites Isa 59:4; Hos 10:4; Zech 10:2; Ps 41:7; 144:8, 11; and Prov 30:8. However, his
examples all contain contextual clues that require speech. In Ezek 13:8 ‫ ׁשוא‬was
“spoken”: “Because you have spoken emptiness [‫ ]דברכם ׁשוא‬and envisioned lies.” Psalm
12:3[2] (‫ )ׁשוא ידברו‬explicitly mentions speech as well.
 158

outright “deception” (Ezek 13:7; Ps 24:4; 144:8, 11; Prov 30:8; Job 31:5). However,

many occurrences have nothing to do with speaking. For example, Job lamented “months

of emptiness” (‫ ;ירחי־ׁשוא‬7:3), while Isaiah castigated the Israelites for bringing “futile

offerings” (‫ ;מנחת־ׁשוא‬1:13).227 Two passages refer to men who are characterized by ‫ׁשוא‬

(‫ ;מתי־ׁשוא‬Job 11:11; Ps 26:4).

‫ ׁשוא‬often means futile, useless, or empty (Job 7:3; 15:31; 35:13; Ps 89:48; 60:13

[11]; 108:13 [12]; Jer 46:11). Lamentations and Ezekiel are concerned with so-called

visions or prophecies that are not based on true revelation. These fabricated prophecies

are therefore “false” or “empty” (Lam 2:14; Ezek 12:24; 13:7, 9, 23; 21:28–29; 22:28;

Zech 10:2), even when made in YHWH’s name (Ezek 13:6; 22:28).

Twice ‫ ׁשוא‬refers to an idol, both times in construct with ‫( הבל‬Ps 31:7[6]; Jon 2:9).

The collocation with ‫ הבל‬may reflect the notion that an idol is only a “breath of

emptiness” or a “wasted breath.”228 Dahood claimed extensive evidence for “idol” as part

of the semantic range of ‫ׁשוא‬.229 However, nowhere does nominal ‫ ׁשוא‬indisputably mean

227
Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 49) explains, “Since the inner attitude
of the sacrifice does not match the outer actions, YHWH rejects this sacrifice. Therefore,
these offerings are ultimately without effect.” See also Isa 5:18; 30:28; Mal 3:14; Ps
60:13; 208:13; 127:1–2; Mal 3:14. The division between thinking, speaking, and doing is
artificial. When ‫ ׁשוא‬refers to lying, it implies “far more than theoretical disagreement,
but also practical harmfulness” (Klopfenstein, Die Lüge, 319, AT).
228
‫ חבל‬is paired with ‫“( לֹא־אל‬non-gods”) in Deut 32:21. See Reiterer, “‫ׁשוא‬,”
TDOT 14:458. So also Elßner (ibid., 52–53), who concludes that by itself ‫ ׁשוא‬means
ineffective or worthless.
229
Dahood, Psalms I, 151. Hamilton (“‫ׁשוא‬,” TWOT 2:908) argues that because
idols are “unsubstantial” and “unreal,” idolatry is an appropriate translation in Ps 24:4.
See also Shepherd, “‫ׁשוא‬,” NIDOTTE 4:53–55.
 159

idol without ‫הבל‬.230 Every example listed in DCH under ‫ ׁשוא‬as “idol” or “image” is

followed by a parenthetical note suggesting another possible meaning. For example, Ps

119:37, “Turn my eyes from seeing ‫ׁשוא‬,” could be translated “vanity” or “worthlessness”

rather than “idol.” The “men of ‫ ”ׁשוא‬in Psalm 26:4 could be “dishonest men” rather than

“men who worship idols.”231 This possibility should caution us against reading ‫ ׁשוא‬as

idol without additional contextual support.

Mowinckel suggested that ‫ ׁשוא‬means “evil knitted by magic” because

expressions for devious activity sometimes occur in parallel with ‫ׁשוא‬, and because

possible Arabic and Ethiopic cognates carry malicious overtones.232 His prime example

was Isa 5:18, where ‫ חבלים‬supposedly corresponds to knotted cords used for magic in the

ANE.233 Admittedly, when ‫ ׁשוא‬appears in parallel with negative words such as

falsehood, deceit, dishonesty, violence, worthlessness, and iniquity, it connotes

duplicity.234 However, to insist on a magical nuance is excessive. For Mowinckel’s thesis

230
So Reiterer (“‫ׁשוא‬,” TDOT 14:450, 459), who suggests that ‫ ׁשוא‬describes the
foreign gods rather than designating an “idol.” This could also be the case in Jer 18:15;
while the collocation of ‫ ׁשוא‬with piel ‫ קטר‬makes idolatry likely, the phrase ‫ לׁשוא‬could
be translated, “to what is worthless.” In other words, ‫ ׁשוא‬could designate the idols in a
derogatory way rather than directly identifying them. In Job 31:5, ‫ ׁשוא‬could easily mean
“falsehood” rather than “idol” (ibid., 14:452; contra Dahood, Psalms I, 151).
231
DCH 8:271. Other examples given are Sir 15:7, Ps 24:4, and Job 31:5, all of
which could mean “falsehood.”
232
Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I, 50–57, esp. 52, AT. See above, p. 18 n. 21.
Though Mowinckel’s work is dated, it continues to be cited as the definitive work on the
meaning of ‫ׁשוא‬. In Ps 35:17, ‫ מׁשאיהם‬is usually translated with this malicious sense
(“ravages,” NRSV, NIV; “attacks,” NET, NJPS), but the context allows for a meaning in
keeping with other uses of ‫ׁשוא‬. Verse 20 speaks of deception or false accusations.
233
Ibid., 51, AT.
234
For specifics, see DCH 8:271.
 160

to stand, inextricable linkage between deception and devious magic spells is required, but

this connection is lacking in all the passages he cites.235 Furthermore, his proposed

etymologies cannot bear the weight of his interpretation; whatever its etymology,

ultimately the sense of ‫ ׁשוא‬must be determined by its context.236

Klopfenstein suggested a range of meanings for ‫ׁשוא‬, from “evil” to “emptiness,”

with “lies” and “deceit” between those extremes. In legal texts the focus is on lying,

while in prophetic texts the context determines whether ‫ ׁשוא‬leans toward “evil” or

merely “empty.”237 However, Klopfenstein’s discussion is as circular as Mowinckel’s. He

assumes the sense of a word can be wholly determined by parallel words in poetic

texts.238

Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien I, 56–57. While some accept Mowinckel’s

235

argument (e.g., HALOT 2:1425–26), others are unconvinced. See Shepherd, “‫ׁשוא‬,”
NIDOTTE 4:54; Reiterer, “‫ׁשוא‬,” TDOT 14:447–60. Schüngel-Straumann (Der Dekalog,
97) finds Mowinckel’s argument plausible, but includes magic among other misuses of
YHWH’s name, such as empty worship, false swearing, or unauthorized preaching, even
though each requires a different nuance for ‫ׁשוא‬. Philologically speaking, her view is
indefensible. Though Klopfenstein (Die Lüge, 315) agrees with Mowinckel’s etymology,
he finds many of his specific claims unconvincing.
236
On the over-emphasis on etymology in modern lexicons, see James Barr,
Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968),
115; Lothar Kopf, “Das arabische Wörterbuch als Hilfsmittel für die hebräische
Lexikographie,” VT 6:3 (1956): 286–302.
237
Klopfenstein, Die Lüge, 317. Cf. Reiterer, “‫ׁשוא‬,” TDOT 14:452.
238
For example, Klopfenstein (Die Lüge, 315–16) cites Job 11:11 and Ps 26:4 as
evidence that ‫ ׁשוא‬means “magic” because of the parallels, “men of emptiness” and
“pretenders.” Since magic is hidden and these men are evil, Klopfenstein concludes they
must be practicing magic. Similarly, Ps 41:7 refers to “magical mischief” simply because
‫ ׁשוא‬and “mischief” appear together. However, parallelism cannot guarantee the semantic
equivalence of paired words. See Barr, Comparative Philology, 278–79.
Sawyer (“‫ׁשוא‬,” TLOT 3:1310–12) rejects both extremes of Klopfenstein’s
spectrum (“evil” or “empty”), preferring a more generic connotation of “deceit” or
“falseness.” So also Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die
 161

‫ ׁשוא‬occurs with a lamed prefix in both versions of the NC (Exod 20:7; Deut

5:11), twice in the Psalms (Ps 24:4; 139:20), and five times in Jeremiah (2:30; 4:30; 6:29;

18:15; 46:11). This lamed-construction results in a prepositional phrase with an adverbial

sense, specifying the manner in which something is done. The occurrences of this

syntactical construction in Jeremiah are less ambiguous than Psalms, and therefore more

helpful in discerning the semantic range of ‫לשוא‬. Their subject matter also compares

favorably with the NC. Jeremiah 2:30 (cf. 6:29) describes the ineffectiveness of YHWH’s

discipline: “In vain [‫ ]לשוא‬I have struck your sons; they accepted no chastening.” It has

not had its desired effect. Similarly, Jeremiah 4:30 describes the futility of Israel’s

pandering to other lovers: “In vain [‫ ]לשוא‬you make yourself beautiful; lovers despise

you.” After YHWH has judged the Egyptians, their remedies are said to be ‫( לשוא‬Jer

46:11). Here as elsewhere, the sense of ‫ לשוא‬seems to be “ineffective” or “for naught.”239

An idolatrous, malicious, or magical sense for ‫ לשוא‬does not work in these passages. The

two psalms that collocate ‫ נׂשא‬and ‫ לשוא‬are difficult to interpret and will be discussed in

an excursus at the end of this chapter. Neither the NC nor these enigmatic psalms offers

originale Komposition und seine Vorstufen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982),
77; Childs, Book of Exodus, 411; Schmidt, Die Zehn Gebote, 83. Görg (“Missbrauch des
Gottesnamens,” 17) associates ‫ ׁשוא‬with the Egyptian šwi, “to be empty,” which
corresponds well with the meaning of ‫ ׁשוא‬in many biblical passages and rules out a
magical interpretation. Still, although we lack clear evidence that ‫ ׁשוא‬means “magic” in
the NC, magical practices would also be inappropriate for those who proportedly bear
YHWH’s name. Cf. Sawyer, “‫ׁשוא‬,” TLOT 3:1311; Schmidt, Die Zehn Gebote, 83.

Usually translated “in vain.” So also Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot,

239

49–50, who notes that ‫ לשוא‬is fronted for emphasis. On Jer 18:15, see above, p. 48.
 162

any contextual support for idolatry or magic.240 On this basis, we can conclude that in the

NC YHWH warns his people not to bear his name “ineffectively” or “falsely” (i.e.,

hypocritically).241 This interpretation comports well with occurrences of ‫ שוא‬in Exod

23:1 and Deut 5:20, which describe a report or testimony that has no basis in reality.

Israel’s representation of YHWH must not be duplicitous or empty.

LXX
The LXX always reads the prefixed form ‫ לׁשוא‬as ἐπὶ ματαίῳ. The range of

meaning for μάταιος (an adjective) corresponds closely with ‫ׁשוא‬, including empty, false

or deceptive, and ineffective.242 Like ‫ׁשוא‬, μάταιος can refer to idols (i.e., “vain things,”

plural), since idols are without substance (see Lev 17:7; Ezek 8:10; Jon 2:9; 2 Chr 11:15),

but only when other contextual indicators of idolatry are present.243

240
Reiterer (“‫ׁשוא‬,” TDOT 14:450) agrees that the context offers no support for
reading ‫ לשוא‬as idolatry. Based on parallelism, VanGemeren (“Psalms,” EBC 5:260)
suggests that Ps 24:4 condemns dishonesty, rather than idolatry.
241
Although ‫ ׁשוא‬can mean “false,” it only describes false oaths once: Hosea 10:4
condemns ‫“( אלות ׁשוא‬false/empty oaths”), covenants that are all talk and no
commitment. References to false oaths typically involve ‫( ׁשקר‬Exod 20:16; Lev 5:22;
Zech 8:17; cf. Ps 144:8). For example, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Aramaic Inscriptions of
Sefire, Biblica et Orientalia 19 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967), 99, III 14b–17.
242
Muraoka (Greek-English Lexicon, 443) defines μάταιος as “meaningless,
worthless, lacking in substance, counterfeit, false, irreverent, and frivolous.” Lust (Greek-
English Lexicon, 291) also includes “vain.” On deception, see Bauernfeind, “μάταιος,”
TDNT 4:519–24. Klopfenstein (Die Lüge, 320) criticized the LXX μάταιος for ‫ׁשוא‬
because it prejudiced later generations to interpret it as “vain” rather than “lying.”
However, both connotations are possible for μάταιος.
243
See Lust, Greek-English Lexicon, 291. μάταιος often has this sense, suggesting
a later development whereby “vain things” became a frozen designation for idols. LSJ
(1084) identifies three classical senses for μάταιος: (1) “vain, empty, idle”; (2) “rash,
irreverent, profane”; and (3) “idly, without ground” (used adverbially). Idols do not
appear on their list.
 163
Other Ancient Translations
The Targums often translate ‫ לׁשוא‬as ‫מגן‬, which means “for nothing,” or “in

vain.”244 However, in Targum Onqelos ‫“( לׁשקרא‬falsely”) appears in place of the second

‫לׁשוא‬. Similarly, the Syriac bglwtʾ explicitly means “in falsehood,”245 emphasizing the

deception involved in breaking the command.246 As mentioned above, the Vulgate uses

two Latin expressions for ‫ׁשוא‬, probably for stylistic reasons. Both Latin words (vanus

and frustra) can mean either “empty” or “false.” Frustra appears second in Exod 20:7

and first in Deut 5:11, while vanus occupies the other place. Either term captures the

Hebrew sense reasonably well.247

In short, from ancient times interpreters recognized the basic sense of ‫ לׁשוא‬as

“false, empty, or ineffective.” Some emphasized the deceptive aspect of breaking the

command, while others employed a more general word to indicate ineffectiveness or

emptiness. None of these translations specified a magical, a malicious, or an idolatrous

sense for ‫ׁשוא‬. Lacking other contextual clues, these meanings are unlikely. For Israel to

bear YHWH’s name ‫ לׁשוא‬was to bear it ineffectively or falsely—that is, as those who

claimed to belong to him but whose conduct was inconsistent with this claim. A claim to

covenantal membership without faithfulness to covenant stipulations was “empty.”

244
Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 291. Jeremiah 4:30, 6:29,
18:15, and 46:11 have ‫“( לא להנאה‬without benefit”) instead.
245
Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 83.
246
Syriac Peshitta, 163.
247
So also Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 9.
 164
‫נקה‬
Although ‫ נקה‬relates to the absolution of guilt, it is not a cultic word. It never

appears in discussions of guilt and/or cleansing from sin in Leviticus, Ezekiel, or

Chronicles, where we might expect it.248 Rather, ‫ נקה‬involves moral innocence or

blamelessness in a legal setting. The one set of occurrences that could be considered

“ritualistic” retains this moral/legal tone (Num 5:19, 28, 31); a woman not guilty of

adultery could prove her innocence by undergoing an ordeal. If she was found guilty, her

husband was declared innocent (‫ )נקה‬but she must “bear her sin” (‫ ;תׂשא את־עונה‬Num

5:31). The verb occurs in both piel and niphal stems; while the latter describes the state

of exemption, the piel involves a declaration or denial of such an exemption.

The verb ‫( נקה‬44x) and its related adjective ‫( נקי‬43x) can refer to freedom or

exemption from the consequences of an oath (Gen 24:8, 41; cf. Josh 2:17–20).249 But the

range of offenses that will or will not be exempt from punishment is broader than this.

The adjective describes freedom from obligation to warfare or work (Num 32:22; Deut

24:5; cf. 1 Kgs 15:22) or freedom from punishment for theft or ownership of an ox who

gored someone to death (Gen 44:10; Exod 21:28). More than half the adjectival uses can

be translated “innocent,” either innocent in general,250 or “innocent blood” in reference to

248
Of its 44 occurrences in the Hebrew Bible, 25 are niphal and 18 are piel, with
only one qal. For studies of the word, see Van Leeuwen, “‫נקה‬,” TLOT 2:764; Warmuth,
“‫נָ ָקה‬,” TDOT 9:553–63; J. P. J. Olivier, “‫ נקה‬,” NIDOTTE 3:152–54; Hoftijzer and
Jongeling, “nqy1,” DNWSI 757.
249
So Propp, Exodus 19–40, 174.
250
The occurrences in Job fall in this category: Job 4:7; 9:23; 17:8; 22:19; 22:30;
27:17. Also Exod 23:7; Pss 2:8; 15:5; 24:4; 94:21; Prov 1:11.
 165

one unjustly killed.251 “Innocent” is a prominent meaning in the DH, latter prophets, and

wisdom, but is absent in the first four books of the Pentateuch.252

In Proverbs, a range of guilty behavior “will not be rendered innocent” (‫)לא ינקה‬,

including adultery (6:29), evil (11:21), pride (16:5), false witness (19:5, 9), greed (28:20),

and gloating over someone else’s misfortune (17:5).253 In Jeremiah 25:29, YHWH

announced his coming wrath to the nations, telling them, “I am beginning to work

disaster on the city over which my name is proclaimed (‫)נקרא־ׁשמי עליה‬, so shall you be

rendered completely innocent (‫ ?)הנקה תנקו‬You will not be declared innocent (‫)לא תנקו‬

because I am calling for a sword against all the inhabitants of the earth.” If the

punishment for sin extends even to those who belong to YHWH and bear his name, then

the nations will certainly not be exempt.254

Most significantly, YHWH revealed himself as one “who bears iniquity and

transgression and sin” (‫)נׂשא עון ופׁשע וחטאה‬, but nevertheless “does not render [the

guilty] innocent” (‫ ;ונקה לא ינקה פקד‬Exod 34:7; Table 10).255 This statement clearly

alludes to the first two commands of the Decalogue, binding them together. As the first

251
Deuteronomy 19:10, 13; 21:8–9; 27:25; 1 Sam 19:5; 2 Kgs 21:16; 24:4; Ps
106:38; Prov 6:17; Isa 59:7; Jer 2:34; 7:6; 19:4; 22:3; 22:17; 26:15; Joel 4:19; Jonah 1:14.
252
Other examples include Jdg 15:3; Ps 19:14; Jer 2:35; and Joel 4:21.
253
As Warmuth (“‫נָ ָקה‬,” TDOT 9:555) also notes, in Proverbs “the verb is always
negated; the punishment is never named but is certain to be inflicted.”
254
Other declarations of Israel’s lack of exemption from punishment include Jer
30:11 and 46:28. Cf. Edom (Jer 49:12); Egypt and Edom (Joel 4:21); one who harms
YHWH’s anointed (1 Sam 26:9); Shimei (1 Kgs 2:9); Job (of himself, Job 9:28; 10:14).
255
Cf. Num 14:18; Nah 1:3. Whether ‫ נׂשא עון‬means “to bear sin” or “to forgive
sin” here is unclear. Lam (Metaphorical Patterning of the Sin-Concept, 171–72) opts for
“forgiver of iniquity” because the context of Num 14:18, where Exod 34:6–7 is echoed,
appeals for forgiveness.
 166

Table 10. Exodus 34:6–7 and the Decalogue

Exod 20:5b–7 // Deut 5:9b–11 Exod 34:6–7
‫כי אנכי יהוה אלהיך אל קנא‬5 ‫יהוה יהוה‬6
‫פקד עון אבת‬ ‫אל רחום וחנון‬
‫על־בנים‬ ‫ארך אפים ורב־חסד ואמת‬
‫על־ׁשלׁשים ועל־רבעים לׂשנאי‬ ‫ נצר חסד לאלפים‬7
‫ועׂשה חסד לאלפים‬6 ‫נׂשא עון ופׁשע וחטאה‬
‫לאהבי ולׁשמרי מצותי‬ ‫ונקה לא ינקה‬
‫לא תׂשא את־ׁשם־יהוה אלהיך לׁשוא‬7 ‫פקד עון אבות‬
‫כי לא ינקה יהוה‬ ‫על־בנים ועל־בני בנים‬
‫את אׁשר־יׂשא את־ׁשמו לׁשוא‬ ‫על־ׁשלׁשים ועל־רבעים‬
Because I, YHWH, your God, am a jealous God, YHWH, YHWH,
who visits the iniquity of the fathers a God compassionate and gracious,
upon the sons slow to anger and great in covenant faithfulness and truth,
until the third and fourth [generations] who guards covenant faithfulness for thousands,
of those who hate me, who bears iniquity and transgression and sin,
but who demonstrates covenant faithfulness yet who certainly does not render [the guilty] innocent,
for thousands of those who love me who visits the iniquity of the fathers
and who keep my commands. upon the sons and the son’s sons,
You shall not bear the name of YHWH, upon the third and fourth (generations).
your God, in vain,
for YHWH will not render innocent
one who bears his name in vain.

command also states (Exod 20:5b–6), YHWH is one who ‫פקד עון אבת על־בנים על־ׁשלׁשים‬

‫ ועל־רבעים‬and displays ‫חסד לאלפים‬. Furthermore, reference to YHWH bearing (‫)נׂשא‬

iniquity and his refusal to “render [the guilty] innocent” (‫ )לא ינקה‬echo the language of

the NC.256 According to the NC, the failure to bear (‫ )נׂשא‬YHWH’s name rightly

256
Fishbane supposes that the dependence goes in the other way—the Decalogue
reuses Exod 34:6–7 for its motivation clauses (Biblical Interpretation, 344–45).
 167

precludes a declaration of innocence (‫)לא ינקה‬.257 On its own the shared language

between the NC and Exod 34:6–7 would not be enough to establish an allusion, but the

verbatim repetition of material from the first command makes the other allusion more

plausible. The point of connection is YHWH’s characteristic refusal to overlook sin.

Israel’s bearing of YHWH’s name did not merely indicate that they belonged to

him. The NC stipulates that this name bearing was not passive, but active; it was not to be

done ineffectively. Therefore, YHWH’s claim on his people required a response

consonant with his character; failure to do so would incur punishment. An allusion to the

NC in Exod 34:6–7, where YHWH’s character is most fully expressed, should come as

no surprise.

LXX
In Exod 20:7, the Septuagint renders ‫ נקה‬with καθαρίζω, which normally means

“to cleanse,” but can also indicate moral purity or freedom from the guilt or defilement of

sin.258 The sense differs slightly from Hebrew because legal connotations are absent.

Instead, καθαρίζω emphasizes the stain of sin that must be subsequently washed away.

Elsewhere, καθαρίζω and its derivatives translate ‫ נקה‬to express a range of moral behavior

for which cleansing was needed, including hidden faults or presumptuous sins (Ps 19:13–

257
Houtman (Exodus, 3:37) suggests a play on words in the NC with ‫ לא ינקה‬and
the divine epithet ‫ אל קנא‬in Exod 20:5. However, these phrases seem too distant.
258
This range of meaning is attested from classical Greek to NT times. Lust
(Greek-English Lexicon, 218) identifies the following meanings for καθαρίζω: “to purify,
cleanse, purge, purify, acquit.” Muraoka (Greek-English Lexicon, 348) places more
emphasis on the ritual or moral aspects of the cleansing. See also LSJ 850; BDAG, 488–
89; Joseph Henry Thayer, trans., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 4th ed.
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901), 312.
 168

14 [LXX 18:12–13]), unfulfilled oaths (Gen 24:8), and guilt in general (Exod 34:6–7;

Num 14:18; Jer 25:29 [LXX 32:29]).259 A range of behaviors might also be associated

with “bearing the name in vain,” for which cleansing or release from guilt would be

needed.

Other Ancient Translations

The Targums consistently rendered ‫ נקה‬as ‫“( זכה‬to acquit, justify”),260 which

reflects the legal connotations of the word (over against the LXX’s focus on moral

purity). Similarly, the Syriac Peshitta uses zkʾ, which means “to hold or pronounce

innocent, to acquit, justify, clear.”261 This translation corresponds well with the Hebrew

and Aramaic. The Vulgate translates ‫ נקה‬two ways in the NC (Table 9, p. 155). Exodus

20:7 reads habebit insontem (“regard as innocent”), while Deut 5:11 reads erit inpunitus

(“be unpunished”). Either is appropriate.

The motivation clause of the NC indicates the seriousness with which YHWH

expected his people to take this command. For covenant members who failed to bear

YHWH’s name appropriately, acquittal was precluded. In keeping with his character,

when their actions betrayed covenantal unfaithfulness, YHWH threatened to declare them

guilty.

259
The Hebrew text of these passages is stable (with regard to ‫)נקה‬. Based on the
Göttingen LXX (where available, and Ralph’s for Genesis and Jeremiah), the Greek
translations are stable as well (variants in Exod 34:6–7 and Num 14:18 are other forms of
καθαρίζω).
260
Sokoloff, Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic, 177. Similarly, HALOT
2:1864 defines ‫ זכה‬as “to be clean,” “to be innocent,” or (in the pael) “to acquit.”
261
Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary, 115.
 169
Conclusion
Through this wide-ranging lexical and historical inquiry, I have argued that the

NC is best read in light of the conventional language of ownership transfer in which

YHWH declares his name over the Israelites in order to claim them as his own. The oral

imprinting of his name on his people implied their duty to represent him well. The

responsibility to bring honor to his name was serious, necessitating a severe penalty for

failure. I therefore propose to translate the NC this way: “You shall not bear the name of

YHWH, your God, in vain, for YHWH will not render innocent one who bears his name

in vain.” While the individual lexemes are sufficiently flexible to admit other

interpretations, the representational reading of this passage is most satisfying, given the

lack of contextual clues to support another reading, such as false oaths, magic, idolatry,

or wrongful pronunciation of the name.

Excursus: Psalm 24:4 and Psalm 139:20

in Light of the Name Command
Outside the NC, ‫ נׂשא‬and ‫ לׁשוא‬are collocated only in Ps 24:4 and 139:20. Because

these passages are often cited as evidence that the NC prohibits false swearing, they

demand closer consideration.262 The LXX translations of Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11; and Ps

24:4 exhibit remarkable overlap, employing the rare phrase ἐπὶ ματαίω for ‫( לׁשוא‬which

262
A few who recognize the apparent link between Ps 24:4 and the NC use the
psalm to clarify the NC on the basis of parallelism. William Brown (“‘Here Comes the
Sun!’: The Metaphorical Theology of Psalms 15–24,” in The Composition of the Book of
Psalms, ed. Erich Zenger, BETL 238 [Walpole, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010], 263)
makes no explicit connection between them, but his interpretation of Ps 24:4 presupposes
that the NC concerns oaths. McCann (“Psalms,” 773) notes the allusion but does not
advocate a representational reading. To my knowledge no one arguing for a
representational reading of the NC has attempted to explain how this might affect the
interpretation of Ps 24:4.
 170

appears nowhere else in the LXX), λαμβάνω for ‫נׂשא‬, and καθαρίσῃ for ‫ נקי‬/ ‫נקה‬. This

suggests that the Greek translator of Ps 24:4 recognized a correspondence with the NC.

Psalm 24:3–4
‫מי־יעלה בהר־יהוה‬ Who may ascend the mountain of YHWH
‫ומי־יקום במקום קדׁשו׃‬ And who may stand in his holy place?
‫נקי כפים ובר־לבב‬ One with innocent hands and a pure heart,
‫אׁשר לא־נׂשא לׁשוא נפׁשי‬ Who does not represent me in vain
‫ולא נׁשבע למרמה׃‬ And does not swear deceitfully.

Having discussed Ps 24:4 in chapter 2, what remains is to explain how it might be

read in concert with a representational reading of the NC. Psalm 24 is liturgical in nature,

concerned with qualifications for ascending “YHWH’s hill” and standing in “his holy

place”—that is, the sanctuary complex (24:3). In contrast to the typical ANE requirement

of ritual purity for worship, here the psalmist envisions a whole generation morally pure

enough to stand in God’s presence (24:4–6).263

My proposed translation of Ps 24:4 accepts the MT’s 1st-person ending on ‫נפׁש‬,

with YHWH as the understood speaker.264 The abrupt change in voice fits the dialogical

nature of this liturgical psalm; the questions of worshippers in v. 3 are answered by

YHWH himself in vv. 4–5. YHWH’s presence is presupposed by the direct address in v.

263
For further discussion, see deClaissé-Walford, Jacobson, and Tanner, Psalms,
250.
264
One Jewish interpreter supposes that the psalmist speaks on YHWH’s behalf
(Feuer, Sēfer Tehillîm, 298). If the 3rd-person ending for ‫ נפׁש‬of other manuscripts is
accepted (‫)נפׁשו‬, the sense of Ps 24:4 changes considerably, but without precluding my
interpretation. The link to the NC would be severed and the verse would then read “who
does not lift up his [own] soul in vain,” which could indicate hypocritical worship as
opposed to confident trust in YHWH (cf. Ps 25:1). In keeping with the idiom “lift up
one’s soul” (cf. Hos 4:8), the parallel line would further illustrate the hypocrisy of the
supplicants. Both their worship and their oaths in YHWH’s name are insincere.
 171

6b.265 Just as “name” can represent a person metonymically,266 it is not uncommon for

YHWH to refer to himself with ‫“( נפׁשי‬my nephesh, person”), especially in poetic

passages.267 Accordingly, ‫ נפׁשי‬can be taken as an intensive personal pronoun (= “me”).268

The righteous supplicant is one who does not bear or “represent” him “in vain.”269 The

last two lines of the verse summarize two dimensions of misrepresentation. The righteous

do not misrepresent YHWH either by blameworthy actions (cf. “innocent of hands”), or

by swearing falsely, which would indicate duplicity (cf. “pure of heart”).270 The context

265
Another change in person occurs in v. 6. First the psalmist speaks of God in
third person, and then switches to second person: “Such is the generation seeking him,
who seek your face, [namely] Jacob.” The apparent awkwardness in English creates a
brilliant balancing effect in Hebrew poetry. Berlin (Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, 40)
discusses contrast in person under morphologic parallelism. Cf. Kugel, Idea of Biblical
Poetry, 22); Nicholas Lunn, Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry:
Differentiating Pragmatics and Poetics (Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006), 15–16.
266
As discussed above, p. 76. See Reiterer, “‫ׁשם‬,”
ֵׁ TDOT 15:136.
267
Contra Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 109. YHWH refers to himself
with ‫ נפׁשי‬at least 14x (Lev 26:11, 30; 1 Sam 2:35 [with prefix]; Isa 1:14; 42:1; Jer 5:9,
29; 6:8; 9:8; 12:7; 15:1; 32:41; Ezek 23:18 [2x]). In the examples from Leviticus, Isaiah,
and Ezekiel, ‫ נפׁשי‬could easily be replaced with the 1st person pronoun, “I.” In Jer 15:1,
‫ נפׁשי‬seems to refer to YHWH himself. Other authors refer to YHWH’s ‫ נפׁש‬in 3rd person
(Judg 10:16; Ps 11:5; Prov 6:16; Jer 51:14 [with prefix]; and Amos 6:8 [with prefix]). In
every case a 3rd-person pronoun could replace ‫נפׁש‬.
268
‫ נפׁשי‬is especially common in poetry as a heightened, rhetorical way of
referring to the self. Westermann (“‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬,” TLOT 2:757) calls it “the intensely purposive
‘I’.” Cf. B. K. Waltke, “‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬,” TWOT 2:589.
269
As explained below, p. 224, ‫ נׂשא‬connotes physical carrying rather than lifting
in exaltation. In metaphorical contexts such as this it draws on the concept of LIFE AS A
JOURNEY, where pious actions are expressed as forward movement in public view.

270
Perhaps line 4 echoes the NC, while line 5 evokes the command against false
witness (Exod 20:16). If so, both actions (“innocent hands”) and motivations (“pure
heart/mind”) of the righteous must be consistent with what God requires, so the righteous
do not misrepresent YHWH (“who does not bear my soul in vain”) or fellow Israelites
(“who does not swear deceitfully”).
 172

thus reflects a range of activity that is broader than oath taking. Other interpretations of

Ps 24:4 are possible, but here I have attempted to show how one might read the psalm as

an echo of the NC.

Psalm 139:19–20
‫אם־תקטל אלוה רׁשע‬ O that you would slay the wicked, O God;
‫ואנׁשי דמים סורו מני׃‬ And men of bloodshed depart from me
‫אׁשר יאמרך למזמה‬ Who speak of you deviously,
‫נׂשא לׁשוא עריך׃‬ Your adversaries lift up in vain

This text is notoriously difficult. First, the singular consonantal form of ‫ נׂשא‬is

problematic because the subject of this clause is plural.271 One way to resolve the lack of

agreement is by recognizing that subject-verb disagreement is not uncommon in Hebrew

poetry as a feature of poetic balancing. Another option, preferred by most commentators,

takes the Masoretic pointing of ‫ נָ ֻׁׂשא‬as an unconventional form of the active ‫נָ ָׂשאּו‬,

meaning “they lift up.”272 A third option, building on the second, is to read the verb as

reflexive along with the NRSV: “who lift themselves up against you for evil.”273

271
This assumes that ‫ ָע ֶריָך‬is the subject rather than object of the verb. If taken as
the object (“who lift in vain ‫)”עריך‬, the translation “your cities” would make the most
sense, functioning metonymically for the people of Israel as a whole, who are
misrepresented (i.e., slandered) by YHWH’s enemies.
272
The u-class vowel indicates a 3rd-person plural subject, rather than a passive
or reflexive verb. See Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150, WBC 21 (Waco, TX: Word,
1983), 253 n. 20b. This solution also pertains to the previous line, where the singular verb
‫יאמרך‬, is given plural vowels (‫אמ ֻׁרָך‬
ְ ֹ ‫)י‬.
273
This translation requires other interpretive decisions, including a malicious
sense for ‫ׁשוא‬, already dismissed above, and a conjectural emendation from ‫ ָע ֶ ֶֽריָך‬to ‫עליָך‬
ֶ
(“against you”).
 173

However, if the verb carries a reflexive sense here, it would be a unique occurrence, and

therefore less likely.274

The last word of the verse is even more puzzling. The MT’s ‫ ָע ֶריָך‬could be an

Aramaism meaning “your adversaries” (from ‫;ער‬

ָ cf. 1 Sam 28:16), or it could be

vocalized as “your cities” (from ‫;עיר‬

ִׁ cf. Ezek 35:9).275 The Targums read it as the former

(‫)בעלי־דבבך‬, while the LXX reads the latter (τὰς πόλεις σου).276 Neither is an obvious fit

with the context, but the first (“your adversaries”) seems most likely for at least three

reasons. First, the psalm as a whole includes other rare words, perhaps borrowed from

Aramaic.277 Second, the psalmist clearly identifies these people as YHWH’s enemies in

v. 22. Third, the infrequency of the Aramaic ‫ ָער‬explains the LXX misreading, as well as

274
According to Reiterer (“‫ׁשוא‬,” TDOT 14:457), ‫ נׂשא‬is never reflexive, with the
possible exception of Nah 1:5, “the earth heaves.” In other cases where ‫ נׂשא‬means “to
fight against,” the object is “hand” (“to lift the hand against”; 2 Sam 18:28; 20:21). DCH
(5:768) lists Ps 139:20 as the only potential passive of ‫נׂשא‬, suggesting the “name” of
YHWH is the implied subject (= “it is uttered in vain (by) your adversaries”).
275
With characteristic creativity, Mitchell Dahood (Psalms III: 101–50, AB
[Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970], 284, 297) re-vocalizes ‫ ָע ֶריָך‬as ʿārīk (“array”), and
re-divides the previous line. He interprets this verse as concerning idolatry: “Because
they gaze upon every figurine, raise their eyes to vanities arrayed.”
276
BHS cites numerous manuscripts that read ‫“( ֵׁע ֶדיָך‬your witnesses,” cf. Job
10:17; or “your onset”). See Reiterer, “‫ׁשוא‬,” TDOT 14:457; G. R. Driver, “Notes on the
Psalms II: 73–150,” JTS 44 (1943): 22. As mentioned above, others propose an
ֶ (“against you”; cf. Ezek 29:3). See Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen:
emendation to ‫עליָך‬
übersetzt und erklärt, 4th ed., HKAT (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 592,
cited by Allen (Psalms 101–150, 253 n. 20c), who suggests that ‫ ֵׁע ֶדיָך‬could mean “your
enemies.” Cf. Dan 4:16.

Potential Aramaisms include “intention” (‫ ;רע‬vv. 2, 17), “recline” (‫ ;רבע‬v. 3),

277

“word” (‫ ;מלה‬v. 4), “go up” (‫ ;סלק‬v. 8), and “foe” (‫ ;ער‬v. 20). See John Goldingay,
Psalms 90–150, BCOT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 628.
 174

ֵׁ 278 It also accounts for its proper translation in the Targums, for whose
the variant ‫ע ֶדיָך‬.

translators Aramaic would have posed no difficulty (Tg. Ps 139:20).279

If this assessment is correct, the verse reads, “who speak of you deviously, your

adversaries lift up in vain,”280 which allows for more than one interpretive option. The

expression is probably elliptical, since the verb lacks an object. It could mean either

“your adversaries lift up [their voices] in vain,” or “your adversaries lift up [a report

against you] in vain,” or “your adversaries lift up [your name] in vain.” The elliptical

expressions in Isa 3:7; 42:2, 11, where ‫( נׂשא‬without an object) refers to speaking, favor

the first. As in Ps 139:20, the context in Isaiah suggests speech.281 Here the enemies of

YHWH are explicitly speaking (‫)אמר‬. The psalmist may have envisioned the enemies of

YHWH railing against God to no avail.

Alternatively, the verse could echo Exod 23:1, where the Israelites are told not to

“bear an empty report” (‫ )לא תׂשא ׁשמע ׁשוא‬or act as “a malicious witness” (‫)עד חמס‬. Both

278
Elßner (Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 57) considers an emendation to ‫ׁשמך‬
(“your name” // Exod 20:7), but favors ‫“( עדיך‬witnesses”), suggesting a parallel to Ps
24:4.
279
A different word appears in the Targums (‫)בעלי־דבבך‬, perhaps because ‫ ער‬was
already antiquated. The resulting translation is highly interpretive; both cola have to do
with oaths. For an English translation, see Stec, Targum of Psalms, 234. Scribes often
confused Resh (‫ )ר‬and daleth (‫)ד‬. For example, MT Isa 33:8 (“cities”) and 1QIsaa
(“witnesses”). See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd rev. ed.
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 329.
280
If the LXX τὰς πόλεις σου correctly translates ‫ע ֶריָך‬,
ָ the meaning could be
“your cities bear [your name] in vain,” in which case the cities (synecdoche for the
Israelites) misrepresent YHWH. The context describes these cities as YHWH’s enemies,
filled with violent men.
281
Contra Elßner, Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot, 278. Unless ‫אמ ֻׁרָך‬ ְ ֹ ‫ י‬in line 1 is
ָ “to rebel” (cf. Ps 78:40).
emended to ‫י ְמ ֻׁרָך‬, which reflects a hiphil form of ‫מ ָרה‬,
 175

passages concern the wicked (‫ ;רׁשע‬Ps 139:19). However, in this case, YHWH’s

adversaries (his own people?) bear false witness against him rather than each other.

A third possibility is that Ps 139:20 alludes to the NC, leaving out “your name”

due to the constraints of Hebrew poetry. The presence of the relatively rare ‫ לׁשוא‬supports

this possibility; ‫ לׁשוא‬appears with ‫ נׂשא‬only in Ps 139:20; Ps 24:4; and the NC. If my

interpretation of the NC is correct and if Ps 139:20 alludes to it, the latter suggests that

YHWH’s own people, who bear his name, have borne it in vain, and therefore have

become his adversaries.282 The psalmist declared that these “men of blood” who plot

against YHWH “have become my enemies” (‫ ;לאויבים היו לי‬139:22). “Your adversaries”

could then be a satirical title for unfaithful Israelites, the apostate compatriots of the

psalmist.283

None of these interpretations is certain. Given the lexical similarities with the NC,

my intention is to show how one might read this passage. Each reading of Ps 139:20

proposed here suggests that certain “men of blood” have become YHWH’s enemies and

are either speaking against, bearing false witness against, or misrepresenting YHWH.

282
Cf. Isa 63:19 NRSV and Deut 32:41, both of which suggest that Israel has
become YHWH’s enemy by breaking the covenant.
283
So Goldingay (Psalms 90–150, 637), for whom Psalm 139 describes those who
associate YHWH with emptiness and are therefore covenantally unfaithful.
 CHAPTER 4

A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE NAME COMMAND

IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DECALOGUE

Context always provides a narrowing of choices, even if it can only rarely allow
for a complete elimination of ambiguity.
—David H. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities:
Metaphor, Semantics, and Divine Imagery

A proper understanding of the Name Command (NC) depends on a correct

assessment of its literary and historical contexts. The NC does not appear independently;

it is one of ten “words” (‫ )דברים‬in a closed series, known by its Greek title as the

Decalogue. But what exactly is the Decalogue? And what role does it play in Israel’s

account of her history?1 How we answer these questions will have significant bearing on

how we read the NC. The first section of this chapter will assess the genre and purpose of

the Decalogue in light of its broader historical contexts. The second section will examine

its literary contexts—the book of Exodus, the Sinai narratives, and the book of

Deuteronomy—considering how the Decalogue relates to the other Torah regulations as

well as how it is internally structured. Not only does the context of the Decalogue shape

the way we read it, but the Decalogue also shapes our reading of the rest of Israel’s

regulations. Attention to both directions of influence facilitates a more accurate

assessment of the NC.

1
For discussion, see p. 7 n. 12.

176
 177
The Character of the Decalogue

The Decalogue as Law

The so-called “Ten Commandments” are arguably the most famous of all “laws”

in human history. But the Decalogue is not law in the modern sense. Recent explorations

of the function of laws in the ANE offer fresh perspective on ancient law, refining the

distinctions between apodictic and casuistic laws,2 between laws and commandments,3

and between ceremonial and judicial laws.4 While the Ten Words are framed as

2
Albrecht Alt (Essays on Old Testament History & Religion, trans. R. A. Wilson
[Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967], 101–71) classified the Ten Words form-critically
as apodictic (as opposed to casuistic) law, categorical pronouncements unique to Israel
that arose from a cultic setting. However, his sharp distinction between these has been
deemed inadequate as archaeologists have since unearthed “apodictic” laws from other
ANE cultures. See Samuel Greengus, “Law, Biblical and ANE Law,” ABD 4:245.
3
Claus Westermann (Elements of Old Testament Theology [Atlanta: John Knox,
1982], 177–78) distinguished between “commandments” and “laws,” suggesting that the
former derive from an authoritative figure and the latter from a powerful institution. On
the direct composition of laws rather than an origin in oral tradition, see Lohfink, “Kennt
das Alte Testament einen Unterschied von ‘Gebot’ und ‘Gesetz’? Zur bibeltheologischen
Einstufung des Dekalogs,” JBTh 4 (1989): 70–72; Moshe Greenberg, “Some Postulates
of Biblical Criminal Law,” in A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the
Book of Deuteronomy, ed. Duane Christensen, SBTS 3 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1993), 288–89.
4
Bernard Jackson (“The Ceremonial and the Judicial: Biblical Law as Sign and
Symbol,” JSOT 30 [1984]: 25–50) suggests that ceremonial and judicial laws had
different audiences, the former exclusively Israelites, and the latter universal. However,
the Decalogue lacks judicial features but is clearly directed at the Israelites as those
redeemed from slavery to be YHWH’s covenant people.
Some argue that the Sabbath Command is cultic, but it lacks cultic features (no
temple/tabernacle, priest, sacrifice or ritual), and apparently antedates the cult (Exod
16:22–30). For discussion see Daniel I. Block, Deuteronomy, NIVAC (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012), 165. For Edward L. Greenstein (“The Rhetoric of the Ten
Commandments,” in The Decalogue in Jewish and Christian Tradition, ed. Henning Graf
Reventlow and Yair Hoffman, LHB/OTS 509 [New York: T&T Clark, 2011], 11), the
whole Decalogue is “quasi-cultic” because cultic regulations tend to be formulated
apodictically. He points to analogous ritual texts from Ugarit.
 178

commands, the rest of Israel’s regulations cannot be neatly divided into one category or

another.

Westbrook argues that ANE law codes belonged to the scientific enterprise,

whose lists were not exhaustive or binding but rather generated a “formalized wisdom”

that creatively covered a wide range of legal issues.5 In contrast to modern legal citation,

where the exact wording of a statute carries authority, ancient laws guided people in

making wise judgments by treating sample cases, often from the periphery of ethical

norms (e.g., Leviticus 24).

Michael LeFebvre argues that Israelite “law” fits this paradigm. He shows how

even the Book of the Covenant, the Bible’s oldest “law code,” shows no evidence of

having been used as “the basis for court decisions.”6 Instead, biblical legal material

assisted judges by giving them perspective as they deliberated.7 LeFebvre proposes that

the legislative use of “law codes” arose in the Hellenistic era.8 Before then, “law

collections” functioned as “descriptions of Yahwistic ideals,” offering “popular

guidance” to the Israelites and later wisdom for the king.9

5
Raymond Westbrook, “The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law,” 1–90 in A
History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 1:17, 20, 87.
6
Michael LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah: The Re-Characterization of
Israel’s Written Law, LHB/OTS 451 (New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 36, emphasis his.
See Dale Patrick, “Law in the OT,” NIDB 3:603; George E. Mendenhall, Law and
Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of
Colportage, 1955), 9.
7
This assessment need not preclude the divine origin of such decisions.
8
Here he disagrees with Westbrook, who dates the rise of legislative use to the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah. See LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah, 259.
9
Ibid., 259, 261, 90–95. LeFebvre provides extensive support to show Torah
regulations as divine guidance rather than civil legislation. His conclusion justifies
 179

In spite of demonstrable similarities between biblical and ANE regulations,10

differences remain. Though many biblical instructions were common among ancient

societies (e.g., murder, false witness, and adultery were forbidden elsewhere), the

combination of these civil injunctions with instructions of a religious or cultic nature was

unprecedented.11 A simple perusal of Leviticus 19 will show the degree to which these

domains are freely mixed in the Hebrew Bible. The biblical vision of ethics touches on

every area of life; all is under YHWH’s sovereignty. This realization should caution us

against reading the NC either as a legal stipulation or as strictly civil, moral, or cultic in

nature.12

Eichrodt’s characterization of Israelite law as a flexible, developing corpus adapted to

real life situations. See Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 70–74. Cf. W. J.
Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants (Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 91–92. This conclusion may mitigate claims that various
biblical laws are contradictory. If Israel’s regulations were intended to adapt to new
settings, one would expect significant changes given Israel’s transition from semi-
nomadic to agrarian. Hittite laws provide an analog to Israel’s re-written law. See
Kenneth A. Kitchen and Paul J. N. Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient
Near East (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012), 3:248. One need not suppose a lengthy
diachronic development of law in order to benefit from LeFebvre’s work. The salient
point of his thesis is the non-legislative function of law in ancient Israel. Though laws
were adapted over time, and additions were likely, LeFebvre presents no compelling
reason to remove the core of Israel’s regulations from the narratives that present them as
divinely revealed at Sinai.
10
Because of the potential for confusing ANE “law” with modern law, whenever
possible I will refrain from using designations such as “law codes,” “law collections,” or
“laws” in favor of “regulations,” “instructions,” or “constitutional documents.” These
terms preserve the sense of regulatory function without requiring a legislative application.
11
Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 76–77. Cf. J. David Pleins, The Social
Visions of the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 44.

So Wright, Old Testament Ethics, 288–89; Daniel I. Block, “The Grace of

12

Torah: The Mosaic Prescription for Life (Deut 4:1–8; 6:20–25),” in How I Love Your
Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 3–
4. However, these categories may still be valuable for discerning the ongoing validity of a
 180
The Decalogue as Divine Guidance
Rather than civil legislation, the Hebrew Bible preserves collections of divine

pronouncements intended to guide Israel’s life and worship. A closer look at the

Decalogue confirms this conclusion. Most commands lack sanctions (e.g., murder,

adultery, stealing), and many are too vague to enforce.13 How does one determine

whether parents have been properly honored or whether someone coveted his or her

neighbor’s property? However, as divine guidance the Decalogue is not merely

suggestive. It prescribes how people must live if they are to please God, but does not

legislate that behavior by giving specific penalties for disobedience. It creates a

worldview by sketching the outer boundaries of righteous behavior within which the

Israelites were to live and flourish.

However, unlike ANE judicial material, the Decalogue is embedded in a

narrative.14 Even where biblical regulations compare favorably with their ANE

given regulation for faith communities today. For Christians, every regulation teaches
about God and therefore can shape the life of faith. Some regulations have undergone
more radical transformation than others in Christ. For a helpful discussion, see Sandra L.
Richter, The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament (Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Academic, 2008), 225–29. Kathryn Greene-McCreight (“Restless until We Rest
in God: The Fourth Commandment as Test Case in Christian ‘Plain Sense’
Interpretation,” 223–36 in Brown, The Ten Commandments, 228) traces this approach to
ancient Christian exegesis.
13
Raymond Westbrook and Bruce Wells, Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An
Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009), 13. In spite of this obvious
deficiency, scholars continue to construe them legislatively. On the unenforceability of
the Decalogue, see also Weinfeld, “The Decalogue: Its Significance, Uniqueness, and
Place in Israel’s Tradition,” 15–16; Pleins, Social Visions, 47; J. W. Marshall,
“Decalogue,” DOTP 175; Block, “The Decalogue in the Hebrew Scriptures,” 5.
14
Calum Carmichael (The Ten Commandments [Oxford: Oxford Centre for
Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, 1983]) takes this narrative context seriously, arguing that
the Decalogue recapitulates or responds to key events in history where Israel broke God’s
commands. For him, the initial Decalogic commands are a response to Aaron’s sin with
 181

counterparts, the narrative context casts them in a different light. While most other forms

of law operate as a “social control system,” biblical regulations create and maintain a

community based on shared covenantal values.15 This observation is especially pertinent

to the Decalogue, which is situated in not just one, but two significant contexts—the

narrative account of the sojourn at Sinai and Moses’ farewell address on the plains of

Moab. These narratives further clarify the way the Decalogue should be heard—not as

civil legislation, and not as divine guidance in an abstract or a universal sense, but as

divine guidance for a particular people in a unique historical situation.

The Decalogue as Treaty or Covenant

The covenant framework for the Decalogue is well recognized, and the

correspondences between 2nd-millennium Hittite treaties and the Sinai covenant are well

documented.16 Like the Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties (1450–1200 BCE), the larger

the golden calf (“other gods” and “idols” to whom his “name” has been raised for a “day
of celebration”) and the sin of Adam and Eve. Carmichael’s original thesis pertained to
Deuteronomy 12–26, but later he included the Book of the Covenant. See The Laws of
Deuteronomy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974); Origins of Biblical Law. See
also Assnat Bartor, Reading Law as Narrative: A Study in the Casuistic Laws of the
Pentateuch, Ancient Israel and Its Literature 5 (Atlanta: SBL, 2010). In his own way,
Knight (Law, Power, and Justice, 26) also emphasizes the literary nature of OT laws,
insisting that a correspondence between written law and legal practice cannot be
determined.
15
George E. Mendenhall, “The Conflict between Value Systems and Social
Control,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the
Ancient Near East, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1975), 169. For a summary of differences between covenant and law,
see Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 299–301; Daniel I. Block, The Gospel
according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy
(Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012), 90–91.
16
George Mendenhall, whose original work on covenants was republished as
Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, continues to influence scholarship to this day. See, e.g.,
 182

narrative of YHWH’s covenant with Israel includes a preamble; a historical prologue; a

list of stipulations (including apodictic commands); instructions for depositing the

document in the temple; and a list of witnesses, curses, and blessings.17

Parallels with Hittite treaties go beyond form to include content and tone, which

was more positive than later Assyrian counterparts. While the latter were designed to

Wenham, “Law,” DTIB 443; Clements, Old Testament Theology, 119; Kitchen and
Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant, 3:259.
17
Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, 32–34. The stone tablets themselves contain
only a brief historical prologue, no clear section of blessings and curses (though Exod
20:5–6, 7b, and 12b provide hints), and no deposition or instructions for reading. The
deposition appears in Exod 40:20. For discussion, see Daniel I. Block, “Reading the
Decalogue Right to Left: The Ten Principles of Covenant Relationship in the Hebrew
Bible,” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy
(Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 26–36. Because the form is not identical to a Hittite treaty,
Schüngel-Straumann (Der Dekalog, 37–38) thinks of the biblical ‫ ברית‬as a mutual
obligation rather than a covenant. Cf. Ernst Kutsch, Verheissung und Gesetz:
Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im Alten Testament, BZAW 131 (New York:
de Gruyter, 1973); Walther Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline, trans. David
E. Green (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 49–50; Dale Patrick, Old Testament Law
(Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), 224.
Since later (Neo-Assyrian) treaties contained neither prologue nor blessings,
Mendenhall (Law and Covenant, 35) argued that the biblical record of YHWH’s
covenant must be as old as Hittite exemplars. Lack of contact between Israel and Hatti
was no problem for his theory; since Hittite treaties are international in nature, he
assumes they compare favorably with undiscovered treaties from other ANE cultures.
Kitchen and Lawrence (Treaty, Law and Covenant, 2:268) demonstrate structural
correspondences between the biblical and Hittite covenants. Later Assyrian treaties were
deposited either “in the imperial archives” (Simo Parpola, “International Law in the First
Millennium,” 2:1047–66 in Westbrook, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 2:1059)
or the temple (Jacob Lauinger, “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tayinat: A
Biographical Sketch” [paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL, Chicago,
November 2012]). Recently Scott Morschauser (“Do Not Look to Egypt? On an
Alternative to Joshua Berman’s ‘CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy
13,’” [unpublished manuscript]) discussed potential parallels in Egypt from the same time
period. Though his examples are not treaties per se, they depict loyalty oaths with similar
expectations and punishments to those found in Deuteronomy.
 183

strike fear into the vassal,18 Hittite kings portrayed themselves as benevolent, and entered

into covenants with willing vassals on whose behalf they had done favors.19 A 13th-

century letter from a Hittite emperor to his vassal, the king of Ugarit, calls the latter his

“servant” and sglt, an Ugaritic term of endearment for a treasured vassal.20 Similarly, in

the Israelite covenant YHWH refers to Israel as his “treasured possession” (‫סגלה‬, Exod

19:6).21 As Weinfeld explains, Ugaritic sglt and Hebrew ‫ סגלה‬are “covenantal

terminology . . . employed to distinguish a relationship of the sovereign with one of his

especially privileged vassals.”22 Other treaty language in the Hebrew Bible includes ‫עבד‬

18
Westbrook, “Character of ANE Law,” and Beckman, “International Law in the
Second Millennium,” in Westbrook, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 1:84–85,
760, 763. The vassal was enjoined to remain loyal in his “love” for the King, swearing an
oath of allegiance that precluded alliances with other nations. While Assyrian treaties
also enjoined the vassal to “love” the suzerain, loyalty and affection were not reciprocal.
See Moshe Weinfeld, “Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia,” JANES 22
(1993): 135–37.

J. Berman, “CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13,” JBL 130
19

(2011): 37. Herbert B. Huffmon (“Contrasting Juridical Conceptions in Ancient Near

Eastern Treaties and Covenants” [paper presented at the annual meeting of the SBL,
Chicago, November 2012]) also insists that the biblical covenant is heir to Hittite rather
than Neo-Assyrian attitudes. Assyrian kings did not even feign benevolence. See
Weinfeld, Covenant Making,” 135–37.
20
KTU 2.39:7,12; noted by Daniel I. Block, “The Privilege of Calling: The
Mosaic Paradigm for Missions (Deut 26:16–19),” in How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!:
Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 152–53 n. 33. Harry
Hoffner indicated in personal conversation that no Hittite cognate to sglt or sikiltu has
been discovered, but this text confirms that vassals were so conceived by the Hittite
suzerain.
21
For a full discussion of this term, see John Davies, Royal Priesthood: Literary
and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of Israel in Exodus 19.6, JSOTSup 395 (New
York: Continuum, 2004), 54–60. Cf. Moshe Greenberg, “Hebrew seǥullā : Akkadian
sikiltu,” JAOS:71 (1951): 172–74; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School,
226 n. 2.
22
Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 368.
 184

(“servant”), ‫“( בן‬son”), ‫“( אח‬brother”), ‫“( ידע‬know”), and ‫“( שלום‬peace”).23 These terms

of endearment strengthen the analogy with the older ANE Hittite treaties while distancing

Israel’s covenant from less-friendly Neo-Assyrian prototypes.

Like their neighbors, the Hittites made duplicate copies of a treaty, depositing one

copy in the central sanctuary of each party’s god.24 Since YHWH was the only deity

involved and Israel was the only nation, both stone tablets were deposited in the ark of

YHWH in Israel’s only tabernacle (Deut 4:13; 9:11; 10:5).25 YHWH thus simultaneously

became the guarantor of his own faithfulness to the covenant and the witness to Israel’s

fidelity.26

23
McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, 288–89. For a similar list, see Paul
Kalluveettil, Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant Formulae
from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East, AnBib 88 (Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1982).
24
Similar practices were likely followed with the so-called Vassal Treaties of
Esarhaddon (VTE) or “Loyalty Oath Tablets.” See Jacob Lauinger, “Some Preliminary
Thoughts on the Tablet Collection in Building XVI from Tell Tayinat,” Journal of the
Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 6 (Fall 2011): 11; “Contrasting Juridical
Conceptions.” Vertical piercing of a tablet found at Tell Tayinat suggests it was on
display upright in the temple sanctuary under the deity’s watchful eye.

Meredith G. Kline, “The Two Tables of the Covenant,” WTJ 22 (1960): 139;
25

idem, Treaty of the Great King, 19; Block, “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,” 35.
26
Despite these similarities, striking differences in form and scope separate the
biblical covenant from ANE analogues. Other Mesopotamian vassal treaties are
accompanied by casuistic (rather than apodictic) laws. For discussion, see Greenstein,
“Rhetoric of the Ten Commandments,” 9–10. Furthermore, the biblical list of stipulations
is far longer and more developed than a typical treaty. See Greengus, “Law; Biblical and
ANE Law,” ABD 4:245. In addition, the divine-human relationship is unique. For
discussion, see Shalom M. Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of
Cuneiform and Biblical Law, VTSup 18 (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 30–31; Carol L. Meyers,
Exodus, New Cambridge Bible Commentary (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2005), 151; Weinfeld, “Covenant,” EJ 5:253. Though no deity-nation treaty documents
are extant from other ANE cultures, they may have conceived of a covenant between a
deity and their king. Strikingly, a Phoenician inscription from Arslan Tash (7th c. BCE)
 185

While the Decalogue diverges from ANE treaties in significant ways, they have

enough in common that Israel could refer to the ritual ark as “the ark of the treaty” ( ‫ארן‬

‫ ;העדת‬Exod 25:22)27 or “the ark of the covenant” (‫ ;ארון ברית‬Deut 10:8).28 An ancient

observer would readily have understood the tablets as delineating the loyal response of a

vassal people (Israel) to the gracious acts of her suzerain (YHWH).29 As Kitchen and

Lawrence point out, the Bible does not preserve the “formal written versions” of the

covenant but rather the “narrative report” of that covenant.30 This observation accounts

for its formal divergences from ANE patterns.

indicates that El and Asherah made a covenant with those responsible for the plaque. See
Frank Moore Cross and Richard J. Saley, “Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the
Seventh Century BCE from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria,” in Leaves from an
Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic Paleography and
Epigraphy, HSS 51 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 267. Certain kings were
called the “beloved” of a god. For example, Šuppiluliuma of Hatti was the “beloved of
the Storm-god” (Kitchen and Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant, 1:367, 391, 400–
401), and Ramesses II of Egypt was “the beloved of Amen-Re” and other gods (ibid.,
3:593). The citizens of Shechem may also have thought of themselves as bound by
covenant with Baʿal (“Baʿal-Berith” in Judg 8:33 and 9:4). Alternatively, the title Baʿal-
Berith could refer to Baʿal as witness to covenants between humans. For discussion, see
M. J. Mulder, “Baal-Berith,” DDD 143. In spite of these potential similarities, ANE
suzerain-vassal treaties pertained to international politics rather than cult maintenance,
and were enacted between a King and less powerful vassal. For discussion, see Paul,
Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 38.
27
‫( עדת‬or its cognates) is a technical term for the treaty tablets in other ANE
cultures. Cf. Exod 26:33–34; 30:6, 26; 39:35; 40:3, 5; Num 4:5; 7:89. See discussion
below, p.190.
28
Cf. Num 10:33; 14:44; Deut 31:9, 25, 26.
29
See Block, “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,” 26–28, and discussion
below on p. 189 nn. 44 and 47.
30
Kitchen and Lawrence, Treaty, Law and Covenant, 3:117, 124. While
Deuteronomy includes treaty elements, most agree it is a collection of sermons. See also
Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology, 26. McCarthy (Treaty and Covenant, 262–63) suggested
 186

As for the content, Israel’s election as YHWH’s covenant people provides the

necessary framework for understanding the peculiar blend of civil and religious

regulations in the Decalogue.31 The preamble to the Decalogue (Exod 20:2) demonstrates

that YHWH’s instructions were a gift to a people freed from slavery, whose gratitude was

to be expressed in obedience.32 While other ANE treaties addressed international political

relations, demanding political loyalty, most of Israel’s stipulations concerned

relationships within a single community and demanded religious loyalty. YHWH

that treaty forms were imposed centuries later on the ancient covenantal narratives. So
also LeFebvre, Collections, Codes, and Torah, 51.
31
So Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 30–31.
32
So Terence E. Fretheim, The Pentateuch, ed. Gene M. Tucker, Interpreting
Biblical Texts (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996), 169. This aspect of the covenant is not
unique to Israel. Cf. Mekhilta Bahodesh 5, on Exod 20:2 (cited by Stephen Westerholm,
“Law in Early Judaism,” NIDB 3:590); Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” ABD
1:1181, 1191; Law and Covenant, 32; Wenham, “Law,” DTIB 444; Patrick D. Miller,
“Divine Command and Beyond: The Ethics of the Commandments,” in Brown, The Ten
Commandments; Roland de Vaux, “Review of ‘Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur
Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des Erwählungsgedankens,’” RB 71 (1964): 117;
Ferry, “Le Décalogue,” 168; Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 57; Kline, “Two
Tables,” 144; Block, Deuteronomy, 172; idem, “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,”
30. According to Kitchen and Lawrence (Treaty, Law and Covenant, 3:255) the historical
prologue of an ANE treaty typically motivated loyalty by emphasizing the
“indebtedness” of one party to the other. For an argument that includes the “preamble” as
part of the first “word,” or command, see below, p. 205–9.
 187

covenanted with only one nation,33 so the stipulations pertaining to fellow-vassals were

interpersonal rather than international in nature.34

According to Shalom Paul, Israel’s stipulations “form the constitution of this

newly created nation,”35 a nation “under God” and bound in loyalty to him. Exodus 25:16

declares explicitly that the Decalogue is the core covenant document (‫)העדת‬, declared by

YHWH to the people and then transcribed and deposited in the ark as a permanent

witness to the covenant (Exod 25:16, 21; 40:20).36

The Decalogue as a Portrait of a Covenant-Keeping Israelite

The Decalogue alone does not provide comprehensive coverage of civil or moral

law in ancient Israel, and therefore should be read as a sampling to illustrate the ethical

33
Israel was not the only nation with whom YHWH dealt (see Deut 32:8), but the
only one in covenant with him. The Israelite king was not law-giver or even mediator, but
a student of Torah who must embody its values paradigmatically (Deut 17:14–20). See
Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology, 226. In contrast, other ANE cultures viewed the king as
the primary source of legal wisdom. See Westbrook, “The Character of ANE Law,” in
Westbrook, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 1:26.
34
Other covenant documents prohibit alliances with other nations (through
marriage or otherwise), a prohibition at home in a suzerain-vassal treaty (Exod 34:12–16;
Deut 7:1–6). See Gary Beckman, “International Law in the Second Millennium,” in
Westbrook, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, 1:756, 768. Any treaty with another
king was regarded as treason. See Mendenhall and Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1180.
35
Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 31–32.
36
Vogt, Deuteronomic Theology, 158. Mendenhall and Herion (“Covenant,” ABD
1:1183) call the Decalogue “the text of the covenant.” Cf. Wright, Old Testament Ethics,
262; Dozeman, Exodus, 478; Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, 2nd ed.,
JSOTSup 15 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 92; Craigie, Deuteronomy, 149.
Cassuto (Exodus, 238) says the Ten Words only introduce the covenant. For a more
radical rejection of the Decalogue as covenant stipulations, see Schüngel-Straumann (Der
Dekalog, 36), who argues that the covenant framework is a later imposition on the Sinai
narrative. But if we assume that both Decalogue and covenant are later additions to Sinai,
we are faced with the same conclusion—that the Decalogue constitutes the covenant
stipulations in this (later) construal of the Sinai theophany.
 188

framework for covenant life, rather than a summary. 37 The Decalogue sketched a portrait

of the covenant-keeper as a paradigm or model for every member of the covenant

community to emulate. Although this paradigmatic figure was male, by implication every

woman and child was also included.38 The Decalogue delineated the boundaries within

which covenantal freedom must be exercised.39 The commands concerned “ordinary

37
See Waldemar Janzen, Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach, 1st
ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 62, 92, 95.
38
The Decalogue addressed male heads of Israelite households, who were
charged to protect the rights of every other covenant member. Only a man could covet his
“neighbor’s wife,” and only a head of household could ensure that everyone in it
observed Sabbath rest. See Graupner, “Tora für die Völker,” 92; Greenstein, “Rhetoric of
the Ten Commandments,” 3; Houtman, Exodus, 3:13. Daniel Block (“‘You shall not
covet your neighbor’s wife’: A Study in Deuteronomic Domestic Ideology,” in The
Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of
Deuteronomy [Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012], 158; cf. 140–42) says men are the
addressees because their social power makes them responsible for the care and well-being
of women, children, and the aged. Cf. Block, “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,” 30.
However, we need not disagree with those who apply the Decalogue to every Israelite.
For example, Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 38; Childs, Book of Exodus, 400;
Nielsen, The Ten Commandments in New Perspective, 137; Weinfeld, “The Decalogue:
Its Significance, Uniqueness, and Place in Israel’s Tradition,” 10; Vogt, Deuteronomic
Theology, 153–54.
Others characterize the Decalogue as a power play by landowning males to
protect their property and way of life. See David Clines, Interested Parties: The Ideology
of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 205 (Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1995), 34. Cf. Douglas Knight, Law, Power, and Justice, 26; J. David Pleins,
Social Visions, 60. These interpreters fail to acknowledge how the Decalogue limits the
power and rights of those in control. As Walter Brueggemann (Theology of the Old
Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005], 423–24)
insists, Israel was to become “preoccupied with the well-being of the neighbor . . . and
prepared to exercise public power for the sake of the neighbor, even when that exercise of
public power works against established interests.” So also Peter T. Vogt, Deuteronomic
Theology, 231; Block, “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,” 32; idem, “You shall not
covet,” 138.
39
Nelson, Deuteronomy, 78–79; Block, “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,”
36.
 189

life,” rather than the specialized vocations of king, priests, or judges.40 Every Israelite

was responsible to obey.41

Though ultimately all are accountable to God for unethical conduct, only those

YHWH has redeemed from bondage were expected to emulate the portrait presented in

the Decalogue. The ethics embodied here flow from the deliverance YHWH

accomplished for his people (see Exod 20:2). The NC, then, cannot be considered a

universal prohibition; people outside the covenant do not bear his name. It is specifically

applicable to his covenant people.42

The Decalogue and Israel’s Other Constitutional Documents

The Decalogue was a key component of Israel’s covenant, though the Ten Words

themselves were rarely called a ‫( ברית‬but see Deut 4:13).43 The tablets were often

referred to as the ‫( עדת‬Exod 25:16, 21) or as ‫“( לחת העדת‬tablets of the ‫ ;”עדת‬Exod

40
Nelson, Deuteronomy, 78. The general nature of the commands is the strongest
evidence against reading the Decalogue as a power play on the part of Israel’s leaders.
41
Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 38. Block (Deuteronomy, 399, 401)
observes that Deut 16:18—17:13 is “not a manual for judges, kings, priests, and prophets,
but an appeal to the people to be involved in the maintenance of righteousness.”
42
On the tendency of the early church to read the Decalogue as universal law,
divorced from its covenantal context, see Frédéric Chapot, “Réflexions antiques sur la
structure du Décalogue: Entre appropriation et rationalisation,” in Le Décalogue au
miroir des Pères, ed. Rémi Gounelle and Jean-Marc Prieur, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 9
(Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2008), 31. Some modern interpreters also make this
mistake. Westermann (Elements of Old Testament Theology, 181) says the Decalogue
“has the tendency to be valid for everyone and for all time.”
43
Noted by Patrick D. Miller, “The Place of the Decalogue in the Old Testament
and Its Law,” Int 43 (1989): 234. In Gen 31:44 ‫ ברית‬and ‫ עד‬occur as a word pair. The
Decalogue is referred to as “tablets of the covenant” (‫ )לוחת הברית‬in Deut 9:9, 11, 15,
and though Exodus typically calls it the “ark of the ‫עדת‬,” it is usually the “ark of the
‫ ”ברית‬in Deuteronomy.
 190

32:15).44 Rather than an aural “testimony,” as the English implies, ‫ עדת‬points to a legal

“witness” or “testimony,” referring to “the document that was presented to the king . . . at

his coronation” or “the stipulations of the Sinai covenant laid down in writing.”45 In a

covenant context the word refers to “legal provisions” or “contractual obligations.”46 In

Mesopotamia, the tablets on which an ancient treaty was written were known as “adê

tablets,” and were deposited in the temple where the gods could be reminded of their duty

to enforce them.47 As for the Decalogue, the two tablets bore witness before YHWH to

the covenant stipulations to which Israel had agreed and to which YHWH had committed

himself. Because violation by any Israelite put the entire community at risk, the rest of

Israel’s regulations filled out the implications of the Decalogue for particular life

situations to ensure that the community did not violate the divine will.48

44
See also Exod 30:36; 40:20; and probably Deut 4:45 for ‫עדת‬. For “tablets of the
‫ ”עדות‬see Exod 31:18; 32:15; 34:29. The ark where the tablets were kept was regularly
called the “ark of the ‫( ”עדות‬Exod 25:22; 26:34; 30:6; 39:35; 40:5; Num 4:5; 7:89; cf.
Deut 31:26).
45
HALOT 1:790–91.
46
Ibid.
47
Kalluveettil (Declaration and Covenant, 31) identifies ANE cognates for ‫עדת‬:
“Like the Akkadian adê and the Aramaic ‘dn/’dy’ it refers to stipulations of covenant and
sometimes stands in metonymy for covenant itself.” Cf. Lauinger, “Tablet Collection
from Tell Tayinat”; idem, “Contrasting Juridical Conceptions”; Simo Parpola and
Kazuko Watanabe, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, SAA 2 (Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press, 1988), xv; Block, “The Decalogue in the Hebrew Scriptures,” 7.
48
See Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, 5, emphasis mine. See also Mendenhall
and Herion, “Covenant,” ABD 1:1183.
 191

Some suggest that the Decalogue summarized Israel’s other constitutional

documents.49 However, the Decalogue lacks several significant features one would expect

in a summary of Israel’s regulatory material:50 most notably cultic instructions (feasts,

sacrifices, dietary regulations, concern for purity and ritual) and concerns for social

justice (of which only a trace may be found in the Sabbath command, where household

servants and animals are given a much-needed rest).51

We can avoid these problems by reading the Decalogue as the head or source of

the rest of Israel’s constitutional documents, rather than a summary. Many scholars have

done so, using a variety of metaphors. The Decalogue has been called the “seed” from

which the rest grows,52 the “interpretive lens” through which the other commands should

49
For example, Shalom Paul, Studies in the Book of the Covenant, 33. This view
was common in the early church, perhaps because the Decalogue was catechetically
useful. On the prominence of this view during the intertestamental period, especially at
Qumran, see Dieter Sänger, “Tora für die Völker—Weisungen der Liebe: Zur Rezeption
des Dekalogs im frühen Judentum und Neuen Testament,” in Weisheit, Ethos und Gebot:
Weisheits- und Dekalogtraditionen in der Bibel und im frühen Judentum, Biblisch-
Theologische Studien 43 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001), 97–146. Cf.
Kellermann, “Tora für die Völker,” 220; Augustine, Sermons V (148–183) on the New
Testament, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, WSA 3/5 (New Rochelle, NY: New
City, 1992), 179A.3; 307.
50
So Crüsemann, The Torah, 352–53; Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten
Testaments, 210.
51
For Janzen (OT Ethics, 92), the presence of the Book of the Covenant in the
same narrative context proves that the Decalogue is not a comprehensive summary of
ethical regulations and cannot stand on its own. According to Graupner (“Tora für die
Völker,” 94), the Decalogue focuses on the essentials.
52
Peder Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria as Exegete,” in Alan J. Hauser and Duane
F. Watson, eds., A History of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 1: The Ancient Period (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 132. Miller (“The Place of the Decalogue”) rightly argues that
the Decalogic commands functioned generatively, subject to elaboration in the other
constitutional documents. Cf. idem, Deuteronomy, Int (Louisville: John Knox, 1990), 70.
 192

be read,53 the “bedrock” on which the rest is built,54 and the source from which the rest

flows.55 At the very least its current narrative position, preceding the Book of the

Covenant as well as the Holiness Code and Deuteronomic Torah, implies that these other

constitutional documents derive from the former, enumerating the specific outworkings

of the Decalogue in Israelite society.56 These latter collections are still not “laws” in the

modern, legislative sense, but would have informed individual and community behavior

by specifying what covenantal obedience entailed for Israel. Exodus 18:13–16 suggests

that many of these instructions would have arisen from disputes or other difficult cases

brought to Moses for his deliberation, rooted in the divine decrees at Sinai (vv. 20–26).

Any exposition of the NC must take seriously the character of the Decalogue as a

covenant document, intended to outline the behavior expected of Israel as YHWH’s

covenant partner. Furthermore, if the Decalogue is the source or foundation of Israel’s

53
Fretheim, The Pentateuch, 156.
54
Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 183–84.
55
Anthony Phillips, Essays on Biblical Law, JSOTSup 344 (New York: Sheffield
Academic, 2002), 24. Cf. Gordon Wenham, “Law,” DTIB 445; Roger Brooks, The Spirit
of the Ten Commandments: Shattering the Myth of Rabbinic Legalism (San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1990), 30. Greenstein (“Rhetoric of the Ten Commandments,” 12) argues
that the Decalogue is neither summary nor head, but rather YHWH’s self-revelation.
56
For a recent defense of the temporal priority of the Decalogue, see Kilchör,
Mosetora und Jahwetora. Schwienhorst-Schönberger (“Das Verhältnis von Dekalog und
Bundesbuch,” 68, AT) calls the Book of the Covenant “a concretizing interpretation of
the Decalogue.” Cf. Walter Moberly, “Exodus,” DTIB 214. Likewise, many feel that the
Deuteronomic Torah is an exposition of the Decalogue. So Noth, Deuteronomistic.
History, 92; Fretheim, The Pentateuch, 107; Block, Deuteronomy, 159, 169. Cf.
Mendenhall, Law and Covenant, 17; Wenham, “Law,” DTIB 444. On the relationship
between the Decalogue and Israel’s other constitutional documents, see Block, “The
Decalogue in the Hebrew Scriptures,” 18. Whether Deuteronomy reflects a Decalogic
structure will be considered below.
 193

Torah, we would expect variations of the NC to appear throughout the rest of the

constitutional documents, fleshing out the portrait provided in nuce in Exod 20:7.

The Literary Context of the Decalogue

In order to appreciate fully the function of the Decalogue as a covenant document,

its overall literary setting must be considered. The complex artistry of the Pentateuch

provides several levels of narrative context (Figure 9).57 Exodus and Deuteronomy each

offer a distinct and coherent literary setting for the Decalogue [ ]; a third setting is the

“Sinai Narratives,” spanning Exod 19:1 to Num 10:10. These narratives show thematic

coherence and are clearly framed on either side by the desert itinerary.

Desert
Sinai Narratives Itinerary
Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy

Figure 9. The Narrative Placement of the Decalogue

The Book of Exodus as Context for the Decalogue

Exodus begins with the extraordinary multiplication of Jacob’s descendants in

Egypt, held together loosely by common ancestry. They are first “sons of Israel … each

man with his household” (‫ איש וביתו‬. . . ‫ ;בני ישראל‬Exod 1:1). By the end of the book this

assembly of households has become a single house, referred to as “the whole house of

Israel” (‫ ;כל־בית־ישראל‬Exod 40:38). Their national identity emerges in the narrative, with

the Decalogue at the pinnacle. As a whole, Exodus highlights how Israel’s experience of

57
Overlapping structural patterns are evident, the product of a complex history of
editorial work. The resulting layers accent different aspects of Israel’s experience.
 194

YHWH mirrored Moses’. He fled Egypt, encountered YHWH at a mountain in the

wilderness, and was commissioned for service. Likewise the Israelites fled Egypt, met

YHWH at Sinai, became his people, and were commissioned for his service.58

From a social science perspective, Israel’s desert journey provided ideal timing

for YHWH’s self-revelation and making the covenant. Unmoored from their former life

of servitude in Egypt, the status of the Hebrews was uncertain. They had been set free,

but by whom? And for what purpose? The shape of their new life was still indefinite.

They had no place to call their own, and that lack of place, coupled with the scarcity of

resources and the absence of community structures, left them vulnerable. Into this

vacuum, YHWH spoke. There—far from home and routine, slavery and satiation—

YHWH had their full attention. He revealed his name and nature and told them who they

were and how they were to live. Their transformation from an amorphous mob of

escapees to an organized camp of twelve tribes took place at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Their

identity changed from Pharaoh’s servants to treasured vassals of YHWH. The liminality

of the desert facilitated this rite of passage. The unpredictability of these years required

absolute allegiance to YHWH and his authorized representatives, relativizing individual

ambitions. Sinai made them a covenanted people.59

58
For discussion, see Mark S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus,
JSOTSup 239 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997), 190–91.
59
On the liminality of the wilderness, see Robert L. Cohn, The Shape of Sacred
Space: Four Biblical Studies, AAR Studies in Religion 23 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1981); Ronald S. Hendel, “Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of
Exodus 24,3–8,” ZAW 101 (1989): 366–90. On the uniqueness of this deity-nation
relationship, see Daniel I. Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near
Eastern National Theology, 3rd ed. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013), 61–74.
 195

Sinai stands at the center of this narrative, and Israel remained there throughout

the book, having multiple encounters with YHWH in which he spoke audibly to Moses

and manifested his glory (Exod 19–20, 24, 33–34, 40:34–35). At Sinai he announced his

intention to make them his own treasured possession from among the nations, a holy

people and kingdom of priests (Exod 19:3–6). There, too, he revealed his will in the

foundational covenant document (Exod 20:1–17). The NC belongs to this significant

moment in Israel’s history with YHWH, at the heart of the Exodus narrative at Sinai. The

detailed and extensive tabernacle instructions that follow ensure the portability of

YHWH’s presence; given the proper abode, YHWH would continue to dwell in the

center of the Israelite camp after the people left Sinai, and the stone tablets of the

covenant [ ] would have a permanent place in the epicenter of the inner sanctum

(24:16; Figure 10).60 The centrality of the Decalogue to the covenant relationship is

apparent: given on Mount Sinai in the midst of a powerful theophany, the tablets were

perpetually housed in the most sacred area of the tabernacle—a place filled with the glory

of YHWH (Exod 40:35).

Several motifs in the narrative context of the Exodus Decalogue stand out. First,

the Decalogue was given to a people freed from bondage. It prescribed how to respond to

and live in that freedom. Second, the Decalogue was given to a people specially chosen

by YHWH. Their obedience to the Decalogue was not a prerequisite for their election as

his people, but rather a response to God’s grace. Third, the Decalogue functioned as a

covenant document, formalizing their relationship with him, and declaring YHWH’s

60
Diagram by Danny Imes. Adapted from Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, AB 3
(New York: Doubleday, 1991), 135 and Daniel I. Block, For the Glory of God:
Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 305.
 196

expectations for the people he had chosen (cf. Exod 19:5–6). Fourth, though Israel broke

the covenant within a matter of days, YHWH showed mercy by reaffirming his

commitment to them, renewing the covenant, and providing a means for his presence to

remain among them. The book of Exodus closes with the glory of God filling the

completed tabernacle, assuring the portability of YHWH’s presence (Exod 40:34–38; cf.

Num 9:15–23).61 The Sinaitic portion of Exodus is thereby framed by theophanies; it

begins with the glory of God’s presence on the mountain and the giving of the

Decalogue, and ends with God’s presence filling the tabernacle above the ark containing

the Decalogue.

Figure 10. Geographic Placement of the Decalogue

61
This retrospective summary that closes the book of Exodus assumes the
fulfillment of instructions to consecrate the tabernacle and ordain the priests, which is not
described in detail until Lev 8:10–13 (cf. Exod 40:16).
 197
The Sinai Narratives as Context for the Decalogue
While the book of Exodus shows a unity of design, with a coherent beginning and

end, the books of Leviticus and Numbers are obviously linked to it. Their narratives

continue the story of Israel’s desert sojourn, punctuated by instructions that clarify or

supply what is lacking in the Covenant Code. Note the following links at the seams

between books: Exodus closes with the glory of YHWH filling the tabernacle and Moses

unable to enter (Exod 40:34–35); Leviticus begins with YHWH calling out to Moses

from within the tent (Lev 1:1). Leviticus closes with the colophonic statement: “These are

the commands YHWH gave Moses at Mount Sinai for the Israelites” (Lev 27:34);

Numbers opens with YHWH again speaking to Moses—this time inside the tent at Sinai

because provision has been made for atonement (Num 1:1; cf. Lev 9:23). At each seam

the tabernacle is central, and the Israelites’ location at Sinai is reiterated.

The literary bookend to Israel’s arrival at Sinai (Exod 19:1–2) is found in Num

10:11–12, where the cloud lifted from the tabernacle and the Israelites set out from Sinai

toward the land God promised them. All fifty-nine chapters from Exodus 19 to the first

half of Numbers 10 take place at Sinai.62 As such we must also consider these narratives

as a literary context for the NC.63

62
Leviticus contains no time or date stamp analogous to those that frame the Sinai
narratives, but its contents are expressed as YHWH’s speech to Moses (and sometimes
Aaron) from the tent of meeting. Sinai is the setting of YHWH’s instructions in Lev 7:38
(pertaining to the sacrifices in chapters 1–7); 25:1; 26:46; and 27:34. Narrative time
comes to a halt in Leviticus, with the exception of the high priestly ordination (Leviticus
8–9), part of which happens “on the eighth day” (Lev 9:1), the sin of Nadab and Abihu
(Leviticus 10), and the sin of the half-Israelite (Lev 24:10–23).
63
For a statistical analysis of historical vs. narrative time at Sinai, see Daniel I.
Block, “In the Tradition of Moses: The Conceptual and Stylistic Imprint of Deuteronomy
on the Patriarchal Narratives,” (unpublished paper, presented at Andrews University,
Berrien Springs, MI, on April 3, 2016), 57 n. 144.
 198

Although Exodus closes with the tabernacle furnishings in place, no instructions

have specified the maintenance of the cult. Leviticus supplies this lack, making provision

for the forgiveness of sin and proper protocol for other sacrifices (Leviticus 1–7), the

installation of the priesthood (Leviticus 8–9), and the purity of both priests and people

(Leviticus 10–27). As such it functioned as a manual for ongoing attention to the

covenant relationship.64 The final events at Sinai, recounted in Numbers 1–10, involved

the registration and organization of the Israelites in preparation to leave the mountain and

enter Canaan (Num 1:1–10:10).

The Sinai narratives are framed by Israel’s desert travels. Although Numbers 33

suggests the full itinerary included at least forty-two camp sites, the narrative account

highlights only six stops on either side of Sinai, each marked by the occurrence of the

wayyiqtol ‫“( ויסעו‬and they set out”).65 Further reinforcing this symmetry is the appearance

of one travel-related imperative on either side of Sinai (Exod 14:2; Num 14:25), both of

which mention the sea, and two occurrences of the wayyiqtol ‫“( ויבאו‬and they entered”) in

conjunction with a stay on the journey (Exod 15:27; Num 20:1), bringing the total

number of stops marked by wayyiqtol to fourteen, with the narrative block at Sinai in the

center. Israel traversed seven deserts (Sinai is the third) and is said to have “camped” ten

64
Note that these procedural texts follow the apostasy of Exodus 32. Leviticus is
YHWH’s provision for the restoration of rebellious Israel, even anticipating future
failures.
65
Leading to Sinai: Exod 12:37; 13:20; 15:22; 16:1; 17:1; 19:2. Leading away
from Sinai: Num 10:12; 20:22; 21:4; 21:10; 21:11; 22:1. The handful of other locations
specified lack the formulaic ‫“( ויסעו‬and they set out”; Num 11:35; 12:16; 21:12–13). The
verb ‫ נסע‬occurs 17x in the narrative if other conjugations are counted (Sinai is the
seventh, followed by 10 more). For more discussion of this symmetry see Cross,
Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, 308–
16; Cohn, The Shape of Sacred Space, 18; Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, 289.
 199

times.66 This selective numeric artistry, reinforced grammatically, points to the central

role of Sinai in Israel’s sojourn.

In addition to this stylized itinerary, many stories recounted on either side of Sinai

correspond to each other. Twice before Sinai and twice afterward the Israelites

complained they had no water (Exod 17:1–7; Num 20:2–11). Once on either side Moses

procured water from a rock (Exod 17:5–6; Num 20:11). Once on either side the narrative

describes the quail and manna God provided (Exodus 16; Numbers 11). The angel of

YHWH appeared in one incident on either side, both times protecting them from the evil

designs of foreign kings (Exod 14:19–20; Num 22:21–35). The Israelites fought the

Amalekites on either side (Exod 17:8–16; Num 14:39–45). The Israelites’ response to the

report of the scouts in Numbers 14 mirrors the response to Pharaoh’s army before they

crossed the sea (Exod 14:10–12)—they lament ever having left Egypt.67 Immediately

66
Exodus 13:20; 15:27; 17:1; 19:2; Num 12:16; 21:10; 21:11; 21:12; 21:13; 22:1.
The itineraries also mention “desert” 6x before the Sinai narratives (7x, if Exod 13:18 is
counted) and 7x afterward, with a double mention directly on either side.
67
A close comparison reveals the further deterioration of the Israelites’ mood.
While in Exodus they wished to have stayed in Egypt as slaves rather than dying in the
wilderness, in Numbers they wished to have died in Egypt or died in the wilderness rather
than face the occupants of Canaan. While in Exodus they complained about Moses, in
Numbers they complained about YHWH directly.

Exod 14:11b, 12b Num 14:2b–3

‫המבלי אין־קברים במצרים‬ ‫לו־מתנו בארץ מצרים‬
‫לקחתנו למות במדבר‬ ‫או במדבר הזה לו־מתנו׃‬
‫מה־זאת עׂשית לנו‬ ‫ ולמה יהוה מביא אתנו אל־הארץ הזאת לנפל‬3
‫להוציאנו ממצרים׃‬ ‫בחרב‬
‫ חדל ממנו ונעבדה את־מצרים‬. . . ‫נׁשינו וטפנו יהיו לבז‬
‫כי טוב לנו עבד את־מצרים‬ ‫הלוא טֹוב לנו ׁשוב מצרימה׃‬
‫ממתנו במדבר׃‬
 200

preceding and following the Sinai narratives, Moses struggled under the burden of

leadership (Exod 18:17–18; Num 11:10–15) and benefitted from the presence of a wise

Midianite family member (Exodus 18; Num 10:29–32) and elders who shared the load

(Exod 18:24–26; Num 11:16–17). The lexical correspondence between these accounts is

striking. In Numbers 11, Moses explicitly reused Jethro’s language from Exodus 18. 68

Weren’t there enough graves in Egypt “If only we had died in the land of Egypt,
that you took us to die in the desert? or in this desert if only we had died.
What is this you have done to us— For why has YHWH brought us to this land
by bringing us out from Egypt? . . . to fall by the sword?
Leave us alone so we can serve the Egyptians, Our wives and small children will be booty!
for it is better for us to serve the Egyptians Is it not better for us to return to Egypt?”
than for us to die in the desert.

68
In Exodus 18, Moses’ father-in-law Jethro expressed concern about Moses’
workload, insisting, “the task (‫ )הדבר‬is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone,” and
recommending that Moses appoint elders to “bear the burden” of “all this people” (‫כל־‬
‫ ;העם הזה‬Exod 18:23) with him so he would “be able to endure.” After Sinai, when the
pressure grew unbearable for Moses, he complained to YHWH, repeatedly using the
phrase “all this people” (‫ ;כל־העם הזה‬Num 11:11, 12, 14) and employing Jethro’s words
to express the burden of responsibility. He concluded, “I am not able alone to carry all
this people, for they are too heavy for me” (Num 11:14; cf. Deut 1:12), making explicit
what was vague in Jethro’s statement. While Jethro called the task [of judging] too heavy,
Moses envisioned himself carrying the entire community through the desert; they
themselves were too heavy to bear. Note the transposition and reuse of Jethro’s language.

Exod 18:18b Num 11:14

‫כי־כבד ממך הדבר‬ ‫לא־אוכל אנכי לבדי‬
‫לׂשאת את־כל־העם הזה‬
‫לא־תוכל עש ֹהו לבדך׃‬ ‫כי כבד ממני‬
For this thing is too heavy for you I myself am unable alone
To carry all this people
You are unable to do it alone For it is too heavy for me
 201

Other elements could be explored, but this list suffices to show the deliberate framing of

the Sinai narratives in a way that sets them apart and highlights their significance.69

One significant narrative shift pertains to travels after Sinai. While both travel

accounts describe the people’s complaints and rebellion, after Sinai rebellion was

punished (Num 11:1; 14:26–35).70 Prior to Sinai they learned to trust YHWH and Moses

as his representative; after Sinai, their failure to trust merited punishment. Their covenant

status, sealed at Sinai, inaugurated a greater accountability.71 The instructions that

emanate from Sinai remake this people and reorder their way of life, making it possible

for YHWH to dwell among them.

Deuteronomy as Context for the Decalogue

The Deuteronomic Decalogue deserves separate treatment. As in Exodus, in

Deuteronomy the Decalogue stands, together with a paraenetic call for faithfulness, at the

head of Moses’ instructions for Israel. The concentrated body of instructions that follow

69
For example, before and after Sinai, God led Israel with the pillar of cloud, led
her into battle, and revealed his glory. For further discussion of the “ring structure”
around Sinai, see Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus, 285–90. Milgrom (Numbers,
xviii) identified a larger chiasm spanning from Genesis to Joshua. The center of his
chiasm is also Sinai, specifically Exodus 33, where YHWH promised his presence would
accompany the Israelites out of the wilderness. Cf. Jan Wagenaar, “Crossing the Sea of
Reeds (Exod 13–14) and the Jordan (Josh 3–4): A Priestly Framework for the Wilderness
Wandering,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation, ed.
Marc Vervenne, BETL 126 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 461–70.
70
For alternative accounts of Israel’s murmuring, see George W. Coats, Rebellion
in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness Traditions of the Old
Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1968); William Johnstone, “From the Sea to the
Mountain: Exodus 15,22–19,2: A Case-Study in Editorial Techniques,” in Studies in the
Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation, ed. Marc Vervenne, BETL 126
(Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 245–63.
71
See also Milgrom, Numbers, xvi, 82.
 202

may be called the Deuteronomic Torah (Deuteronomy 12–26). Though the form of the

NC is identical in both versions, the new narrative context is significant. While the

Exodus version was declared to a generation recently delivered from bondage in Egypt,

the Deuteronomy Decalogue was ostensibly addressed to a new generation—those who

were born or came of age during the wilderness wanderings—on the plains of Moab.

Still, Moses spoke to them as if they had been at Sinai. This notion of “corporate

continuity”72 both implicated and assured this generation. “You rebelled,” Moses told

them (1:43), and yet “he declared to you his covenant, that is, he commanded you to do

the Ten Words” (4:13).73 For Moses, every generation of YHWH’s covenant people was

present at Sinai, witnessing YHWH’s awesome presence and receiving his decrees. He

went so far as to say “with us YHWH our God cut a covenant at Horeb. Not with our

fathers did YHWH cut this covenant, but with us, those of us here today, all of us who

are living” (5:2–3).74 Moses’ point was theological. With the exception of Joshua and

Caleb, the previous generation had forfeited the benefit of covenant blessings by failing

to obey YHWH. The covenant itself had not been abrogated, but its benefactions were

reserved for a generation committed to walking in YHWH’s ways.

72
Greg Beale used this term in a class lecture on the hermeneutical
presuppositions of NT authors, but it is equally true of Moses at Moab. See also Jerry
Hwang, The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in
Deuteronomy, Siphrut 8 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 193.
73
For a brief discussion of this passage, see Block, Deuteronomy, 128 n. 13.
74
The indirect object ‫ עמנו‬is fronted for emphasis. Later Moses provided the
Israelites with a creedal-like statement that rehearsed this history. As they worshipped
YHWH in the land, the Israelites were to confess that they had been enslaved in Egypt
and that YHWH had delivered them (Deut 26:5–10; cf. 6:20–25, a creed that includes the
Sinai regulations).
 203

The reiteration of the Ten Words assured this generation—and by extension every

believing generation to come—that they were indeed YHWH’s covenant people. Moses

reinforced that connection by applying the covenant titles to them: “For you are a holy

people (‫ )עם קדוׁש אתה ליהוה‬belonging to YHWH your God. You YHWH your God has

chosen out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to become his treasured people” ( ‫עם‬

‫ ;סגלה‬Deut 7:6; cf. Exod 19:5–6). Like their parents at Sinai, they were elect. Therefore,

they were responsible for living by YHWH’s covenant stipulations. Put another way, the

rehearsal of the Decalogue in this new context to the next generation assured that it

would continue to function programmatically for Israel’s life with YHWH. As Moses

formed the people’s memory, their identity was thereby secured.

The Decalogue as Context for the NC

Scholars have suggested a variety of organizing structures for the Ten Words as

well as ways in which the Decalogue provides a programmatic structure for the other

constitutional documents, especially the Deuteronomic Torah. A survey and evaluation of

these various proposals will help determine whether structural considerations should

influence how we read the NC. Keeping the NC in focus, this section will first explore

the internal, microstructure of the Decalogue and then consider the possibility of its

programmatic macrostructure.

Microstructure:
Reading the NC in the Context of the Decalogue
The early church often failed to respect the narrative context of the Decalogue.

Instead, it was extracted and used for catechesis, as a basic, universal ethic for training
 204

new Christians. Freed from its narrative context, the Decalogue (especially its second

half) was deemed suitable for a gentile audience.75

The primary hermeneutical lens for the early church’s reading of the Decalogue

was Jesus’ statement in Matt 22:36–40 highlighting the two greatest commands: love for

God and neighbor. Early interpreters assumed he must be summarizing the Ten Words.76

Since by that time the ANE covenant background of the Decalogue had been largely

forgotten, interpreters did not realize that the two tablets would have been duplicates.

They assumed that Jesus was substituting one command for each of the tablets, with

those on the first tablet pertaining to love of God and those on the second to love of

neighbor. The idea quickly caught on (“That’ll preach!”), but just as interpreters

disagreed over how to number the Ten Words, so they disagreed over how to divide

75
Chapot, “Réflexions antiques sur la structure du Décalogue,” 31. Cf. Martine
Dulaey, “Le Décalogue, les tables de la Loi et la catéchèse,” in Décalogue au miroir des
Pères (Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2008), 49–63. Jews also used the Decalogue
for catechesis. For example, the first-century CE Nash Papyrus contains a composite
Hebrew text combining both versions of the Decalogue along with the Shemaʿ. See Tov,
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 118; F. C. Burkitt, “The Hebrew Papyrus of the
Ten Commandments,” JQR 15 (1903): 392–408; Stanley A. Cook, “A Pre-Massoretic
Biblical Papyrus,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (1903): 34–57. A
close relationship between the Decalogue and the Shemaʿ is maintained in the Talmud (y.
Ber. 1:4), where Rabbi Levi claims that the Decalogue is contained within the Shemaʿ.
Indeed, the Shemaʿ declares that YHWH alone is Israel’s God, and exhorts the people to
love him wholly (Deut 6:5–6), mirroring the first two commands of the Decalogue.
76
For earlier examples of this tendency, see Philo, On the Decalogue, LCL 7.12;
Josephus, Ant. 3.5.4, 8. Sänger (“Tora für die Völker,” 123) suggests the absence of NT
quotations from the “first table” is due to the mixed church of Jews and Gentiles, which
naturally made use of the growing tradition that used the “second table” for the basis of
ethical reflection. Indeed, at first glance Rom 13:9–10 supports this view, since the text
declares that four of the commands from the so-called “second tablet” are “summed up”
in the command to love one’s neighbor. However, this selection of commands is not
exhaustive (as Paul added, “and any other command”) and need not imply that only the
Decalogue is in view.
 205

them. Some imagined 5 on each tablet,77 others supposed the first had 4 and the second

6,78 and still others suggested 3 on the first and 7 on the second.79 In any of these

proposals, the NC belonged on the first tablet, highlighting one way believers are to show

love for God—namely, by not misusing his name.

However, it is by no means clear where (or if) the commands ought to be divided.

The Sabbath and Parents commands are not unambiguously vertical or horizontal.

Obedience to each of the Ten Words expresses covenant loyalty to God (“love of God”)

and affects the neighbor. As David Gill insists, even the first commands have “rich

implications for our relationships with people (made in God’s image and likeness).”80

77
Dulaey (“Le Décalogue,” 50) lists Philo, Origen, Ireneaus, and Hilary as
advocates. John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans.
Ford Lewis Battles, LCC [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967], XX:2.8.12; 377–79) also
mentions Josephus. For recent support see Meyers, Exodus, 165; Sarna, Exodus, 108.
78
Ambrosiaster, Commentaries on Galatians–Philemon, trans. Gerald Lewis
Bray, ACT (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 60; Calvin, Institutes, XX:2.8.12,
377–79. More recently, Mark E. Biddle, Deuteronomy, SHBC (Macon, GA: Smyth &
Helwys, 2003), 106.
79
Augustine followed church tradition by viewing the structure typologically; the
first three commands represented the Trinity and the last seven the days of creation. See
Geerlings, “The Decalogue in Augustine’s Theology,” 117; Augustine, Sermons II (20–
50), 33.2; 155. He assumed that the Parents Command stood first on the second table on
the basis of Eph 6:2, which calls it “the first command” (ibid., 33.4; 156). Rather, it is the
first command with a promise.
80
David W. Gill, Doing Right: Practicing Ethical Principles (Downers Grove, IL:
IVP, 2004), 71. The most we can say in regard to content is that the commands proceed
from divine to human affairs. So Greenberg, “Decalogue,” EJ 5:525. As Sarna (Exodus,
108) points out, the Decalogue “opens with ‘the LORD your God’ and closes with ‘your
neighbor.’”
Other stylistic evidence is used to support a two-fold division. Sarna (ibid.) notes
that the first five are longer and contain the divine name, while the second five lack the
divine name and are shorter. The first are unique to Israel, while the last are shared with
other ANE cultures. Cf. Meyers, Exodus, 164. However, the final command is both long
 206

Jesus did not explicitly divide the commands into two groups,81 nor did he specify that he

spoke only of the Decalogue. His two greatest commands, taken together, embraced

God’s will for all human behavior.82 Ultimately, we must reject these early

misunderstandings of a two-tablet division. Given their ANE context, the two tablets

would have naturally contained duplicate copies of the entire list of commands.83

Complicating this picture is the fact that scholars disagree over how to number the

commands.84 That the Decalogue contains ten commands is affirmed in Exod 34:28, Deut

4:13, and 10:4. Differences in how to count them revolve around how to handle the first

several and last two verses. While the constraints of the current project preclude an

exhaustive analysis of other structural proposals, one option in particular is worth

considering because of its implications for the NC.85

and unique to Israel, governing attitudes of the heart rather than enforceable behavior,
and Sarna’s enumeration is questionable on text-linguistic grounds. See below, p. 208.
81
Gill, Doing Right, 71.
82
See also Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 25–26. Similarly, Zimmerli (Old
Testament Theology in Outline, 133) rejects the division of the commands because the
Decalogue is meant to address all of life. Even Calvin (Institutes, XX:2.8.11; 377), who
divided the commands, saw an integral relationship between them.
83
Since the tablets were inscribed on both sides (Exod 32:15), half of the text
naturally would have appeared on each side, but we have no reason to assume that the
commands were thematically divided. On this, see Kline, “Two Tables,” 139–42;
Graupner, “Tora für die Völker,” 75; Dillard and Longman, Introduction to the OT, 98.
84
For discussion, see Mordechai Breuer, “Dividing the Decalogue into Verses
and Commandments,” in The Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, ed. Ben-Zion
Segal, trans. Gershon Levi (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990), 291–330; Block, How I Love
Your Torah, 56–60; DeRouchie, “Counting the Ten.”
85
As is typical, some circularity is involved in establishing the structure. Structure
can help interpret individual commands, but sometimes interpretation of those commands
provides structural clues. For example, some proposed structures are based on a speech-
 207

Lohfink and Otto suggested that the differences between versions of the

Decalogue have to do with a subtle new structure imposed on Deuteronomy 5 that

highlights the Sabbath Command (v. 12–15) as the “principal commandment.”86

According to Lohfink, this structure was created by replacing ‫ זכר‬with ‫ׁשמר‬, creating a

“Deuteronomic” inclusio with ‫ עׂשה‬at the end of the Sabbath Command, since ‫ ׁשמר‬and

‫ עׂשה‬are often paired in Deuteronomic literature.87 Furthermore, the addition of “ox and

donkey” (‫ )ושורך וחמרך‬in the Sabbath Command forged a link with the last command,

while the additional reference to “slavery in Egypt” (‫ בארץ מצרים‬. . . ‫ )עבד‬connected it

related interpretation of the NC. Thomas Aquinas (“The Moral Precepts of the Old Law
[1267–73]” in Brown, The Ten Commandments, 53) observes a progression from actions
(no images), to words (NC), to heart (Sabbath). His association of Sabbath with heart is
questionable, as is his limitation of the NC to words. Motyer (The Message of Exodus,
219) sees a chiasm with thoughts (worship YHWH, no images // no coveting), words (NC
// false witness), and deeds (Sabbath // murder, adultery, theft), with family obligations in
the center. His linking of worship with thoughts rather than actions betrays modern
categories. Harrelson (The Ten Commandments and Human Rights, 40) arranges the
commands topically in a four-part structure. Cf. Block, For the Glory of God, 86. T.
Desmond Alexander (From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the Main
Themes of the Pentateuch [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998], 85) relates the prohibition
of images to “visual representations of God” and the NC to “verbal representations.” He
is right to see a relationship between images and the NC, but not as a juxtaposition of
sight and sound. More likely, YHWH forbids images because he has already provided a
living image (cf. Gen 1:26–27) on whom his name is placed (cf. Num 6:27)—his
covenant people.
86
Norbert Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative
and Deuteronomy, trans. L. M. Maloney (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994), 260;
Eckhart Otto, “Der Dekalog in den deuteronomistischen Redaktionen des
Deuteronomiums,” in Die Zehn Worte: der Dekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik, ed.
Michael Konkel, Christian Frevel, and Johannes Schnocks, QD 212 (Freiburg im
Breisgau: Herder, 2005), 95–108.
87
Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch, 252–53. Weinfeld (Deuteronomy and the
Deuteronomic School, 336, no. 17, 17a, 17b) includes this word pair in his appendix of
Deuteronomic phraseology. See, e.g., Deut 4:16; 7:12.
 208

with the first. The insertion of ‫ ו‬between each of the final commands linked them as a

unit, resulting in an overall chiasm:88

I Worship of YHWH 5:6–10 long (‫)מצרים‬

II Name of YHWH 11 short
III SABBATH 12–15 long (‫)ושורך וחמרך ;מצרים‬
IV Parents 16 short
V Moral Commandments 17–21 long (‫)ושורך וחמרך‬

Greenstein’s observations about the coherence of Deut 5:6–10, the first unit, support the

idea of taking them together as one command. He observes the following

correspondences:

v. 6 A (motive) I am YHWH your God

v. 7 B (prohibition) You are not to have any other gods
v. 8 B' (prohibition) You are not to make yourself a carved-image
v. 9–10 A' (motive) I am YHWH your God89

However, Greenstein’s chiasm can be improved. He rightly linked these verses, but he

has not accounted for additional prohibitions in v. 9a that change the chiasm’s emphasis.

v. 6 A (motive) I am YHWH your God

v. 7 B (prohibition) You are not to have any other gods
v. 8 C (central prohibition) You are not to make a carved-image
v. 9a B' (prohibition) You are not to bow down to or serve them
v. 9b–10 A' (motive) I am YHWH your God

88
Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch, 255–57. His outline follows, with Hebrew
added. For Lohfink, the structure suits the exile, during which Sabbath synagogue
services were central to Jewish religion (ibid., 262). However, an exilic date is not
required to explain the Sabbath structure. “Rest” may be central because YHWH’s land
promise was nearing fulfillment. Furthermore, Sabbath-observance was the central sign
of the covenant (Exod 31:12–17). Kilchör (Mosetora und Jahwetora, 330, 341) notes the
“hinge” function of the Sabbath-related commands in Deuteronomy.
89
Greenstein, “Rhetoric of the Ten Commandments,” 9. His analysis works with
either version of the Decalogue.
 209

This modified chiasm highlights the prohibition against carved images, and confirms that

it is primarily concerned with images of other gods, not images of YHWH.90 Since the

worship of any other gods in the ANE would have included the use of physical

representations of those deities, the command against images prevents apostasy. This

interpretation accounts for the syntactical connection between ‫“( להם‬to them”; 5:9a)

and ‫“(אלהים אחרים‬other gods”; 5:7), the only possible plural antecedent, and the mention

of YHWH as ‫“(קנא‬jealous”; 5:9).91 It also fits with the discourse structure of the passage,

providing some support for Lohfink’s larger chiasm.92

This arrangement is significant because the NC becomes the second command of

the Decalogue, immediately following the command for exclusive worship of YHWH.

These two, regarding proper worship and proper representation, stand at the head of the

covenant stipulations. The God who forbids making images points to his people as his

legitimate representatives, a role they are not to take lightly. Read together, these first

two commands reinforce the two dimensions of the covenant declaration, “I will be your

90
One might argue on the basis of Deut 4:15–28 that images of YHWH are also
prohibited, but even there the concern seems to be other gods. YHWH is “jealous” (4:24)
for Israel’s complete devotion.
91
See Block, How I Love Your Torah, 59–60.
92
DeRouchie (“Counting the Ten”) argues text-linguistically that vv. 6–10
constitute one command. My semantic chiasm corresponds to the discourse structure and
therefore meets Smith’s criterion for determining author-intended chiasms. See Craig
Smith, Criteria for Biblical Chiasms: Objective Means for Distinguishing Chiasms of
Design from Accidental and False Chiasm (Ph.D. diss., University of Bristol, 2009).
 210

God, and you will be my people.”93 Exodus 6:6–8 explicitly links the covenant formula

with the exodus as a fulfillment of God’s covenant with the Patriarchs:

I am YHWH, and I will bring you out from under the compulsory labor of the
Egyptians, and I will snatch you from their service, and I will redeem you with an
outstretched arm and with great judgments. And I will take you to myself as my
own people, and I will be your God. And you shall know that I am YHWH, your
God, the one bringing you out from under the compulsory service of the
Egyptians. And I will bring you to the land I swore with uplifted hand to give to
Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you as a possession. I am
YHWH.94
Similarly, the Decalogue opens with a reminder of YHWH’s having redeemed them from

Egypt as he promised (Exod 20:2), and brought them to himself rather than to a code of

conduct (19:4). On this basis he declared they were to worship him exclusively (20:4–6)

and live appropriately as those who belong to him (20:7). Exodus 6:3 highlights the

significance of the revelation of his name. Knowing the significance of the name YHWH

distinguishes the exodus generation and entails their responsibility not to squander this

privilege (20:7).95 From the foundation of this covenant relationship, outlined in the first

two commands of the Decalogue, flow all the rest of the commands.96 Ultimately, this

93
As Gentry and Wellum (Kingdom through Covenant, 344) recognize. The
covenant formula is associated explicitly with redemption from Egypt (Exod 6:6–8; Jer
7:22–23; 11:1–5). It also points forward to what God will do in the restoration/new
covenant (Jer 30:22; Ezek 36:27–28; cf. Hos 2:25[23]).
94
Emphasis mine. For discussion, see Daniel I. Block, “Covenance: A Whole
Bible Perspective” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological
Society, Baltimore, MD, November 2013), 13.
95
See Surls, Making Sense of the Divine Name.
96
The combination of the traditional first two commands (no other gods, no
images) requires that the last command (no coveting) be split (no lust, no coveting) to
achieve a total of ten. The discourse features and syntax of the Deuteronomic Decalogue
make this division natural. See Block, The Gospel according to Moses, 169–73.
 211

covenantal footing fits with the Sabbath-centered focus because the Sabbath is also taken

to be the sign (‫ )אות‬of the covenant (see Exod 31:13; cf. Ezek 20:12–20). In sum, those

who worship YHWH exclusively (#1) and live rightly as his people (#2) pattern the work

week of their households after God’s by resting on the seventh day (#3); they honor their

parents (#4), and maintain the rights of their neighbor—rights to life (#5), marriage (#6),

property (#7), and reputation (#8)—while maintaining the purity of their minds (#9–#10).

Macrostructure:
Reading Deuteronomy as an Exposition of the Decalogue
Scholarly fascination with the structure of the Decalogue extends beyond its

internal organization to its programmatic influence on other portions of the Hebrew

Bible.97 One popular proposal suggests that the Deuteronomic Torah (Deuteronomy 12–

26) is arranged in Decalogic order, so that each section of regulations corresponds to the

next command of the Decalogue. The idea originated among modern scholars with W.

Schultz, and a number of variations have been proposed.98 Many remain unconvinced of

the basic thesis, though the view seems to be gaining traction.99 A full assessment is

97
For example, David Noel Freedman (The Nine Commandments: Uncovering
the Pattern of Crime and Punishment in the Hebrew Bible [New York: Doubleday,
2000]) argued that each book from Exodus to Kings portrays the serial breaking of the
commands. In his scheme the NC corresponds to Lev 24:10–23, where a man of mixed
Israelite-Egyptian descent blasphemes the name and is put to death. Few have taken his
imaginative proposal seriously. For a critique of Freedman’s subjectivity, see Block,
“Reading the Decalogue Right to Left,” 47.
98
Nelson (Deuteronomy, 79) says Philo was the first to detect it.
99
McConville (Deuteronomy, 122) is intrigued, but unconvinced. Nelson
(Deuteronomy, 79) feels the thesis is weak with regard to the parents command. Tigay
(Deuteronomy, 446–59, 534 n. 19) finds some Decalogic links convincing, but not the
overall structure. He proposes a different organizational scheme involving thematic and
associative characteristics. Block (Deuteronomy, 301) feels the Decalogic structure is
 212

beyond the scope of this project, but its implications for the NC are worth considering

(Table 11).

Table 11. The Name Command in the Decalogic Structure of Deuteronomy100

Interpreter Section Corresponding to the NC

W. Schultz (1859) Deut 12–13 (ch. 14 unassigned)
S. Kaufman (1979) Deut 13:1—14:27
G. Braulik (1993) Deut 14:1–21
E. Otto (2002) Deut 13:1—15:23
A. Harman (2007) Deut 14:1–29
J. Walton (2012) Deut 13 (ch. 14 unassigned)
B. Kilchör (2015) Deut 14:1–21

As Table 11 shows, each structural proposal links the NC with material between

chapters 12 and 15 of Deuteronomy, with substantial overlap in chapters 13 and 14.

However, most acknowledge that the Decalogic structure is weakest with regard to the

NC. Braulik admits that chapter 14 relates only indirectly to the NC,101 and rejects

Kaufman’s arrangement because the relationship of the NC with chapter 13 is “too

“forced.” On the other hand, in addition to those listed below, adherents include Gordon
Wenham, “Law,” DTIB 446; Pleins, Social Visions, 56.
100
W. Schultz, Das Deuteronomium, Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz, 1859, iii–iv, 17–
18; Braulik, “Sequence of Laws,” 318–27; cf. Biddle, Deuteronomy, 103; Otto,
Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments, 101; Kilchör, Mosetora und Jahwetora, 96–
107. John Walton (“The Decalogic Structure of the Deuteronomic Law,” in Interpreting
Deuteronomy, ed. David G. Firth and Philip S. Johnston [Nottingham: Apollos, 2012],
106) sees Deuteronomy 14 as a summary of the first three commands because no clear
connection obtains between this chapter and any one command.
101
Braulik, “Sequence of Laws,” 327.
 213

remote.”102 Walton concedes that this relationship “hangs by a mere thread.”103 He sees a

clear connection in the first part of chapter 13, where a prophet is presumably speaking

falsehood in YHWH’s name, but the correspondence breaks down with the ensuing

examples of laypeople spreading apostasy, since they are not official spokespeople.104 In

his latest work, Walton labels chapter 14 as an appendix.105

Indeed, traditional ways of reading the NC do not fit well with the concerns of

Deuteronomy 12–15. Oath taking, magic, and idolatry do not appear at all in these

chapters and seem unrelated. However, if the NC proscribes misrepresentation of YHWH

by all who bear his name, the connection with Deuteronomy 12–14 is more obvious.

Deuteronomy 12 speaks of the place where YHWH will put his name, the place to which

Israel is called to come and worship. Deuteronomy 13 describes the consequences for

enticing one’s fellow Israelites to worship other gods. Because every Israelite bears

YHWH’s name, apostasy is treated with utmost seriousness, both for the one enticing and

those who are led astray.106

102
Ibid., 321 n. 29. Kaiser (Toward Old Testament Ethics, 132) agrees with
Kaufman’s structure, but feels the NC is “the most difficult to associate” with its
corresponding section.
103
Walton, “Decalogic Structure,” 99.
104
Ibid., 99–100. However, see 18:20, where prophets speak in the names of other
gods. Walton (ibid., 100) calls these additional laws “tangential.”
105
Walton’s earlier article (“Deuteronomy: An Exposition of the Spirit of the
Law,” GTJ 8:2 [1987]: 221) included chapter 14 under the NC, but his 2012 essay
(“Decalogic Structure,” 106) does not.
106
Apostasy is treated again in Deut 17:1–13, but advocates of Decalogic
structure suggest that the focus is either on proper implementation of the death penalty (//
“Do not murder”) or use of authority (// “Honor your father and mother”). For the latter,
see Walton, “Decalogic Structure,” 108.
 214

Deuteronomy 14 turns out to be the most closely related to the NC, as Kilchör has

argued.107 The chapter begins with these words: “Sons you are, belonging to YHWH

[‫]ליהוה‬, your God. Do not cut yourselves and do not put baldness between your eyes [ ‫בין‬

‫ ]עיניכם‬for the dead” (14:1). The locative phrase “between your eyes” is significant.

YHWH had repeatedly enjoined the Israelites to fix his words as an emblem “between

[their] eyes” as a reminder (Deut 11:18; cf. Exod 13:9, 16; Deut 6:8). Marking

themselves for the dead would send competing messages. Furthermore, the high priest’s

forehead declared his consecration to YHWH with the same phrase [‫]ליהוה‬. Since the

Israelites had been orally branded with YHWH’s name by the high priest (Num 6:27),

they were not to mark their bodies to show allegiance to anyone else.108 Moses explained,

“For you are a holy people, belonging to YHWH, your God. And you YHWH chose to

become his own, to be a treasured people above all the peoples who are on the face of the

earth” (14:2). Israel’s identity was to be found in her election as YHWH’s covenant

partner.109 That identity extended to every facet of life, even including diet. Deuteronomy

14:3–21 describes what Israel may and may not eat. Israel’s prescribed diet was closely

aligned with the sacrificial food laws.110 They were “a holy people” before YHWH

107
Benjamin Kilchör (Mosetora und Jahwetora, 96, AT) says the connection is
“not immediately apparent” but offers an intriguing proposal.
108
Jacobs, “The Body Inscribed,” 14–16. Cf. Lev 21:5; Jer 16:6; 41:5; and 47:5,
where laceration and head shaving are mourning rites. The Ugaritic “Baʿlu Myth” (trans.
by Dennis Pardee, COS 1.86:268) describes El’s self-laceration as a mourning rite upon
Baʿal’s death. Tigay (Deuteronomy, 136–37) suggests these extreme mourning rites were
not appropriate for a consecrated people. Just as priests could not have bodily defects, so
the Israelites, as a “quasi-priestly” people, must not injure themselves.
109
So also McConville, Deuteronomy, 248; cf. Lev 19:27–28.
110
See Block, Deuteronomy, 345.
 215

(14:21b), just as the high priest was “holy to YHWH” (Exod 28:36–38). Their holiness

would be compromised by contact with the dead (14:1–2) or with unclean foods (14:3–

21).111 Through careful analysis of intertextual links, Kilchör demonstrates that

Deuteronomy 14 recapitulates only those regulations from Leviticus 11 and 22 that

desecrate YHWH’s name because they pertain to the people who “bear his name” and not

the foreigners living among them.112 Then, in keeping with the humanitarian concerns of

the book, YHWH reminds the Israelites that when they came to eat their tithes at “the

place where he will place his name” (14:23) they must not overlook the powerless and

poor among them (14:27–29), extending YHWH’s blessing to others (14:29b). Each of

these concerns amplifies the idea that Israel bore YHWH’s name, and so must imitate

him.113

This exposition alone is inadequate to establish the Decalogic structure of the

Deuteronomic Torah. While I remain unpersuaded regarding this larger structural thesis,

my reassessment of the NC strengthens a weak part of the schema. Nowhere in

Deuteronomy 12–15 are any laws on oath taking, magic, pronunciation of the name, or

any of the other proposed interpretations of the NC, except false teaching (Deut 13:1–5).

111
On clean and unclean foods as symbolic of elect Israelites and non-elect
foreigners, see Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land, 135. Cf. Lev 20:22–26.
This interpretation suits Deuteronomy 14, where Israel’s holiness is explicitly mentioned
as a preface to the food laws. Since YHWH’s name marks Israel as the elect, the NC
resonates here.
112
Kilchör, Mosetora und Jahwetora, 96–108.
113
Though Otto relates Deuteronomy 15 to the NC, it corresponds more closely to
the Sabbath Command because it speaks of cancelling debts in the seventh year (cf. the
seventh-day rest) and regulates treatment of household servants. Furthermore, firstborn
animals are not to be put “to work” (Deut 15:19; cf. Sabbath rest).
 216

In fact, no laws on oath taking occur anywhere in the Deuteronomic Torah (chapters 12–

26), a surprising omission if that was the point of the NC, since other commands of the

Decalogue are well-represented.114 This observation reinforces doubts about traditional

readings of the NC, particularly for advocates of Deuteronomy’s Decalogic structure.

Even among those who reject the Decalogic structure of Deuteronomy, there is

widespread agreement that the book unpacks the significance of the Decalogue by

applying it to particular situations.115 It is no surprise, then, that we find multiple

instructions related to a representational reading of the NC (e.g., Deut 14:1–2; 18:6–7,

18–22; 21:5; 26:18–19), but no treatment of oath taking. The NC was intended to

encompass a broad range of behaviors for those who bore YHWH’s name among the

nations. Israel was a holy people, and this status affected every aspect of her daily life,

from diet and clothing to the treatment of servants and right worship.

Conclusion: The Decalogue and the Name Command

This chapter has explored the character and context of the Decalogue in order to

properly situate the NC in its narrative environment. It has also briefly considered the

relationship of the Decalogue to Israel’s other constitutional documents. I have argued

114
The Deuteronomic Torah bans magic (Deut 18:9–13), false prophecy (18:17–
22), unfulfilled vows (23:21–23), and commercial dishonesty (25:13–16). Two earlier
passages mention oaths (Deut 6:13; 10:20). However, if these are echoes of the NC, they
do not appear where advocates of the Decalogic structure of Deuteronomy expect them.
115
See, e.g., Tigay, Deuteronomy, 62; McConville, Deuteronomy, 120; Kaiser,
Toward Old Testament Ethics, 81; Wenham, “Law,” DTIB 445; Block, “You shall not
covet,” 143; idem, “Deuteronomy,” DTIB 170; Miller, “Ten Commandments,” in NIDB
5:517; Dozeman, Exodus, 478; Pleins, Social Visions, 50, 60; Kline, “Two Tables,” 140;
Kline, Treaty of the Great King, 33. On the hermeneutical intent of the Decalogic
structure of Deuteronomy as “addressing the spirit of the law,” see Walton,
“Deuteronomy,” 225; cf. Dillard and Longman, Introduction to the OT, 100–101.
 217

that the Decalogue did not function as civil legislation in ancient Israel; rather it offered

divine guidance to YHWH’s covenant people, intended to assure their freedom. Written

in duplicate on stone tablets and placed in the ark, the Ten Words outlined what was

expected of Israel as a vassal of her divine suzerain, who had graciously rescued her.

These words painted a portrait of YHWH’s covenant-keeping people, who were to

worship YHWH alone and represent him before the nations by ordering their lives and

relationships in accordance with his divine will.

The prominence of Sinai in Israel’s faith tradition can hardly be overestimated.

The Decalogue stands at the peak of the book of Exodus, divinely revealed in a dramatic

theophany. The stone tablets occupied the most sacred place of the tabernacle, within the

ark inside the holy of holies, symbolizing their centrality to the covenant, and likewise

the centrality of the covenant to Israel’s faith. Looking at the metanarrative of the

Hexateuch, it is significant that the Decalogue was given to a people already redeemed

but not yet possessing their inheritance. The liminality of the desert was the ideal place

for the Hebrews to become the nation of Israel.

The worldview expressed in the Decalogue undergirds other Torah regulations,

which flesh out specific behaviors that fall outside the boundaries of YHWH’s will.

These instructions revealed God’s will for particular situations. They were obligatory, but

neither inflexible nor impossible to keep (4:8; 30:11–13). In each new situation, YHWH

guided his people in adapting the commands for a new context.

The representational reading of the NC suits this wider narrative context where

election and covenant take center stage. It fits the Decalogic structure of Deuteronomy

more naturally than others and accounts for the virtual absence of commands on oath
 218

taking in the Deuteronomic Torah. Together with the first command, it reinforces the

covenant formula, “I will be your God; you will be my people.”

 CHAPTER 5

BEARING YHWH’S NAME AT SINAI

Metaphors teach, and they do so by reorienting the reader’s perception.

—William P. Brown, “The Didactic Power of Metaphor”

Conceptual Metaphor in Biblical Literature

In addition to careful lexical and historical work, as well as analysis of literary

context, an accurate understanding of the NC requires a consideration of its

metaphoricity. Traditionally speaking, Exod 20:7 contains no metaphor, if the figure of

speech is defined narrowly as “a declaration that one thing is (or represents) another”

(THIS IS THAT).1 However, if we attend to the implicit or conceptual metaphors that shape

patterns of speech, new ways of thinking about the NC become possible.

A “conceptual metaphor” is an analogical word-picture that exists as a feature of

thought, shaping how reality is perceived and, consequently, expressed in a variety of

ways. Conceptual metaphors are implicit, rather than explicit, and therefore part of

cognitive linguistics. In the words of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, “Metaphors

1
Bullinger, Figures of Speech, 735. For Bullinger only “distinct affirmation”
counts as metaphor. He laments that “metaphorical” is used too loosely.
This project follows the practice conventional among cognitive linguists of
designating the source and target domains of a metaphor in small capital letters. A source
domain is the concrete image employed to understand the more abstract target domain.

219
 220

allow us to understand one domain of experience in terms of another.”2 They offer the

example, TIME IS MONEY, a conceptual metaphor that influences a host of linguistic

expressions, such as “You’re wasting my time,” “How do you spend your time?” and

“That flat tire cost me an hour.”3 Whether or not we are conscious of them, conceptual

metaphors shape speech and behavior. Contrary to the misconceptions of some, the

search for conceptual metaphor is not based primarily on etymological concerns or the

nature of the Hebrew language, nor on an attempt to psychoanalyze the author(s) or

recover the ancient Hebrew mindset, but rather is rooted in patterns of actual language

use whereby one concept is presented in terms of another.4

Metaphor theory is a burgeoning area of study for biblical scholars, many of

whom are beginning to move beyond the classical Western notion of metaphor. Plato

avoided metaphor, viewing it as inferior to Essence or Ideas,5 while Aristotle allowed that

an appropriate metaphor could be effective rhetorically.6 The legacy of these classical

Greek scholars, especially Plato, was a largely negative opinion of metaphor and an

2
George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1980), 117.
3
See ibid., 7–8.
4
Job Jindo (“Toward the Poetics of the Biblical Mind: Language, Culture, and
Cognition,” VT 59 [2009]: 222–43) explains, “Metaphors are ‘mappings of structure’
from one domain onto another. They thereby constitute a cognitive paradigm in light of
which the language user organizes his or her complex knowledge of what is described
metaphorically.”
5
Bonnie Howe, Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the
Moral Meaning of 1 Peter, BIS 81 (Boston: Brill, 2006), 13–21.
6
On Aristotle’s legacy, see Weiss, Figurative Language, 1–10. Howe (Because
You Bear This Name, 11–27) recognizes some continuity between Aristotle and cognitive
metaphor theory and blames Plato for negativity toward metaphor.
 221

inattention to the cognitive processes that produce and recognize metaphor. However,

more recently, biblical scholars have begun to draw on the insights of philosophical and

cognitive linguists to help them understand and appreciate metaphor in the Bible. These

scholars contend that metaphors are not merely stylistic or ornamental, but significantly

shape our cognition.7 A metaphor is more than the sum of its parts; it creates new worlds

of possible meaning by triggering “networks of associations.”8

Zoltán Kövecses offers an accessible yet methodologically rigorous introduction

to metaphor, bringing those outside the field of cognitive linguistics up-to-date on the

developments since Lakoff and Johnson’s seminal work.9 He demonstrates not only the

intricate complexity of conceptual metaphors, but also their ubiquity in everyday

communication. While poetry is known for its creative and unconventional metaphorical

expressions, metaphor is an unavoidable part of the communicative process in ordinary

conversations as well. Conceptual metaphors organize the way we all think about reality.

These metaphors operate systemically and systematically, so that the potential

motivations for a given expression may be reliably assessed.

7
For many biblical scholars, Metaphors We Live By was a gateway to metaphor
theory. However, some criticize Lakoff and Johnson for focusing almost exclusively on
cognition at the expense of linguistic expressions. See Weiss, Figurative Language, 15–
17.
8
Some metaphors draw on conventionalized language patterns or concepts, but
others are innovative. See Alison Ruth Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading
through Metaphor (Ph.D. diss., Selwyn College, 2012), 18, 22; William P. Brown, “The
Didactic Power of Metaphor in the Aphoristic Sayings of Proverbs,” JSOT 29 (2004):
136; Lam, Metaphorical Patterning of the Sin-Concept, 42.
9
Kövecses, Metaphor.
 222

Joseph Lam offers a biblical case study utilizing this broader definition of

metaphor. For Lam, metaphors are rhetorical “vehicles” used to convey meaning in a

particularly striking way.10 Instead of isolating single words, Lam calls on interpreters to

analyze a wider scope of metaphorical concepts together (as he has done with the sin-

concept). When a constellation of figurative expressions is recognized, the underlying

metaphorical concept may be identified and explored.11

Without this recognition of metaphoricity, something is irretrievably lost. The

rhetorical contribution of a metaphor cannot be fully conveyed with non-metaphorical

language because metaphors configure the way we think and act. An overly concrete

reading of a metaphor dissolves the creative tension and distorts the meaning.12

Conceptual Metaphor at Sinai

Regulatory material is not the first place we would expect to find metaphor. But a

careful perusal of the Decalogue and its literary context yields a host of metaphorical

10
Lam, Metaphorical Patterning of the Sin-Concept, 7, 445.
11
Ibid., 449–50.
12
Leo G. Perdue, The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament
Theology, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994), 204, 206;
Weiss, Figurative Language, 219; Gray, Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures, 18; Brown,
“The Didactic Power of Metaphor,” 152; Carol A. Newsom, “A Maker of Metaphors:
Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre,” in “The Place Is Too Small for Us”: The Israelite
Prophets in Recent Scholarship, ed. R. P. Gordon, SBTS 5 (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1995), 192; Job Y. Jindo, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive
Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24, HSM 64 (Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2010), 32; Anderson, Sin, 4, 6, 13.
 223

examples. Table 12 includes some of the clearest evidence, but other examples could no

doubt be cited.13

Table 12. Conceptual Metaphors in the Exodus Decalogue

20:2b ‫“ מארץ מצרים‬from the land of A COUNTRY IS A DOMICILE; PART

‫ מבית עבדים‬Egypt, from the house FOR WHOLE; MEMBER OF A
of slaves” CATEGORY FOR THE CATEGORY14
20:3 ‫“ לֹא יהיה־לך‬you shall have no RELATIONSHIP IS SPATIAL
‫ אלהים אחרים‬other gods before me” LOCATION;15 PROXIMITY IS
‫על־פני‬ PRIORITY
20:4b ‫“ וכל־תמונה‬or any likeness of REALM AS CONTAINER
‫ אׁשר בׁשמים‬what is in the heavens
‫ ממעל‬above”
20:5a ‫“ לא־תׁשתחוה‬you shall not bow ACTION STANDS FOR DISPOSITION;
‫ להם‬down to them” PART FOR WHOLE
20:5b ‫“ פקד עון אבת‬attending to the ACTION STANDS FOR DISPOSITION;
‫ על־בנים‬iniquity of the fathers SIN IS A BURDEN; MEMBER OF
upon the sons” GROUP STANDS FOR WHOLE GROUP
20:5c ‫“ על־ׁשלׁשים ועל־‬upon the third and NUMBER OF GENERATION STANDS
‫ רבעים‬upon the fourth” FOR GENERATION (ellipsis)

13
Many of the conceptual metaphors and metonymies mentioned below are
discussed in Kövecses’ Metaphor: An Introduction with English-language examples.
Cognitive linguists conventionally render conceptual metaphors using the formula A IS B
or A AS B, and conceptual metonymy as A STANDS FOR B or A FOR B. These are not
ontological statements, but rather the explicit identification of source and target domains
for an unstated but verifiably-present metaphorical concept. The use of small capital
letters signals this. On the degree to which conceptual metaphors are universal, see
Kövecses, Metaphor, 195–213. Conceptual metaphors based on physiological
experiences often occur across cultural boundaries.
14
Slaves represented just one of many types of people living in Egypt during that
period. But here the entire society was conceived of as a “house of slaves.”
15
This passage implies more than the physical arrangement of images in the Most
Holy Place; YHWH’s people were not even to consider any other rival gods.
 224
20:5c ‫“ לׂשנאי‬those who hate me” EMOTION FOR BEHAVIOR; HATE
20:6a ‫“ לאהבי‬those who love me” STANDS FOR DEMONSTRATED
COVENANT UNFAITHFULNESS; LOVE
STANDS FOR DEMONSTRATED
COVENANT FAITHFULNESS
20:6a ‫“ לאלפים‬to thousands” LARGE NUMBER STANDS FOR AN
UNLIMITED AMOUNT; perhaps
NUMBER OF GENERATION STANDS
FOR GENERATION (ELLIPSIS)
20:6b ‫“ ולׁשמרי מצותי‬to those who keep my AN UTTERANCE IS AN OBJECT;
commands” ATTENTIVE OBEDIENCE IS
PHYSICALLY GUARDING AN OBJECT
20:8 ‫“ זכור את־יום‬remember the MENTAL ATTENTION STANDS FOR
(v.11) ‫ הׁשבת לקדׁשו‬Sabbath day, by OBEDIENCE; TIME IS SPACE or TIME
consecrating it” IS AN OBJECT
20:10 ‫“ וגרך אׁשר‬nor a foreigner who PART FOR WHOLE; BOUNDARY
‫[ בׁשעריך‬is] in your gates” STANDS FOR CONTAINED AREA;
GATE STANDS FOR PROTECTION
20:11 ‫“ את־הׁשמים‬the heavens and the SPACE IS A CONTAINER
‫ ואת־הארץ את־‬earth and the sea and
‫ הים ואת־כל־‬all that is in them”
‫אׁשר־בם‬
20:12b ‫“ למען יארכון‬that your days may be LIFE IS A DAY or DAY STANDS FOR
‫ ימיך‬lengthened” TIME; TIME IS DISTANCE; DISTANCE
IS QUANTITY
20:16 ‫“ לא־תענה ברעך‬you shall not respond SOCIETY IS A NEIGHBORHOOD; PART
(v.17) ‫ עד ׁשקר‬to your neighbor FOR WHOLE; PERSON STANDS FOR
(with) false testimony” AN ACCUSATION

Metaphor is common enough in instructional material; we need not doubt its

presence in the NC on the basis of genre. Attention to conceptual metaphor reveals how

pervasive it is in the surrounding chapters of Exodus as well. With this background in

view, we now consider the NC itself (Table 13).

 225
Table 13. Conceptual Metaphor in the Name Command
Exod ‫“ לא תׂשא את־‬you shall not bear the PLACING THE NAME IS CLAIMING
20:7 ‫ ׁשם־יהוה אלהיך‬name of YHWH, your OWNERSHIP; ELECTION IS BRANDING;
‫ לׁשוא‬God, in vain” OBEDIENCE IS A JOURNEY

I propose that the NC exhibits metonymy embedded in metaphor,16 where NAME stands

for YHWH’S CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP (declared at Sinai) and BEARING uses the

metaphorical source domain of a JOURNEY to convey a charge to obedience. The Israelites

are to conduct themselves as covenant members should in the sight of the nations. If

merely “lifting” (raising or exalting) the name were intended, the Hebrew ‫ רום‬would have

been more appropriate.17 As it is, ‫ נׂשא‬usually implies forward movement, carrying

something somewhere.18 The command assumes that the NAME has been placed on the

people, and that they therefore carry it. We will return to the JOURNEY concept below.

BRANDING is an appropriate source domain with which to describe this

phenomenon for two reasons. First, the priestly blessing utilizes the language of physical

branding to “put” (‫ )ׂשים‬YHWH’s name on the Israelites (Num 6:27). In Gen 4:15,

YHWH “put” (‫ )ׂשים‬a mark on Cain that others could see.19 In addition, the Akkadian

cognate to ‫נׂשא‬, našû, was used to speak of “bearing” a brand.20 While the cluster of

16
For a general discussion of this phenomenon, see Kövecses, Metaphor, 187–88.
17
Note the exclusively vertical dimension of ‫ רום‬in DCH 7:441.
18
Unlike ‫רום‬, ‫( נׂשא‬qal) never connotes exaltation (DCH 5:758) but often
describes forward movement (DCH 5:763–65). See also appendix.
19
As noted by Bar-Ilan, “They shall put my name,” 24. Jacobs (“The Body
Inscribed,” 9–12) compares ‫ ׂשים‬to its Akkadian cognate šamātu, which denoted the
placing of a brand on a temple servant. See also Dougherty, The Shirkûtu, 78–91.
20
CAD 11:80, 86.
 226

idioms related to “placing the name” draws on the monumental tradition and usually

evokes a stone inscription, “placing the name” on a person more naturally suggests a

brand.

Second, the mapping of the conceptual domain of BRANDING onto the conceptual

domain of ELECTION highlights a systematic set of associations (Table 14), with

implications for how Israel’s election is conceived and expressed in terms of selection,

ownership, loyal service, protection, and even representation. Branded slaves bear the

name of their owner (whether human or divine) so that their social status is permanently

and publicly conspicuous. 21 Reading the NC in light of this conceptual metaphor with its

associated inferences not only clarifies its meaning, but also brings it into conversation

with related texts, which together contribute to a biblical theology of election.

Table 14. Conceptual Mapping of Election in Terms of Branding

Concrete Source: BRANDING Abstract Target: ELECTION
the branded Israel
the brander YHWH (or his priests)
the act of branding the priestly blessing
the brand YHWH’s Name
the social dynamic the nations are aware
the result possession / loyal service

The origins of this conceptual metaphor lie in the ancient cultural practices of

claiming ownership orally or by affixing one’s name to something by sealing, inscription,

21
The distinction between branding (burning with an iron implement) and
tattooing (subcutaneous insertion of ink with needles) is difficult to discern in ancient
literature. See Stolper, “Inscribed in Egyptian,” 136 n. 12. Contra C. P. Jones, “Stigma:
Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity,” JRS 77 (1987): 139–55. For
further discussion of human branding, see Jacobs, “The Body Inscribed,” 6–8.
 227

or branding. The “perceived structural similarity” between these various methods of

claiming ownership facilitated the application of terms from one domain (physical) to

another (oral) and triggered a network of metaphorical extensions and entailments.22

A related entailment of the metaphorical expression, bear the name, is that

YHWH’s REPUTATION is at stake. This association is a natural result of two phenomena:

(1) the potential for this association intrinsic to the concept of branding, especially with

temple slaves, and (2) the idiomatic and/or metonymic use of NAME in both cases. While

it would be illegitimate to suggest that every potential meaning of the lexeme ‫ ׁשם‬is

activated by any expression that contains ‫ׁשם‬, or that every occurrence of ‫ ׁשם‬relates to

these metaphors, we can argue that interrelated meanings of ‫ ׁשם‬may simultaneously

influence a choice of idiom, making it especially fitting for a particular context. Recent

studies confirm that “the comprehension of metaphorical expressions . . . always takes

place with the simultaneous activation of source domains,” even if that activation is

subconscious.23 In this case, because YHWH’s NAME is the salient feature of his claim to

ownership of the Israelites, biblical authors naturally chose to speak of Israel’s failure to

obey YHWH as profaning his NAME (i.e., reputation), just as the failure to properly carry

out cultic procedures would constitute a profaning of YHWH’s NAME in the temple on

which he had placed his NAME. Each of these is an extension of the core conceptual

metaphor, activated in various contexts by distinct idioms or linguistic expressions.

22
On this method, see Kövecses, Metaphor, 85. Kövecses (ibid., 325) explains,
“Source domains have a large set of potential entailments . . . [that] arise from the rich
knowledge people have about elements of source domains.” See also Vyvyan Evans and
Melanie Green, Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum, 2006),
173.
23
Kövecses, Metaphor, 41, emphasis mine.
 228

To say ELECTION IS BRANDING is not to suggest that election actually involved

physical branding (contra Bar-Ilan), nor that election was universally or consistently

construed as branding. It also does not imply that the connection between these domains

was ever explicit. Instead, ELECTION IS BRANDING expresses a concept underlying and

giving rise to a number of other linguistic expressions with which we are now familiar:

‫נקרא ׁשם על‬, ‫לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬, ‫למען ׁשמו‬, ‫חלל את־ׁשם‬, and ‫קדׁש את־ׁשם‬, among others.

While ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is an unconventional way to activate a relatively unusual metaphor,

ELECTION IS BRANDING, the other key concept evoked, OBEDIENCE IS A JOURNEY, is far

more commonly expressed in a variety of ways. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the

concept of obedience to YHWH’s commands is expressed using journey-language. Here

are a few examples of this ubiquitous motif in the Pentateuch (Table 15):

Table 15. Evidence of the OBEDIENCE IS A JOURNEY Metaphor

Exod 18:20 ‫“ והודעת להם את־הדרך ילכו בה‬and you shall cause them to know the path
in which they should walk”24
Exod 23:2 ‫“ לא־תהיה אחרי־רבים לרעת‬you shall not follow a multitude in
wrongdoing”
Exod 32:8 ‫“ סרו מהר מן־הדרך אׁשר צויתם‬they have quickly turned aside from the
path that I commanded them [to take]”
Lev 20:23 ‫“ ולא תלכו בחקת הגוי אׁשר־אני‬you shall not walk in the statutes of the
‫ מׁשלח מפניכם‬nations which I am driving out before you”
Lev 26:3 ‫“ אם־בחקתי תלכו ואת־מצותי‬If you walk in my statutes and keep my
‫ תׁשמרו ועׂשיתם אתם‬commands in order to do them”
Deut 4:3 ‫“ כל־האיׁש אׁשר הלך אחרי בעל־‬every man who walked after Baʿal-Peor
‫ פעור הׁשמידו יהוה אלהיך‬YHWH your God destroyed from among
‫ מקרבך‬you”

24
‫ דרך‬usually refers to a literal “path” or “journey.” For example, Exod 3:18;
4:24; 13:17–18; Lev 26:22.
 229
Deut 11:26 ‫אם־לא תׁשמעו אל־מצות יהוה‬ “if you do not listen to the commands of
‫אלהיכם וסרתם מן־הדרך אׁשר‬ YHWH your God and turn aside from the
‫אנכי מצוה אתכם היום ללכת‬ path which I commanded you this day to
‫אחרי אלהים אחרים‬ walk after other gods”
Deut 17:20b ‫“ ולבלתי סור מן־המצוה ימין‬nor turn aside from the commandment
‫ וׂשמאול‬right or left”

These selected texts illustrate the variety of expressions that manifest an underlying

concept of OBEDIENCE TO YHWH AS A JOURNEY. Not only do words like path, walk, and

turn aside express this concept, but elsewhere the verb ‫ נׂשא‬is employed figuratively with

reference to Israel’s journey:

Numbers 11:12, 14 (cf. 17)

‫“ האנכי הריתי את כל־העם הזה‬Did I conceive this whole people?
‫ אם־אנכי ילדתיהו‬Did I give birth to them,
‫ כי־תאמר אלי‬that you should say to me,
‫‘ ׂשאהו בחיקך‬Carry them in your arms!’
‫— כאׁשר יׂשא האמן את־הינק‬just as one who is nursing carries an infant—
…‫ על האדמה אׁשר נׁשבעת לאבתיו‬to the land you promised to their ancestors? . . .
‫ לא־אוכל אנכי לבד לׂשאת את־כל־העם הזה‬I am not able alone to carry this whole people,
‫ כי כבד ממני‬for it is too heavy for me.”

We could identify several other related metaphors, such as TO LEAD IS TO BEAR A BURDEN,

TO LEAD IS TO PARENT, A LEADER IS A MOTHER, A NATION IS A PERSON, etc. However, here

the main point is that ‫ נׂשא‬is used figuratively for bearing a burden, and that it is also the

appropriate verb for something carried on a literal journey toward a destination. Just as a

nursing mother carries an infant, so Moses “carries” Israel on their journey. For him, the

burden is not physical, but rather the weight of leadership and decision making (cf. v.

17). This strengthens the feasibility of a metaphorical understanding of ‫ נׂשא‬in the NC as

well as its appropriateness in light of the journey metaphor.

 230
Motivation for the Metaphor
But why talk about election in these terms? Why connect ELECTION with the act of

BRANDING or OBEDIENCE with a JOURNEY? Kövecses explains that a particular linguistic

expression may be motivated by a variety of implicit concepts in combination with

conventional knowledge about a subject.25 We might express the potential influences in

the following way:26

general conventional knowledge about the FUNCTION OF NAMES IN THE ANE

specific knowledge about the FUNCTION OF NAMES IN ISRAELITE CULTURE27
the metonymy NAME STANDS FOR REPUTATION
the metaphor PLACING THE NAME ON SOMETHING IS CLAIMING OWNERSHIP
(arising from the metonymy [INSCRIBED] NAME STANDS FOR OWNERSHIP)
the metaphor PROCLAIMING THE NAME OVER SOMEONE IS CLAIMING OWNERSHIP
(a subset of the generic metaphor CAUSATION IS PHYSICAL TRANSFER)
the metonymy NAME STANDS FOR AUTHORIZATION
the metaphor BEARING THE NAME IS FUNCTIONING AS AN ELECT REPRESENTATIVE
(a subset of the metaphor THE SOCIAL WORLD IS THE PHYSICAL WORLD28)

The conceptual metaphors and metonymies available to a speaker represent only

one piece to the puzzle of motivation. Kövecses writes on the effects of physical, social,

and cultural settings on a speaker’s choice of metaphor, suggesting that together these

exert the “pressure of coherence” on any given communicative event.29 In this case, the
journey motif was ideally suited for the narrative setting at Sinai. ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬is an

25
Kövecses, Metaphor, 245.
26
For a similar list of concepts in English relating to the hand, see ibid., 243.
27
For example, seals, branding, inscriptions, monuments, marriage contracts, etc.
28
That is, the epistemic nature of belonging and of representation are depicted in
physical terms. See Kövecses, Metaphor, 255.
29
Ibid., 295–98.
 231

unconventional expression arising from the inherent uniqueness of that event, motivated

by a convergence of factors, including the revealed significance of YHWH’s name, the

conventional idioms for expressing a claim of ownership, the recounting of a physical

journey through the wilderness, and Israel’s formation as a people through the covenant

at Sinai. Because the metaphor OBEDIENCE IS A JOURNEY is highly conventionalized, it is

difficult to conceive of the life of faith/obedience without reference to forward movement

(cf. Table 15).30 This unique expression, ‫נׂשא ׁשם‬, which accesses the journey metaphor

(in part) is especially fitting since the literary setting for this command in Exodus is the

retelling of Israelites’ journey to Canaan, during which their obedience to YHWH

involved traversing the wilderness in the “sight” of the nations.31 The wilderness

narrative provided an arena in which the Israelites were clearly associated with YHWH

and clearly in the purview of nations who were disposed to feel threatened, admiring, or

skeptical.32

To think of election in these terms generates a field of associations (or

entailments) and therefore expressions that would not otherwise be possible, such as

profaning the name through immoral behavior or sanctifying the name through God-

honoring behavior. How else could we account for these other expressions without

acknowledging the conceptual metaphor ELECTION AS BRANDING or its corollary, NAME

FOR REPUTATION, and the governing metaphor OBEDIENCE AS A JOURNEY?

30
On the conventionalization of metaphor, see Evans and Green, Cognitive
Linguistics, 733–34.
31
This, too, is a metaphor: KNOWING IS SEEING, a subset of THE MIND IS THE BODY.
The nations heard reports of Israel’s travels, but did not physically see them all transpire.
32
For example, Num 22:11.
 232
Misinterpretation of the Metaphor
Metaphorical expressions based on conceptual metaphor are powerful

communicative devices, but they come with inherent risks. The potential for

misunderstanding probably lies in inverse proportion to the semantic capital of a given

metaphor; the more innovative the expression, the more thought-provoking, and also the

most likely to be “missed.” Given the wilderness context, the NC was especially

compelling and its imagery precisely appropriate. However, its saliency for future

generations depended upon them seeing themselves as sojourners at Sinai. In more-or-

less settled eras, the potency of the language describing OBEDIENCE AS A JOURNEY may

have been diminished, resulting in a greater risk of missing the point, and as a

consequence reducing the metaphorical expression ‫ נׂשא ׁשם‬to an elliptical one.

The predilection toward connecting NAME with speech in the past is responsible

for much of the misinterpretation of the NC. Proper recognition of the full range of ways

that NAME functioned historically—including metonymic and metaphorical—allows us to

apprehend its true sense in the NC and avoid the pitfalls of some of the more common

interpretations. All these—NAME FOR REPUTATION, NAME FOR CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP, and

NAME FOR AUTHORIZATION—are evident in the Sinai narratives and their near contexts.

The Concept of Name Bearing at Sinai

Given the multitude of potential motivations for the expression ‫נׂשא ׁשם‬, we will

do well to examine the immediate context for analogues. In fact, the complex interaction

of conceptual metaphor and metonymic expression is concretized in two distinct

characters in the Sinai narratives of Exodus, each of whom evinces a special connection

with YHWH’s “name.” As such, either could shed further light on the concept of “name

bearing” found in the NC. The first is the enigmatic reference to YHWH’s envoy who led
 233

the Hebrews through the wilderness, of whom YHWH said, “My name is in him” (Exod

23:21). The second is Aaron, selected to become high priest and to “bear the names” of

the Israelite tribes on his person and to wear the name of YHWH on his forehead as he

entered the sanctuary (Exod 28:12, 29, 36–38). In order to assess the relevance of either

figure to the interpretation of the NC, we must determine (as much as it is possible) his

nature and function.

Exodus 23: YHWH’s Envoy

The mention of YHWH’s envoy seems abrupt and mysterious. Directly on the

heels of the Book of the Covenant, several chapters of specific instructions regarding

everything from agriculture to festivals and from bride prices to restitution, YHWH

announced a change in topic with the deictic particle, “Look!” (‫)הנה‬, followed by a

verbless (participial) sentence (‫)אנכי ׁשלח מלאך‬.33 In spite of the grammatical disjuncture,

this section belongs conceptually with the covenant stipulations that precede it because it

continues to address the people as a whole. In Exod 24:1, YHWH addresses Moses

directly, signaling a shift.34

33
On the disjunctive nature of verbless clauses in discourse, see Alviero Niccacci,
“Workshop: Narrative Syntax of Exodus 19–24,” in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew
Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, ed. Ellen van Wolde (Leiden: Brill, 2002),
167–202. On the “marked” character of a verbless clause with an extra constituent ahead
of the subject, see Randall Buth, “Word Order in a Verbless Clause,” in The Verbless
Clause in Biblical Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, ed. Cynthia L. Miller, Linguistic
Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 105.
34
The change in addressee is signaled by the placement of the prepositional
phrase ‫ ואל־מׁשה‬before the finite verb ‫ אמר‬in 24:1. See Barry L. Bandstra, “Word Order
and Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: Syntactic Observations on Genesis 22 from
a Discourse Perspective,” in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew, ed. Walter R. Bodine
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 123. For a discourse analysis of the Covenant
 234

Exodus 23:20–21
‫הנה אנכי ׁשלח מלאך לפניך‬ Look, I am sending an envoy before you
‫לׁשמרך בדרך‬ to guard you along the way
‫ולהביאך אל־המקום‬ and to bring you to the place
‫אׁשר הכנתי‬ that I have determined.
‫הׁשמר מּפניו‬ Be on your guard before him35
‫וׁשמע בקלו‬ and listen to his voice.
‫אל־תמר בו‬ Do not rebel36 against him
‫כי לא יׂשא לפׁשעכם‬ for he will not forgive your transgression
‫כי ׁשמי בקרבו‬ for my name is in him.

The placement of this “envoy” pericope as the conclusion to the Covenant Code

underscores the dynamic nature of obedience to YHWH and his representatives. A

written code alone is insufficient for the life of faith. YHWH’s vassals were expected to

actively depend upon him as they left Sinai. According to Exodus 23, YHWH’s envoy

would provide at least four things for the Israelites: (1) protection on their journey (‫;ׁשמר‬

v. 20), (2) guidance to the land God promised them (v. 20, 23),37 (3) ongoing instruction

Code that supports this delimitation (Exod 20:18–23:33), see Niccacci, “Workshop:
Narrative Syntax of Exodus 19–24.”
35
Or “on account of him”; DCH 8:483.
36
The MT reads ‫ת ֵׁמר‬, hiphil of ‫מרר‬, “to be bitter.” See DCH 5:493–94. However,
the editors suggest an emendation to ‫ת ֶמר‬,ֶ hiphil of ‫מרה‬, “to be rebellious (against).” See
DCH 5:480. In no other passage is ‫ מרר‬followed by a ‫ ב‬prefix with pronominal suffix, but
for ‫מרה‬, see Ezek 20:8, 13, 21. Furthermore, LXX reads ἀπείθει “disobey.” While not
decisive, the proposed emendation seems reasonable.
37
Richter (DH and Name Theology, 54–55) identifies ‫ המקום‬here with “the place”
of Deuteronomy 12. While ‫ המקום‬sometimes refers specifically to “the place YHWH will
choose” as a central sanctuary, it is not always a technical term for sacred space (see
Exod 3:5; 17:7; 20:24). Here it probably bears the same meaning as in Num 10:29: “the
place of which YHWH said, ‘I will give it to you,’” that is, the whole land of Canaan. Cf.
Num 14:40; 20:5; Deut 1:31; 9:7; 11:5; 26:9. Note that the location had already been
 235

as they traveled (v. 22), and (4) leadership in battle after they entered the land (v. 23; cf.

33:2). Adding to the enigmatic nature of this passage is the reference to two other entities

that YHWH promised to “send ahead” (‫)ׁשלח לפניך‬: terror and hornets (Exod 23:27–28).

The former would cause confusion among the residents of Canaan, causing them to flee.

The latter would drive out these inhabitants. However, in the following verses YHWH

himself drives them out (vv. 29–30). The actions of YHWH’s authorized representatives

therefore merge with his own.38

determined (hiphil of ‫ ;כון‬v. 21; cp. Deut 12:5). Sarna (Exodus, 148) considers the
possibility that the whole land was considered sacred.
38
Similarly, YHWH’s partnership with Israel is evident in vv. 29–31. First
YHWH says of the residents of Canaan, “I will drive them out” (v. 30). Then he explains,
“I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand and you will drive them out” (v.
31, emphasis mine). The envoy cannot have been Moses or Joshua. In Exod 32:34, God
told Moses, “My envoy will go before you.” The envoy also appears to Moses in Exod
3:2 and to the whole congregation in Exod 14:19, distinguished from the pillar of cloud.
Moses is clearly not the envoy. Contra R. A. Cole, Exodus, TOTC (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1973), 181. Likewise, nearing Jericho, Joshua encountered the envoy, who
identified himself as the “captain of YHWH’s army” (Josh 5:13–15). The agent is also
distinguished from YHWH. Following the sin of the golden calf, YHWH told Moses, “I
will send an envoy before you . . . but I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-
necked people and I might destroy you on the way” (Exod 33:2–3, emphasis mine). In
each of these cases, the agent is a distinct third party. Contra Durham (Exodus, 335), who
suggests that YHWH is the envoy. López (“Identifying the ‘Angel of the Lord’ in the
Book of Judges: A Model for Reconsidering the Referent in Other Old Testament Loci,”
BBR 20:1 [2010]: 4, 8) notes other ANE examples of messengers who spoke on behalf of
a deity in first person and yet were addressed in second person, concluding that “Semitic
culture thus supports understanding the angel of the Lord as a messenger who represents
God but is not God himself.” For a critical response to López, see Andrew S. Malone,
“Distinguishing the Angel of the Lord,” BBR 21:3 (2011): 297–314. Propp (Exodus 19–
40, 287) concludes that the messenger is deliberately ambiguous, leaving God several
options for how to lead his people into Canaan. For a strong argument against the
messenger as the preincarnate Christ and highlighting the theological problems that
result, see William Graham MacDonald, “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord,’” in
Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C.
Tenney Presented by His Former Students, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1975), 324–35.
 236

For their part, the people were to be “on their guard” (niphal ‫ ;ׁשמר‬v. 21), obeying

both YHWH and his agent (v. 22), and serving YHWH rather than the gods or peoples of

Canaan (v. 24–25, 26). Note the word play: while the envoy was to “guard” (qal ‫ ;ׁשמר‬v.

20) the people, their responsibility was to “guard themselves” (niphal ‫ ;הׁשמר‬v. 21),

making sure they maintained faithful obedience. Human submission and divine

protection went hand in hand.

Most intriguing for this project are the two motivation statements in v. 21: “For he

will not forgive your transgression (‫)נׂשא לפׁשעכם‬, for my name is within him ( ‫ׁשמי‬

‫)בקרבו‬.” Here ‫ נׂשא‬exhibits the lexicalized meaning, “forgive.”39 But why will YHWH’s

agent not forgive rebellion? Is it because God alone can forgive (cf. Exod 34:7a)? Or is it

because he represents God, who takes sin seriously and will not overlook it (cf. Exod

34:7b)? If the second motivation clause is taken as a further explanation of the first, then

the latter is more likely.40 Because YHWH’s name is “in” his agent, he functions as an

authorized representative, and therefore must treat sin with all the seriousness it deserves.

God’s envoy was not like a substitute teacher who had little power to stop the abuse of

unwilling students. He would not tolerate rebellion in any form. To disobey him was as

grievous as disobeying YHWH himself (cf. Josh 24:19–20).

39
Lexicalization is evident because ‫ נׂשא‬is followed by ‫לפׁשעכם‬, bringing the
syntax into conformity with the verb ‫סלח‬, which means “forgive” and is always followed
by an object with a lamed prefix. For a fuller discussion, see p. 139, above.
40
Houtman (Exodus, 3:274–75) concludes the opposite—that forgiveness is
“solely YHWH’s prerogative”—in part because after the golden calf incident YHWH
extended forgiveness. However, he punished them for that sin (Exod 32:33–35).
 237

The expression ‫ ׁשמי בקרבו‬is unique to Exod 23:21; nowhere else is YHWH’s

name said to be “in” or “within” someone or something.41 Based on the duties assigned to

the envoy and the synthetic presentation of these activities with those of YHWH himself,

we can safely assume that he functioned as YHWH’s authorized representative in a way

distinct from the nation of Israel. Because YHWH’s name was “in” him, he acted in

YHWH’s stead.42 Therefore it does not provide a direct analog or lexical connection to

the NC. However, it is evident that the expression, “my name is in him,” and the

associated entailments of authority and representation draw on similar concepts.

Exodus 28: YHWH’s High Priest

At last we have occasion to explore the passage that shares with the NC both

narrative context (Sinai) as well as linguistic expression (‫)נׂשא ׁשם‬. At first glance the

high priestly regalia has little in common with the NC—worn only by an elite cultic

functionary, the ephod bore the literal inscriptions of tribal names. The ephod seems

unrelated to the prohibition for every Israelite not to bear YHWH’s name in vain.

However, an extended exploration of this regalia along with its purpose, functional

significance, and its place in the larger discourse will prove illuminating.

41
It is possible that the author’s choice of ‫ ְׁש ִׁמי ְּב ִׁק ְרּבֹו‬may have been influenced by
sound patterning with the phrase‫ּוׁשמע ְּבקֹלֹו‬
ְ in the previous line, linking the desired action
with its motivation. On ‫ בקרבו‬as “within,” see DCH 7:313–14. This is a strange
preposition. This form is often found where a plural suffix might be expected (e.g., Gen
24:3; Num 14:11; Judg 1:30). However, in Hebrew “a people” or “a tribe” is
grammatically singular. Analogous occurrences with regard to a single human subject
include 1 Sam 25:37, 1 Kings 3:28; Job 20:14; Psalm 109:18; Isa 63:11; Hab 2:19; and
Zech 12:1.
42
For an extended discussion of human or angelic figures who received the divine
name, see Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord, WUNT 36
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985), esp. 87–106.
 238

Aaron’s high priestly garments distinguished him from every other Israelite,

including other priests. While ordinary priests wore fine white linen breeches, caps, and

tunics tied with an embroidered sash (Exod 28:39–43), Aaron’s regalia also included a

decorated blue robe, a golden ephod, and a breastpiece studded with gold and jewels. On

his head he wore a fine turban with an engraved gold diadem. On only one occasion

annually was Aaron to wear the plain linen garments of the common priesthood (Lev

16:4)43—namely, on the Day of Atonement when he entered the Most Holy Place.

Otherwise Aaron donned his splendid wardrobe, a signal of his status and responsibility,

comparable to royal garments of neighboring cultures.44 Cast as divine speech at Sinai,

43
The linen of the priestly garments is variously described as ‫ בד‬or ‫ׁשׁש‬. While ‫ׁשׁש‬
signifies an especially fine linen, ‫ בד‬does not necessarily connote a fabric of lesser
quality. It may simply mean linen in general. The terms appear in apposition in 1QM710,
and are used both together and interchangeably to describe the priestly attire (cp. the
undergarments in Exod 28:42 [‫ ]מכנסי־בד‬and Exod 39:28 [‫ ;]מכנסי הבד ׁשׁש מׁשזר‬or the
tunic in Exod 28:39 [‫ ]הכתנת ׁשׁש‬and Lev 16:4 [‫)]כתנת־בד‬. See also DCH 8:572. Contra
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 230. Curiously, Haran (Temples and Temple-Service in
Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the
Priestly School [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985], 174) supposes that Aaron’s
garments for the Day of Atonement were of better quality than his regular linen
vestments.
44
When we examine garments across the ANE spanning several millennia, a
number of analogues from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia stand out. Garments of
comparable quality and style to Aaron’s were typically associated with royal, priestly, or
divine figures. Similarities in construction of Egyptian royal garments with the Israelite
high priest include an ornamented headdress, several layers of clothing including a long
tunic and decorative apron with a belt or sash, a wide collar, and (sometimes) bare feet.
Mesopotamian royalty often wore short-sleeved, ankle-length tunics with aprons, fringes,
and soft headpieces. Set as it was in the pre-monarchic period of Israel’s history, the
instructions at Sinai included no official role for a king in the worship of YHWH, and
nowhere was the clothing for an Israelite king prescribed. It is fitting that the regalia of
the high priest would communicate the prestige and power normally reserved for royalty;
after all, Aaron serves in the palace of the divine King.
On clothing in the ANE, see James Laver, Costume in Antiquity (London: Thames
and Hudson, 1964); Eleanor Guralnick, “Fabric Patterns as Symbols of Status in the Near
East and Early Greece,” in Reading a Dynamic Canvas: Adornment in the Ancient
 239

the instructions identify these as “sacred vestments” (‫)בגדי־קדׁש‬, crafted “for dignity and

for splendor” (‫ ;לכבוד ולתפארת‬Exod 28:2, 40), appropriate for the splendid tabernacle

where God’s glory was manifest.45 As the most elaborately dressed Israelite, the high

priest’s status was unmistakable. Furthermore, the well-being of the entire nation rested

on his shoulders, a fact made explicit by him bearing the onyx stones inscribed with the

names of all twelve tribes.

Aaron’s Regalia
Several passages describe these articles of clothing. Variations in the order of

garments depend on the list’s purpose (Table 16). Exodus 28:4 lists six garments in

summary, in the order in which they would have been perceived. Exodus 28:6–43 offers

detailed instructions for fashioning all nine items, proceeding from the most costly to the

most common.46 Exodus 39:1–31 describes the crafting of the nine garments in the order

Mediterranean World, ed. Cynthia S. Colburn and Maura K. Heyn (Newcastle, UK:
Cambridge Scholars, 2008), 84–114; Eleanor Guralnick, “Neo-Assyrian Patterned
Fabrics,” Iraq 66 (2004): 221–32; Marie-Louise Nosch and C. Michel Nosch, eds.,
Textile Terminologies in the Ancient Near East and the Mediterranean Area from the 3rd
to the 1st Millennium BC, Ancient Textiles 8 (Oxford: Oxbow, 2010); Cynthia S.
Colburn, Reading a Dynamic Canvas: Adornment in the Ancient Mediterranean World
(Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars, 2008); Gillian Vogelsang-Eastwood, Pharaonic
Egyptian Clothing, Studies in Textile and Costume History 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1993); A.
Leo Oppenheim, “The Golden Garments of the Gods,” JNES 8:3 (1949): 172–93;
Elizabeth Riefstahl, Patterned Textiles in Pharaonic Egypt (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Institute
of Arts and Sciences, 1944); Henry F. Lutz, Textiles and Costume among People of the
Ancient Near East (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1923).
45
NRSV takes ‫ בגדי־קדׁש‬as a hendiadys: “for glorious adornment.” According to
Deut 26:19, the whole nation would be exalted in splendor (‫)תפארת‬. In Isaiah, this term
was applied to the remnant of Israel (Isa 4:2; 46:13; 62:3) and to the temple (64:10).
46
Items 1 and 2 (breastpiece and ephod) from Exod 28:4 are reversed in the
instructions that follow, perhaps because the breastpiece depends on the ephod to “hang”
in place. The rest of the list in Exod 28:6–43 proceeds from the high priestly items that
were most expensive and most difficult to make to those worn by all the priests.
 240

they were produced.47 Leviticus 8:7–9 lists eight items in the order in which the high

priest was clothed (Figure 11).48 No list includes footwear; most likely the priests were to

officiate barefoot, as the appropriate response to “holy ground” (cf. Exod 3:5; Josh

5:15).49

Table 16. A Comparison of Priestly Garments50

(High-*) Priestly Exod 29:5–9

Exod 28:4 Exod 28:6–43 Exodus 39 Lev 8:7–9
Garments Instructions
Order of Instructions Order of Order of
for dressing
‫בגדי־קדׁש‬ observation for crafting crafting dressing
[priests]
*Breastpiece ‫חׁשן‬ 1 2 4 2 6
*Ephod ‫אפד‬ 2 1 3 1 4
*Band ‫חׁשב‬ 5 5
*Robe ‫מעיל‬ 3 3 2 3 3
Tunic ‫כתנת‬ 4 5 1 [1] 4 1
*Turban ‫מצנפת‬ 5 6 6 5 7
*Diadem ‫ציץ‬ 4 7 9 8
Sash ‫אבנט‬ 6 7 [2] 8 2
[headgear] ‫מגבעה‬ -- 8 [3] 6 --
[breeches] ‫מכנסי־בד‬ -- 9 -- 7 --

47
Why this order differs from the instructions in Exodus 28 is unclear.
48
My drawings illustrate one possible design for these garments.
49
Contra Ziony Zevit (“Preamble to a Temple Tour,” in Sacred Time, Sacred
Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, ed. Barry M. Gittlen [Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2002], 75), who assumes that priests were shod.
50
The asterisk (*) indicates garments worn only by the high priest. Brackets [ ]
indicate garments worn by ordinary priests.
 241

Figure 11. Priestly Garments (ordered according to Leviticus 8:7–9)

Based on a careful reading of the tabernacle instructions, Haran notes three levels

of quality in the workmanship of these articles of clothing: ‫חׁשב‬, ‫רקם‬, and ‫ארג‬. The first

two involved a combination of dyed wool and linen. Haran suggests that ‫ חׁשב‬fabric

contained figures, especially cherubim, while ‫ רקם‬was a fine mixed fabric without

design.51 ‫ארג‬, on the other hand, was a single-color unmixed fabric, either of wool or

linen.52

While each article of Aaron’s regalia could be studied on its own, this discussion

will focus on the items relevant to this project: the ephod (#4), breastpiece (#6), and

turban (#7) with its medallion (#8). Over time the Hebrew term ‫ אפד‬may have had more

than one referent,53 but in the priestly instructions the word applies to a type of apron

51
Most English translations assume the opposite, translating ‫ רקם‬as
“embroidered” (NRSV, NIV, ESV, NLT, TNK, NET).
52
Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 160–61.
53
For example, Samuel wears a linen ephod, though he is not the high priest (1
Sam 2:18). Haulotte (Symbolique du Vêtement Selon la Bible, Collection Théologie 65
 242

made of fine linen material (‫ )ׁשׁש‬woven with wool dyed blueish-purple, reddish-purple,

and crimson in the ‫ חׁשב‬style.54 In addition, craftsmen hammered out gold leaf and cut it

into threads to work into the design, yielding an ornate and costly garment, perhaps

similar to those worn by divine images in other ANE cultures.55 Hebrew ‫ אפד‬is related

etymologically to the Old Assyrian epattu, a “costly garment,” as well as the Hittite

ipantu, which was worn by a divine image and either adorned with or made of silver.56

Between the value of the gold and the exorbitant price of these dyes, the resulting fabric

was a fitting choice both for the tapestries of the inner tabernacle and the high priestly

garments.

Two shoulder straps and a decorated band (‫חׁשב‬-style) crafted from the same

materials secured the ‫ אפד‬around the high priest’s shoulders and waist over the blue robe

[Paris: Aubier, 1966], 47, 50–51) suggests that the ephod itself evolved: a simple linen
loincloth later became a long band wound above the waist, and finally in the post-exilic
period a type of chest apron with twelve engraved stones. Alternatively, we could
suppose that the range of meaning for ‫ אפד‬fluctuated over time. P. Jenson (“‫אפֹוד‬,”
ֵׁ
NIDOTTE 1:476–77) suggests that “ephods were found in a variety of different forms,
the more practical garments of a simple design and the more ceremonial types made of
costly materials and heavily ornamented.” All biblical examples are associated with the
priesthood.
54
While precisely identifying the colors mentioned in ancient texts is difficult,
both blueish-purple and reddish-purple dye were produced along the Mediterranean coast
in the biblical period by processing the contents of two types of murex shells, on which
see King and Stager, Life in Biblical Israel, 160–61. These discoveries improve upon
Lutz’s earlier suggestion that blue dye was derived from various plants, while purple-red
came from henna leaves. See Lutz, Textiles and Costume, 77–80.
55
This technology is also attested in Assyrian royal embroidered robes. Lutz,
Textiles and Costume, 97. See also HALOT 1:77.
56
Harold A. Hoffner, “Hittite Equivalents of Old Assyrian kumrum and epattum,”
WZKM 86 (1996): 154–56. Other possible analogs include the Ugaritic ipd, and an apron-
like garment associated with royalty/divinity in New Kingdom Egypt. See Bruce Wells,
“Exodus,” in ZIBBCOT 1:253–56.
 243

and white linen tunic. Two engraved onyx stones mounted in gold rested on the shoulder

straps, attached with gold corded chains to the breastpiece. Each stone bore the inscribed

names of six of the Israelite tribes.

The breastpiece (‫ )חׁשן‬was a decorated square pouch worn on the chest of the high

priest containing the Urim and Thummim, which facilitated decision making.57 In style it

matched the ‫אפד‬, woven (‫חׁשב‬-style) with gold, blueish-purple, reddish-purple, and

crimson thread and fine white linen. The square measured a hand-breadth wide and was

adorned with four rows of precious stones in gold settings.58 Each bore the name of one

of the Israelite tribes, engraved like a seal.59 Gold corded chains were attached to gold

rings at the top corners of the breastpiece and to the shoulder straps of the ‫אפד‬, while a

blue cord joined the breastpiece and ‫ אפד‬at the bottom corners. Of all the priestly

garments, this one received the most attention in the priestly instructions.

Around his head, the high priest wound a linen turban (‫)מצנפת‬, ornamented with a

gold medallion (‫ )ציץ‬in front, fastened with a blue cord and engraved with the words

“Holy, Belonging to YHWH” (‫ ;קדׁש ליהוה‬Exod 28:36–37).60 His turban was superior to

57
The use of the article indicates these were not innovations. So Sarna, Exodus,
181.
58
Each row may have featured a single color that varied in intensity from stone to
stone. For discussion, see J. S. Harris, “The Stones of the High Priest’s Breastplate,” ed.
John MacDonald, ALUOS 5 (65 1963): 40–62.
59
Harris (ibid., 43) posits that these ancient gemstones would have been cut flat
or in rounded hemispheres rather than faceted as modern gems. The passage does not
specify whether the engraving was intaglio (so that a clay impression could be read) or
was to be read on the stone itself.
60
Given the difficulty of dying linen, the turban was likely white. Contra
Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, 140. Ancient sources differ regarding the exact content
 244

the caps (‫ )מגבעה‬of ordinary priests.61 The shape of the gold medallion is not specified,

but the term ‫ ציץ‬can indicate a “blossom” or “flower.”62 It is described epexegetically as a

“sacred crown” or “holy diadem” (‫ ;נזר הקדׁש‬Exod 29:6; cf. 39:30; Lev 8:9).

The material similarities between Aaron’s attire and the tabernacle furnishings

invite comment.63 The inner curtains of the tabernacle were woven of fine twisted linen

and blueish-purple, reddish-purple, and crimson wool, with two cherubim woven into

them (‫חׁשב‬-style; Exod 26:1). Similarly, the veil separating the holy place from the most

holy place was woven of fine twisted linen and blueish-purple, reddish-purple, and

crimson wool (again, ‫חׁשב‬-style; Exod 26:31–33). These correspond in material to

Aaron’s outer garments, his ephod, breastpiece, and band. The loops to hang the curtains

were made of blueish-purple wool, and clasped with gold (Exod 26:4–6), corresponding

to Aaron’s robe and the cords securing his breastpiece and diadem. Blueish-purple was

the most expensive of the dyes.

and placement of the engraving. Josephus (Ant. 3.7, 6) says only “YHVH” was written in
paleo-Hebrew script. I will say more on the meaning of this inscription below.
61
Turbans were associated with royalty (see Ezek 21:31; Isa 62:3), whereas a cap
was worn by a bridegroom (Isa 61:10). So Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 170.
62
See Num 17:23; 1 Kgs 6:18–29. Note that in the latter passage ‫ ציץ‬refers to
carved cedar blossoms plated with gold, decorating the interior of Solomon’s temple
alongside cherubim, gourds, and palm trees. Sarna points out that according to Shabbat
63b, the ‫ ציץ‬was a “gold plate [that] extended from ear to ear and was two fingerbreadths
wide.” However, Sarna notes that a floral diadem would not have been out of the
question. Egyptian diadems featured a lotus flower. See Sarna, Exodus, 183. Propp
(Exodus 19–40, 447) suggests a gold plate engraved with a flower and inscribed above or
below the design.
63
So also Sarna, Exodus, 184.
 245

The outer curtains were made of fine twisted linen (Exod 27:9–15),64 comparable

to the fine linen tunic under Aaron’s robe. The screens for the entrance to the tent of

meeting and the outer gate were made of blueish-purple, reddish-purple, and crimson

with fine twisted linen (‫רקם‬-style; Exod 27:16), corresponding to Aaron’s embroidered

sash. The finest and most colorful fabrics decorated the inner sanctum of the tabernacle,

with simpler fabric reserved for the outer courts. The screens were an exception.

Entrances to the courtyard and tabernacle exhibited a higher quality than the rest of the

perimeter, creating a more lavish East-West axis across sacred space.65 While ordinary

priestly garments corresponded in quality to the outer curtains of the courtyard, the

workmanship of the high priestly vestments spanned the whole range from outer to inner

furnishings. Haran observes that the high priestly garments inversely corresponded to the

gradations of holiness of the tabernacle, with the most precious garments worn on the

outside and the most common garments underneath.66

A discourse analysis of the tabernacle instructions highlights two key elements:

the ark and the ephod. The ark is the central object of worship and is associated with a

climax in the text regarding YHWH’s presence among the Israelites (Exod 25:22). Its

purpose is clearly identified multiple times: to house the ‫עדת‬, or “covenant tablets”

containing the Decalogue (25:16, 21, 22). No comparable purpose statements are made

64
The style of these curtains is unspecified, but a single-source fabric was
normally designated as ‫ארג‬.
65
Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 164–65.
66
Ibid. These gradations of workmanship also correspond to the value of the
furniture at each level and the materials used to wrap them during transport. See ibid.,
158–59. Propp (Exodus 19–40, 528) calls the high priest an “inside-out Tabernacle.”
 246

with regard to any other tabernacle furniture or furnishings. Likewise, the instructions for

making the ephod and breastpiece are very detailed compared to the other garments, and

the engraving of the names is the climax of these instructions. The purpose for these

names will be discussed below.67

Exodus 25:8 unveils the purpose for the construction of the tabernacle, its

furnishings, and the priestly vestments: “And let them construct a sanctuary for me, so

that I may dwell among them.”68 The tabernacle facilitated the presence of YHWH

among his people. The magnificence of its furnishings was appropriate to the glory of the

divine resident. Accordingly, the high priest was dressed to reflect his status as the prime

functionary in the tabernacle. All the priestly garments were designed “for dignity and for

splendor” (‫ ;לכבוד ולתפארת‬Exod 28:2, 40), and while the garments specifically set apart

the men who wore them as priests (Exod 28:3), the high priestly garments far exceeded

the rest. For the tabernacle to function properly as the cultic center of worship, the purity

of priestly clothing had to be maintained.69 Separation between the high priest and other

priests and laypeople was emphasized by the prohibition of wool and linen blends in

67
For a discussion of the discourse structure of Exodus 25–30, see Robert E.
Longacre, “Building for the Worship of God: Exodus 25:1–30:10,” in Discourse Analysis
of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, ed. Walter R. Bodine, Semeia
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 21–49.
68
The first verb (‫ )ועׂשו‬retains the volitional force of the command in v. 2 (‫)ויקחו‬,
which results in a sense of purpose for the second weqatal verb (‫)וׁשכנתי‬: “so that.” See
IBHS 39.2.2.
69
See M. E. Vogelzang, “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near
Eastern Texts,” in Script Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes, and
Languages in the Near East, Presented to J. H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and
Friends, ed. L. J. Vanstiphout et al. (Groningen, The Netherlands: Forsten, 1986), 269.
The seriousness of the role was underscored by instructions to wash hands and feet each
time the priests entered the tent of meeting “that they may not die” (Exod 30:19–21).
 247

common clothing as well as the ban on personal use of the sanctuary recipes for anointing

oil or incense (Exod 30:22–38).70

It was also made explicit by the words engraved on his medallion, ‫קדׁש ליהוה‬,

which may be translated “holy to YHWH”; “set apart for YHWH”; or “holy, belonging to

YHWH.” The noun + prepositional phrase appears sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible.

Other items “set apart” as “belonging to YHWH” included the Sabbath (Exod 16:23;

31:15) and anything devoted to him, such as a house, field, or tithe, which were then

available for priestly use (Leviticus 27).71 Deuteronomy 26:19 applies the phrase ‫קדׁש‬

‫ ליהוה‬to the entire nation (cf. Exod 19:5), but the priests maintained distinction as cultic

functionaries.72 In each of these cases the lamed prefix indicates YHWH’s possession of

the entity via the link with his personal name. It is set apart as his.

Aaron’s Ordination
As noted above, the articles of priestly clothing are listed several times in Exodus

and Leviticus, with different purposes for each list. Having considered their design and

fabrication as expressed in Exodus 28 and 39, we now consider the donning of these

garments by the priests, prescribed in Exodus 29 and carried out Leviticus 8. More

70
The prohibitions of mixed substances are variously understood. Carmichael
(“Forbidden Mixtures,” VT 32 [1982]: 394–415) attributes the Deuteronomic laws against
mixing substances as a veiled critique of patriarchal history, alluding metaphorically to
the stories of Genesis. Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 548–49) reads each law in relation to
cultic separation. His interpretation is far more plausible than Carmichael’s.
71
Firstborn sons also belonged to YHWH, but he accepted the Levites for service
instead (Lev 27:26).
72
For other occurrences, see Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; Ezra 8:28; Isa 23:18; Jer 31:40;
Ezek 48:14; Zech 14:20–21. Cf. Exod 22:30[31]; Lev 20:26; Num 3:12–13; 4 QInstrd
8112.
 248

exhaustive studies of these texts are available elsewhere.73 My purpose here is to situate

the high priestly garments in their ritual context in order to shed light on their

significance.74 Aaron and his sons could not simply don their new uniforms; they first

had to be ritually qualified. The detailed procedure for their ordination lends further

weight to the significance of their garments as well as their relevance to interpretation of

the NC.

Victor Turner helpfully identifies three principal phases by which any given ritual

achieves the desired effect: separation, liminality, and reintegration.75 Passage through a

liminal state, where the subject experiences loss, nakedness, or anonymity for a time,

makes it possible for the initiate to leave behind the former life and undergo

transformation. These stages are evident in the Hittite high priestess’ installation

ceremony. She was chosen and anointed, thereby separating her from commoners. Then

she was shaved, inducing a liminal state lasting up to nine days. After daily sacrifices,

adornment, seven days of feasting, and a final procession from her father’s house, she

73
See, e.g., Gerald A. Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination
as Found in Leviticus 8 and Emar 369 (Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1998); Milgrom, Leviticus
1–16. Both authors argue that Leviticus 8 depends on Exodus 29, and not the other way
around. See ibid., 545; Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination, 105–
7.
74
By “ritual” I refer to the “‘conventional’ action” prescribed by YHWH and
undertaken by Moses to designate and ordain Aaron as high priest and his sons as priests.
On the general problems associated with defining ritual, see Jack Goody, “Religion and
Ritual: The Definitional Problem,” British Journal of Sociology 12:2 (1961): 142–64.
75
For discussion, see, e.g., Victor Turner, “Liminality and communitas,” 74–84 in
Paul Bradshaw and John Melloh, eds., Foundations in Ritual Studies: A Reader for
Students of Christian Worship (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). I do not suggest
that the ritual itself had magical qualities. Rather, its efficaciousness depended upon
obedience to YHWH’s command. See John Witvliet, “For Our Own Purposes: The
Appropriation of the Social Sciences in Liturgical Studies,” 17–42 in ibid.
 249

arrived at the temple to take up residence, an indication that the ritual was complete and

she had begun her new role.76

Although the Israelite high priestly ordination ceremony is dissimilar to the Hittite

ritual in many ways, it includes all three defining marks of ritual, sharing several features

with the Hittite ritual: separation, anointing, sacrifices, adornment, and the use of sacred

temple space.77 First, Aaron and his sons were set apart from the people, selected to serve

YHWH as priests (Lev 8:1–4). They spent seven days and nights at the entrance, or

threshold (Latin: limen), of the tabernacle, separated from the community while not yet

allowed to enter sacred space.78 Noting their vulnerability to impurity during this liminal

76
Daniel E. Fleming, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar, Harvard
Semitic Studies 42 (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1992), 63–65; 173–98. Also “The
Installation of the Storm God’s High Priestess,” trans. Daniel Fleming, COS 1.222:427–
31. On a smaller scale, daily temple rituals in Egypt in the 14th century BCE included
removal of robes from the cult image, purification, and re-clothing, followed by provision
of food and “insignia.” See A. Rosalie David, Religious Ritual at Abydos (c. 1300 BC)
(Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1973), 289. Cf. “Daily Ritual of the Temple of
Amun-Re at Karnak,” trans. Robert K. Ritner, COS 1.34:55–57. Even daily rituals such
as this involved a period of liminality. On the cultic parallels between Israel, Mari, Emar,
and the Horite-Hittite kingdom, see Israel Knohl, “P and the Traditions of Northern Syria
and Southern Anatolia,” in Text, Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical and Ritual
Studies in Leviticus, ed. Francis Landy, Leigh M. Trevaskis, and Bryan D. Bibb
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2015), 63–69.
77
Unlike the Hittite high priestess, who eventually proceeded from her father’s
house to the temple, Israel’s high priest occupied the temple doorway for the entire ritual.
His prescribed clothing was more comprehensive (hers included only jewelry and
headdress).
78
Leviticus 1:5 describes the altar as being “at the entrance of the tent of
meeting.” From this we can assume that Aaron and his sons were ordained somewhere in
the courtyard, in an area where laypeople were allowed. Note that they placed their hands
on the heads of the animals to be slaughtered, just as laypeople did (Lev 4:13–18).
Richard E. Averbeck (“Tabernacle,” in DOTP, 808) designates the entire courtyard area
from the entrance of the outer curtains to the doorway into the holy place as the
“entrance” of the tabernacle.
 250

period, Milgrom explains, “Each day’s rites will remove them farther from their former

profane state and advance them to the ranks of the sacred, until they emerge as full-

fledged priests.”79 As a transitional place between the sacred and the common, the

doorway was the most appropriate venue for the seven-day vigil (Lev 8:33–35).80

During this liminal phase, Moses publically washed and re-clothed them in their

sacred garments (Lev 8:6–9, 13), anointed them and the tabernacle (Lev 8:10–12),

offered sacrifices, and sprinkled and smeared blood on them to consecrate them to

YHWH (Exod 29:21; Lev 8:23–24, 30). It seems shocking that Moses deliberately

poured oil and sprinkled blood on such carefully crafted and expensive garments.

However, blood was an essential symbol, indicating that priest and tabernacle were set

apart for YHWH’s use and effectively cleansed by the sacrificial rites (Lev 4:5–7;

16:15).81 Very little was required of initiates, except to wait and allow Moses to carry out

YHWH’s instructions.82 Aaron and his sons merely laid their hands on the head of each

sacrifice, identifying with their need for cleansing (Lev 8:14, 18, 22), and elevated an

79
Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 538.
80
For a helpful discussion of liminal or transitional space, see Klingbeil, A
Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination, 147, 319, 572.
81
On the cleansing properties of blood, see the helpful comparative study by
Yitzhaq Feder, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and
Meaning, SBLWAWSup 2 (Atlanta: SBL, 2011). On the significance of the dual
anointing, see Michael Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine
Presence in the Priestly Tabernacle, FAT 2/50 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 78–80.
82
For a statistical analysis showing Moses’ responsibility for 45.45% of the
action in this ritual and Aaron 29.09%, see Gerald A. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Ritual
and Ritual Texts in the Bible, BBRSup 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 192–93.
 251

offering to dedicate it to YHWH (Lev 8:27).83 Then they cooked and ate the meat with

the bread (Lev 8:31–32). The sacrifices Moses offered on their behalf were also

transitional, including some features of well-being offerings and others of holy

offerings.84 Moses ate some, but not all, of the meat usually designated for the priests, in

keeping with his own transitional role (Lev 8:26).85 The purpose of the seven-fold

offerings was purification and consecration of the initiates (Exod 29:14, 21) as well as to

please YHWH (Exod 29:18, 25).

After carefully following YHWH’s ritual instructions, Aaron and his sons were

allowed to approach the sanctuary to begin their duties ‫“( לפני יהוה‬before YHWH”).86 On

the eighth day, the priests performed the first set of sacrificial rites on behalf of the

community (Lev 9:1–21). At the conclusion of this important work, Aaron approached

the congregation to pronounce the blessing, an act that confirmed his mediatorial role and

83
On ‫ תנופה‬as an “elevation” rather than a “wave” offering, see Milgrom,
Leviticus 1–16, 464–65, 469–73. The idiom ‫“( מלא יד‬ordain”; Exod 29:9), which only
appears in context of priestly ordination, may derive from this practice of placing certain
ritual elements “upon the palms” of the priests (‫ ;על כפי אהרן ועל כפי בניו‬Lev 8:27) for
them to offer. “Ordination” is explicitly linked with these sacrificial elements in Lev
8:28; cf. Exod 29:26–29. Propp (Exodus 19–40, 452) notes a lexical parallel from Mari,
mullû qātam, which means “fill the hand(s), hand over, entrust” [CAD 10.1.187] and
connotes “a divine commissioning, a transfer of authority from a god to a sacred human.”
84
Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 527.
85
Ibid., 531.
86
The phrase “before YHWH” (‫ )לפני יהוה‬usually refers to acts that occur in and
around the tabernacle. Exodus 27:21 specifies an act done “outside the curtain that is
before the covenant tablets” as “before YHWH” (cf. Exod 40:23). In addition to rituals
enacted in the holy place, those done in the courtyard or entrance to the tabernacle were
“before YHWH” (Exod 29:11, 23–25, 42). However, because the divine presence was not
limited to the tabernacle, on occasion events outside sacred space were “before YHWH”
(Gen 27:7; Exod 16:9; Lev 23:40; Num 10:9; Deut 6:25; 29:9).
 252

elevated status as well as the efficacy of the sacrifices (Lev 9:22–23). With this third

phase, reintegration, the ritual was complete. YHWH’s response confirms this.87 Only

after this blessing did his glory appear and fire consume the offerings (Lev 9:23–24a).

The people’s visceral response included shouts of joy and falling facedown (9:24b).

Exodus 29:44–46 prescribes this ordination ritual and identifies its overall

purpose: “So I will consecrate the tent of meeting and the altar and will consecrate Aaron

and his sons to serve me as priests. Then I will dwell among the Israelites and be their

God. They will know that I am YHWH their God, who brought them out of Egypt so that

I might dwell among them. I am YHWH their God.” In order for YHWH to make his

dwelling among the people he rescued from Egypt, the cultic furniture, tabernacle

furnishings, and cult functionaries had to be consecrated, set apart for the task of

facilitating his presence among the Israelites.

Aaron’s Role
Aaron’s garments were more than decoration. They were essential. Without his

vestments, Aaron could not rightly perform the rituals assigned to him as high priest.88

Alongside the furniture and curtains of the tabernacle, Moses ritually anointed Aaron and

his regalia in order to set each apart for cultic service. Aaron’s garments were his means

of consecration. In Exod 28:3, YHWH instructed Moses, “Make sacred garments for your

brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor.” The garments are “for his consecration, so

87
For discussion, see Hundley, Keeping Heaven on Earth, 90.
88
So also ibid., 73–75.
 253

that he may serve me as priest” (28:4b, emphasis mine). The splendor of his attire not

only qualified him for service but signified his indispensability to the tabernacle.

Form begets function. Haran notes that the “functional character [of Aaron’s

clothing] is quite conspicuous.”89 Aaron was not permitted to dishevel his hair or tear his

clothes in mourning because that would constitute a defilement or disruption of the cultic

apparatus itself (Lev 10:6; 21:10).90 Stated positively, Aaron’s regalia signaled his role as

chief facilitator of the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel.91 As such he

bore several weighty responsibilities, each of them related to his mediatorial role. Exodus

28 explicitly declares the purpose for several of his garments, usually signaled by the

Hebrew prefixed preposition ‫ ל‬or the prefixed conjunction ‫ו‬.92 Four times in Exodus 28, a

weqatal form of ‫ נׂשא‬identifies an active purpose for Aaron’s regalia.93 In each case, the

verb ‫ נׂשא‬identifies what Aaron will carry on his person as he fulfills his duties (Table

17).

89
Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 212.
90
So also Houtman, Exodus, 3:467.
91
This role began in Egypt, when YHWH appointed Aaron as Moses’
spokesman: “[Aaron] indeed shall speak for you to the people; he shall serve as a mouth
for you, and you shall serve as God for him” (Exod 4:16; NRSV).
92
Eleven purpose clauses in Exodus 28 are introduced by ‫ל‬, 10 by ‫ו‬, and 2 without
a grammatical signal (vv. 12 and 32). Purpose statements in Exodus 29 and 39 are less
relevant here because they mostly concern sacrifices rather than garments.
93
Each carries the force of an imperative, instructing the Israelites in the proper
design and wearing of priestly clothing. For a discussion of the prefix-conjugation verb as
a statement of purpose or result, see IBHS 34.6. The three other purposive weqatals in
Exodus 28 relate to the blue cords on the breast piece (“so that the breastpiece will not
swing out from the ephod”; v. 28), the placement of the Urim and the Thummim (“and it
shall be over Aaron’s heart”; v. 30), and the bells on the hem of his robe (“so that he may
not die; v. 35). None of these denotes an active duty for Aaron.
 254
Table 17. Stated Purposes for the High Priestly Garments in Exodus 28
Reference Signal Article of Purpose
Clothing
Exod 28:12 ‫וְ נָ ָׂשא‬ inscribed “so that Aaron may bear their names before
shoulder stones YHWH on his two shoulders as a memorial”
Exod 28:29 ‫וְ נָ ָׂשא‬ inscribed chest “so that Aaron may bear the names of the
stones Israelites on the breastpiece of decision over
his heart when he enters the holy place as a
memorial before YHWH regularly”
Exod 28:30 ‫וְ נָ ָׂשא‬ Urim and “so that Aaron may bear the decision of the
Thummim Israelites over his heart before YHWH
regularly”
Exod 28:38 ‫וְ נָ ָׂשא‬ inscribed gold “so that Aaron may bear the iniquity of the
medallion holy [offerings] that the Israelites consecrate,
for all their holy gifts, that they may be
acceptable before YHWH”

First, on his breastpiece and shoulders the high priest bore the names of each tribe

“as a memorial” (‫ )לזכרן‬to YHWH when entering the holy place (Exod 28:12, 29). The

grammatical construction in v. 12, ‫אבני זכרן לבני יׂשראל‬, could indicate either that the

shoulder stones are a reminder for the Israelites, or a memorial pertaining to the

Israelites—that is, a reminder for YHWH. Clarification immediately follows; that the

stones are said to be worn ‫( לפני יהוה‬28:12b) suggests that YHWH is the primary one who

“remembers.”94 Verse 29 confirms this conclusion by specifying the location of the

“memorial”—namely, the holy place, which was off-limits for laypeople.95

94
Cassuto (Exodus, 377) suggests that the shoulder stones faced upward so that
YHWH could read them. However, both sets of stones were designated ‫לפני יהוה‬.
Houtman (Exodus, 3:476) helpfully suggests that the shoulder stones “focus the attention
(of YHWH) on the Israelites.”
95
On the other hand, Joshua instructed the Israelites to make a heap of stones in
the middle of the Jordan River to commemorate their crossing into Canaan, with one
stone representing each of the twelve tribes. These stones were also called “stones of
 255

The inclusion of all twelve tribal names ensured that members of each tribe would

continue to have access to YHWH via the high priest’s ministry. In previous generations

YHWH had indicated his choice of one son over another to inherit his covenant promises

(Jacob over Esau; Isaac over Ishmael; Gen 21:12; 26:2–5; 28:10–15). By extending the

covenant promises to all twelve of Jacob’s sons, the promise of descendants “as

numerous as the stars in the sky” began to be realized (Gen 15:5; Exod 1:1–7). Therefore,

Aaron bore all twelves names as “representative of the entire community.”96 YHWH

remembered them collectively on the shoulder stones, and as individual tribes on the

chest stones.97

It is also significant that these names were engraved on gemstones rather than

embroidered or affixed in some other way. While the text does not indicate the reason for

the use of gemstones, their inherent value would have signaled the importance of the

tribes to YHWH. The stones were also engraved like a seal (‫ ;פתוחי חותם‬Exod 28:21),

perhaps underscoring Aaron’s representative function with the virtual “signature” of each

tribe, or their delegated authority. Aaron’s representative role is reinforced by the fact

remembrance” (‫האבנים האלה לזכרון לבני יׂשראל‬, Josh 4:7; cf. ‫אבני זכרן לבני יׂשראל‬, Exod
28:12), signaling that all twelve of the tribes had a share in the land. These stones in the
Jordan apparently reminded the Israelites of their unity. The shoulder stones of the high
priest may have carried a dual connotation—reminding the tribes of their brotherhood
and reminding YHWH of his covenant commitment to them.
96
Sarna, Exodus, 179–80.
97
On the two sets of gemstones, see Propp, Exodus 19–40, 524.
 256

that the tribal leaders provided the gemstones (Exod 35:27; cf. 16:22; Num 1:44).98 Each

had a share in his ministry.

Second, Aaron carried the (means of) decision (‫ )אל־חׁשן המׁשפ‬for the Israelites

inside the pouch of his breastpiece (v. 30). These stones, called Urim and Thummim,

enabled him to discern the will of YHWH regarding particular situations.99 Mystery

shrouds these stones; we cannot be certain exactly how they functioned, and a full

exploration is outside the scope of this project. However, it is clear that the high priest

was responsible to seek guidance from YHWH, a role authorized by his wearing of the

ephod and breastpiece ‫לפני יהוה‬. Significantly, the means for decision making hung “over

his heart” (‫ ;על־לב‬v. 30). In Hebrew, the ‫ לב‬was the seat of understanding and decision

making.100 Aaron’s decision “before YHWH”—that is, the decision submitted to

YHWH’s guidance—was then binding for the whole community, further underscoring

Aaron’s representative role. 101

98
So also ibid., 438. In Num 7:2 the “leaders of Israel” (‫ )נׂשיאי יׂשראל‬are further
defined as “heads of their fathers’ household” (‫ )ראׁשי בית אבתם‬and listed by name in
vv.11–34, one ‫ נׂשיא‬per tribe. Cf. Houtman, Exodus, 2:346, 3:353; Sarna, Exodus, 224.
99
Most scholars assume the stones were cast like lots to achieve binary results.
That the Israelites were already familiar with these stones prior to these instructions is
evident from the direct article attached to “Urim and Thummim” (‫)את־האורים ואת־התמים‬.
So Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel
(Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997). The words ‫ אורים‬and ‫ תמים‬appear to be related to
“light” (‫ )אור‬and “perfection” (‫)תמים‬, which may offer a clue for how they operated. Van
Dam (“‫אורים‬,” in VanGemeren, NIDOTTE 1:330) suggests the presence of “a
confirmatory sign of a special or miraculous light” and argues that a prophetic component
was also likely (see, e.g., 1 Sam 10:22). See also Houtman, Exodus, 3:495.
100
See, e.g., Gen 6:5. Alex Luc, “‫לב‬,”
ֵׁ NIDOTTE 2:749–54.
101
For a helpful discussion comparing divination and magic in Israel and other
ANE cultures, see Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought, 239–74.
 257

Third, because of the gold medallion on Aaron’s turban, inscribed with YHWH’s

name, he bore iniquity arising from any failure to follow YHWH’s instructions regarding

the sanctuary—that is, “the iniquity of the consecrated things” (‫ ;את־עון הקדׁשים‬Exod

28:38; cf. Num 18:1).102 Significantly, the form of the inscription involved the lamed

inscriptionis, which was also used on seals and inscriptions to indicate the authorization

of the owner.103 The high priestly medallion indicated that he belonged to YHWH and

was set apart, authorized for cultic service.

Exodus 28:38
‫והיה על־מצח אהרן‬ A And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead,
‫ונׂשא אהרן את־עון הקדׁשים‬ B so Aaron shall bear the sin of the consecrated things
‫אׁשר יקדיׁשו בני יׂשראל‬ that the sons of Israel shall consecrate
‫לכל־מתנת קדׁשיהם‬ for all their consecrated gifts,
‫והיה על־מצחו תמיד‬ A' and it shall be upon his forehead continually,
‫לרצון להם לפני יהוה‬ B' for their acceptance before YHWH.

The chiastic structure of this verse highlights the explicit purpose for the medallion: to

authorize Aaron to deal with sin to maintain Israel’s acceptance before YHWH. The one

“holy to YHWH” was responsible to maintain the holiness of YHWH’s holy place.104

102
See Schwartz, “Bearing of Sin,” 16. Contra Houtman (Exodus, 3:516), who
posits that the gold medallion enabled the high priest to avoid bearing iniquity. Propp
(Exodus 19–40, 448–49) agrees that Aaron bore Israel’s sin only until Yom Kippur.
103
See discussion above, p. 112. See also Propp, Exodus 19–40, 524–25.
104
According to Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 1033–34), the sin of the community
defiled the sanctuary incrementally, and the Day of Atonement (or “Purgation”) was
needed to cleanse the sanctuary of the effects of those sins annually. Cf. Schwartz,
“Bearing of Sin,” 21. Here the sins are specifically connected to “the sacred offerings that
the Israelites consecrate as any of their sacred gifts” (‫הקדׁשים אׁשר יקדיׁשו בני יׂשראל לכל־‬
‫ ;מתנת קדׁשיהם‬Exod 28:38; cf. Num 18:1). However, Aaron’s role in the Day of
Atonement ceremony reinforced his personal responsibility to bear guilt for all of Israel’s
 258

Aaron’s authorization to bear sanctuary-related sin erased the communal effects of

individual defiance.105

Leviticus 22:2 reinforces this conceptual link between YHWH’s name (written on

the gold medallion), which indicated his claim to ownership of the high priest, and the

holy offerings. YHWH warned the high priest to “treat with awe” the holy offerings lest

he “profane [his] holy name.”106 Priestly responsibilities inside the sanctuary included a

charge to keep the lamps burning in the tabernacle and keep everything in order (Exod

27:21), to burn perpetual incense on the altar in the Holy Place (Exod 30:7–8), and to

perform sacrifices and offerings on behalf of the people (Leviticus 1–7). Should the

priests fail to follow God’s instructions regarding sacred offerings, sin would accrue on

the holy diadem, thus “profaning” the name (Exod 28:38; cf. Ezek 20:39). Careful

maintenance of the cult would ensure that YHWH’s name was honored.

The Levitical instructions imply that iniquity gradually accumulated at the

sanctuary, requiring an annual purgation ceremony known as Yom Kippur, or the Day of

sins. While the first goat purged the sanctuary of accumulated sin, Aaron transferred the
guilt he personally bore to the scapegoat, who physically removed it. For a defense of this
interpretation, see Nobuyoshi Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature:
Its Meaning and Function, JSOTSup 56 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987), 143–56.
105
Lam (Metaphorical Patterning of the Sin-Concept, 151) also notes the
theological link between Aaron’s headdress and his role. He explains, “The mediating
role of Aaron as priest on behalf of the sins of the people—expressed by the wearing of
the gold rosette on his forehead—is likened to the persistent carrying of a load.”
106
“Aaron and his sons” need not mean “all the priests.” It can designate Aaron
and any of his descendants who serves as high priest, as in Exod 28:4, where the phrase
appears in relation to the high priestly garments.
 259

Atonement (Leviticus 16).107 On that day, Aaron made atonement by offering sacrifices

and smearing blood on the altar of incense just outside the Most Holy Place and

sprinkling it over the ark (Exod 30:10; Lev 16:18). Curiously, Aaron was not to wear the

most elaborate of his official vestments (breastpiece and ephod) when it would seem

most appropriate to do so—while entering the Most Holy Place. He wore them only when

performing regular sacrifices and maintaining service in the Holy Place, implying that his

representation of Israel to God pertained to the sacrificial system and the ongoing

maintenance of the cult; he did not “bear the names” of the sons of Israel into the Most

Holy Place. When he appeared in the Most Holy Place on the most holy day, he had to

come humbly, without status or pretense, and in so doing symbolize Israel’s undeserved

access to YHWH’s presence.108 Most importantly, Aaron’s diadem signified what was

107
Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 1033–34. The ritual is initially cast as a response to
the sins of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, which polluted the sanctuary. See ibid., 1011.
108
Alban Cras (La symbolique du vêtement dans la Bible: Pour une théologie du
vêtement, Lire la Bible [Paris: Cerf, 2011], 34) suggests that wool garments (i.e., dyed
cloth) were prohibited because the high priest should not carry death when he approached
the living God. However, wool need not imply death, since sheep are normally sheared
without killing them. Furthermore, a prohibition of animal fibers would be strange, since
the curtains of the most holy place were woven of dyed wool and the outside was covered
with ram and fine goatskin leather (‫)ערת תחׁשים‬. On the translation of ‫ תחׁש‬as dyed
leather, see N. Kiuchi, “‫תחׁש‬,” NIDOTTE, 4:287.
Ezekiel’s temple vision introduced striking innovations to the priestly system.
Milgrom (Ezekiel’s Hope, 168–69) suggested that because of his complicity with Israel’s
idolatry, the high priest had been permanently removed from temple service. Changes to
temple furniture and the religious calendar may be attributed to his absence. The Day of
Atonement, which required high priestly action, disappeared or was subsumed under
another festival, with its activities relegated to ordinary priests (Ezek 44:17–31). The
lamps, ark, and incense altar of the temple, formerly maintained by the high priest, also
disappeared. Similarly, priestly and Levitical duties were reorganized to reflect the
punishment of those who had not served faithfully. Only Zadokites were permitted to
serve as priests, while other Levites were demoted to temple guards or assistants (Ezek
44:11). Ibid., 169. Consequently, Ezekiel never mentioned the high priestly vestments
(note Ezek 21:31). Only pure white linen tunics, turbans, and undergarments were
 260

true of the entire nation—namely, that they were “holy, belonging to YHWH.” On that

basis, he appealed to YHWH for forgiveness of their sin. To wear only ‫ ארג‬garments (cf.

Exod 39:27), which corresponded to the outer curtains of the tabernacle courtyard,

concretized Aaron’s mediatory role. He brought the outer courtyard into the inner

sanctum, representing every Israelite as he approached YHWH. On regular days Aaron

did the reverse, in effect wearing the elaborate furnishings of the Most Holy Place as he

moved about the Holy Place and the courtyard, representing the glory of YHWH to

ordinary priests and laypeople via richly colored and ornamented fabrics, gold, and

gemstones. This interpenetration of spheres was an essential component of Aaron’s

ministry.109

However, in addition to his plain linen garments, on the Day of Atonement Aaron

also wore his turban (‫ ;מצנפת‬Lev 16:4).110 Without his other splendid garments to

distract, Aaron’s turban would have been more noticeable. It is fitting that the day

designed to purge the sanctuary of accumulated sin is the day on which Aaron’s costume

featured the turban—the article of clothing that uniquely designated Aaron as sin-bearer

for the tabernacle. During the ritual, Aaron placed his hands on the head of a goat,

confessing the sins of the community and thereby transferring their iniquity from himself

permitted in the holy precinct, perhaps to safeguard its purity. Even the sash was
disallowed, given its blend of wool and linen.
109
Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 1016–17) suggests that Aaron dressed in plain linen
to signify his entrance into the divine council. However, he does not consider the
correspondences with the tabernacle furnishings.
110
Although the gold medallion is not mentioned in Leviticus 16, the only turban
(‫ )מצנפת‬named among the holy garments of Exodus 28 is that worn by the high priest,
which was decorated with the gold medallion. Regular priests wore a simple cap, or
‫מגבעה‬.
 261

to the goat. While Aaron had “borne iniquity” (‫ )נׂשא עון‬all year within the tabernacle, the

goat then “bore iniquity” (‫ )נׂשא עון‬into the wilderness, signifying the permanent physical

removal of those sins and their effects from the sanctuary.111 The Day of Atonement was

the unique occasion annually where such cleansing occurred. Naturally, the responsibility

for this ritual rested on the high priest alone. Aaron’s careful enactment of this rite

benefitted the entire nation, but by wearing YHWH’s name on his forehead, he especially

represented YHWH, dealing definitively with the defiling effects of human sin.

Haran suggests that Aaron could not possibly have worn his elaborate regalia

while slaughtering animals, because it was heavy, awkward, and precious.112 If he is

correct, this would also explain why Aaron did not wear the ephod, belt, and breastpiece

on the Day of Atonement. However, Aaron performed his first set of sacrifices in

Leviticus 9 directly following his seven-day ordination ceremony, when he first donned

his regalia (Leviticus 8). This ritual text carefully prescribes each step of the process,

111
The requirement of two goats on this day underscores the significance of his
substitutionary role. The slaughtered goat purified the sanctuary, while the live goat bore
Aaron’s guilt away from the holy place. See Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 150–53. For a
recent proposal that the one who led the goat into the wilderness was a criminal, see
Raymond Westbrook and Theodore J. Lewis, “Who Led the Scapegoat in Leviticus
16:21?,” JBL 127:3 (2008): 417–22. Some scholars posit a dual meaning for ‫נׂשא עון‬
where in some contexts it means that a person is weighed down with guilt while on other
occasions it denotes the removal of that guilt. See Schwartz, “Term or Metaphor: Biblical
nōśē ʻăwōn/pešaʻ/ḥeṭ,” 168, 170; Schwartz, “Bearing of Sin,” 10. However, if that were
the case here, no Day of Atonement would have been necessary because the high priest
would have already “borne away” any guilt. On the contrary, the goat bore the iniquity
just as Aaron had done all year. The difference is that it left the premises, bearing the sin
far from sacred space so that it no longer interfered with the covenant relationship. The
difference is not due to a hidden lexical differentiation, but rather a spatial one.
112
Haran, Temples and Temple Service, 212. He argues further that since other
priests could also offer sacrifices, Aaron’s regalia would be meaningless here. However,
he may have had a supervisory role at any sacrifice.
 262

including his clothing, without mentioning that Aaron was to remove his vestments

before beginning his work. Moreover, Aaron did not work alone; he had help performing

the sacrifices and he may not have done much of the messy labor (Lev 9:9, 12–13, 18–

20).113 We need not assume he was unadorned.

Within the complex of passages about the high priest’s clothing and official

duties, one more significant task calls for comment—the blessing.114 The blessing relates

to Aaron’s regalia in two ways: (1) He first pronounced the blessing as the culmination of

his initial day in uniform (Lev 9:22–23).115 Aaron’s vestments authorized him to give the

blessing as YHWH’s select representative. (2) In the act of blessing the people, Aaron

conferred YHWH’s name upon them, as Num 6:27 makes explicit. While Aaron literally

bore YHWH’s name on his forehead, the people, having been blessed, bore an invisible

brand by virtue of their covenant relationship with him.

113
The instructions for sin offerings in Leviticus 4 signal the representative role
of the priest on another level. There the sacrificial animal required for unintentional
priestly sin—a bull—was identical to that required for the unintentional sins of the whole
community (Lev 4:3). Although a priest was only one person, since he represented the
entire community, the magnitude of the required reparation equaled that of the whole
community (Lev 4:13–14). However, when a single Israelite sinned unintentionally,
whether ruler or commoner, the required sacrifice was less costly: a goat rather than a
bull (Lev 4:22–23, 27–28).
114
Deuteronomy 10:8 and 21:5 either reflect the extension of this privilege to all
the Levites, or could be read as a summary of Levitical (including Aaronide) duties.
Since Aaron was a son of Levi, his duties could also be considered “Levitical.”
115
Given the cultic context and the divine theophany that follows the blessing,
this was most likely the so-called “Aaronic blessing” prescribed in Numbers 6:24–26.
See Christopher Wright Mitchell, The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament,
SBLDS 95 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), 97. According to Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16,
587), the following Jewish texts assume this as well: Sipra, Millu i͗ m Shemini 30; b. Sota
38a; y. Ta ͗an. 4:1.
 263
Numbers 6:23–27
‫דבר אל־אהרן ואל־בניו לאמר‬ “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying,
‫כה תברכו את־בני יׂשראל‬ ‘Thus you are to say to the Israelites;
‫אמור להם‬ say to them,
‫יברכך יהוה ויׁשמרך‬ “May YHWH bless you and protect you.
‫יאר יהוה פניו אליך ויחנך‬ May YHWH smile at you and be gracious to you.
‫יׂשא יהוה פניו אליך ויׂשם לך ׁשלום‬ May YHWH show you favor and grant you peace.”’
‫וׂשמו את־ׁשמי על־בני יׂשראל‬ So they shall set my name on the Israelites,
‫ואני אברכם‬ and I myself will bless them.”

This prescription appears immediately before the description of the offerings for

the tabernacle dedication (see Num 7:1), suggesting that this blessing was integral to

proper tabernacle service. The blessing itself orally proclaimed the name of YHWH three

times and linked it with his covenantal commitment to them—expressed as blessing,

protection, grace, favor, and peace.116 The Masoretes separated each line of the blessing

with a ‫ס‬, setting it apart as a distinct utterance; furthermore, they framed the whole

blessing with ‫ ס‬and ‫פ‬. These markers testify to the ongoing ritual significance of the text.

The blessing functioned as an act of oral branding, affixing the divine name ( ‫ׂשמו את־ׁשמי‬

‫ )על‬upon the people who consequently belonged to YHWH by using an expression

reminiscent of the idiom ‫לׂשום ׁשמו ׁשם‬.117 This variation of a standard idiom for claim to

116
On the structure and significance of the blessing, see Milgrom, Numbers, 50–
52, 360–62. On the antiquity of this blessing (based on metric analysis), see David Noel
Freedman, “The Aaronic Benediction (Numbers 6:24–26),” in No Famine in the Land:
Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie, ed. James W. Flanagan and Anita Weisbrod
Robinson (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975), 35–48.
117
Milgrom (Numbers, 52) suggests that Num 6:27 may indicate a physical
prophylactic, but acknowledges that most think it refers to a figurative wearing of the
name or its invocation through the blessing. For a concrete interpretation, see Bar-Ilan,
“They shall put my name”; Jacobs, “The Body Inscribed,” 11–13. The Ketef Hinnom
amulets attest to the antiquity of the Aaronic blessing. For discussion, see G. Barkay et
 264

ownership suggests that its metaphorical qualities are fully activated for this unique

occasion (or that the passage pre-dates lexicalization). In either case, the association of

YHWH’s name with Israel is deliberate, not incidental or subconscious, and

commemorates the inauguration of their covenant relationship.

The gold medallion worn by the high priest and inscribed with YHWH’s name

thereby functioned as a visual lexicon for Israel’s vocation as bearers of that name. As the

one authorized to bless the people in YHWH’s name, the high priest symbolized their

collective status while providing an organic link between the concepts of possession and

representation. At the same time, the physicality of the high priestly bearing of names

reinforced the journey metaphor. By entering into covenant with YHWH and receiving

his blessing, the Israelites as a whole were set apart and identified as his, appointed to

represent him. The interconnectedness of priest and people, vestments and blessing,

cannot be overlooked.118 Both high priest and people were said to be “holy, belonging to

YHWH” (Exod 28:29; Deut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:18–19). Aaron’s ministry embodied the

sacred juncture between two worlds, facilitating their interaction by maintaining the

covenant apparatus. 119 Dressed in the splendor of the Most Holy Place before the people

al., “The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation,” BASOR 334
(2004): 41–71.
118
Baruch 5:2–3 makes an intriguing typological connection between Aaron’s
high priestly garments and Israel as a royal priesthood: “Put on the robe of righteousness
from God, place the diadem of the glory of the everlasting upon your head, for God will
show your brilliance to everything under heaven.” Here the whole nation is pictured as
returning from exile wearing priestly robes and the high priestly turban or diadem (here,
“the everlasting glory”).
119
An Egyptian analogy may shed further light on Aaron’s cultic vocation. Lorton
notes a complicated system of mutual representation in the Egyptian cult, involving an
interpenetration of personality. The officiant in the cult was identified by name as the god
 265

and in plain linen before YHWH, Aaron’s wardrobe exemplified his mediatorial role.

Aaron’s responsibilities began when he donned the clothing and ended at death, when his

garments were transferred to his son, Eleazar (Num 20:28). On the annual Day of

Atonement, Aaron removed his elaborate outer garments—all but his turban—to appear

as a common priest in the holy of holies, but with special authorization to address the

problem of accumulated sin. As representative of the entire nation, it is only natural that

the high priest would bear the divine name, because he represented and even embodied

Israel’s collective vocation as those “called by his name.”

The Occasion of Bearing YHWH’s Name

All that remains for this project is to explore the circumstances by which the

Israelites were drawn into covenant with YHWH and to identify their resulting vocation.

I have limited this discussion as much as possible to passages in the Sinai narratives

(Exodus 19–Numbers 10) and their immediate literary framework (Exodus 1–18;

Numbers 10–36). At the end I suggest ways that Deuteronomy builds on this theme.

being served, resulting in a seemingly redundant ritual whereby the god served and
sustained himself so that he would live to sustain the people. In his example, the priest to
the god Horus was himself renamed Horus, in hopes that Horus would favor the people,
who were also represented by the priest. See David Lorton, “The Theology of Cult
Statues in Ancient Egypt,” in Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult
Image in the Ancient Near East, ed. Michael B. Dick (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1999), 135. This Egyptian example may be analogous to Aaron’s role in the Israelite cult.
Inscribed with YHWH’s name on his forehead, Aaron represented YHWH to the people,
blessing them in YHWH’s name. Yet he also represented the people to YHWH, causing
YHWH to remember them by wearing their names on his breastpiece and shoulders. As
YHWH’s representative, did Aaron also represent YHWH to YHWH (by wearing his
medallion on the Day of Atonement) and the people to themselves, reminding them of
their covenant status? If so, this interpenetration of roles and identities affirmed his
mediatorial position.
 266
Ritual at Sinai
The liminality of Israel’s experience at Sinai has already been mentioned. The

first two key elements of ritual, separation and liminality, are readily apparent.120 God

first brought his people out of Egypt, physically separating them from their former way

of life so they were prepared to embrace a new identity as his people. But what ritual(s)

occurred here to justify the application of ritual theory to these chapters? Ronald Hendel

views the entire journey from Egypt to Canaan as a rite of passage.121 However, he still

isolates the events at Sinai as ritually significant. One rite has already been discussed

above in conjunction with the priestly ordination: the priestly blessing. Another is the

covenant ratification ceremony in Exodus 24.

The first feature to emphasize is that Sinai itself was not “sacred space.” The

biblical notion of sacred space is not geographically fixed. “Holy ground” is dependent

upon the presence of YHWH, and is therefore dynamic and transitory.122 Thus, the ritual

at Sinai is appropriate not because of geography, but because of the theophany that Israel

has just experienced there. The second feature to highlight is that Exodus 24 is literarily

bound with what precedes it. The giving of the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant

at Sinai (Exodus 20–23) is framed by a theophany on either side (Exodus 19 and 24).123

120
See above, p. 247.
121
Hendel, “Sacrifice as a Cultural System,” 375.
122
For discussion, see Sara Japhet, “Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred Place,” in
Sacred Space—Shrine, City, Land: Proceedings of the International Conference in
Memory of Joshua Prawer, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky
(Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1998), 55–72.
123
The grammatical shift in 24:1, where Moses is identified as the addressee of
YHWH’s discourse, parallels YHWH’s speaking to Moses directly in chapter 19.
 267

On both occasions, Moses spoke to Israel on YHWH’s behalf (19:7, 24:3), followed by

the people’s unanimous acceptance (19:8a, 24:3, 7). The repetition of their covenant

commitment was verbatim and increasingly emphatic. In both cases, the invitation to

approach God was followed by a restriction (19:20–24; 24:1–2). The offer of a covenant

relationship in 19:5–6 corresponds to its ratification in writing in 24:7. Clearly, these

events are parallel.124 The ritual in Exod 24:3–8 is further framed by a command-

fulfillment schema in vv. 1–2 and 9–11, where the leaders are invited to ascend the

mountain to worship YHWH.125 That scene demonstrates the efficacious nature of the

covenant. When they first arrived, the people were strictly warned not to approach the

mountain (19:12–13; 20–24); after the ceremony their representatives were invited to

ascend the mountain and see God (24:1–2; 9–11).

The ritual in Exodus 24 involved several key components: an altar, stone pillars,

sacrifices, blood, and efficacious words. The ceremony concluded with a ritual meal

before YHWH on the mountain, attended by Moses, Aaron and his sons, and the elders,

and an invitation to Moses to approach God and receive the stone tablets. Each of these

components deserves mention.

First, Moses built an altar (‫ )מזבח‬and set up pillars (‫)מצבה‬. Pillars such as these

were used in the ANE to memorialize a divine encounter (e.g., Gen 28:10–22) or bear

124
For other parallels, see Dozeman, Exodus, 562–63.
125
Whether this mountain scene included a covenant meal is disputed. Houtman
(Exodus, 3:295–96) argues that the statement in 24:10, “they saw God, and they ate and
drank” means “they saw God and lived to tell about it.” Cf. Ecc 3:13. However, the elders
may have eaten the portion of the fellowship offering reserved for the worshipper (v. 5).
Covenants often involved a meal (see Gen 26:30; 31:46; Exod 18:12). Cf. Dozeman,
Exodus, 566; Sarna, Exodus, 153.
 268

witness to a covenant (Gen 31:44–54). They also could mark a cult site (Exod 23:24; Lev

26:1). All three functions are evident here. The number twelve is significant because it

assures each tribe that it is represented in the covenant ceremony.126 As we saw above,

the twelve gemstones on the high priest’s ephod reinforced this idea, providing a visual

reminder long after the Israelites left Sinai.

As prescribed in Exod 20:24–25, the altar provided the staging ground for two

types of sacrifices, ‫עלות‬, or “burnt offerings,” and ‫זבחים ׁשלמים‬, or “fellowship offerings”

(24:5). These directly fulfilled Moses’ request to Pharaoh for permission to sacrifice to

YHWH in the wilderness (Exod 10:25; cf. 18:12).127 As its name implies, the ‫עלה‬

sacrifice was burned entirely, signifying that it belonged wholly to YHWH. The ‫זבח ׁשלם‬

was a celebratory offering; its meat would have been eaten by the people or their

representatives.128 The blood became a sign of the covenant, like the Passover blood on

Hebrew doorposts. It would remain visible on the altar as a “tangible sign of the

remembrance and the corresponding blessing.”129 The splattering (‫ )זרק‬of the blood on

126
Moses and the elders instructed the people to recapitulate this ritual at
Shechem. There they were to erect an unspecified number of “large stones” (here ‫אבנים‬
rather than ‫ )מצבה‬on which they were to write the Torah. They were also to build a stone
altar (‫ )מזבח‬and offer burnt (‫ )עולת‬and fellowship offerings (‫)זבחת ׁשלמים‬, eating before
YHWH, just as Moses and the elders at Sinai (Deut 27:1–8). For discussion, see Block,
“‘What Do These Stones Mean?’” Curiously, the account of the actual event in Shechem
mentions only one large stone and no altar, sacrifice, or meal (Josh 24:26). However, at
the Jordan crossing (Joshua 4), twelve stones represent the twelve tribes and serve as a
perpetual reminder of YHWH’s power. The repeated mention of the priests (vv. 3, 9, 10,
11, 15, 17, 18), as well as the inclusion of both circumcision and Passover (Josh 5:2–12),
suggest the ritual significance of this act.
127
Unfortunately, the same sacrifices were offered to the golden calf (Exod 32:6).
128
For more on the sacrifices, see Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 172–77, 217–25.
129
Hendel, “Sacrifice as a Cultural System,” 387.
 269

both the altar and the people was highly significant, because only in one other ritual, also

at Sinai, was blood applied to both altar and people: the priestly ordination (Lev 8:23–24,

30).130 At that time blood was sprinkled (‫ )נזה‬on Aaron, his garments, his sons, and their

garments.131 Already we have seen that because of his garments, Aaron embodied the

whole nation of Israel, bearing the names of each tribe. Here we discover that his

ordination, occurring some time later in the narrative sequence, mirrored the consecration

of all the people as they entered into a covenant with YHWH. The gravity of both events

was reinforced by the advent of YHWH’s glory (Exod 24:9–18; Lev 9:23–24).

Finally, we consider the efficacious words by which the covenant was enacted.

The ceremony began with Moses’ recital, apparently from memory, of all that YHWH

had said up to that point (presumably the Decalogue [‫ ]כל־דברי יהוה‬and what would later

be called the Book of the Covenant [‫ ;]כל־המׁשפטים‬24:3a). The people’s response was

complete and unanimous: “All the people answered with one voice, ‘All that YHWH has

spoken we will do’” (v. 3b). Then Moses recorded YHWH’s words, performed the

sacrifices, and read the written terms of the covenant to the people, now called “the

covenant document” (‫ ;ספר הברית‬v. 7). This recitation, too, elicited an affirmative

130
As noted by Dozeman (Exodus, 562). On one other occasion blood was
sprinkled on a person, as a way of reinstating to the covenant community those with a
defiling skin disease (Lev 14:1–32). For that situation it was not sprinkled on the altar.
The practice was likely intended to mimic the high priestly ordination and thereby evoke
the concept of the entire nation as a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6). Here physical
defilement prompted the need for reconsecration and readmittance. Cf. Averbeck, “‫א ָׁשם‬,” ָ
NIDOTTE 1:563. Contra Milgrom (Leviticus 1–16, 839, 855), who supposes the blood is
in this case apotropaic.
131
Cf. Exod 29:21, where the rite was prescribed. Typically the verb for applying
blood to the altar is ‫זרק‬, while application of blood to people involves ‫נזה‬. However, in
the covenant ratification ceremony, the blood is “splattered” on the people (‫ ;זרק‬Exod
24:8).
 270

response, using identical language to 19:8: “Everything YHWH has said we will do,”

with an additional verb for emphasis, “and we will be obedient” (‫ ;ונׁשמע‬24:7). Given

their consent, Moses concluded the covenant ceremony by splattering them with blood

and saying, “Look, the blood of the covenant which YHWH has made with you in

accordance with all these words” (24:8).132

The links with Exodus 19 are significant. There Israel’s new identity and purpose

as YHWH’s redeemed covenant partner were elaborated:

You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, how I carried you on
eagle’s wings and brought you to myself. So now, if you will indeed obey my
voice and keep my covenant, then you will be my treasured possession (‫ )סגלה‬out
of all the peoples. Though all the earth is mine, you will be my kingdom of priests
and holy nation. (Exod 19:4b–6a)

Keeping the covenant would reflect a vocation consistent with Israel’s election. She

would become YHWH’s ‫סגלה‬, or treasured vassal.133 Furthermore, the holiness of the

entire nation would facilitate a priestly function in relation to other nations.134 Like the

priests, their preparation for the theophany and covenant instructions of chapters 20–23

132
Significantly, though several elements of this ritual correspond to the priestly
ordination ceremony, as ordinands the priests are silent. Aaron speaks only when
bestowing the blessing (Lev 9:22–23). This seems to underscore his mediatorial role,
taking the accent off him personally and focusing attention on YHWH’s words. As a
member of the community, Aaron has already voiced his affirmation of the covenant
stipulations. His ordination merely sets him apart to facilitate that covenant.
133
On the ANE background to this term, see above, p. 182.
134
For more on Israel’s vocation, see below, p. 273.
 271

involved consecration, washing their clothes, and abstaining from sexual intimacy

(19:10–15).135 The significance of these rituals at Sinai cannot be overestimated.

Israel’s “Regalia”
As a kingdom of priests (Exod 19:5), Israel’s wardrobe included several hints of

their priestly status.136 As already discussed, their sprinkling with blood marked them as

covenant members (Exod 24:8). Then, during the wilderness journey after Sinai, when

Israel’s willingness to obey was severely tested, YHWH instructed them to make tassels

for the corners of their garments (Num 15:38). The tassels were to contain a blueish-

purple thread (‫)תכלת‬, the same color worn by the priests, resulting in a combination of

linen and dyed wool that was otherwise prohibited for common use.137 These tassels

135
During ordination priests were consecrated with oil, washed, and reclothed
(Lev 8:6–13). Their presence at the tabernacle entrance for seven days precluded sexual
relations.
136
Surprisingly, circumcision was not the sign (‫ )אות‬of this covenant at Sinai (cf.
Gen 17:11). On the contrary, it was apparently not practiced in the wilderness. Moses
himself seemed reluctant to perform the surgery (Exod 4:25), and of all the Sinai
regulations only Lev 12:3 prescribed it, and there only as a corollary to the primary issue
(namely, purification after childbirth). Not until after Moses’ death, under Joshua’s
leadership, were adult males circumcised as preparation for entering Canaan (Josh 5:2–
5). And so, while in other eras circumcision functioned as a covenant sign, for the
wilderness generation the functional covenant sign (‫ )אות‬was Sabbath observance (Exod
31:13). For discussion, see Daniel I. Block, “Hearing Galatians with Moses: An
Examination of Paul as a Second and Seconding Moses” (unpublished paper), 13–18.
Also noted by Jacobs, The Body as Property, 28–29. Medieval Jewish mystics taught that
circumcision marked (or “sealed”) a Jewish male with YHWH’s name, suggesting that
the phallus represented the yod of the divine name. See Jacobs, “The Body Inscribed,”
66–67; Elliott R. Wolfson, “Circumcision and the Divine Name: A Study in the
Transmission of Esoteric Doctrine,” JQR 78 (1987): 78.

See Jacob Milgrom, “Of Hems and Tassels: Rank, Authority and Holiness
137

Were Expressed in Antiquity by Fringes on Garments,” BAR 9:3 (1983): 61–65;

Vogelzang, “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing.”
 272

reminded the Israelites to exhibit holiness by obeying YHWH’s commands (Num 15:39–

40). Since in other ANE cultures tassels were a status symbol, worn primarily by kings,

deities, and warriors, they may also have illustrated Israel’s special standing as YHWH’s

treasure.138 At the very least they provided a tangible reminder of their calling to be a

“kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6).

But Israel wore something invisible as well: YHWH’s name. At Sinai YHWH

declared himself to be Israel’s God, calling Israel “mine” (‫ ;והייתם לי‬Exod 19:5), and

instituting the priestly blessing, whereby Aaron and his successors would regularly “place

his name” on Israel (Num 6:27). Through the priests’ proclamation YHWH would

continually remind Israel that he had claimed her as his own. The covenant link between

YHWH and his people, mediated by the priest who bore both of their names, was

regularly reaffirmed. That claim to ownership was memorialized in the expression ‫נקרא־‬

‫ ׁשם על‬and it justified the designation of Israel as ‫“( עם־קדׁש ליהוה‬a holy people,

belonging to YHWH”).139 Israel was the people over whom YHWH’s name had been

proclaimed, marking them as his special people and chosen representatives.140

138
Stephen Bertman, “Tassled Garments in the Ancient East Mediterranean,” BA
24:4 (1961): 128.
139
See Block, “No Other Gods,” 244. The latter phrase matched the inscription on
the high priestly medallion (Deut 26:19; cf. Exod 28:36, ‫)קדׁש ליהוה‬. The high priest
embodied what YHWH intended his people to be.
140
Chris Wright (The Mission of God) offers a full exploration of the theme but
does not bring it in conversation with the NC. John Goldingay (Old Testament Theology,
Vol. 3: Israel’s Life [Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009]) mentions “bearing the
name” throughout his volume on OT ethics. For a brief but helpful introduction to the
topic, see Daniel I. Block, “Bearing the Name of the LORD with Honor,” in How I Love
Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade,
2011), 61–72; idem, “Privilege of Calling.”
 273

The notion that YHWH’s name is something to be worn also underlies the later

practice of wearing phylacteries. Phylacteries, or tefillin, concretized the Deuteronomic

command to “bind [the commands] as a sign on your hand, and fix them as an emblem

between your eyes” (Deut 6:8).141 For Jews in later centuries, the phylacteries physically

represented not only the Torah, but also the very name of God. Since the design and

wrapping of phylacteries mimicked the consonants of YHWH’s epithet Shaddai, they

were to be worn only by the righteous.142 For Deut 28:10, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

reads, “Then all the nations of the earth shall see that the Lord’s name is inscribed

already on the tefillim that is (you carry) on you and they will be afraid of you.”143 This

text provides relatively early evidence (ca. 400–450 CE) that phylacteries were thought to

represent God’s name, which was literally to be worn.144

We cannot be certain how early or how widespread these ideas were. According

to Meir Bar-Ilan, this scattered evidence of concretization points to a ritual whereby the

priests literally wrote YHWH’s name on the foreheads of those they blessed.145 However,

141
For a thorough discussion of the contents, shape, and ANE analogues for the
tefillin, see Keel, “Zeichen der Verbundenheit.”
142
Braude, Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special Sabbaths,
22.5; 458. See Rabinowitz, “Teffilin,” EJ 19:578, and discussion above, p. 59 n. 167.
143
Ernest Clarke, trans., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy, ArBib 5B
(Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1998), 74–75, italics his.
144
Similarly, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan specifies the mark placed on Cain (Gen
4:15) as “a letter from the great and glorious name.” Noted by Philip S. Alexander,
“Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures,” in Mulder, Mikra, 231–32.
145
Bar-Ilan, “They shall put my name”; idem, “Magic Seals.” However, John
Barton (The Nature of Biblical Criticism, 1st ed. [Louisville: Westminster John Knox,
2007], 98 n. 60) sees Deut 6:8 as metaphorical. Elsewhere Bar-Ilan (“Writing in Ancient
Israel, Part Two: Scribes and Books in the Late Second Commonwealth and Rabbinic
Period,” in Mulder, Mikra, 27) argues that although tattoos were prohibited in Lev 19:28,
 274

these practices probably arose from the shared conceptual metaphor ELECTION AS

BRANDING rather than from a concrete priestly ritual. As with the NC, the injunction to tie

the commandments on arms and foreheads has a clear metaphorical basis. The metaphor

readily explains the unique expression in the NC as well as its concretization in various

practices.

Israel’s Role among the Nations

The exit of the Hebrews from Egypt was punctuated by reminders of God’s

covenant with Abraham and his promise to give him the land of Canaan (Exod 2:24; 3:6,

15–16; 4:5; 6:3–5, 8; 13:5). YHWH’s deliverance was the fulfillment of that Abrahamic

promise, including its international dimension (Gen 12:2–3):

I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you;
I will make your name great and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse
And all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.
The repeated articulation of Abraham’s name throughout the exodus event evoked this

promise. Even Balaam, a foreigner, acknowledged its lasting potency, pronouncing,

“May those who bless you be blessed and those who curse you be cursed!” (Num 24:9b).

The frame around the Sinai narratives reinforces this theme. Pharaoh himself requested a

blessing from the Hebrews, hinting at the fulfillment of YHWH’s desire that Egypt would

know he was God (Exod 12:32; cf. 7:5; 9:14, 16, 29; 14:4, 18; Num 33:3–4). Jethro, a

Midianite priest, concluded, “Blessed be YHWH who delivered you from the hand of the

Egyptians and from the hand of Pharaoh . . . Now I know that YHWH is greater than all

Jews marked the body with ink to ward off evil by indicating that “they were God’s
slaves.” Cf. Jacobs, “The Body Inscribed,” 11–13; Jacobs, The Body as Property, 222.
 275

the gods” (Exod 18:10–11). As we have seen, concern for this international reputation

underlay Moses’ plea for mercy (Exod 32:12; Num 14:13–16; cf. Num 22:6).

Though the missional dimension of Israel’s election was not fully developed at

Sinai, YHWH clearly indicated Israel’s intended role to be a kingdom of priests and holy

nation, and he elucidated the means to that end—obedience to covenant stipulations

(Exod 19:5–6).146 The essence of their vocation was to be “distinguished from all the

(other) peoples” by the presence of YHWH among them (Exod 33:16). Naturally, then,

Leviticus makes the most insistent link between YHWH’s name and Israel’s role. As the

Holiness Code illustrates, Israel’s separation from the nations required distinctive

behavior, diet, and dress (Lev 11:44; 19:2; 20:24–26).147 She was to imitate YHWH’s

holiness. When she failed to do so, his name was profaned. Since YHWH’s ultimate

purpose in choosing Israel was to declare his grace and power to the nations, her

disobedience to his commands interfered, sending the wrong message about his

character.148 Israel’s redemption from slavery had missional implications—the nations

were watching (Lev 26:45).149

146
Numbers 20:14–17 offers a rare example of Israel’s oral testimony to
foreigners after Sinai. Preuss (OT Theology, 1:25) connects election with obedience in his
proposed center for Old Testament Theology.
147
Cf. Exod 8:19[23]; 11:7. In the context of covenant renewal (Josh 8:30–35;
24:1–28), Joshua exhorted the Israelites to maintain distinction from the nations by
refusing to worship their gods or to marry their women (Josh 23:7, 12). The theological
significance of the covenant renewal at Mt. Ebal and Mt. Gerazim is rooted in the
patriarchal narratives. Both Abraham and Jacob had built altars there (Gen 12:6–7;
33:18–20). Moses had instructed Joshua to build an altar there as well (Deut 27:4–5). See
David M. Howard, Joshua, NAC 5 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 212–13.

For a fuller discussion, see John T. Strong, “Israel as a Testimony to YHWH’s

148

Power: The Priest’s Definition of Israel,” in Constituting the Community: Studies of the
 276

Leviticus 19 offers a poignant example of the connection between YHWH’s

character and the behavior he expected of his people. A long list of regulations covering

every conceivable area of life (speech, dress, agriculture, worship, sexual ethics, etc.) is

punctuated with the statement “I am YHWH” (vv. 3, 4, 10, 12, 14, etc.), emphasizing

imitatio dei as the basis for Israel’s ethic. The entire series is prefaced by the rationale,

“You shall be holy, for I, YHWH your God, am holy” (19:2). Recognition of the idea that

Israel bore YHWH’s name explains why the two should be connected. Just as the high

priest was ‫( קדׁש ליהוה‬Exod 28:37), so, too, was Israel:

Leviticus 20:26
‫והייתם לי קדׁשים‬ You shall be set apart as mine [or “holy, belonging to me”],
‫כי קדוׁש אני יהוה‬ because I, YHWH, am holy
‫ואבדל אתכם מן־העמים‬ and I have separated you from the peoples
‫להיות לי‬ to be mine.

The appearance of the prepositional phrase ‫לי‬, the 1st-person pronominal equivalent of

‫ליהוה‬, underscores that Israel belonged to YHWH, while the explicit mention of

separation (‫ )בדל‬clarifies the nature of holiness as being “set apart.” As the high priest

was set apart from his compatriots for YHWH’s service in the tabernacle (Lev 21:8), so

Israel was set apart for his service on a global scale.150

Polity of Ancient Israel in Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr., ed. John T. Strong and Steven
S. Tuell (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005).
149
Cf. Levine, Leviticus, 192.
150
Tension between these two is evident in Num 16:3–7.
 277

Deuteronomy develops this theme more fully, calling the next generation of

Israelites “a people of [YHWH’s] special possession” (‫ ;עם נחלה‬Deut 4:20; cf. 9:29),151

his “holy” and “treasured people” (‫עם קדוׁש ליהוה‬, ‫ ;עם סגלה‬Deut 7:6; 14:1–2, 21; 28:9),

chosen from among all the nations (Deut 10:15). Deuteronomy makes clear that election

always involves selection from among other candidates. The Hebrew verb ‫ בחר‬identifies

four entities in Deuteronomy that YHWH selected to carry out his purposes. First, the

people of Israel are described as those chosen “out of all the peoples” (‫ ;מכל העמים‬Deut

7:6; 10:15; 14:2) to obey his decrees and be his holy nation, a living object lesson of his

character. Second, God promised to choose a place for his name “out of all your tribal

allotments” (‫)מכל־ׁשבטיכם‬, which would function as a central sanctuary to serve the

whole nation (Deut 12:5, 14). Third, the people were permitted to choose a king “from

the midst of your brothers” (‫)מקרב אחיך‬, who would model humble obedience to Torah

(Deut 17:15–20). Fourth, YHWH chose the tribe of Levi “out of all your tribes” (‫מכל־‬

‫ )ׁשבטיך‬to minister in YHWH’s name (Deut 18:5). In each case, whether nation, place,

151
The Hebrew Bible employs ‫ נחלה‬to refer to the land of Israel as YHWH’s
property and the covenant people as YHWH’s special possession. Though cognate
languages offer equivalents for the former, the application to people is unique to biblical
Hebrew. See Harold O. Forshey, “The Construct Chain naḥalat YHWH / ʾelōhîm,”
BASOR 220 (1975): 51–53. Cf. Daniel I. Block, Gods of the Nations, 76–79. Wildberger
(Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des
Erwählungsgedankens, ATANT 37 [Zurich: Zwingli, 1960], 77–78) suggests that ‫נחלה‬
replaced the rarer ‫סגלה‬. However, ‫ נחלה‬never appears with the other covenant titles from
Exod 19:5–6, as one might expect if it replaces ‫סגלה‬. The other titles are as rare as ‫סגלה‬.
Furthermore, ‫ סגלה‬also appears in post-exilic texts (Ps 135:4 and Mal 3:17), making it
less likely that it was replaced. Forshey (“Segulah and Nachalah as Designations of the
Covenant Community,” Hebrew Abstracts 15 [1974]: 85–86) suggests that the
application of ‫ סגלה‬to the covenant people is an exilic development of the word ‫נחלה‬.
Alternatively, ‫ נחלה‬may represent a more modest way of talking about Israel’s status in
prayer or public address (e.g., Moses’ plea for YHWH to accept Israel again as his
possession [‫ ]ונחלתנו‬following the sin of the golden calf [Exod 34:9]). Cf. Deut 4:20;
9:26, 29; 32:9; 1 Kgs 8:51, 53; 2 Kgs 21:14; Isa 19:25; 47:6; 63:17; Jer 10:16; 51:19; Joel
2:17; 4:2 [3:2]; Mic 7:14, 18; Ps 28:9; 33:12; 74:2; 78:62, 71; 94:5, 14; 106:5, 40.
 278

king, or priest, the selection was from among other potential candidates, but the chosen

were designated to serve the rest.

Two passages in particular highlight Israel’s vocation in relation to other

nations—a role linked to YHWH’s claim on her, though not explicitly with the

expression ‫נׂשא ׁשם‬. The first utilizes the phrase from the high priestly medallion,

applying it to the people as a whole (‫)עם־קדׁש ליהוה‬, and the second includes the standard

idiom for claim to ownership (‫)נקרא ׁשם על‬.

Deuteronomy 26:18–19
‫ויהוה האמירך היום‬ And YHWH has had you declare yourselves this day
‫להיות לו לעם סגלה כאׁשר דבר־לך‬ to be his treasured people, just as he said to you,
‫ולׁשמר כל־מצותיו‬ so you shall keep his commands,
‫ולתתך עליון על כל־הגוים‬ and he shall set you high over all the nations
‫אׁשר עׂשה לתהלה ולׁשם ולתפארת‬ that he has made, for praise, for fame, and for honor,
‫ולהיתך עם־קדׁש ליהוה אלהיך‬ and to be a people holy to YHWH your God,
‫כאׁשר דבר‬ just as he said.

In this declarative speech act, YHWH appointed a new generation as his treasured vassal

so that the nations would see Israel and honor YHWH (Cf. Deut 4:6–8; 28:1).152 The

performative or perlocutionary dimension of YHWH’s statement, signaled by the hiphil

form of ‫אמר‬, enacted the appointment of a new generation of Israelites as his vassal.

Deuteronomy described these intentions for Israel using three vivid words: “And he will

set you high over all the nations that he has made, for praise, for a name, and for

152
For a full discussion of this passage as a declarative speech act, see Stephen
Guest, Deuteronomy 26:16–19 as the Central Focus of the Covenantal Framework of
Deuteronomy (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009). Cf.
McConville, Deuteronomy, 384–85. On speech-act theory, see Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Is
There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, The Reader, and The Morality of Literary
Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 209. On ‫ עם סגלה‬see Greenberg, “Hebrew
seǥullā : Akkadian sikiltu”; Davies, Royal Priesthood, 54–60.
 279

splendor” (‫ ;לתהלה ולׁשם ולתפארת‬v. 19, emphasis mine). Like the high priestly garments,

designed “for glory and splendor” (‫ ;לכבוד ולתפארת‬Exod 28:2, 40), so Israel’s obedience

would be like a splendid garment, inspiring the admiration of all nations.153 The echoes of

these lexemes from the instructions regarding the high priest underscore Israel’s role as a

kingdom of priests, bearing YHWH’s name among the nations just as the high priest bore

YHWH’s name among his people. To honor him by keeping covenant would

paradoxically result in their own fame as well.154

Deuteronomy 28:9–10
‫יקימך יהוה לו לעם קדוׁש‬ YHWH will establish you as his holy people
‫כאׁשר נׁשבע־לך‬ just as he promised you on oath
‫כי תׁשמר את־מצות יהוה אלהיך‬ if you keep the commands of YHWH your God
‫והלכת דרכיו‬ and walk in his ways
‫וראו כל־עמי הארץ‬ and all the peoples of the earth will see
‫כי ׁשם יהוה נקרא עליך‬ that YHWH’s name has been proclaimed over you
‫ויראו ממך‬ and they will fear you.

Because of YHWH’s declared ownership of Israel, indicated by the standard idiom ‫נקרא‬

‫ׁשם על‬, her obedience to his commands would make the nations tremble. Israel’s covenant

was enacted in the public eye. YHWH’s name upon Israel and her allegiance to him

153
Jeremiah twice echoed this phrase, expressing YHWH’s renewed plan to make
them “my people, for fame, and praise, and splendor” (‫ ;לעם ולׁשם ולתהלה ולתפארת‬Jer
13:11, emphasis mine; cp. Jer 33:9). In spite of their initial failure, Jeremiah envisioned a
day when YHWH would heal his people and forgive their sin while the nations watched.
154
Cf. 2 Sam 7:9, 13. Note the conceptual metonymy, NAME STANDS FOR
REPUTATION. The ambiguity is intentional. With the praise of one comes the praise of the
other. The echo of this passage in Deut 28:1–14 further underscores that Israel will
receive recognition; the nations will fear her, and she will be the “head” rather than the
“tail” (vv. 10, 13). Furthermore, Zeph 3:19–20 is explicit that fame and praise is given to
Israel by YHWH: ‫כי־אתן אתכם לׁשם ולתהלה בכל עמי הארץ‬.
 280

implied his protection and blessing (cf. Num 6:24).155 While these passages from

Deuteronomy do not employ the expression ‫נׂשא ׁשם‬, they provide the clearest evidence

of Israel’s vocation resulting from YHWH’s claim on her.

Conclusion: Election to Representation

What has become clear is that covenantal election is not merely a status indicating

the “chosen.”156 The events at Sinai made explicit the election of Abraham’s descendants,

the Hebrews, as his covenant people for broader purposes. Election is the means by

which God intended to mediate his blessing to the nations (cf. Gen 12:1–3). The Sinai

narratives do not stress this dispersion of blessing; Israel had yet to learn how to be

YHWH’s people. However, in being his holy people, they eventually found their

vocation in relation to the nations. The potency of their witness depended on the

scrupulousness of their obedience. Suzanne McDonald calls it “election to

representation,” rightly recognizing these active and functional dimensions of election.157

155
See Tigay, Deuteronomy, 260.
156
The theological conversation regarding “election” is long and littered with
corpses. I do not intend to join the fray, except to suggest that Israel’s covenant
ratification at Sinai confirmed her status as God’s chosen people and implied a vocation
for which she was responsible. See above, p. 93 n. 46.
157
Suzanne McDonald, Re-Imaging Election: Divine Election as Representing
God to Others and Others to God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 191. Though
McDonald’s project focuses on imago dei, her conclusions about the dynamic nature of
election corroborate the results of this project. She writes from a Reformed perspective,
affirming the major tenets of Reformed theology, including “God’s eternal electing
decision” and his absolute sovereignty (ibid., xiii). However, her insights about the
dynamic nature of that election apply equally well to those who prefer to discuss election
in terms of God’s saving acts within history.
 281

In chapter 4, I argued that the phrase ‫ נקרא ׁשם על‬is a lexicalized expression

indicating ownership through vocal declaration, and as such it sometimes operates

interchangeably with the other idioms indicating ownership, such as ‫לׁשכן ׁשמו ׁשם‬, ‫לׂשום‬

‫ׁשמו ׁשם‬, and ‫להיות ׁשמו ׁשם‬. Most of these are widely distributed in both cultic and non-

cultic contexts. The application of several of these idioms to the same entities suggests a

convergence of concepts.

This is not true of the NC’s ‫נׂשא ׁשם‬. It is not widely distributed, appearing only in

the Decalogue, the description of the high priestly breastpiece, and in Ps 16:4. We have

no evidence for its lexicalization or application to other contexts. It appears to be a

unique expression, created for this occasion to impress upon the Israelites the solemnity

of their calling as YHWH’s people. It draws on the conceptual framework underlying the

other NAME-idioms, activating the idea that YHWH lays claim to what he owns through

verbal BRANDING, and that his subjects’ obedience is like a JOURNEY in the sight of the

nations. As a result, his reputation is bound up with the fate of what he owns.

Israel’s status as YHWH’s possession is obvious. At Sinai, he revealed himself

and called Israel his “kingdom of priests” and “treasured possession” (‫)סגלה‬, a title

normally reserved for vassals (Exod 19:5–6).158 In a momentous ritual, and with their full

knowledge of what it entailed, Israel formally entered into covenant with YHWH

(Exodus 24). The priestly blessing provided a regular opportunity to commemorate her

election by reinforcing the oral act of branding (Num 6:27), whereby the whole nation

could be called “a people holy to YHWH” (‫ )עם־קדׁש ליהוה‬mirroring the high priestly

inscription (Deut 26:19; cf. Exod 28:36; Leviticus 19).

158
For a fuller discussion, see Davies, Royal Priesthood.
 282

Though indicative of Aaron’s elite status in characteristic ancient Near Eastern

fashion, the high priest’s garments also symbolized Israel’s national vocation. They

indicated Aaron’s special role, having been selected to represent the whole nation by

wearing their names before YHWH, and to remind Israel of her holy vocation by wearing

YHWH’s name among them. While Aaron was to maintain the holiness of the tabernacle,

offering sacrifices for sin and thereby facilitating the presence of God among his people,

the people were to be holy as well, their behavior worthy of fame, praise, and honor in

the sight of other peoples so that YHWH’s presence among them would be a source of

blessing rather than judgment. Failure on either part brought guilt and, as a result,

profaned the holy name of YHWH.

Interpreting the NC representationally has significant ethical consequences.

Instead of limiting application to a particular type of speech, the representational reading

encompasses everything God’s people do or say. No area of life is untouched by this

command because Israel “bears the name” in everything she does. Just as the other

constitutional documents treat matters of diet and dress, economics and agriculture,

purity and justice, cult and society, war and festivals, marriage and family, so the NC

implies that covenant members may not claim allegiance to YHWH without carrying out

his will in all these areas. However, while the range of behavior is much broader than

traditional interpretations of the NC suggest, the subjects of that behavior are limited. The

NC—read representationally—embodies the heart of what it means to be a member of the

covenant community, set free from slavery to another and brought into YHWH’s service,

having been “branded” by a new sovereign. Israel’s role is missional, intended to

demonstrate to the nations the gracious character and power of God through unflinching

obedience to his commands.

 283
Translation of the NC into English
How then should the NC be translated into English? The Oxford English

Dictionary traces the English idiom “to take . . . in vain” to the Latin Vulgate of Exod

20:7 (assumere nomen Dei in vanum), rendered literally.159 In English, the idiom “to take

God’s name in vain” has come to mean “to use or utter (the name of God) lightly,

needlessly, or profanely.”160 This idiom reflects popular understanding of the NC.

However, as we have seen, “take” is an inadequate and misleading translation of the

Hebrew ‫נׂשא‬.161 “You shall not bear the name of YHWH, your God, in vain” does justice

to the Hebrew, to its literary, historical, and theological contexts, as well as to the way the

English language works, providing a satisfying alternative to the traditional translations.

“Bearing the name” also retains the connection with the underlying conceptual metaphors

ELECTION AS BRANDING and OBEDIENCE IS A JOURNEY, leaving room for fruitful

theological reflection.

159
This translation dates at least as far back as Wycliffe’s Bible, published in
1382 (OED 400–401), and persists through the major English translations that followed:
Coverdale (1535), Matthew’s (1537), Geneva (1560), Bishops (1568), and KJV (1611).
On the history of the English Bible, see David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of
the English Language (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 59.
160
OED 400–401.
161
It comes closer to the LXX λαμβάνω.
 APPENDIX

SEMANTIC OVERLAP BETWEEN ‫ נׂשא‬AND λαμβάνω1

Table 18. Passages where ‫ נׂשא‬is Translated by λαμβάνω

LXX [MT] MEANING NOTES

Gen 21:18 Take up (a child)
Gen 27:3 Take up (weapons)
Gen 31:17 Lift up (wives and children) to mount them on camels
Exod 20:7 (2x) Bear the name
Exod 28:23 [29] Bear the names
Exod 30:12 Register people MT: lift up the heads
LXX: take the computation
Lev 5:1 Bear sin
Lev 5:17 Bear sin
Lev 7:8 [18] Bear sin
Lev 16:22 Bear sin The scapegoat carries it off.
Lev 17:16 Bear sin
Lev 19:8 Bear sin
Lev 19:15 Show favoritism lit., lift the face of
Lev 19:17 Bear sin
Lev 22:9 Bear sin
Lev 24:15 Bear sin
Num 1:2 Register people
Num 1:49 Register people elliptical, “head” is missing
Num 3:40 Register people
Num 4:2 Register people
Num 4:22 Register people

1
Table 18 lists all 157 passages where ‫ נׂשא‬is translated by λαμβάνω in the LXX
(according to HCRS). The vast majority (unless otherwise noted) involve Hebrew qal
stems. Niphal is passive; hiphil is causative; piel means “to maintain support” or “carry
away” (cf. HALOT 1:726–27). The Aramaic peal means “to take” (HALOT 2:1934).
Light shading indicates the lifting or bearing of something tangible. Dark shading
indicates the bearing of something intangible, such as sin, reproach, or the name. Other
idioms—registering people, taking a wife, showing favoritism, or lifting up a lament—
remain unshaded.

284
 285
Num 5:31 Bear sin
Num 9:13 Bear sin
Num 11:12 Carry (Israel) ‫ נׂשא‬occurs twice, translated
by λαβὲ and ἄραι.
λαμβάνω occurs twice, for
‫ נׂשא‬and ‫“( הרה‬conceive” =
ἐν γαστρὶ ἔλαβον).
Num 14:34 Bear sin
Num 16:15 Carry off/take away (donkey) i.e., steal
Num 18:1 (2x) Bear sin
Num 18:22 Bear sin
Num 18:23 Bear sin
Num 18:32 Bear sin
Num 26:2 Register people
Num 30:16 Bear sin
Num 31:26 Register people i.e., plundered people and
animals
Num 31:49 Register people
Deut 5:11 (2x) Bear the name
Deut 12:26 Take/bring (an offering)
Josh 4:8 Take up/carry (12 stones)
Judg 9:48 Take up (bundle of brush)
Judg 16:31 Take up/carry (dead body)
Judg 21:23 Take (wives)
Ruth 1:4 Take (wives)
1 Sam 17:20 Get up/arise
(A)
1 Sam 17:34 Steal/carry off (a lamb)
2 Sam 5:21 Take away/carry off (idols)
2 Sam 14:14 Take away (a life) = banish someone from
God’s presence
2 Sam 17:13 Carry/bring (ropes) hiphil
2 Sam 23:16 Carry (water)
1 Kgs 8:31 Lift up (a curse or oath) Or Heb. ‫( נׁשא‬to be a
creditor) for ‫נׂשא‬. The LXX
presumes the former.
2 Kgs 3:14 Show favor Lit., lift the face (MT),
receive the face (LXX)
2 Kgs 4:36 Take/carry away (son)
2 Kgs 4:37 Take/carry away (son)
2 Kgs 7:8 Steal/carry off (plunder)
2 Kgs 9:25 Carry away (corpse)
2 Kgs 19:4 Lift up (a prayer)
2 Kgs 20:17 Take away/carry off niphal; goods into exile
2 Kgs 23:4 Take away/carry (ashes)
 286
1 Chr 10:9 Take away/carry off (head) From Saul’s dead body
1 Chr 10:12 Take away/carry off (corpses)
1 Chr 11:18 Take/carry (water)
1 Chr 15:15 Carry (the ark)
1 Chr 16:29 Take/bring (an offering)
1 Chr 18:11 Take/carry off (silver / gold)
1 Chr 21:24 Lift up (offering) MT: lift up (offering)
LXX: Take (what is yours)
1 Chr 23:22 Take (wives)
1 Chr 27:23 Register people
2 Chr 5:4 Carry (the ark)
2 Chr 6:22 Lift up (a curse or oath) Or Heb. ‫( נׁשא‬to be a
creditor) for ‫נׂשא‬. The LXX
presumes the former.
2 Chr 13:21 Take (wives)
2 Chr 16:6 Take (stones) λαμβάνω occurs twice, for
‫ לקח‬and ‫נׁשא‬
2 Chr 24:3 Take (wives)
Ezra 1:4 Supply (silver/gold) piel; “support with”
Ezra 5:15 Carry away (vessels) Aramaic peal; “to take”
Ezra 9:2 Take (wives)
Ezra 9:12 Take (wives)
Ezra 10:44 Take (wives)
Neh 2:1 Take/carry (wine)
Neh 13:25 Take (wives)
Job 34:31 Bear (sin?) ‫ נׂשא‬lacks an object
Job 42:8 Show favor
Ps 14:3 [15:3] Take up (a reproach)
Ps 23:4 [24:4] Lift up (soul)
Ps 23:5 [24:5] Receive (a blessing)
Ps 80:3 [81:3] Lift up (a song)
Ps 81:2 [82:2] Show favoritism To sinners
Ps 115:4 Lift up (cup of salvation)
[116:13]
Ps 138:9 [139:9] Arise (on wings) ἀναλαμβάνω
Ps 138:20 Show favor
[139:20]
Ecc 5:14 Bring/carry (anything)
Ecc 5:18 Accept (their lot)
Isa 2:4 Take up/lift up (sword)
Isa 8:4 Carry away/seize (wealth)
Isa 14:4 Take up (a taunt)
Isa 15:7 Carry away (possessions)
Isa 22:6 Bear (quiver)
Isa 38:21 Take (lump of figs)
 287
Isa 39:6 Take away/carry off (possessions) niphal
Isa 40:24 Carry off (princes) ἀναλαμβάνω – in the wind
Isa 41:16 Carry off (mountains) In the wind
Isa 57:13 Carry off (idols) In the wind
Jer 9:9 Take up (weeping and wailing)
Jer 9:17 Take up (a lamentation)
Jer 15:15 Bear reproach
Jer 30:24 Carry off/take (camels)
[49:29]
Jer 38:19 Bear disgrace
[31:19]
Jer 52:17 Carry off/take (bronze)
Jer 52:31 Show favor
Ezek 4:4 Bear sin
Ezek 4:5 Bear sin
Ezek 4:6 Bear sin
Ezek 10:7 Take
Ezek 14:10 Bear sin
Ezek 18:19 Bear sin
Ezek 18:20 (2x) Bear sin
Ezek 19:1 Take up (a lament)
Ezek 23:35 Bear wickedness and fornication i.e., consequences for
Ezek 23:49 Bear sinful idolatry i.e., consequences for
Ezek 26:17 Take up (a lament)
Ezek 27:2 Take up (a lament)
Ezek 27:32 Take up (a lament)
Ezek 28:12 Take up (a lament)
Ezek 29:19 (A) Carry off/take (plunder)
Ezek 32:2 Take up (a lament)
Ezek 32:24 Bear disgrace MT: Bear disgrace
LXX: Receive torment
Ezek 32:30 (A) Bear disgrace MT: Bear disgrace
LXX (A): Receive torment
LXX: Bear (ἀποφέρω)
torment
Ezek 33:25 (A) Lift up (your eyes) MT: Lift up your eyes
LXX (A): ‘Lift’ your eyes
LXX: [missing]
Ezek 36:7 Bear disgrace MT: Bear disgrace
LXX: Receive dishonor
Ezek 38:13 Carry off/take away (silver/gold)
Ezek 39:10 Carry/take (wood)
Ezek 39:26 Bear disgrace MT: Bear disgrace
LXX: Receive dishonor
Ezek 44:10 Bear sin
 288
Ezek 44:12 (A) Bear sin MT: Bear sin
LXX (A): Bear sin
LXX: missing
Ezek 44:13 Bear disgrace
Ezek 45:11 Carry/hold (a tenth) i.e., contain
Dan 11:12 Carry off (crowd) niphal
MT: ‫ההמון‬
LXX: συναγωγήν
LXX (TH): ὄχλον
Hos 4:8 Lift up (his soul) = desire
Hos 5:14 Carry off/take (Judah)
Hos 13:1 Accept (regulations) MT: He exalted (qal)
Syr.: He was exalted (niph)
Hos 14:3 Bear (away) sin Plea for YHWH’s
forgiveness
Amos 4:2 Take away/carry off (exiles) piel
Amos 5:1 Lift up (a lament)
Amos 6:10 Take up/carry (corpse)
Jonah 1:15 Take/seize/pick up (Jonah)
Micah 2:4 Take up (a taunt)
Micah 6:16 Bear reproach
Hab 1:3 (strife/contention) arise MT: (strife/contention) arise
LXX: receive [a reward]
Hab 2:6 Take up (a taunt)
Zeph 3:18 Bear (reproach) MT: burden [‫( ]מׂשאת‬of
reproach)
LXX: bear (a reproach)
Hag 2:12 Take/carry (meat)
Zech 6:13 Bear (honor) MT: bear (honor)
LXX: receive (divine
power)
Mal 1:8 Show favor
Mal 1:9 Show favor
Mal 2:3 Seize
Mal 2:9 Take away/carry off (you)
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alexander, Philip S. “Jewish Aramaic Translations of Hebrew Scriptures.” In Mikra:

Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient
Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Mulder, 217–54. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2004.

Alexander, T. Desmond. From Paradise to the Promised Land: An Introduction to the

Main Themes of the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Alexander, T. Desmond and David W. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament:
Pentateuch. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003.

Allen, Leslie C. Psalms 101–150. WBC 21. Waco, TX: Word, 1983.

Alster, Bendt. “The Instructions of Urninurta and Related Compositions.” Orientalia 60

(1991): 141–57.

Alt, Albrecht. Essays on Old Testament History & Religion. Translated by R. A. Wilson.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Poetry. New York: Basic, 1985.

Ambrosiaster. Commentaries on Galatians–Philemon. Translated by Gerald Lewis Bray.

ACT. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Anderson, A. The Book of Psalms: Psalms (1–72). Vol. 1. NCBC. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1981.

Anderson, Gary A. Sin: A History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009.

Aquinas, Thomas. The Commandments of God: Conferences on the Two Precepts of

Charity and the Ten Commandments. Translated by Laurence Shapcote. London:
Burns Oates & Washbourne, 1937.

______. “The Moral Precepts of the Old Law (1267–73).” In The Ten Commandments:
The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, edited William P. Brown, 51–60. 1st ed.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004.

______. ST. 61 vols. Westminster: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1964–1981.

Assmann, Jan. The Search for God in Ancient Egypt. Translated by David Lorton. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press, 2001.
289
 290
The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Chicago:
Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1956–2011.

Augustine. Sermons II (20–50) on the Old Testament. Edited by John E Rotelle.

Translated by Edmund Hill. WSA 3/2. Brooklyn, NY: New City, 1990.

______. Sermons V (148–183) on the New Testament. Edited by John E. Rotelle.

Translated by Edmund Hill. WSA 3/5. New Rochelle, NY: New City, 1992.

Averbeck, Richard E. “‫א ָׁשם‬.”

ָ In vol. 1 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 557–66. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1997.

______. “Tabernacle.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by T.

Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, 807–27. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2003.

Avigad, Nahman. “Hebrew Seals and Sealings and Their Significance for Biblical
Research.” In Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986, edited by J. A. Emerton, 7–16.
VTSup 40. Leiden: Brill, 1988.

Avigad, Nahman, and Benjamin Sass. Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals. 2nd ed.
Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1997.

Babylonian Talmud. Edited and translated by I. Epstein. 35 vols. London: Socino, 1935–
1952.

Balz, H., and G. Schneider, ed. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. ET. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993.

Bandstra, Barry L. “Word Order and Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew Narrative: Syntactic
Observations on Genesis 22 from a Discourse Perspective.” In Linguistics and
Biblical Hebrew, edited by Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1992.

Bar-Ilan, Meir. “Magic Seals Upon the Body among Jews in the First Centuries CE
(Hebrew).” Tarbiz 57 (1987): 37–50.

______. “‘They shall put my name upon the people of Israel (Hebrew).’” HUCA 60
(1989): 19–31.

______. “Writing in Ancient Israel, Part Two: Scribes and Books in the Late Second
Commonwealth and Rabbinic Period.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and
Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,
edited by Martin Mulder, 21–38. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Barkay, G., A. G. Vaughn, M. J. Lundberg, and B. Zuckerman. “The Amulets from Ketef
Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation.” BASOR 334 (2004): 41–71.
 291
Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Oxford:
Clarendon, 1968.

Barré, Michael L. “Mesopotamian Light on the Idiom nāśāʾ nepeš.” CBQ 52 (1990): 46–
54.

Barton, John. The Nature of Biblical Criticism. 1st ed. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2007.

______. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev. and enl. Louisville,
KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1996.

Bartor, Assnat. Reading Law as Narrative: A Study in the Casuistic Laws of the
Pentateuch. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 5. Atlanta: SBL, 2010.

Bauernfeind, O. “μάταιος.” In vol. 4 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,

edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, translated by G. W. Bromiley, 519–24.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

Beckman, Gary M. “International Law in the Second Millennium.” In vol. 1 of A History

of Ancient Near Eastern Law, edited by Raymond Westbrook, 753–74 . Leiden:
Brill, 2003.

Beckman, Gary M., and Harold A. Hoffner. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. SBLWAW 7.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.

Berlin, Adele. The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism. Rev. and exp. ed. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2008.

Berliner, A., ed. Targum Onkelos. Berlin: Gorzelanczyk, 1884.

Berman, J. “CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13.” JBL 130 (2011):
25–44.

Bertman, Stephen. “Tassled Garments in the Ancient East Mediterranean.” BA 24:4

(1961): 119–28.

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph. Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 1983.

Biddle, Mark E. Deuteronomy. SHBC. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2003.

Bietenhard, Hans. “ὄνομα.” In vol. 5 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,

edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, translated by G. W. Bromiley, 242–83.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.
 292
Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Peterson. A
Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon,
2005.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Ezra-Nehemiah. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998.

______. Isaiah 56–66. AB 19B. New York: Doubleday, 2003.

______. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. ABRL.
New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. “Solomon’s Temple: The Politics of Ritual Space.” In Sacred

Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, edited by Barry M.
Gittlen, 83–94. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Block, Daniel I. “Bearing the Name of the LORD with Honor.” In How I Love Your
Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy, 61–72. Eugene, OR:
Cascade, 2011.

______. “Bearing the Name of the LORD with Honor: A Homily on the Second
Command of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:7; Deuteronomy 5:11).” BSac 168
(2011): 20–31.

______. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1–24. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

______. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25–48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

______. “Covenance: A Whole Bible Perspective.” Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Evangelical Theological Society, Baltimore, MD, November 2013.

______. “The Decalogue in the Hebrew Scriptures.” In The Decalogue through the
Centuries, edited by Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larsen, 1–27. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2012.

______. Deuteronomy. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.

______. For the Glory of God: Recovering a Biblical Theology of Worship. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.

______. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology.
3rd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2013.

______. The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the
Book of Deuteronomy. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012.

______. “The Grace of Torah: The Mosaic Prescription for Life (Deut 4:1–8; 6:20–25).”
In How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy, 1–20.
Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.
 293
______. “Hearing Galatians with Moses: An Examination of Paul as a Second and
Seconding Moses.” Unpublished paper.

______. How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy.
Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.

______. “In the Tradition of Moses: The Conceptual and Stylistic Imprint of
Deuteronomy on the Patriarchal Narratives.” Unpublished paper presented at
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI, April 3, 2016.

______. “No Other Gods: Bearing the Name of YHWH in a Polytheistic World.” In The
Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of
Deuteronomy, 237–71. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012.

______. “The Privilege of Calling: The Mosaic Paradigm for Missions (Deut 26:16–19).”
In How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy, 140–
61. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.

______. “Reading the Decalogue Right to Left: The Ten Principles of Covenant
Relationship in the Hebrew Bible.” In How I Love Your Torah, O LORD!: Studies
in the Book of Deuteronomy, 21–55. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.

______. “The View from the Top: The Holy Spirit in the Prophets.” In Presence, Power,
and Promise: The Role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament, edited by David
G. Firth and Paul D. Wegner, 175–207. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic,
2011.

______. “‘What Do These Stones Mean?’ The Riddle of Deuteronomy 27.” JETS 56:1
(2013): 17–41.

______. “‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife’: A Study in Deuteronomic Domestic
Ideology.” In The Gospel according to Moses: Theological and Ethical
Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy, 137–68. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2012.

Boer, P. A. H. de. “Numbers 6:27.” VT 32 (1982): 1–13.

Bonaventure. St. Bonaventure’s Collations on the Ten Commandments. Translated by

Paul J. Spaeth. St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 1995.

Borgen, Peder. “Philo of Alexandria as Exegete.” In A History of Biblical Interpretation,

Vol. 1: The Ancient Period, edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, 114–
43. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Bosman, Hendrik. “Adultery, Prophetic Tradition, and the Decalogue.” In The Ten
Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, edited William P. Brown, 267–
74. 1st ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004.
 294
Botterweck, G. J. and H. Ringgren, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament.
Translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green. 15 vols. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994–2006.

Bradshaw, Paul, and John Melloh, eds. Foundations in Ritual Studies: A Reader for
Students of Christian Worship. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Branden, Albertus van den. “Le Décalogue.” BeO 33:2 (1991): 93–124.

Braude, William G., trans. Pesikta Rabbati: Discourses for Feasts, Fasts, and Special
Sabbaths. Yale Judaica 28. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968.

Braulik, Georg. “The Sequence of the Laws in Deuteronomy 12–26 and in the
Decalogue.” In A Song of Power and the Power of Song: Essays on the Book of
Deuteronomy, edited by Duane Christensen, translated by L. M. Maloney, 313–
35. SBTS 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993.

Breuer, Mordechai. “Dividing the Decalogue into Verses and Commandments.” In The
Ten Commandments in History and Tradition, edited by Ben-Zion Segal,
translated by Gershon Levi, 291–330. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1990.

Brichto, Herbert Chanan. The Problem of “Curse” in the Hebrew Bible. JBL Monograph
Series 13. Philadelphia: SBL, 1963.

Briggs, Charles, and Emilie Briggs. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book
of Psalms. 2 vols. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906.

Brooks, Roger. The Spirit of the Ten Commandments: Shattering the Myth of Rabbinic
Legalism. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990.

Brown, William P. “The Didactic Power of Metaphor in the Aphoristic Sayings of

Proverbs.” JSOT 29 (2004): 133–54.

______. “‘Here Comes the Sun!’: The Metaphorical Theology of Psalms 15–24.” In The
Composition of the Book of Psalms, edited by Erich Zenger. BETL 238. Walpole,
MA: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2010.

______, ed. The Ten Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness. 1st ed. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2004.

Broyles, Craig C. Psalms. NIBCOT. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999.

Bruckner, James K. Exodus. NIBCOT. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.

Brueggemann, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.
 295
Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani. New York: Dover,
1967.

Bullinger, E. W. Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968.

Burkitt, F. C. “The Hebrew Papyrus of the Ten Commandments.” JQR 15 (1903): 392–
408.

Buth, Randall. “Word Order in a Verbless Clause.” In The Verbless Clause in Biblical
Hebrew: Linguistic Approaches, edited by Cynthia L. Miller, 79–108. Linguistic
Studies in Ancient West Semitic 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

Byargeon, Rick W. “Echoes of Wisdom in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9–13).” JETS 41
(1998): 353–65.

Calvin, John. Harmony of the Pentateuch 2. Translated by Charles Williams Bingham.

CC 2. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.

______. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by

Ford Lewis Battles. LCC 20. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

______. John Calvin’s Sermons on the Ten Commandments. Translated by Benjamin W.

Farley. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980.

Carmichael, Calum M. “Forbidden Mixtures.” VT 32 (1982): 394–415.

______. The Laws of Deuteronomy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974.

______. The Origins of Biblical Law: The Decalogues and the Book of the Covenant.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992.

______. The Ten Commandments. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew
Studies, 1983.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel

Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967.

Cathcart, Kevin J., and Robert P. Gordon, trans. The Targum of the Minor Prophets.
ArBib 14. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1989.

Chapot, Frédéric. “Réflexions antiques sur la structure du Décalogue: Entre appropriation

et rationalisation.” In Le Décalogue au miroir des Pères, edited by Rémi Gounelle
and Jean-Marc Prieur, 29–47. Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 9. Strasbourg:
Université Marc Bloch, 2008.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. OTL.

Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974.
 296
Chilton, Bruce, trans. The Isaiah Targum. ArBib 11. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2005.

Christensen, Duane. Deuteronomy 1:1–21:9. 2nd ed. WBC 6A. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2001.

Cicero. In Verrum. Edited by Albert Clark. Translated by William Peterson. Oxford

Classical Texts, 1917. Cited 7 June 2013. Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu.

Clarke, Ernest, trans. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy. ArBib 5B. Collegeville,

MN: Liturgical, 1998.

Clement of Alexandria. Paedagogus 3.79.1. Translated by Claude Modésert and Chantal

Matray. SC 158. Paris: Cerf, 2008.

______. Stromata. Edited by Otto Stählin. Clemens Alexandrinus 2. GCS 15. Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1906.

______. Stromata. Translated by A. Cleveland Coxe. ANF. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,

1996.

Clements, Ronald E. Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach. Atlanta: John Knox,
1978.

Clines, David J. A. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the
Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 205. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995.

______, ed. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993–2011.

Coats, George W. Rebellion in the Wilderness: The Murmuring Motif in the Wilderness
Traditions of the Old Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1968.

Coffin, Fulton Johnson. The Third Commandment. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago,
1898.

______. “The Third Commandment.” JBL 19 (1900): 166–88.

Coffman, James Burton. The Ten Commandments: Yesterday and Today. Westwood, NJ:
Revell, 1961.

Cohn, Robert L. The Shape of Sacred Space: Four Biblical Studies. AAR Studies in
Religion 23. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981.

Colburn, Cynthia S. Reading a Dynamic Canvas: Adornment in the Ancient

Mediterranean World. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars, 2008.

Cole, R. A. Exodus. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973.

Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.

 297
Collins, Raymond F. “Ten Commandments.” In vol. 6 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited
by D. N. Freedman, 383–87. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Collon, Dominique. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Conklin, Blane. Oath Formulas in Biblical Hebrew. Linguistic Studies in Ancient West
Semitic. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.

Cook, Stanley A. “A Pre-Massoretic Biblical Papyrus.” Proceedings of the Society of

Biblical Archaeology (1903): 34–57.

Cooke, G. A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Ezekiel. ICC.

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1951.

Craigie, Peter. The Book of Deuteronomy. NICOT. London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1976.

______. Psalms 1–50. 2nd ed. WBC. Nashville: Nelson Reference & Electronic, 2004.

Crane, Ashley S. Israel’s Restoration: A Textual-Comparative Exploration of Ezekiel 36–

39. VTSup 122. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Cras, Alban. La symbolique du vêtement dans la Bible: Pour une théologie du vêtement.
Lire la Bible. Paris: Cerf, 2011.

Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the
Religion of Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973.

Cross, Frank Moore, and Richard J. Saley. “Phoenician Incantations on a Plaque of the
Seventh Century BCE from Arslan Tash in Upper Syria.” In Leaves from an
Epigrapher’s Notebook: Collected Papers in Hebrew and West Semitic
Palaeography and Epigraphy, 265–69. HSS 51. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
2003.

Crüsemann, Frank. Bewahrung der Freiheit: Das Thema des Dekalogs in

sozialgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Kaiser Traktate 78. München: Kaiser, 1983.

______. The Torah: Theology and Social History of Old Testament Law. Translated by
A. W. Mahnke. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Currid, John. A Study Commentary on Exodus, Vol. 2:Exodus 19–40. EPSC. Webster,
NY: Evangelical, 2000.
 298
Cyprian. Testimonies. Edited by A. Cleveland Coxe. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Ante-
Nicene Fathers 5. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Dahood, Mitchell. Psalms I: 1–50. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965.

______. Psalms II: 51–100. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1968.

______. Psalms III: 101–50. AB. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970.

Dana, Joseph. “The ‘Piyyuṭ’ on the Ten Commandments Ascribed to Saadiah Gaon.”
JQR 86:3/4. New Series (1996): 323–75.

Dandamaev, Muhammad A. Slavery in Babylonia: From Nabopolassar to Alexander the

Great (626–331 B.C.). Edited by M. A. Powell and D. B. Weisberg. Translated by
V. A. Powell. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984.

Danker, F. W., W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English Lexicon of the

New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2000.

David, A. Rosalie. Religious Ritual at Abydos (c. 1300 BC). Warminster, England: Aris
& Phillips, 1973.

Davies, Graham. “Some Uses of Writing in Ancient Israel in the Light of Recently
Published Inscriptions.” In Writing and Ancient Near Eastern Society: Papers in
Honour of Alan R. Millard, 155–74. LHB/OTS 426. New York: T&T Clark,
2005.

______, ed. Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1991 and 2004.

Davies, John. Royal Priesthood: Literary and Intertextual Perspectives on an Image of

Israel in Exodus 19.6. JSOTSup 395. New York: Continuum, 2004.

deClaissé-Walford, Nancy, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner. The Book of
Psalms. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

Delling, G. “λαμβάνω.” In vol. 4 of Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited

by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, translated by G. W. Bromiley, 5–7. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

Demsky, Aaron, and Meir Bar-Ilan. “Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism.” In
Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in
Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, edited by Martin Mulder, 1–20. Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2004.
 299
DeRouchie, Jason S. “Counting the Ten: An Investigation into the Numbering of the
Decalogue.” In For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influence of
Deuteronomy in Honor of Daniel I. Block, edited by Jason S. DeRouchie, Jason
Gile, and Kenneth J. Turner, 93–125. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

______. “Making the Ten Count: Reflections on the Lasting Message of the Decalogue.”
In For Our Good Always: Studies on the Message and Influence of Deuteronomy
in Honor of Daniel I. Block, edited by Jason Gile, Kenneth J. Turner, and Jason S.
DeRouchie, 415–40. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

deSilva, David A. Introducing the Apocrypha: Message, Context, and Significance.

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Dhorme, Édouard. Les Religions de Babylonie et d’Assyrie. Les anciennes Religions

orientales 2. Paris: Presses Univeritaires de France, 1949.

Dietrich, M., O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartín, eds. The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from
Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995 (= CTU).

______. Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. M. AOAT 24/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn:

Neukirchener, 1976 (= KTU).

Dillard, Raymond, and Tremper Longman. An Introduction to the Old Testament. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Dirksen, Peter B. “The Old Testament Peshitta.” In Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading
and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity, edited by Martin Mulder, 255–97. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2004.

Donner, H., and W. Röllig, eds. Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. 2nd ed.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966–1969.

Dougherty, Raymond Philip. The Shirkûtu of Babylonian Deities. YOS 5–2. New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1923.

Doxey, Denise M. “Names.” In vol. 2 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt,

edited by Donald B. Redford, 490–92. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Dozeman, Thomas B. Commentary on Exodus. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Driver, G. R. “Notes on the Psalms II: 73–150.” JTS 44 (1943): 12–23.

______. Semitic Writing: From Pictograph to Alphabet. 3rd ed. London: Oxford
University Press, 1976.

Duke, Rodney K. “Form and Meaning: Multi-layered Balanced Thought Structures in

Psalm 24:4.” TynBul 62:2 (2011): 215–32.
 300
Dulaey, Martine. “Le Décalogue, les tables de la Loi et la catéchèse.” In Décalogue au
miroir des Pères, 49–63. Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2008.

Dumbrell, W. J. Covenant and Creation: A Theology of Old Testament Covenants.

Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.

Dumermuth, F. “Zur deuteronomischen Kulttheologie und ihren Voraussetzungen.” ZAW

70 (1958): 59–98.

Durham, John. Exodus. WBC. Waco, TX: Word, 1987.

Ebeling, Erich, Bruno Meissner, and Michael P. Streck, eds. Reallexikon der
Assyriologie. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932–2011.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by J. A. Baker. OTL.

Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961.

Ellis, Richard S. Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. YNER 2. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press, 1968.

Elßner, Thomas R. Das Namensmißbrauch-Verbot (Ex 20,7 / Dtn 5,11): Bedeutung,

Entstehung und frühe Wirkungsgeschichte. ETS 75. Leipzig: St. Benno, 1999.

Evans, John Frederick. An Inner-Biblical Interpretation and Intertextual Reading of

Ezekiel’s Recognition Formulae with the Book of Exodus. Th.D. diss., University
of Stellenbosch, 2006.

Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah,

NJ: L. Erlbaum, 2006.

Fabry, H.-J. “‫נָ ָׂשא‬.” In vol. 10 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by
G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and
D. E. Green, 24–40. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–

Feder, Yitzhaq. Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context, and
Meaning. SBLWAWSup 2. Atlanta: SBL, 2011.

Fensham, F. Charles. The Books of Ezra & Nehemiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1982.

Ferry, Joëlle. “Le Décalogue, une loi pour l’homme?” Transversalités 80 (December
2001): 155–70.

Feuer, Avrohom Chaim. Sēfer Tehillîm: A New Translation with a Commentary

Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources. Brooklyn:
Mesorah, 1995.

Field, Fridericus. Origenis Hexaplorum. Vol. 1. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964.

 301
Fischer, Irmtraud. Wo ist Jahwe?: Das Volksklagelied Jes 63,7—64,11 als Ausdruck des
Ringens um eine gebrochene Beziehung. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989.

Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon, 1988.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Aramaic Inscriptions of Sefire. Biblica et Orientalia 19. Rome:
Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1967.

Fleming, Daniel E. The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar. Harvard Semitic
Studies 42. Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1992.

Flesher, Paul, and Bruce Chilton. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Waco, TX:
Baylor University Press, 2011.

Fohrer, Georg. Das Buch Hiob. KAT 16. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1963.

______. Ezechiel. HAT 13. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1955.

Forshey, Harold O. “The Construct Chain naḥalat YHWH / ʾelōhîm.” BASOR 220 (1975):
51–53.

______.“Segulah and Nachalah as Designations of the Covenant Community.” Hebrew

Abstracts 15 (1974): 85–86.

Fossum, Jarl E. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord. WUNT 36. Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1985.

Foster, Benjamin R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 2nd ed.
Bethesda, MD: Capital Decisions Ltd., 1996.

Fowler, Jeaneane D. Theophoric Personal Names in Ancient Hebrew: A Comparative

Study. JSOTSup 49. Sheffield: JSOT, 1988.

Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 10–31. AB 18B. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.

Fox, Nili S. “Marked for Servitude: Mesopotamia and the Bible.” In A Common Cultural
Heritage: Studies on Mesopotamia and the Biblical World in Honor of Barry L.
Eichler, edited by Grant Frame, Erle Leichty, Karen Sonik, Jeffrey Tigay, and
Steve Tinney. Bethesda, MD: Capital Decisions Ltd., 2011.

Freedman, David Noel. “The Aaronic Benediction (Numbers 6:24–26).” In No Famine in

the Land: Studies in Honor of John L. McKenzie, edited by James W. Flanagan
and Anita Weisbrod Robinson, 35–48. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975.

______. The Nine Commandments: Uncovering the Pattern of Crime and Punishment in
the Hebrew Bible. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

______, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
 302
Freedman, H., and Maurice Simon, eds. Midrash Rabbah. 3rd ed. New York: Soncino,
1983.

Fretheim, Terence E. The Pentateuch. Edited by Gene M. Tucker. Interpreting Biblical

Texts. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996.

Frood, Elizabeth. Biographical Texts from Ramessid Egypt. SBLWAW 26. Atlanta: SBL,
2007.

Geerlings, Wilhelm. “The Decalogue in Augustine’s Theology.” In The Decalogue in

Jewish and Christian Tradition, edited by Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair
Hoffman, 106–17. LHB/OTS 509. New York: T&T Clark, 2011.

Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-
Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.

Gerstenberger, Erhard. Psalms: Part 1 with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry. Vol. XIV.
FOTL. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Gibson, Arthur. Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis. London: Sheffield

Academic, 2001.

Gill, David W. Doing Right: Practicing Ethical Principles. Downers Grove, IL: IVP,
2004.

Goldenstein, Johannes. Das Gebet der Gottesknechte: Jesaja 63,7–64,11 im Jesajabuch.

Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001.

Goldingay, John. Daniel. WBC 30. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996.

______. Isaiah. NIBCOT. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001.

______. Old Testament Theology, Vol. 3: Israel’s Life. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2009.

______. Psalms 1–41. BCOT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

______. Psalms 90–150. BCOT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Goody, Jack. “Religion and Ritual: The Definitional Problem.” British Journal of
Sociology 12:2 (1961): 142–64.

Görg, Manfred. “Missbrauch des Gottesnamens.” BN 16 (1981): 16–17.

Graupner, Axel. “Die zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik: Anmerkungen

zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Forschung.” In Weisheit, Ethos und Gebot:
Weisheits- und Dekalogtraditionen in der Bibel und im frühen Judentum, 61–95.
Biblisch-Theologische Studien 43. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001.
 303
Graves, Michael. “Vulgate.” In Textual History of the Bible, edited by Emanuel Tov and
Armin Lange. Leiden: Brill, forthcoming.

Gray, Alison Ruth. Psalm 18 in Words and Pictures: A Reading through Metaphor. Ph.D.
diss., Selwyn College, 2012.

Grayson, A. Kirk. Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859). The
Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods 2. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1991.

Greenberg, Moshe. “Decalogue (The Ten Commandments).” In vol. 5 of Encyclopaedia

Judaica, edited by Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum, 520–25. 2nd ed.
Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.

______. “Hebrew seǥullā : Akkadian sikiltu.” JAOS:71 (1951): 172–74.

______. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law.” In A Song of Power and the Power
of Song: Essays on the Book of Deuteronomy, edited by Duane Christensen, 283–
300. SBTS 3. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993.

Greene-McCreight, Kathryn. “Restless until We Rest in God: The Fourth Commandment

as Test Case in Christian ‘Plain Sense’ Interpretation.” In The Ten
Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, edited William P. Brown, 223–
36. 1st ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004.

Greengus, Samuel. “Law; Biblical and ANE Law.” In vol. 4 of The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 242–52. New York: Doubleday,
1992.

Greenstein, Edward L. “The Rhetoric of the Ten Commandments.” In The Decalogue in

Jewish and Christian Tradition, edited by Henning Graf Reventlow and Yair
Hoffman, 1–12. LHB/OTS 509. New York: T&T Clark, 2011.

Gruber, Mayer I. Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms. BRLJ 18. Boston: Brill, 2004.

Guest, Stephen. Deuteronomy 26:16–19 as the Central Focus of the Covenantal

Framework of Deuteronomy. Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 2009.

Guillaume, A. “Is 44:5 in the Light of the Elephantine Papyri.” ExpTim 32 (1920): 377–
79.

Gunkel, Hermann. Die Psalmen: übersetzt und erklärt. 4th ed. HKAT. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926.
 304
Guralnick, Eleanor. “Fabric Patterns as Symbols of Status in the Near East and Early
Greece.” In Reading a Dynamic Canvas: Adornment in the Ancient
Mediterranean World, edited by Cynthia S. Colburn and Maura K. Heyn, 84–114.
Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars, 2008.

______. “Neo-Assyrian Patterned Fabrics.” Iraq 66 (2004): 221–32.

Hall, John R. Clark, ed. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary for the Use of Students. New
York: Macmillan, 1894.

Hallo, William, and K. Lawson Younger, eds. Context of Scripture. 3 vols. Leiden: Brill,
2003.

Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2011.

______. “‫נָ ָׂשא‬.” In vol. 3 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and
Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 160–63. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1997.

______. “‫ׁשוְ א‬.”

ָ In vol. 2 of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. L.
Harris and G. L. Archer Jr., 908. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

Hanhart, Robert, ed. Tobit. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 8/5. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.

Haran, Menahem. Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel: An Inquiry into

Biblical Cult Phenomena and the Historical Setting of the Priestly School.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985.

Harman, Allan M. Deuteronomy: The Commands of a Covenant God. Focus on the Bible.
Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2007.

______. “The Interpretation of the Third Commandment.” RTR 47 (1988): 1–7.

Harrelson, Walter J. The Ten Commandments and Human Rights. Rev. ed. Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 1997.

Harris, J. S. “The Stones of the High Priest’s Breastplate.” Edited by John MacDonald.
ALUOS 5 (65 1963): 40–62.

Harris, R. L., and G. L. Archer, Jr., eds. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. 2
vols. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

Hartley, John E. Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word, 1992.

Hartman, Louis F. “God, Names of.” In vol. 7 of Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Fred
Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum, 672–78. 2nd ed. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.
 305
______. “ὄνομα.” In vol. 2 of Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by H.
Balz, G. Schneider, 519–22. ET. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993.

Hatch, E., and H. A. Redpath. Concordance to the Septuagint and Other Greek Versions
of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Oxford, 1897. Supplement, 1906; reprint, Graz,
Austria: Akademische Druck, 1954.

Haulotte, Edgar. Symbolique du Vêtement Selon la Bible. Collection Théologie 65. Paris:
Aubier, 1966.

Hauser, Alan J., and Duane F. Watson, eds. A History of Biblical Interpretation, Vol. 1:
The Ancient Period. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Heim, Knut Martin. Poetic Imagination in Proverbs: Variant Repetitions and the Nature
of Poetry. BBRSup 4. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

Hendel, Ronald S. “Sacrifice as a Cultural System: The Ritual Symbolism of Exodus

24,3–8.” ZAW 101 (1989): 366–90.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1991.

Hestrin, Ruth, and Michal Dayagi-Mendeles. Inscribed Seals: First Temple Period
Hebrew, Ammonite, Moabite, Phoenician and Aramaic from the Collections of the
Israel Museum and the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. Jerusalem:
Israel Museum, 1979.

Hilaire of Poitiers. Sur Matthieu I 4,23. Translated by Jean Doignon. SC 254. Paris: Cerf,
2007.

Hirsch, David H., and Nehama Aschkenasy. “Translatable Structure, Untranslatable

Poem: Psalm 24.” Modern Language Studies 12:4 (1982): 21–34.

Höffken, Peter. Das Buch Jesaja: Kapitel 40–66. Neuer Stuttgarter Kommentar Altes
Testament 18. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1998.

Hoffner, Harold A. “Hittite Equivalents of Old Assyrian kumrum and epattum.” WZKM
86 (1996): 154–56.

Hoftijzer, J., and K. Jongeling, eds. Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions. 2
vols. Leiden, 1995.

Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 1: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah

Chapters 1–25. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1986.

Holmes, Michael. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. 3rd ed.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
 306
Hornung, Erik. Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many. Translated
by John Baines. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1971.

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar. Der Dekalog: Seine späten Fassungen, die originale

Komposition und seine Vorstufen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.

Hossfeld, F. L., and E.-M. Kindl. “‫ק ָרא‬:

ָ VII. Naming.” In vol. 13 of Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren,
translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green, 126–31. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Hossfeld, F. L., and H. Lamberty-Zielinski. “‫ק ָרא‬:

ָ VIII. Property Law.” In vol. 13 of
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. J. Botterweck and H.
Ringgren, translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green, 131–32.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Houtman, Cornelis. Exodus. Translated by Sierd Woudstra. HCOT. Leuven, Belgium:

Peeters, 2000.

Howard, David M. Joshua. NAC 5. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998.

Howe, Bonnie. Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral
Meaning of 1 Peter. BIS 81. Boston: Brill, 2006.

Huehnergard, John, and Harold Liebowitz. “The Biblical Prohibition against Tattooing.”
VT 63 (2013): 59–77.

Huffmon, Herbert B. “Contrasting Juridical Conceptions in Ancient Near Eastern

Treaties and Covenants.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of
Biblical Literature, Chicago, IL, November 2012.

______. “The Fundamental Code Illustrated: The Third Commandment.” In The Ten
Commandments: The Reciprocity of Faithfulness, edited by William Brown, 205–
12. 1st ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2004.

Hundley, Michael. Keeping Heaven on Earth: Safeguarding the Divine Presence in the
Priestly Tabernacle. FAT 2/50. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

______. “To Be or Not To Be: A Reexamination of Name Language in Deuteronomy and

the Deuteronomistic History.” VT 59 (2009): 533–55.

Hwang, Jerry. The Rhetoric of Remembrance: An Investigation of the “Fathers” in

Deuteronomy. Siphrut 8. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.

Ibn Ezra. Commentary on the Pentateuch: Exodus (Shemot). Translated by H. Norman

Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. New York: Menorah, 1996.
 307
Ishmael. Mekhilta according to Rabbi Ishmael: An Analytical Translation. Translated by
Jacob Neusner. Brown Judaic Studies 148. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988.

Izre ͗el, Shlomo. The Amarna Letters. Tel-Aviv University, 2000. Accessed 13 February
2014. Online: http://humanities.tau.ac.il/semitic/index.php/ research/el-amarna.

Jackson, B. S. “The Ceremonial and the Judicial: Biblical Law as Sign and Symbol.”
JSOT 30 (1984): 25–50.

Jacob, Benno. The Second Book of the Bible: Exodus. Translated by Walter Jacob.
Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1992.

Jacobs, Sandra. The Body as Property: Physical Disfigurement in Biblical Law.

LHB/OTS 582. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.

______. “The Body Inscribed: A Priestly Initiative?” In The Body in Biblical, Christian
and Jewish Texts, edited by Joan E. Taylor. Library of Second Temple Studies 85.
London: Bloomsbury, 2014.

James, T. G. H. Hieroglyphic Texts from Egyptian Stelae, etc. Part 9. London: Trustees of
the British Museum, 1970.

Janzen, Waldemar. Exodus. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald,
2000.

______. Old Testament Ethics: A Paradigmatic Approach. 1st ed. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox, 1994.

Japhet, Sara. I & II Chronicles: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John

Knox, 1993.

______. “Some Biblical Concepts of Sacred Place.” In Sacred Space—Shrine, City,

Land: Proceedings of the International Conference in Memory of Joshua Prawer,
edited by Benjamin Z. Kedar and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, 55–72. Jerusalem: Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1998.

Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and
the Midrashic Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006.

Jenni, E., and C. Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated
by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Jenson, Philip Peter. Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World.
JSOTSup 106. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1992.

______. “‫אפֹוד‬.”
ֵׁ In vol. 1 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 476–77. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1997.
 308
Jerusalem Talmud. Edited and translated by Jacob Neusner. 35 vols. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1989.

Jindo, Job Y. Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic

Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24. HSM 64. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010.

______. “Toward the Poetics of the Biblical Mind: Language, Culture, and Cognition.”
VT 59 (2009): 222–43.

Jobes, Karen, and Moises Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2005.

Johnstone, William. “From the Sea to the Mountain: Exodus 15,22–19,2: A Case-Study
in Editorial Techniques.” In Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception,
Interpretation, edited by Marc Vervenne, 245–63. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1996.

Jones, C. P. “Stigma: Tattooing and Branding in Graeco-Roman Antiquity.” JRS 77

(1987): 139–55.

Jonker, Louis. “‫קרא‬.” In vol. 3 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament

Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 971–76. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1997.

Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. LCL 242.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Roma: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 2006.

Kaiser, Walter C. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.

______. “‫ׁשם‬.”
ֵׁ In vol. 2 of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. L.
Harris and G. L. Archer Jr., 934–35. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

Kalluveettil, Paul. Declaration and Covenant: A Comprehensive Review of Covenant

Formulae from the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East. AnBib 88. Rome:
Biblical Institute Press, 1982.

Keck, Leander E., ed. The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary.12 vols. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1994–2003.

Keel, Othmar. “Zeichen der Verbundenheit: Zur Vorgeschichte und Bedeutung der
Forderungen von Deuteronomium 6,8f. und Par.” In Mélanges Dominique
Barthélemy: Études Bibliques Offertes A L’Occasion de son 60 Anniversaire.
OBO 38. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1981.
 309
Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient
Israel. Translated by Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.

Kellermann, Ulrich. “Der Dekalog in den Schriften des Frühjudentums: Ein Überblick.”
In Weisheit, Ethos und Gebot: Weisheits- und Dekalogtraditionen in der Bibel
und im frühen Judentum, 147–226. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 43.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001.

Kessler, Werner. “Die literarische, historische und theologische Problematik des

Dekalogs.” VT 7 (1957): 1–16.

Kilchör, Benjamin. Mosetora und Jahwetora: Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26
zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und
Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 21. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2015.

King, Philip J. Jeremiah: An Archaeological Companion. Louisville: Westminster John

Knox, 1993.

King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. Library of Ancient Israel.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2006.

Kitchen, Kenneth A., and Paul J. N. Lawrence. Treaty, Law and Covenant in the Ancient
Near East. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2012.

Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.
Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976.

Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature: Its Meaning and
Function. JSOTSup 56. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1987.

______. “‫תחׁש‬.” In vol. 4 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology

and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 287. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1997.

Klein, Michael L. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to Their Extant

Sources. 2 vols. AnBib. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1980.

______. Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. 2 vols.

Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986.

Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. WBC. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983.

______. 2 Chronicles: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

 310
Kline, Meredith G. Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy:
Studies and Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

______. “The Two Tables of the Covenant.” WTJ 22 (1960): 133–46.

Klingbeil, Gerald A. Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible. BBRSup 1.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

______. A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Leviticus 8 and

Emar 369. Lewiston, NY: Mellen, 1998.

Klopfenstein, M. A. Die Lüge nach dem Alten Testament. Zürich: Gotthelf, 1964.

Knafl, Anne K. “Deuteronomy, Name Theology and Divine Location.” Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Atlanta, GA,
November 2010.

______. Forms of God, Forming God: A Typology of Divine Anthropomorphism in the

Pentateuch. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2011.

Knight, Douglas. Law, Power, and Justice in Ancient Israel. 1st ed. Library of Ancient
Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2011.

Knight, George A. F. Theology as Narration: A Commentary on the Book of Exodus.

Edinburgh: Handsel, 1976.

Knohl, Israel. “P and the Traditions of Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia.” In Text,
Time, and Temple: Literary, Historical and Ritual Studies in Leviticus, edited by
Francis Landy, Leigh M. Trevaskis, and Bryan D. Bibb, 63–69. Sheffield:
Sheffield Phoenix, 2015.

Koehler, L., W. Baumgartner, and J. J. Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. Translated and edited under the supervision of M. E. J.
Richardson. Study ed. 2 vols. Boston: Brill, 2001.

Kopf, Lothar. “Das arabische Wörterbuch als Hilfsmittel für die hebräische
Lexikographie.” VT 6:3 (1956): 286–302.

Kövecses, Zoltán. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2010.

Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1–59. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Kretzer, A. “λαμβάνω.” In vol. 2 of Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited

by H. Balz, G. Schneider, 336–38. ET. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990–1993.

Kugel, James L. The Bible as It Was. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1997.

 311
______. The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and Its History. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Kuntz, Paul Grimley. The Ten Commandments in History: Mosaic Paradigms for a Well-
Ordered Society. Edited by Thomas D’Evelyn. Emory University Studies in Law
and Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Kutsch, Ernst. Verheissung und Gesetz: Untersuchungen zum sogenannten “Bund” im

Alten Testament. BZAW 131. New York: de Gruyter, 1973.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1980.

Lam, Joseph Ching Po. The Metaphorical Patterning of the Sin-Concept in Biblical
Hebrew. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 2012.

______. Review of Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History. RBL (2010).

Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon, 1960.

______. “Dinger.šà.dib.ba Incantations.” JNES 33:3 (1974): 267–322.

Laroche, E., ed. Catalogue des textes hittites. Etudes et commentaries 75. Paris:
Klincksieck, 1971. (= CTH)

Lauinger, Jacob. “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tayinat: A Biographical Sketch.”

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature,
Chicago, IL, November 2012.

______. “Some Preliminary Thoughts on the Tablet Collection in Building XVI from
Tell Tayinat.” Journal of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 6 (Fall
2011): 5–14.

Lau, Wolfgang. Schriftgelehrte Prophetie in Jes 56–66: eine Untersuchung zu den

literarischen Bezügen in den letzten elf Kapiteln des Jesajabuches. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1994.

Laver, James. Costume in Antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson, 1964.

LeFebvre, Michael. Collections, Codes, and Torah: The Re-Characterization of Israel’s

Written Law. LHB/OTS 451. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.

Lehmann, M. R. “Biblical Oaths.” ZAW 81 (1969): 74–92.

Lenzi, Alan, ed. Reading Akkadian Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction. ANEM 3.
Atlanta: SBL, 2011.

Levine, Baruch A. Leviticus. JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: JPS, 1989.

 312
______. Numbers 1–20. AB 4A. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

Levtow, Nathaniel B. Images of Others: Iconic Politics in Ancient Israel. Biblical and
Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego 11. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2008.

Lewis, Theodore J. “ʿAthtartu’s Incantations and the Use of Divine Names as Weapons.”
JNES 70:2 (2011): 207–27.

Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with revised
supplement. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996.

Liebermann, F. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen. Scientia Aalen, 1960.

Lohfink, Norbert. “Kennt das Alte Testament einen Unterschied von ‘Gebot’ und
‘Gesetz’? Zur bibeltheologischen Einstufung des Dekalogs.” JBTh 4 (1989): 63–
89.

______. Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy.
Translated by L. M. Maloney. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994.

Long, Gary Alan. “‫נקב‬.” In vol. 3 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 149–50. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1997.

Longacre, Robert E. “Building for the Worship of God: Exodus 25:1–30:10.” In

Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers, edited by
Walter R. Bodine, 21–49. Semeia. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

Longman, III, Tremper, and David E. Garland, eds. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006–2012.

López, René A. “Identifying the ‘Angel of the Lord’ in the Book of Judges: A Model for
Reconsidering the Referent in Other Old Testament Loci.” BBR 20:1 (2010): 1–
18.

Lorton, David. “The Theology of Cult Statues in Ancient Egypt.” In Born in Heaven,
Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, edited by
Michael B. Dick, 123–210. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999.

Luc, Alex. “‫לב‬.”

ֵׁ In vol. 2 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 749–54. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1997.

Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah 1–20. AB 21A. New York: Doubleday, 1999.

Lunn, Nicholas. Word-Order Variation in Biblical Hebrew Poetry: Differentiating

Pragmatics and Poetics. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006.
 313
Lust, Johan. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1992.

______. “Textual Criticism of the Old and New Testaments: Stepbrothers?” In New
Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel, edited by A.
Denaux, 15–31. BETL 161. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2002.

Luther, Martin. “Admonition to Peace.” In The Christian in Society III. Edited and
translated by Robert C. Schultz. LW 46:24. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.

______. “On the Jews and Their Lies.” In The Christian in Society IV. Edited by Franklin
Sherman. Translated by Martin H. Bertram. LW 47. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

______. “A Simple Way to Pray.” In Devotional Writings II. Edited by Gustav K.

Wiencke. Translated by Carl J. Schindler. LW 43. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968.

______. “Ten Sermons on the Catechism, 1528.” In Sermons I. Edited and translated by
John W. Doberstein. LW 51. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 141–43.

Lutz, Henry F. Textiles and Costume among People of the Ancient Near East. Leipzig:
Hinrichs, 1923.

MacDonald, William Graham. “Christology and ‘The Angel of the Lord.’” In Current
Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C.
Tenney Presented by His Former Students, edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne, 324–
35. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Macho, Alejandro Díez, trans. Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca

Vaticana, Tomo II: Éxodo. Textos y Estudios Consejo de Redacción 8. Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1970.

______, trans. Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense MS de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Tomo V:

Deuteronomio. Textos y Estudios 11. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas, 1978.

Magness-Gardiner, Bonnie. “Seals.” In vol. 4 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of

Archaeology in the Near East, edited by E. M. Meyers, 509–12. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1997.

Maimonides. Sefer Ha-Mitzvoth of Maimonides. Translated by Charles B. Chavel. New

York: Soncino, 1967.

Malone, Andrew S. “Distinguishing the Angel of the Lord.” BBR 21:3 (2011): 297–314.

Markl, Dominik. Der Dekalog als Verfassung des Gottesvolkes: die Brennpunkte einer
narrativen Rechtshermeneutik des Pentateuch in Exodus 19–24 und
Deuteronomium 5. Freiberg: Herder, 2007.
 314
Marshall, J. W. “Decalogue.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Edited by
T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, 171–82. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2003.

Mathews, Kenneth. Genesis 11:27—50:26. NAC. B&H, 2005.

McBride, S. Dean. The Deuteronomic Name Theology. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University,
1969.

McCann, J. Clinton. “The Book of Psalms.” In NIB, vol. IV. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.

McCarthy, Dennis J. Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental
Documents and in the Old Testament. AnBib 21A. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978.

McComiskey, Thomas. “Zechariah.” In The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and

Expository Commentary, edited by Thomas McComiskey, 1003–244. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

______, ed. The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.

McConville, J. G. Deuteronomy. AOTC. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002.

______. “God’s ‘Name’ and God’s ‘Glory.’” TynBul 30 (1979): 149–63.

McDonald, Suzanne. Re-Imaging Election: Divine Election as Representing God to

Others and Others to God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

McNeile, A. H. The Book of Exodus. 3rd ed. WC. London: Methuen & Co, 1931.

Mekhilta according to Rabbi Ishmael: An Analytical Translation. Edited and translated

by Jacob Neusner. Brown Judaic Studies 148. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.

Mendenhall, George E. “The Conflict between Value Systems and Social Control.” In
Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient
Near East, edited by H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts, 169–80. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1975.

______. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Presbyterian
Board of Colportage, 1955.

Mendenhall, George E. and Gary A. Herion. “Covenant.” In vol. 1 of Anchor Bible

Dictionary, edited by D. N. Freedman, 1179–202. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Merrill, Eugene H. Deuteronomy. NAC. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.

Merwe, Christo H. J. van der, Jackie A. Naudé, and Jan H. Kroeze. A Biblical Hebrew
Reference Grammar. Biblical Languages: Hebrew 3. New York: Sheffield, 2002.
 315
Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Dethronement of Sabaoth: Studies in the Shem and Kabod
Theologies. Translated by Frederick H. Cryer. ConBOT 18. Lund: Gleerup, 1982.

Meyers, Carol L. Exodus. New Cambridge Bible Commentary. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005.

Meyers, E. M., ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Midrash Rabbah. Edited by H. Freedman and Maruice Simon. 3rd ed. New York:
Soncino, 1983.

Milgrom, Jacob. “The Desecration of YHWH’s Name: Its Parameters and Significance.”
In Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and
Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul on the Occasion of His
Seventieth Birthday, edited by Chaim Cohen et al., 69–81. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2008.

______. Leviticus 1–16. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

______. Leviticus 17–22. AB 3A. New York: Doubleday, 2000.

______. Leviticus 23–27. AB 3B. New York: Doubleday, 2001.

______. Numbers [Ba-midbar]. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: JPS, 1990.

______. “Of Hems and Tassels: Rank, Authority and Holiness Were Expressed in
Antiquity by Fringes on Garments.” BAR 9:3 (1983): 61–65.

Milgrom, Jacob in conversation with Daniel I. Block. Ezekiel’s Hope: A Commentary on

Ezekiel 38–48. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012.

Millard, Alan R. “The Corpus of West Semitic Stamp Seals: Review Article.” IEJ 51
(2001): 76–87.

______. “Königssiegel.” In vol. 6 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie, edited by Erich

Ebeling et al., 135–40. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932–2011.

______. “Owners and Users of Hebrew Seals.” Eretz Israel 26 (1999): 129–33.

Miller, Patrick D. Deuteronomy. Int. Louisville: John Knox, 1990.

______. “The Place of the Decalogue in the Old Testament and Its Law.” Int 43 (1989):
229–42.

______. The Ten Commandments. Int. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009.
 316
______. “Ten Commandments.” In vol. 5 of New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
edited by Katharine Sakenfeld, 517–22. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009.

The Mishnah: A New Translation. Edited by Jacob Neusner. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1988.

Mitchell, Christopher Wright. The Meaning of BRK “To Bless” in the Old Testament.
SBLDS 95. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Moberly, Walter. “Exodus.” In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible,

edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 211–16. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Moran, William L. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1992.

Morenz, Siegfried. Egyptian Religion. Translated by Ann E. Keep. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1973.

Morschauser, Scott. “Do Not Look to Egypt? On an Alternative to Joshua Berman’s

‘CTH 133 and the Hittite Provenance of Deuteronomy 13.’” Unpublished
manuscript.

Motyer, J. A. The Message of Exodus: The Days of Our Pilgrimage. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 2005.

Mowinckel, Sigmund. Psalmenstudien I. Amsterdam: Schippers, 1961.

Mulder, Martin J. “Baal-Berith.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, edited
by K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, 141–44. 2nd ed.
Leiden, 1999.

______, ed. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in
Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004.

Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Walpole, MA: Peeters, 2009.

______. A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint. Walpole, MA:

Peeters, 2010.

Na ͗aman, Nadav. “Hezekiah’s Fortified Cities and the ‘LMLK’ Stamps.” BASOR 261
(1986): 5–21.

Nelson, Richard D. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster,

2002.

Newsom, Carol A. “A Maker of Metaphors: Ezekiel’s Oracles against Tyre.” In “The

Place Is Too Small for Us”: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship, edited
by R. P. Gordon, 191–204. SBTS 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
 317
Niccacci, Alviero. “Workshop: Narrative Syntax of Exodus 19–24.” In Narrative Syntax
and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996, edited by Ellen
van Wolde, 167–202. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Nielsen, Eduard. The Ten Commandments in New Perspective. London: SCM, 1968.

Nosch, Marie-Louise, and C. Michel Nosch, eds. Textile Terminologies in the Ancient
Near East and the Mediterranean Area from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC.
Ancient Textiles 8. Oxford: Oxbow, 2010.

Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. 2nd ed. JSOTSup 15. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1991.

______. Exodus: A Commentary. Translated by J. S. Bowden. OTL. Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1962.

Oelsner, Joachim, Bruce Wells, and Cornelia Wunsch, “Neo-Babylonian Period.” In A

History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, edited by Raymond Westbrook, 2:911–974.
Leiden: Brill, 2003.

The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. The Peshitta Institute.
Leiden: Brill, 1977.

Olivier, J. P. J. “‫נקה‬.” In vol. 3 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament

Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 152–54. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1997.

Opificius, R. “Gottessiegel.” In vol. 3 of Reallexikon der Assyriologie, edited by Erich

Ebeling et al., 576–80. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1932–2011.

Oppenheim, A. Leo. “The Golden Garments of the Gods.” JNES 8:3 (1949): 172–93.

Osiek, Carolyn. The Shepherd of Hermas: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1999.

Oswalt, John. The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 40–66. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998.

Otto, Eckhart. “Der Dekalog in den deuteronomistischen Redaktionen des

Deuteronomiums.” In Die Zehn Worte: der Dekalog als Testfall der
Pentateuchkritik, edited by Michael Konkel, Christian Frevel, and Johannes
Schnocks, 95–108. QD 212. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005.

______. Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments. Theologische Wissenschaft. Stuttgart:

Kohlhammer, 1994.

Pardee, Dennis. “A New Ugaritic Song to ʿAṯtartu (RIH 98/02).” In Ugarit at Seventy-
Five, edited by K. Lawson Younger, 27–40. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007.
 318
Parpola, Simo. “International Law in the First Millennium.” In A History of Ancient Near
Eastern Law, edited by Raymond Westbrook, 2:1047–66. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Parpola, Simo, and Kazuko Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. SAA 2.
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1988.

Patmore, Hector. “The Shorter and Longer Texts of Ezekiel: The Implications of the
Manuscript Finds from Masada and Qumran.” JSOT 32:2 (2007): 231–42.

Paton, Lewis. “The Meaning of Exodus XX. 7.” JBL 22 (1903): 201–10.

Patrick, Dale. “Law in the OT.” In vol. 3 of New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible.
Edited by Katharine Sakenfeld, 602–14. Nashville: Abingdon, 2008.

______. Old Testament Law. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.

Paul, Shalom M. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Hermeneia. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1991.

______. Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary. ECC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2012.

______. Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law.
VTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Payne, Annick. Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. SBLWAW 29. Atlanta: SBL,
2012.

Pelikan, J., and H. T. Lehmann, eds. Luther’s Works. 55 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1955–1986.

Perdue, Leo G. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology.

Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1994.

Peshitta. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version. The Peshitta
Institute. Leiden: Brill, 1977.

Peters, Albrecht. Ten Commandments. Translated by Holger K. Sonntag. Commentary on

Luther’s Catechisms. St. Louis: Concordia, 2009.

Phillips, Anthony. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue.
New York: Schocken, 1970.

______. Essays on Biblical Law. JSOTSup 344. New York: Sheffield Academic, 2002.

Philo. On the Decalogue. Translated by F. H. Colson. LCL 320. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press, 1937.
 319
Plato. The Statesman. Translated by Harold N. Fowler. LCL 164. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1925.

______. Symposium. Translated by W. R. M. Lamb. LCL 166. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1925.

Pleins, J. David. The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 2001.

Pliny the Younger. Letters. Translated by Betty Radice. LCL 55. Bibliotheca
Teubneriana, Schuster, 1952; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1969.
Cited 7 June 2013. Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu.

Polycarp. To the Philippians. In The Apostolic Fathers, edited and translated by Michael
W. Holmes. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Preuss, Horst Dietrich. Old Testament Theology. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. 2 vols.
OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.

Pritchard, J. B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955.

Propp, William H. C. Exodus 19–40. 1st ed. AB 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006.

Rabinowitz, Louis Isaac. “Teffilin.” In vol. 19 of Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Fred

Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum, 577–80. 2nd ed. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.

Rad, Gerhard von. Deuteronomy: A Commentary. Translated by Dorothea Barton. OTL.

Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966.

______. Studies in Deuteronomy. Translated by David Stalker. Chicago: Regnery, 1953.

Radner, Ephraim. “Taking the Lord’s Name in Vain.” In I am the Lord Your God:
Christian Reflections on the Ten Commandments, edited by Carl E. Braaten and
Christopher R. Seitz, 77–94. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Ramban. Commentary on the Torah: Exodus. Translated by Charles B. Chavel. New

York: Shilo, 1973.

Redford, Donald B., ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2001.

Reiner, Erica. Šurpu: A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. AfO 11.
Osnabrück: Biblio, 1970.

Reiterer, F. V. “‫ׁשָׁ וְ א‬.” In vol. 14 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited
by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley,
and D. E. Green, 447–61. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–
 320
______. “‫ׁשם‬.”
ֵׁ In vol. 15 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. J.
Botterweck and H. Ringgren, translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D.
E. Green, 128–74. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Reiterer, F. V., H. Ringgren, and H.-J. Fabry. “‫ׁשם‬.”

ֵׁ In vol. 15 of Theological Dictionary
of the Old Testament, edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, translated by J.
T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green, 128–176. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1974–

Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament.
Translated by David E. Orton. TBS 7. Leiden: Deo, 2005.

Reventlow, Henning Graf. “The Ten Commandments in Luther’s Catechisms.” In The

Decalogue in Jewish and Christian Tradition, edited by Henning Graf Reventlow
and Yair Hoffman, 132–47. LHB/OTS 509. New York: T&T Clark, 2011.

Richter, Sandra L. The Deuteronomistic History and the Name Theology: lĕšakkēn šĕmô
šām in the Bible and the Ancient Near East. BZAW 318. Berlin: de Gruyter,
2002.

______. The Epic of Eden: A Christian Entry into the Old Testament. Downers Grove,
IL: IVP Academic, 2008.

______. “The Place of the Name in Deuteronomy.” VT 57 (2007): 342–366.

______. “Placing the Name, Pushing the Paradigm: A Decade with the Deuteronomistic
Name Formula.” In Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the
Deuteronomistic History, edited by Konrad Schmid and Raymond F. Person Jr.,
64–78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012.

Rieder, David, ed. Pseudo-Jonathan: Targum Jonathan Ben Uziel on the Pentateuch.
Jerusalem: Salomon’s, 1974.

Riefstahl, Elizabeth. Patterned Textiles in Pharaonic Egypt. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Institute

of Arts and Sciences, 1944.

Ringgren, H. “‫ׁשֵׁ ם‬, III. 10. With lemaʿan.” In vol. 15 of Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, edited by G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, translated by J. T. Willis,
G. W. Bromiley, and D. E. Green, 174–75. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1885–1887. 10
vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994.

Rose, Martin. “Names of God in the OT.” In vol. 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by
D. N. Freedman, 1001–11. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
 321
Rosenbaum, M., and A. M. Silbermann, trans. Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos,
Haphtaroth and Prayers for Sabbath and Rashi’s Commentary. London: Shapiro,
Vallentine & Co., 1948.

Ross, Allen P. “‫ׁשֵׁ ם‬.” In vol. 4 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament
Theology and Exegesis, edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 147–51. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1997.

Rotelle, John E., ed. Works of Saint Augustine. Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1990–2009.

Roth, M. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. SBLWAW 6. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1995.

Sabatier, Pierre. Bibliorum Sacrorum latinæ versiones antiquæ seu Vetus Italica. Regis
Typographum & Bibliopolam, 1743.

Sailhamer, John. The Pentateuch as Narrative: a Biblical-Theological Commentary.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.

Sakenfeld, Katharine, ed. New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville:

Abingdon, 2006–2009.

Sänger, Dieter. “Tora für die Völker—Weisungen der Liebe: Zur Rezeption des Dekalogs
im frühen Judentum und Neuen Testament.” In Weisheit, Ethos und Gebot:
Weisheits- und Dekalogtraditionen in der Bibel und im frühen Judentum, 97–146.
Biblisch-Theologische Studien 43. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2001.

Sarna, Nahum. Exodus [Shemot]. 1st ed. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia:
Jewish Publication Society, 1991.

Sawyer, J. F. A. “‫ׁשוא‬.” In vol. 3 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited by

E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann, translated by M. E. Biddle, 1310–
12. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Schmidt, Werner H. Die Zehn Gebote im Rahmen alttestamentlicher Ethik. Edited by

Holger Delkurt and Axel Graupner. EdF 281. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1993.

Schökel, Luis Alonso. A Manual of Hebrew Poetics. Subsidia Biblica 11. Rome: Editrice
pontificio Istituto biblico, 1988.

Schüngel-Straumann, Helen. Der Dekalog — Gottes Gebote? SBS 67. Stuttgart: KBW,
1973.

Schwartz, Baruch J. “The Bearing of Sin in Priestly Literature.” In Pomegrantes &

Golden Bells, edited by D. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurwitz, 3–21.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995.
 322
______.“Term or Metaphor: Biblical nōśē ʻăwōn/pešaʻ/ḥeṭ.” Tarbiz 63 (1994): 149–71.

Schwienhorst-Schönberger, Ludger. “Das Verhältnis von Dekalog und Bundesbuch.” In

Die Zehn Worte: der Dekalog als Testfall der Pentateuchkritik, edited by Michael
Konkel, Christian Frevel, and Johannes Schnocks, 57–75. QD 212. Freiburg im
Breisgau: Herder, 2005.

Schultz, W. Das Deuteronomium. Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz, 1859

Shafer, Ann. “Assyrian Royal Monuments on the Periphery: Ritual and the Making of
Imperial Space.” In Ancient Near Eastern Art in Context: Studies in Honor of
Irene J. Winter by Her Students, edited by Jack Cheng and Marian H. Feldman,
133–159. CHANE 26. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Shepherd, Jerry. “‫ׁשוא‬.” In vol. 4 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament

Theology and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 53–55. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1997.

Simpson, J. A., and E. S. C. Weiner. The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 20 vols.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1989.

Singer, Itamar. Hittite Prayers. SBLWAW 11. Atlanta: SBL, 2002.

Skolnik, Fred, and Michael Berenbaum, eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 2nd ed. 16 vols.
Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.

Smith, Craig A. Criteria for Biblical Chiasms: Objective Means for Distinguishing
Chiasms of Design from Accidental and False Chiasm. Ph.D. diss., University of
Bristol, 2009.

Smith, J. Payne, ed. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1998.

Smith, Mark S. The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus. JSOTSup 239. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic, 1997.

Smith, Mark S., and Simon B. Parker, eds. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. SBLWAW 9.
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997.

Soden, W. von, ed. Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. 3 vols. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,

1965–1981.

Sokoloff, Michael. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period.

Dictionaries of Talmud, Midrash and Targum 2. Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar Ilan
University Press, 1990.

Soncino, Rifat. “Law; Forms of Biblical Law.” In vol. 4 of Anchor Bible Dictionary,
edited by D. N. Freedman, 252–54. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
 323
Soulen, R. Kendall. “The Blessing of God’s Name.” In The Ten Commandments for
Jews, Christians, and Others, edited by Roger Van Harn, 47–61. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007.

______. The Divine Name(s) and the Holy Trinity: Distinguishing the Voices. Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2011.

Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the
Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005.

Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB 1. New York: Doubleday, 1964.

Sperber, Alexander, ed. The Bible in Aramaic Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed
Texts, Vol. 1: The Pentateuch according to Targum Onkelos. Leiden: Brill, 1959.

Stamm, J. J. The Ten Commandments in Recent Research. Translated by M. E. Andrew.

SBT 2/2. Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967.

Staples, W. E. “The Third Commandment.” JBL 58 (1939): 325–29.

Stec, David, ed. The Targum of Psalms. ArBib 16. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2004.

Stolper, Mathew. “Inscribed in Egyptian.” In Studies in Persian History: Essays in

Memory of David M. Lewis, edited by Maria Brosius and Amélie Kuhrt, 133–43.
Achaemenid History XI. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten,
1998.

Stoltz, F. “‫נׂשא‬.” In vol. 2 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited by E.

Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann, translated by M. E. Biddle, 769–74.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Stott, John R. W. Basic Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Strawn, Brent A., ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2015.

Strong, John T. “Israel as a Testimony to YHWH’s Power: The Priest’s Definition of

Israel.” In Constituting the Community: Studies of the Polity of Ancient Israel in
Honor of S. Dean McBride Jr., edited by John T. Strong and Steven S. Tuell.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005.

Surls, Austin D. Making Sense of the Divine Name in the Book of Exodus: From
Etymology to Literary Onomastics. Ph.D. diss., Wheaton College, 2015.

Swift, Edgar, ed. The Vulgate Bible, Vol. 1: The Pentateuch, Douay Rheims Translation.
Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2010.
 324
Tal, Abraham. “The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch.” In Mikra: Text, Translation,
Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity, edited by Martin Mulder, 189–216. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
2004.

______. The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition; Part 1: Genesis,
Exodus. Vol. IV. Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and Related
Subjects. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1980.

______. The Samaritan Targum of the Pentateuch: A Critical Edition; Part 2: Leviticus,
Numeri, Deuteronomium. Vol. V. Texts and Studies in the Hebrew Language and
Related Subjects. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1981.

Tal, Abraham, and Moshe Florentin, eds. The Pentateuch: The Samaritan Version and
the Masoretic Version. Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press,
2010.

The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1989.

Tawil, Hayim ben Yosef. An Akkadian Lexical Companion for Biblical Hebrew:
Etymological-Semantic and Idiomatic Equivalents with Supplement on Biblical
Aramaic. Jersey City, NJ: Ktav, 2009.

Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Ernest Evans. Great Britain: T. & A.

Constable, 1948.

______. On Idolatry. Translated by J. H. Waszink and J. C. M. Van Winden. SVG 1.

New York: Brill, 1987.

Thayer, Joseph Henry, trans. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 4th ed.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1901.

Theodoret of Cyrus. The Questions on the Octateuch: On Genesis and Exodus. Edited by
John F. Peiruccione. Translated by Robert C. Hill. LEC 1. Washington, DC:
Catholic University of America Press, 2007.

Thomas, D. Winton. Documents from Old Testament Times. New York: Harper & Row,
1958.

Tigay, Jeffrey H. Deuteronomy [Devarim]. 1st ed. The JPS Torah Commentary.
Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996.

______. “Israelite Religion: The Onomastic and Epigraphic Evidence.” In Ancient

Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, edited by Patrick D.
Miller Jr., Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride, 157–94. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1987.
 325
Toorn, K. van der, B. Becking, and P. W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and
Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress,
2001.

______. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.

Troxel, Ronald. LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the

Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah. Boston: Brill, 2008.

Uhlig, Torsten. The Theme of Hardening in the Book of Isaiah. FAT 2/39. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

Van Dam, Cornelis. The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.

______. “‫אורים‬.” In vol. 1 of New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology

and Exegesis. Edited by W. A. VanGemeren, 330. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1997.

Vandier, Jacques. La Religion Égyptienne. Les anciennes Religions orientales 1. Paris:

Presses Univeritaires de France, 1944.

VanGemeren, Willem A. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and

Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997.

______. “Psalms.” In vol. 5 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, edited by Tremper

Longman, III and David E. Garland, 1–880. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006–
2012.

Van Harn, Roger, ed. The Ten Commandments for Jews, Christians, and Others. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text?: The Bible, The Reader, and The
Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

______, ed. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker,
2005.

Van Leeuwen, C. “‫נקה‬.” In vol. 2 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited by
E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann, translated by M. E. Biddle, 763–
67. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Van Seters, John. “‘Comparing Scripture with Scripture’: Some Observations on the
Sinai Pericope of Exodus 19–24.” In Canon, Theology and Old Testament
Interpretation: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs, edited by G. M. Tucker,
111–30. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
 326
Vaughn, Andrew G. Theology, History, and Archaeology in the Chronicler’s Account of
Hezekiah. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 4. Atlanta: SBL, 1999.

Vaux, Roland de. “Le lieu que Yahvé a choisi pour y établir son nom.” In Das ferne und
nahe Wort: Festschrift L. Rost, edited by Fritz Maass, 219–28. Berlin: Alfred
Töpelmann, 1967.

______. “Review of ‘Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur Traditionsgeschichte und

Theologie des Erwählungsgedankens.’” RB 71 (1964): 115–17.

Veijola, Timo. “Das dritte Gebot (Namenverbot) im Lichte einer ägyptischen Parallele.”
ZAW 103 (1991): 1–17.

Verhoef, Pieter. The Books of Haggai and Malachi. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987.

Vogelsang-Eastwood, Gillian. Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing. Studies in Textile and

Costume History 2. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

Vogelzang, M. E. “Meaning and Symbolism of Clothing in Ancient Near Eastern Texts.”

In Script Signa Vocis: Studies about Scripts, Scriptures, Scribes, and Languages
in the Near East, Presented to J. H. Hospers by His Pupils, Colleagues and
Friends, edited by L. J. Vanstiphout, K. Jongeling, F. Leemhuis, and G. J.
Reinink. Groningen, The Netherlands: Forsten, 1986.

Vogt, Peter T. Deuteronomic Theology and the Significance of Torah: A Reappraisal.

Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments. Carlisle, PA: Versa, 2007.

Vroom, Jonathan. “Recasting Mišpātîm: Legal Innovation in Leviticus 24:10–23.” JBL

131:1 (2012): 27–44.

Wagenaar, Jan. “Crossing the Sea of Reeds (Exod 13–14) and the Jordan (Josh 3–4): A
Priestly Framework for the Wilderness Wandering.” In Studies in the Book of
Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation, edited by Marc Vervenne, 461–70.
BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996.

Wagner, A. J. “An Interpretation of Exodus 20:7.” Int 6 (1952): 228–29.

Waltke, Bruce K. “‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬.” In vol. 2 of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited
by R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., 587–91. Chicago: Moody, 1980.

Waltke, Bruce K., and M. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the
Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
 327
______. “The Decalogic Structure of the Deuteronomic Law.” In Interpreting
Deuteronomy, edited by David G. Firth and Philip S. Johnston, 93–117.
Nottingham: Apollos, 2012.

______. “Deuteronomy: An Exposition of the Spirit of the Law.” GTJ 8:2 (1987): 213–
25.

______. “Interpreting the Bible as an Ancient Near Eastern Document.” In Israel:

Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention, edited by Daniel I. Block, 298–327.
Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2008.

______, ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament. 5

vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Warmuth, G. “‫נָ ָקה‬.” In vol. 9 of Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by
G. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren, translated by J. T. Willis, G. W. Bromiley, and
D. E. Green, 553–63. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Watson, Thomas. The Ten Commandments. Rev. ed. London: Banner of Truth, 1965.

Weber, Robertus, and Roger Gryson, eds. Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatum Versionem. 5th
ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.

Webster’s New World College Dictionary. Edited by Michael Agnes. 4th ed. Cleveland:
Wiley, 2008.

Weinfeld, Moshe. “Covenant.” In vol. 5 of Encyclopaedia Judaica, edited by Fred

Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum, 249–53. 2nd ed. Detroit: Thomson Gale, 2007.

______. “Covenant Making in Anatolia and Mesopotamia.” JANES 22 (1993): 135–39.

______. “The Decalogue: Its Significance, Uniqueness, and Place in Israel’s Tradition.”
In Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives, edited by E. B.
Firmage, B. G. Weiss, and J. W. Welch, 4–9. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns,
1990.

______. Deuteronomy 1–11. 1st ed. AB 5. New York: Doubleday, 1991.

______. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1972.

Weiss, Andrea L. Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the

Book of Samuel. VTSup 107. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Wells, Bruce. “Exodus.” In vol. 1 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background

Commentary: Old Testament, edited by John H. Walton, 160–283. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2009.
 328
Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

______. “Deuteronomy and the Central Sanctuary.” TynBul 22 (1971): 103–18.

______. Genesis 16–50. WBC. Dallas: Word, 1994.

______. “Law.” In Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, edited by

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 441–46. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Westbrook, Raymond. “The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law.” In A History of

Ancient Near Eastern Law, edited by Raymond Westbrook, 1:1–90. Leiden: Brill,
2003.

______, ed. A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Westbrook, Raymond, and Theodore J. Lewis. “Who Led the Scapegoat in Leviticus
16:21?” JBL 127:3 (2008): 417–22.

Westbrook, Raymond, and Bruce Wells. Everyday Law in Biblical Israel: An

Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2009.

Westerholm, Stephen. “Law in Early Judaism.” In vol. 3 of New Interpreter’s Dictionary

of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Sakenfeld, 587–94. Nashville: Abingdon, 2008.

Westermann, Claus. Elements of Old Testament Theology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.

______. “‫נֶ ֶפׁש‬.” In vol. 2 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited by E. Jenni,
with assistance from C. Westermann, translated by M. E. Biddle, 743–59.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Wevers, John William, ed. Deuteronomium. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum

3/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977.

______, ed. Exodus. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 2/1. Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991.

______, ed. Leviticus. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 2/2. Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.

Wildberger, Hans. Jahwes Eigentumsvolk: Eine Studie zur Traditionsgeschichte und

Theologie des Erwählungsgedankens. ATANT 37. Zurich: Zwingli, 1960.

Williams, Ronald. Hebrew Syntax: An Outline. 2nd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1976.

Williamson, H. G. M. 1 and 2 Chronicles. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

 329
Wilson, Ian. “Merely a Container? The Ark in Deuteronomy.” In Temple and Worship in
Biblical Israel, edited by John Day, 212–49. New York: T&T Clark, 2007.

______. Out of the Midst of the Fire. SBLDS 151. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

Wolfson, Elliott R. “Circumcision and the Divine Name: A Study in the Transmission of
Esoteric Doctrine.” JQR 78 (1987): 77–112.

Work, Telford. Deuteronomy. BTCB. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2009.

Woude, A. S. van der. “‫ׁשם‬.”

ֵׁ In vol. 3 of Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament,
edited by E. Jenni, with assistance from C. Westermann, translated by M. E.
Biddle, 1348–67. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Wright, Christopher. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.

______. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2004.

Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Zadok, Ran. “Names and Naming.” In vol. 4 of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology
in the Near East, edited by E. M. Meyers, 92–96. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1997.

Zernecke, Anna Elise. “A Shuilla: Ishtar 2, ‘The Great Ishtar Prayer’,” In Akkadian
Prayers and Hymns: An Introduction, edited by Alan Lenzi, 257–90. ANEM 3.
Atlanta: SBL, 2011.

Zevit, Ziony. “Preamble to a Temple Tour.” In Sacred Time, Sacred Place: Archaeology
and the Religion of Israel, edited by Barry M. Gittlen, 73–81. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2002.

Ziegler, Joseph. Duodecim prophetae. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum 13.

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984.

______, ed. Jeremias, Baruch, Threni, Epistula Jeremiae. 2nd ed. Septuaginta: Vetus
Testamentum Graecum 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976.

Zimmerli, Walther. Ezekiel 1. Translated by Ronald E. Clements. Hermeneia.

Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

______. I am Yahweh. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982.

______. Old Testament Theology in Outline. Translated by David E. Green. Edinburgh:

T&T Clark, 1978.
 330
Zipor, M. A. “Some Notes on the Origin of the Tradition of the Eighteen tiqqûnê
sôperîm.” VT 44 (1994): 77–102.