Or, if you’re being old-timey about it, the “mercy seat.” I find that translation funny - like, as if “mercy seat” is a known thing, and Moses should just make one. Hey, make a mercy seat. It’s, you know, not a thing.
The translation “mercy seat” comes from the notion that the Hebrew name, כפרת, comes from the same root that means “atone” (though the jump from there to “mercy” has a pretty goyish ring to me, I must admit). The idea would be that from here YHWH accepts atonement for sins.
But that isn’t what the text says, here or anywhere else either. P is pretty clear about what this thing is for: it’s the precise spot in the inner sanctum of the Tabernacle where YHWH physically exists, and from where YHWH speaks to Moses (cf. Exod 30:6; Num 7:89).
It’s the locus of divine communication, not of divine atonement. (Not to mention that P doesn’t really have any notion of atonement as it’s understood in either Judaism or Christianity. We’ll get there.)
And its name has nothing to do with that function - it’s just a cover (another meaning of כפר, as in Gen 6:14). So let’s call it the cover for the ark, but recognize that it’s also the spot where YHWH hangs out, especially when Moses (or Aaron - see Lev 16:2) shows up.
As for the cherubs that are on top of the cover, I’m gonna assume we all know by now that they weren’t pudgy babies with wings and harps and shit, but more like a winged lion - think terrifying, not adorable. Think Ezekiel’s vision, not baby Jesus (with wings).
The big deal about the cover is that it reinforces the basic idea of the Tabernacle as a whole: as the literal physical location of the deity in the midst of Israel. We already knew YHWH would dwell in it; here we’re told exactly where he sits when issuing instructions.
Any understanding of this that attempts to make it metaphorical, or figurative, or otherwise soften the text somehow is more representative of the interpretive stance than of the text or the ancient Israelite world from which it emerged.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If the ark and its cover are the place where YHWH sits, the table is...well, the place where YHWH eats and drinks. Yeah, I said it.
It’s a gold table with gold drinking vessels and you’re supposed to put bread on it. Later Jewish interpretation went to great lengths to describe how the bread was to be laid out, and changed weekly, etc., but the Bible doesn’t give us any of that.
All we know is that there is supposed to be bread and wine on the table in the inner sanctum of YHWH’s dwelling place, the Tabernacle, and for sure no one else is eating and drinking in there.
Don’t get excited - this isn’t the ark of the covenant. Well, it is, sort of. But it isn’t. Let me explain (briefly).
P will never call it the ark of the covenant, because in P there’s no covenant here, and no covenant gets put inside the ark. That’s only in D, and that’s the only function of D’s ark: to hold the tablets of the Decalogue in the sanctuary.
This ark only seems like the ark of the covenant because it’s what we picture when we think of it (thanks, Indiana Jones): gold, with the poles extending out to carry the thing. Not the simple wooden box of D. (That’s the ark of a carpenter. Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
It’s not a coincidence that this law follows on the ones about what happens if your neighbor’s property gets damaged while in your possession. Because this law is pretty much about property damage. Just the property is the girl.
This law is the equivalent of “you broke it, you buy it” where the thing you’re breaking and buying is a person. The girl’s value is attached to her virginity. She’s worth more that way. You remove that from her, and she’s a tougher sell for her father.
(Just to be provocative for fun: the word used here for virgin, בתולה, is, you know, the word for virgin. As opposed to the other word that’s used in Isaiah 7:14.m, which, you know, doesn’t mean virgin. Okay back to our regularly scheduled programming.)
The ostensible topics here have to do with what happens when you have something belonging to your neighbor in your possession, and something bad happens to it. Which is fine and all. But that’s not the really interesting part.
The basic setup is that a thief steals your neighbor’s stuff from your house. Now if the thief is caught, he pays double like normal (see 21:3). Easy. But if he’s not caught, now it’s just your word that it was stolen by someone else - rather than by you, you dirty rat.
And this is where it gets interesting. The owner doesn’t know what happened to his stuff - it was with you. You can’t prove it was stolen: the thief got away. The owner has every right to claim compensation from you, but it wasn’t your fault; you weren’t negligent.
A sort of preface to the Covenant Code proper, the first thing YHWH says to Moses is, in canonical terms, perhaps also the most controversial. Sacrifice wherever you wish, build your altars in multiple different ways - that’s confusing!
The only way to make sense of it canonically is to understand it as referring exclusively to the period between the entrance into the land and the building of the Temple in Jerusalem. Which is possible, I suppose, but is sort of a weird thing to say at this point.
In the wilderness, of course, the people are (again, canonically) only to sacrifice at the Tabernacle in the midst of the camp, with its single exclusive very differently-constructed altar. And of course once the Temple is built that’s the sole place of worship.
Having gotten through the Ten Commandments, and before we start in on the Covenant Code, let's recap where we've been since the last thread of threads, which is linked below: