Did King Solomon Violate the Second Commandment?

Reader’s Letter Sparks Article

When reading Victor Hurowitz’s “Inside Solomon’s Temple,” BR 10:02, a question suddenly occurred to me that I should have thought of years ago.

In the shrine of the temple were “two huge, gold-plated, olive-wood cherubim,” writes Hurowitz. Did it never occur to the builders of the Temple (or to those who wrote about it) that the second commandment of the Decalogue states, “You shall not make for yourself any graven image, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth”?

I am aware that this commandment prohibits the making of an idol, but is it not true that the Hebrews interpreted this law so strictly that they refused to create any image, so that the temptation to idolatry would be avoided? Yet here is such an image, in the very Holy of Holies!

How would Dr. Hurowitz answer this question?

Mr. Watts has asked an interesting and important question touching upon the nature of the biblical prohibition on graven images. How was it possible for Solomon to have installed in the Temple, in the Holy of Holies itself, two immense cherubim made of olive wood and covered with gold?¹ Isn’t this a blatant contradiction of ancient Israelite attitudes toward images and a flagrant violation of the second commandment?

We should bear in mind that Israelite religion and religious customs underwent a long development. Not all the practices and prohibitions reflected in the pages of the Bible^a stem from the same time. Moreover, the order in which events and laws are presented in the Bible does not necessarily correspond to their historical order. More to the point, prohibitions on idolatrous and pagan practices, even when found in the stories concerning the sojourn at Mount Sinai, the desert wanderings and the encampment in the Plains of Moab, may have originated at later periods, such as under the divided Monarchy or even later. Even the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) cannot be assumed to have been formulated in its extant forms (Exodus 20:1–14; Deuteronomy 5:6–18) in the pre-monarchic period.²

Let us suppose that the prohibition on making graven images did not yet exist at the time of Solomon. Since he did not know about the prohibition, he could not be blamed for violating it. Support for this hypothesis can be found in various stories relating to the pre-monarchic period.

One such story appears in Judges 17–18: Before the time of the monarchy, the mother of a certain Micaihu (Mica in the King James Version) from the Mountains of Ephraim made an idol of silver, placed it in her son’s private temple and even hired a Levite of Mosaic descent to be its priest.³ Subsequently, the idol and priest were spirited off by the tribe of Dan. The mother was a devout worshiper of YHWH,^b the God of Israel, as we may learn from her words in Judges 17:2, “Blessed be my son to YHWH,” Micaihu’s name means “Who is like Yahu”; we may safely assume that he too kept the faith and worshiped YHWH. Despite this narrative’s implicit criticism of all the characters, this incident suggests that in the pre-monarchic period, the use of idols in worshiping YHWH was considered “kosher”—at least by part of the populace. This story and others like it seem to indicate that the prohibitions on using images of God as part of Israelite worship were later developments in Israelite religion.

We must still ask why the use of graven images in the Jerusalem Temple was tolerated by the editors of the Book of Kings, who were members of the so-called “Deuteronomic school.” These literati, whose activity extended from the time of Josiah (639–609 B.C.E.) until the days of the Babylonian Exile (post-586 B.C.E.), certainly knew the Ten Commandments,⁴ and frequently held the kings of Israel and Judah responsible for observing at least the cultic laws found in the Book of Deuteronomy. Their silence concerning the cherubim in the Temple can only indicate that they saw in them nothing wrong.

We should also remember that the Tabernacle, reportedly built in the desert by Moses and described by the so-called P(riestly) school,⁵ was outfitted with two cherubim on the Ark cover (Exodus 25:18–22) as well as cherubim woven into the walls (Exodus 26:1) and veil at the entry to the Holy of Holies (Exodus 26:31). These cherubim were not introduced on the whim or initiative of human artisans and interior decorators, but were reportedly ordained by God Himself. Most modern scholars hold that this source postdates the Decalogue in particular and the development of intolerance of idols in general. The Tabernacle cherubim would thus be an additional indication that the Decalogue did not preclude such figures.

An additional well-known case of pre-monarchic image-making is the Golden Calf. Exodus 32 (see also Deuteronomy 9:7–21) reports how Aaron, acquiescing to the people’s demand for a god who would lead them in place of the missing Moses, made a calf of gold that was subsequently deified and worshiped. The calf is nowhere construed to represent a deity other than YHWH. After manufacturing it, Aaron announces: “Tomorrow there is a festival for YHWH!” (Exodus 32:5). Even the people announce, “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.” The transgression, for which the people are severely punished (Exodus 32:19–33:6), seems to have been their identifying the calf with YHWH.⁶

Another obviously related case is 1 Kings 12:26–33, which tells how King Jeroboam in the late 10th century B.C.E. manufactured and deified two golden calves, placing one in Bethel and the other in Dan. It is hard to imagine that Jeroboam, who was trying to win the allegiance of the people, intentionally violated a well-known taboo. He too announces that his calves are the God(s) who took Israel out of Egypt (1 Kings 12:28). He is not, therefore, introducing a new deity or even a new way of worship, but seems to be renewing a once-legitimate way of representing the deity Israel has known for a long time.⁷

A further example of image-making is the Bronze Serpent. Numbers 21:4–9 tells how Moses was commanded by God to make a bronze serpent and put it on a pole as a remedy for a plague of snakes. Second Kings 18:4 reports that King Hezekiah broke it into pieces because the people had become accustomed to offering it incense and had even given it the name “Nehushtan” (literally “Bronzie the Dragon”). Here is a good example of a legitimate object falling into misuse. Yet initially the image was perfectly acceptable, having been designed by Moses at God’s command.

Taken together, these stories indicate that in practice certain pious ancient Israelites manufactured human, animal and mythical images both in the round and in relief, and considered such images legitimate. Some of these objects appeared illegitimate when viewed through the eyes of biblical authors and editors writing under the influence of later ideas. Others became tainted through misuse. The cherubim of Solomon’s Temple, however, remained perfectly legitimate, even meriting explicit divine sanction.

Not only does the biblical evidence indicate that there was no across-the-board condemnation or even avoidance of images in ancient Israel, but archaeological finds support this conclusion too. Human and animal representations are well attested in the physical remains of biblical and post-biblical times. Here are a few examples. A small bronze bull was found at a cult site dating to the period when Israelites just began to appear in the north of the country.⁸ Human figurines have been found at places such as Megiddo from the tenth through the seventh centuries B.C.E.⁹ The Samaria ivories of the ninth century B.C.E. provide engraved lions, bulls and cherub-like sphinxes.¹⁰ Human beings, animals such as lions, fighting cocks, gazelles and fish, as well as mythical creatures ranging from griffins to winged serpents and flying scarabs, adorn seals from the eighth and seventh centuries belonging to people bearing Yahwistic or Hebrew names.¹¹ A famous coin from the fourth century B.C.E. bearing the legend Y(e)H(u)D (the province of Judea) shows a seated god, whom some numismatists have identified as YHWH Himself.¹² These finds demonstrate that from the beginning to the end of the biblical period, images were made by Israelites. However, most of the images found are two dimensional. Images fully in the round are rarely found among remains from the biblical period. This may be because wood, which was the favorite material for sculpture, does not survive well in the damp climate of Israel. But it may also indicate an intentional avoidance of this artistic medium.¹³

Judaism of the Hellenistic and Roman periods was apparently less tolerant of images, not only human likenesses but even those of animals.¹⁴ One indication of this attitude is the incident that occurred after Herod placed an eagle in the Jerusalem Temple in the late first century B.C.E.¹⁵ When Herod was critically ill, the Jews rioted, attempting to have it removed. The Jewish historian Flavius Josephus blames this incident on strict adherence to the Ten Commandments, leading to the conclusion that at that time Jews prohibited images of all sorts. Even in describing Solomon’s Temple, Josephus is critical of the bronze bulls that supported the bronze sea and the lions that decorated the royal throne.¹⁶

Some suggest that the protest against Herod’s eagle was more political than religious in nature, and that Josephus attributed it to religious motives in order to placate his Roman audience vis-à-vis the Jewish rebels.¹⁷ Indeed, Josephus describes statues in Herod’s palaces without censure. We should recall, however, the evidence of coins and other finds in Jerusalem, to be discussed below. The absence of human and animal representations, even in two dimensions, seems to confirm the opinion that in the Hasmonean and Herodian periods, Jews observed the second commandment more strictly, and that Josephus reflects the contemporary religious attitudes.

Interestingly, mosaics found in Jerusalem homes dating to the destruction of the Second Temple (70 C.E.) bear only geometrical patterns. Not only are there no human figures in the finds, but animal representations too seem to be avoided. A rare exception is a single table with a fish relief engraved on the edge.¹⁸ In addition—whereas coins from the Persian period (538–332 B.C.E.) bear images of humans and animals and are no different in decoration from contemporary coins of Gentiles—Hasmonean coins and early Roman period coins, from the time of Alexander Yannai until the time of Agrippa I, do not bear human or animal figures.¹⁹ Coins minted during the Great Revolt (66–70 C.E.), as well as those dating to the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (132–135 C.E.), also do not bear human or animal motifs. This numismatic and archaeological evidence surely indicates that the prohibition against images was carefully observed from the time of the Maccabees (the Hasmonean period) until the aftermath of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt.

The evidence from later periods clearly shows that Jews made images with increasing regularity. Synagogues, both ancient and modern, are decorated with pictures of humans and animals. The best example is the famous synagogue of Dura-Europos, destroyed in 256 C.E. by the Sassanians. Only five years before its destruction, this synagogue was decorated with numerous biblical scenes and full-blown human figures.²⁰ Mosaic floors from synagogues found in Israel frequently display human as well as animal figures.²¹ Ironically, some synagogues—such as the third-century C.E. academy of Rabbi Eli’ezer ha-Qappar found in the Village of Dabbura in the Golan—had lintels decorated with two eagles, precisely the detested symbol of Rome that contemporaries of Herod removed from the Temple gate.²² The same was true of the fourth-century C.E. synagogue at Capernaum. We should recall that the Rabbinic injunction on making human images applied only to three-dimensional sculpture, but not to paintings or mosaics.²³

To justify what appears to be a wanton flaunting of the law during many periods of Israelite and Jewish history, we must look at the nature of the prohibition on images found in the Decalogue and elsewhere. Is there a blanket prohibition of images that would make Solomon’s cherubim as well as all the textual allusions and archaeological finds intolerable, or is the prohibition less total than it might at first appear?

There are, in fact, several prohibitions involved.²⁴ The first is “You shall have no other gods before me…” (Exodus 20:3). The second is “You shall make for yourselves no idol or any type of image of anything in the heavens above, etc.…” (Exodus 20:4). The third is “You shall not pay them homage or worship them…” (Exodus 20:5). A perennial exegetical question has been, how are these statements related? Are they three distinct prohibitions or parts of one?

Islamic tradition has been the most severe in its interpretation of the prohibitions.²⁵ It sees them as separate prohibitions, meaning that it is forbidden to worship other gods, it is forbidden to make two- or three-dimensional images of humans and animals, and it is also forbidden to worship them. This strict antiiconic interpretation has resulted in Islamic worship totally free of images of any sort. On the other hand, it has given the world the beautiful geometric designs that decorate mosques and has been instrumental in nurturing the artistic use of calligraphy to decorate public buildings. It has also resulted in devout Muslims refusing to be photographed.

Christianity seems to have taken a diametrically opposed and far more lenient view of the second commandment. Images of anything and everything ranging from human likenesses to gargoyles are permitted and used in decorating and protecting churches. Not only are members of the holy family and various saints painted and sculpted, but even Jesus is represented both flat and in the round. Such representations, more than being simply objects d’art, are used in Christian ritual. It is clear that the prohibition on making graven images is taken to apply only to foreign gods, not to the official family of God. The first of the three prohibitions, “You shall have no other gods before me…,” affects how Christians have interpreted the two other prohibitions mentioned above. If the image is not of a foreign god, it is not forbidden. Where would western art be had Christianity interpreted the second commandment as the Muslims do?

Jewish tradition offers yet another interpretation.²⁶ Later legal treatises such as Moses Maimonides’s Sepher Hammitzvot enumerate four separate negative precepts (mitzvot lo ta’aseh) within the second commandment of the Decalogue,²⁷ but the prohibitions are interconnected. Essentially, the laws “You shall have no other gods,” “You shall not bow down to them” and “You shall not worship them” place limits on the prohibition “You shall not make any idol or any type of graven image…” Idols and images are prohibited only if they represent other gods and are worshiped: If they are not objects of worship, they are not forbidden.

This should have resulted in an attitude identical to that of Christianity. This is because making images of YHWH, as done by Micaihu’s mother or by Aaron and Jeroboam, is not explicitly prohibited by the Decalogue,²⁸ nor is making images for decorative purposes.

However, post-biblical Jewish law finds another basis for its prohibition on making any human forms in the round or as bas-relief, even for decorative purposes. This source is the second part of Exodus 20:20 (Exodus 20:23 [KJV]) where we read: “You shall not make (anything) with me; gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves.”^c Interestingly, Jewish authorities explain the prohibition on decorative images as a preventive measure, lest the human form made for decoration becomes an object of worship (compare the bronze serpent discussed above). Were there no such danger, it would be permissible to make a statue of a human being. The rabbis interpret the first part of this verse (“You shall not make anything…”) as prohibiting the manufacturing of images of angels and other heavenly denizens, apart from the two cherubim explicitly sanctioned in the Pentateuch. Even synagogues and academies, however, may not be furnished or decorated with cherubim or, for that matter, with any implements identical with the Temple paraphernalia.

Despite this prohibition, Jewish law permits the reproduction of human forms that are anatomically inaccurate or somewhat effaced. Also, no punishment is recommended for violating this prohibition, unlike transgressions of other prohibitions that are considered capital offenses. Representations of animals are explicitly permitted by Jewish legal authorities.²⁹

Returning to the Bible, it seems that the attitude toward images held by Solomon or his architects, as well as by the Deuteronomic editors of 1 and 2 Kings who report on Solomon’s cultic art favorably and with no criticism, is closer to the later Christian and Jewish interpretations than to those of Islam. Images were used in the Jerusalem Temple, for they represented neither YHWH Himself nor any other deity. The bronze waterworks in the Temple courtyard were decorated by lions and cattle; cherubim were engraved on the walls and doors of the outer and inner sanctuaries (heikhal and dvir), and a pair of huge cherubim stood in the Holy of Holies, wings outstretched, covering the Ark. None of these constituted an object of worship, so none was objectionable. Just the opposite: The animals depicted were God’s creations and symbolic of His power and dominion. The cherubim were members of His retinue and guard. Just as a royal palace would be unthinkable without guards and courtiers, so YHWH’s House and throne room would be unimaginable without some select representatives of the divine host. The proper question to ask is not “Why were the cherubim permitted?” but “Why were there so few?”³⁰

With the readers’ indulgence, I conclude on a sermonic note. There is one figure on earth that the Bible explicitly calls the image of God. This is none other than mankind, both male and female (Genesis 1:26–28, 5:1–2). The first commandment given man is to be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, subdue it and rule over the rest of God’s creations. Mankind is God’s vicar on earth, and as such should look like and behave like God. The divine commandment to be fruitful and multiply is in fact an order to replicate the divine image throughout the world. This could appear to contradict the second commandment of the Decalogue. In order for it not to be so, man must take care not to place himself above God and not to replace God with his own self as the object of worship.

Reader’s Letter Sparks Article

When reading Victor Hurowitz’s “Inside Solomon’s Temple,” BR 10:02, a question suddenly occurred to me that I should have thought of years ago.