Abstract
The Deuteronomic account of the giving of the second set of the tablets of the law flatly contradicts the Exodus version. It is a deliberate attempt to play down the memory of the earlier reform of Hezekiah in view of the much more substantial reform of Josiah.
Normally, when we think of difficult texts, it is in the context of the struggle to understand the meaning of the actual words that confront us. But texts can be perfectly understood and yet prove difficult, as when one text flatly contradicts another.
Nowhere is this more striking than in the accounts of the giving of the second set of tablets of the law to Moses on Mount Sinai/Horeb in the books of Exodus (Exodus 34.11–24) and Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 10.1–5). While both have been subject to extensive editing, most obviously in the late insertion of the priestly material in the Sinai narrative in Exodus (Exodus 25—31), the two accounts of the actual law giving sharply contradict each other.
While Deuteronomy 10.1–5 asserts that, after Moses had smashed the original set of tablets, the replacement was a duplicate of the original text, Exodus 34.11–24 contains a whole series of new provisions clearly intended to replace the Decalogue. How is this to be explained?
In the Deuteronomic account of Israel’s history, no king receives greater praise than Hezekiah. It is specifically recorded that: He trusted in the Lord the God of Israel; so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him. For he held fast to the Lord; he did not depart from following him, but kept the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses. (2 Kings 18.5–6)
We know that politically Hezekiah was a hero. While the northern kingdom had succumbed to the Assyrian conquest and as a result of its policy of assimilation ceased to be an independent nation, Jerusalem under Hezekiah had withstood the Assyrian siege; although forced to pay considerable tribute as well as submit to the Assyrian king as a vassal, nonetheless Hezekiah had secured the survival of his kingdom and the worship of Yahweh in the Temple (2 Kings 18.9—19.37). Indeed, it appears that he even took widespread offensive action against non-Israelite inhabitants of the land (2 Kings 18.8; 1 Chronicles 4.41–43).
However, it is not only on the political front that the author of 2 Kings singles out Hezekiah for praise, but also on the religious, specifically recording a number of radical actions that he took, actions confirmed from the author’s account of the Assyrian campaign. These actions are summarized in the preface to his account of Hezekiah’s reign where he records that Hezekiah: removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had burnt incense to it; it was called Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18.4) But if you say to me, ‘We rely on the Lord Our God’, is it not he whose high places and altars Hezekiah has removed, saying to Judah and Jerusalem, ‘You shall worship before this altar in Jerusalem’? (2 Kings 18.22)
Before we compare these two accounts, we need to consider the political and religious situation facing Hezekiah. It had been assumed that Israel was the elect of Yahweh, his chosen people and recipient of his grace come what may. In spite of the warnings of the eighth-century prophets Amos, Hosea, Micah and Isaiah that God could no longer be indifferent to the state of their society, they had nonetheless reason to assume that their future was secure. But now the northern kingdom no longer existed and southern Judah had been forced to become a vassal of Assyria. Was she, too, under a similar threat of extinction? Clearly, her relationship with Yahweh was not as assured as had hitherto been thought.
This new situation led theologians in Jerusalem to reassess that relationship. It is at this point that, drawing on the vassal treaty as a model, the covenant concept now emerged as an explanation of Israel’s relationship with her God. Scholars have long recognized that the covenant concept was a later introduction into the original Sinai narrative in Exodus, but this introduction had been somewhat loosely attributed to the Deuteronomists. We can, however, be much more precise. Perhaps drawing on Hosea, this new approach to understanding Israel’s relationship with her God is to be dated to Hezekiah’s reign, as reflected in his reform.
The narrative begins by describing the giving of the original tablets of the law, followed by the incident of the golden calf, clearly an allusion to Jeroboam’s bull images (1 Kings 12.28–30) and Moses’ subsequent destruction of them, symbolizing the end of Yahweh’s relationship with the northern kingdom. Then follows the creation of the second set of tablets with their anti-Canaanite legislation, indicating that Judah, who now assumes the mantle of Israel, is still in relationship with Yahweh, though now as his vassal with all that that entails, including the threat of total rejection.
While under the treaty form the vassal was given his independence to govern within his kingdom, as well as a guarantee of the protection of his suzerain, in return that vassal had to give absolute loyalty to the suzerain, thus denying him any independent foreign policy. In the same way theologians interpreted Yahweh as Israel’s suzerain, guaranteeing her his protection but absolutely forbidding any disloyalty by worshipping other gods. It was the ambiguous attitude towards Canaanite religion and the failure to give Yahweh sole allegiance that had resulted in the loss of the northern kingdom and threatened southern Judah too.
As we have noted, the Sinai narrative in Exodus records that, after Moses had broken the original tablets of the law inscribed with the Decalogue, he was commanded to write a series of new provisions on their replacement (Exodus 34.11–26). It is clear that these aim to prevent any contact with the Canaanites and the possibility of adopting their religious practices. So these laws begin by forbidding the making of any covenant with them (v. 12), order the destruction of their altars and cult apparatus (v. 13), command the worship of Yahweh alone (vv. 14–15), and counsel against intermarriage of Israelite men with the daughters of the indigenous population (v. 16). There then follows the prohibition of making any molten god (v. 17), which, in the context, clearly refers back to the golden calf of Exodus 32 and explains why the bronze serpent Nehushtan was destroyed even though it was attributed to no less a figure than Moses. Finally, there follows in Exodus 34.22–24 a repeat of the festal calendar of Exodus 23.14–17, which with its reference to the absence of ‘covetous neighbours’ now clearly requires the centralization of the celebration of the three main feasts at Jerusalem.
The interpolations of the covenant concept into the Sinai narrative (Exodus 19–24) are not hard to discern: in contrast to the original text, they are all in the plural form of address. The original narrative is now framed by a new preface (Exodus 19.3–8) that sets out the covenant relationship and concludes with the covenant ceremony (Exodus 24.3–8). In addition, the prohibition of molten images (Exodus 20.22–23) was specifically introduced as a preface to the laws of the Book of the Covenant, a clear reference to the bull images of the northern kingdom, central to the revision of the Sinai narrative (Exodus 32—34) and condemned by Hosea (Hosea 8.5–6). Incidentally, while references to Hezekiah are rare outside the so-called historical books, Proverbs 25.1 does provide some evidence of important scribal activity during his reign.
Hezekiah’s reform did not outlast his reign, for under his successor Manasseh, syncretism again flourished. It was left to Josiah to throw off the Assyrian yoke and introduce an even more vigorous reform, which led the later Deuteronomists, while recognizing Hezekiah’s colossal importance, to minimize their record of his innovative reform consequent upon Josiah’s even more radical action. It would, however, be left to the exilic prophets and the priestly theologians to reject covenant theology and reassert that Yahweh’s election of Israel was for all time.
Finally, we may note that Jeremiah 26.18–19 records that, in contrast to Jehoiakim, Hezekiah is cited as listening to Micah’s prophetic warning of the destruction of Jerusalem; instead of putting the prophet to death, he heeded his warning and so stayed Yahweh’s hand. Hezekiah’s reform is of far greater significance than its brief mention by the Deuteronomists indicates.