Religion and politics
Commentary
Object:
"Politics are almost as exciting as war and quite as dangerous!" said Winston Churchill. "In war you can only be killed once but in politics many times."
In one of his essays, Albert Camus describes a powerful scene: Jan Hus, the great Czech reformer of the church, is on trial. His accusers twist all his ideas out of shape. They refuse to give him a hearing. They maneuver the political machine against him and incite popular passion to a lynch-mob frenzy. Finally Hus is condemned to be burned at the stake. As the flames surround him, people who couldn't possibly have read his writings and who have no interest in either his perspectives or those of the governing authorities line up to assist in the murder. "When they were burning Jan Hus," writes Camus, "a gentle little old lady came carrying her faggot to add it to the pile."
The tragedy of politics often lies in passions and not platforms. "Private passions grow tired and wear themselves out; political passions, never!" says Lamartine. That's why there is an unwritten rule in many communities that when all the in-laws and out-laws get together for the annual "family rebellion" you can't talk about politics or religion. Both grab a person so deeply!
Maybe, when it comes right down to it, politics and religion are much the same thing. The kingdom of God is very political. It is a perspective on all of life. It is a way of holding things together and giving them meaning. It is a movement that is out to change the world and to reclaim lost territory in the civil war of the universe.
Today's lectionary readings are about politics and religion. After the Israelites traded worship of Yahweh for frenzied dances around the golden calf, Moses begs Yahweh to remain king of the people and to reveal the divine presence as confirmation. To the Thessalonians, Paul says that among the many powers vying for dominance in society, only the kingdom of God truly matters. When Jesus was challenged about the relationship between politics and religion, he gave a cryptic answer that meant different things to politicians than it did to clergy. Separation of "church" and "state" definitely does not mean bifurcation of politics from religion in the Bible!
Exodus 33:12-23
The narrative of Exodus 25-40 has three major sections. In chapters 25-31 preparations for the Tabernacle are made and plans formulated. Then comes the intruding and jarring incident of the golden calf (chs. 32-34) in which not only Israel's loyalty to Yahweh but also Yahweh's loyalty to Israel are tested. Finally, the story of Exodus 25-31 is resumed in the actual construction of the Tabernacle and its dedication (chs. 35-40), almost as if the dark blot of the interlude had never happened.
Why all of this emphasis on building the tent-like Tabernacle? Why invest in a movable shrine rather than rally around some sacred hilltop (Mount Sinai, for instance)? The answer is intrinsically related to the covenant-making event itself and to Moses' desire to see the face or glory of God in today's reading. If Israel is now the (reclaimed) possession of Yahweh, then Yahweh must take up visible residence among the people. The Tabernacle is not a strange phenomenon of the natural order like an unfailing spring or a volcanic vent or a residual meteor rock. Instead, it is the fabrication of a civilization that is intentionally on a journey. These people do not make a pilgrimage to a shrine and then return to their homes; rather, they travel with the source of their identity actually residing within the center of their unwieldy sprawl.
Thus the Tabernacle existed uniquely in its world, representing the physical home of the community's deity as a residence within its own spatial and temporal context. Israel was not a people who needed to create representations of powers that it then idolized; instead, the very society in which it lived emanated from the identity of the chief citizen who lived at its heart.
It is in this context that the Golden Calf incident of Exodus 32-34 must be understood. Moses' delay on the mountain in talking with Yahweh on behalf of the people bred frustration and anxiety within the community. So they begged Aaron for symbols around which to rally and what emerged was a bull calf made of gold. The Israelites were probably not seeking to worship something other than the God who brought them out of Egypt so recently; rather, they were trying to find a representation of that God within their cultural frame of reference. Since the bull calf was revered among the Egyptians as portraying the liveliness of living power, it could well serve the Israelites at this time of national adolescent brash energy.
The problem for Yahweh was twofold. First, the calf was an Egyptian symbol and thus virtually blasphemous in light of Yahweh's recent decisive victory over all aspects of Egyptian power and civilization. Second, the calf reflected brute power in the natural order and of a kind that could be controlled by human will. A bull was meant to be yoked and harnessed and guided by whips and goads. True, it was more powerful than its human driver but at the same time it became a tool in service to the human will. For Yahweh to be thus represented undermined the significance of the divine defeat of Egypt and its culture and appeared to turn Yahweh into a powerful but controllable source of energy serving the Israelite will.
Under Moses' leadership, his own tribe, the Levites, rallied to avenge Yahweh's disgrace. Because of that action they were appointed to the honored position of keepers of the House of God. Meanwhile, Yahweh himself wished to break covenant with Israel and instead start over with Moses' family. After all, Moses and Yahweh had become great partners and almost friends over the past forty years. Moses argued against this turnabout, however, for two reasons.
First, he reminded the great one that Yahweh had made this suzerain-vassal covenant with Israel and it could not so easily be discarded or broken. Yahweh had deliberately invested Yahweh's own destiny into this people and while they might wrestle with the chafing fit of this new relationship, Yahweh no longer had a right to deny it.
Second, Moses raised the card of shame. What would the nations say if Yahweh quit this project now? The people of the ancient near east had begun to tremble because of Yahweh's decisive victory over Pharaoh; if the God of Israel was able so clearly and convincingly to topple the deities of Egypt and their power in both the natural and supernatural realms, what hope could there be for any other mere national interest or powers? If Yahweh suddenly left the Israelites to die in the wilderness, the nations around would see that this god was no more than a flash-bang, a one-hit wonder, a dog with more bark than bite. Moses used Yahweh's own covenant to make the deity toe the line and get back into bed with Israel on this honeymoon night.
All of this is affirmed in various ways through the text of these chapters. For instance, prior to the construction of the Tabernacle Moses sought to commune with Yahweh not only on the mountain but also in a small structure called the "Tent of Meeting," which was located slightly outside the camp (Exodus 33:7-11). Once the Tabernacle had been built, however, this designation of the "Tent of Meeting" was transferred to that newer edifice (Exodus 39:32--40:38). Furthermore, the term used to describe the grander "Tent of Meeting" is mishkan, which means place of dwelling. The same root is also found in the Hebrew term shakhen, which means neighbor (so the significance of Yahweh moving into the neighborhood) and again in the shekina ("presence") cloud of glory that settled on the Tabernacle as its divine occupant moved in. This is the face and presence of Yahweh that Moses wanted to see in today's reading.
1 Thessalonians 1:1-10
Soon after the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas were eager to visit the Galatian congregations and inform them personally of the good outcomes in this early Christian theological debate that affected them so deeply (Acts 15:36). But tensions soared between the pair of evangelists as they argued whether John Mark should be invited along (Acts 15:37); after all, he had suddenly "deserted" them on their first mission journey. In the end, Barnabas felt a family obligation to give it a try with Mark again, while Paul chose a new partner named Silas to join him in these travels (Acts 15:39-41).
It was probably late in 49 AD when Paul and Silas left Syrian Antioch. They traveled overland to the communities in central Asia Minor where Paul and Barnabas had established Christian congregations about eighteen months earlier. At Lystra they were joined by Timothy (Acts 16:1-2), a promising young man whose mother was Christian, but whose father was not. Together, as a growing company of itinerant preachers, they had in mind to go further north in Asia Minor (Acts 16:6-8), to new areas where Jewish settlements in Hellenic cities might give them an open door for talking about Jesus.
While pondering their options at Troas, Paul may have had some medical problems, for the text of Acts 16 shows a shift at that point from third-person references to first-person recollections. Obviously, Doctor Luke joined them in there. It was also in Troas that a divine directive came to Paul in a vision and the company headed across the Aegean Sea to Macedonia. At Philippi they found a small group of Jews worshiping at the river's edge on a sabbath (Acts 16:13) and when Paul spoke about Jesus, a new Christian congregation was formed in the home of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15).
It was on to Thessalonica next for Paul and Silas and their team (Acts 17:1-9). For three weeks Paul preached about Jesus in the Jewish synagogue there. When Gentiles swelled the crowd of Christ-believers, some Jews became jealous and formed a mob to disrupt civic life. The uproar caused city officials to arrest leading members of the new Christian congregation and the group sent Paul and Silas out of town that evening under the cover of darkness. With brief stops in Berea (Acts 17:10-15) and Athens (Acts 17:16-34), Paul eventually arrived in Corinth, where he met Aquila and Priscilla for the first time (Acts 18:1-3). This couple would become fast friends with Paul, keeping in touch for the rest of his life.
Although Paul would spend the next year-and-a-half in Corinth, at the outset his heart remained back in Thessalonica. Already when he was traveling through Athens he worried about how the fledgling Thessalonian congregation was faring (1 Thessalonians 2:17-20) and sent Timothy back to find out more and make a report (1 Thessalonians 3:1-5). Paul had already traveled on to Corinth by the time Timothy caught up with him and was elated at the good word brought (1 Thessalonians 3:6-10). With emotions running high, Paul dashed off a letter of appreciation and encouragement to his new friends (1 Thessalonians).
Most of this short letter is given to expressions of praise for the great testimony already being noised about from those who watched the great grace and spiritual energy of this newborn congregation. Paul rehearsed briefly the recent history that brought them together and his aching heart after they were so quickly "torn away" from one another. What stands out in the brief commendation of today's reading is the final note that these young Christians have "turned to God from idols." This is more than just a change of religion, it is a political testimony about those who know that, at heart, beliefs are not private but public and that changing ultimate allegiances is the same as switching parties.
That is why people are talking about these folks. Their religion made headline news -- as politics!
Matthew 22:15-22
Jesus and his followers seemed often to get into trouble with the political leaders of their day. Two visions of reality collided. Two perspectives on life challenged each other. That is true in our gospel reading for today. Is Jesus a good religious Jew or is he a political agitator? Does he support the current cultural system (and thus fall in line with the Sadducees) or is he an anti-Roman dissident (and so in league with the Zealots, perhaps two of whom are among his inner circle of the Twelve -- Simon, and possibly Judas)? Both groups find in Jesus a common problem and unite in their desire to push him out of the way. So they gang up on him and issue a litmus-test question. Regardless of his answer, Jesus will alienate at least one group and a significant portion of the society now so enamored with him as well.
Jesus is not so easy to trap. Rather than give a polarizing answer, he responds instead with a counter question. More than that, his query turns all the attention back on those who sought to trap him and requires them either to show their own cards or slink away in disgrace.
Application
Nearly everything in our lives revolves around religion and politics, when it comes down to core values and primary reasons. Who is really in charge and why and what difference does it make? Six times over in the book of Acts, the Christian community is called "The Way" -- not "The Society," not "The Institution," but "The Way"!
The church of Jesus Christ is a political movement. It is on the way to somewhere. Every worship service is a political rally; a time when we refocus our energies, study our political platform and policies, and pay homage to the Party Leader.
There is an interesting scene in Acts 4, when Jesus' disciples, now the first church leaders, are arrested by the political leaders of their day. Peter and John have just healed a man with bad legs and have counseled a large crowd of troubled people. Then the high council challenges them: "What right do you have to practice medicine without a license?"
Peter and John have the answer. "We're under marching orders!" they say. "We must obey God rather than men!"
When they are released, Peter and John hold a prayer service that is really a political rally. They raise the song of Psalm 2 to heaven and the king of heaven and earth shakes the world as a promise of things to come (check out Hebrews 12:25-29).
"Onward Christian Soldiers" may sound too combative in an age of growing world accommodation and pluralism but the community of God's people that speaks "Peace!" while the final armistice has not yet been signed before the judgment seat of heaven has capitulated to the enemy.
Alternative Application
Exodus 33:12-23. The significance of Moses' request to see the face of God is profoundly explored in the passage that follows today's reading. Moses was to chisel out two tablets of stone (Exodus 34:1, 4) on which Yahweh would inscribe the summary of the covenant stipulations (Exodus 34:27), which were identified as the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:28). Most of our representations of the Ten Commandments today picture them as too large to fit on one stone surface so two tablets are needed to contain all the words. Furthermore, since the first four commandments seem to focus on our relationship with God while the last six have the human social arena in purview, the Ten Commandments are typically arranged on the two stone tablets to reflect this division. This is not the intention of the ancient text, however. There were always two copies made of a suzerain-vassal covenant: one to remain with the subjected people in their homeland and the other to take up residence in the distant palace library of the king.
What is unique about Israel's situation is that the two copies of the covenant were to be kept in the very same place -- within the Ark of the Covenant. While we might miss the significance of this because of our lack of sensitivity to the ancient customs, the impact on the Israelites would be nothing short of astounding -- the king was planning to live in the same place as the his people! Both copies of the covenant could be kept in the same receptacle (which also functioned as the king's throne) because Israel's monarch was not a distant absentee landlord. As went the fortunes of Israel so went the identity of Yahweh, for Yahweh covenantally committed the divine mission to the fate of this nation.
This is why the Tabernacle was more than a religious shrine for Israel. It was different than a mere ceremonial place for offerings. It was, in fact, the home of Yahweh at the center of the Israelite community. When the sun settled behind the horizon and the cooking fires were banked to save wood as the people traveled through the wilderness, one tent continued to have a light on all night. In the heart of the camp the Lamp glowed in the fellowship hall of the Tabernacle; Yahweh kept vigil while the community slept. In the morning and evening a meal could be taken with Yahweh (the sacrifices, burnt so that Yahweh might consume the divine portion by way of inhaling the smoke) and constantly the feasting room was made ready for the king to meet with his subjects.
What happened at Mount Sinai? God formally claimed Israel as partner in whatever the divine mission was for planet earth. Israel, in turn, owned Yahweh as divine king and suzerain. In effect, Yahweh and Israel were married and their starter home was built at the center of the camp. The religion of the Bible is definitely political!
In one of his essays, Albert Camus describes a powerful scene: Jan Hus, the great Czech reformer of the church, is on trial. His accusers twist all his ideas out of shape. They refuse to give him a hearing. They maneuver the political machine against him and incite popular passion to a lynch-mob frenzy. Finally Hus is condemned to be burned at the stake. As the flames surround him, people who couldn't possibly have read his writings and who have no interest in either his perspectives or those of the governing authorities line up to assist in the murder. "When they were burning Jan Hus," writes Camus, "a gentle little old lady came carrying her faggot to add it to the pile."
The tragedy of politics often lies in passions and not platforms. "Private passions grow tired and wear themselves out; political passions, never!" says Lamartine. That's why there is an unwritten rule in many communities that when all the in-laws and out-laws get together for the annual "family rebellion" you can't talk about politics or religion. Both grab a person so deeply!
Maybe, when it comes right down to it, politics and religion are much the same thing. The kingdom of God is very political. It is a perspective on all of life. It is a way of holding things together and giving them meaning. It is a movement that is out to change the world and to reclaim lost territory in the civil war of the universe.
Today's lectionary readings are about politics and religion. After the Israelites traded worship of Yahweh for frenzied dances around the golden calf, Moses begs Yahweh to remain king of the people and to reveal the divine presence as confirmation. To the Thessalonians, Paul says that among the many powers vying for dominance in society, only the kingdom of God truly matters. When Jesus was challenged about the relationship between politics and religion, he gave a cryptic answer that meant different things to politicians than it did to clergy. Separation of "church" and "state" definitely does not mean bifurcation of politics from religion in the Bible!
Exodus 33:12-23
The narrative of Exodus 25-40 has three major sections. In chapters 25-31 preparations for the Tabernacle are made and plans formulated. Then comes the intruding and jarring incident of the golden calf (chs. 32-34) in which not only Israel's loyalty to Yahweh but also Yahweh's loyalty to Israel are tested. Finally, the story of Exodus 25-31 is resumed in the actual construction of the Tabernacle and its dedication (chs. 35-40), almost as if the dark blot of the interlude had never happened.
Why all of this emphasis on building the tent-like Tabernacle? Why invest in a movable shrine rather than rally around some sacred hilltop (Mount Sinai, for instance)? The answer is intrinsically related to the covenant-making event itself and to Moses' desire to see the face or glory of God in today's reading. If Israel is now the (reclaimed) possession of Yahweh, then Yahweh must take up visible residence among the people. The Tabernacle is not a strange phenomenon of the natural order like an unfailing spring or a volcanic vent or a residual meteor rock. Instead, it is the fabrication of a civilization that is intentionally on a journey. These people do not make a pilgrimage to a shrine and then return to their homes; rather, they travel with the source of their identity actually residing within the center of their unwieldy sprawl.
Thus the Tabernacle existed uniquely in its world, representing the physical home of the community's deity as a residence within its own spatial and temporal context. Israel was not a people who needed to create representations of powers that it then idolized; instead, the very society in which it lived emanated from the identity of the chief citizen who lived at its heart.
It is in this context that the Golden Calf incident of Exodus 32-34 must be understood. Moses' delay on the mountain in talking with Yahweh on behalf of the people bred frustration and anxiety within the community. So they begged Aaron for symbols around which to rally and what emerged was a bull calf made of gold. The Israelites were probably not seeking to worship something other than the God who brought them out of Egypt so recently; rather, they were trying to find a representation of that God within their cultural frame of reference. Since the bull calf was revered among the Egyptians as portraying the liveliness of living power, it could well serve the Israelites at this time of national adolescent brash energy.
The problem for Yahweh was twofold. First, the calf was an Egyptian symbol and thus virtually blasphemous in light of Yahweh's recent decisive victory over all aspects of Egyptian power and civilization. Second, the calf reflected brute power in the natural order and of a kind that could be controlled by human will. A bull was meant to be yoked and harnessed and guided by whips and goads. True, it was more powerful than its human driver but at the same time it became a tool in service to the human will. For Yahweh to be thus represented undermined the significance of the divine defeat of Egypt and its culture and appeared to turn Yahweh into a powerful but controllable source of energy serving the Israelite will.
Under Moses' leadership, his own tribe, the Levites, rallied to avenge Yahweh's disgrace. Because of that action they were appointed to the honored position of keepers of the House of God. Meanwhile, Yahweh himself wished to break covenant with Israel and instead start over with Moses' family. After all, Moses and Yahweh had become great partners and almost friends over the past forty years. Moses argued against this turnabout, however, for two reasons.
First, he reminded the great one that Yahweh had made this suzerain-vassal covenant with Israel and it could not so easily be discarded or broken. Yahweh had deliberately invested Yahweh's own destiny into this people and while they might wrestle with the chafing fit of this new relationship, Yahweh no longer had a right to deny it.
Second, Moses raised the card of shame. What would the nations say if Yahweh quit this project now? The people of the ancient near east had begun to tremble because of Yahweh's decisive victory over Pharaoh; if the God of Israel was able so clearly and convincingly to topple the deities of Egypt and their power in both the natural and supernatural realms, what hope could there be for any other mere national interest or powers? If Yahweh suddenly left the Israelites to die in the wilderness, the nations around would see that this god was no more than a flash-bang, a one-hit wonder, a dog with more bark than bite. Moses used Yahweh's own covenant to make the deity toe the line and get back into bed with Israel on this honeymoon night.
All of this is affirmed in various ways through the text of these chapters. For instance, prior to the construction of the Tabernacle Moses sought to commune with Yahweh not only on the mountain but also in a small structure called the "Tent of Meeting," which was located slightly outside the camp (Exodus 33:7-11). Once the Tabernacle had been built, however, this designation of the "Tent of Meeting" was transferred to that newer edifice (Exodus 39:32--40:38). Furthermore, the term used to describe the grander "Tent of Meeting" is mishkan, which means place of dwelling. The same root is also found in the Hebrew term shakhen, which means neighbor (so the significance of Yahweh moving into the neighborhood) and again in the shekina ("presence") cloud of glory that settled on the Tabernacle as its divine occupant moved in. This is the face and presence of Yahweh that Moses wanted to see in today's reading.
1 Thessalonians 1:1-10
Soon after the Jerusalem council of Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas were eager to visit the Galatian congregations and inform them personally of the good outcomes in this early Christian theological debate that affected them so deeply (Acts 15:36). But tensions soared between the pair of evangelists as they argued whether John Mark should be invited along (Acts 15:37); after all, he had suddenly "deserted" them on their first mission journey. In the end, Barnabas felt a family obligation to give it a try with Mark again, while Paul chose a new partner named Silas to join him in these travels (Acts 15:39-41).
It was probably late in 49 AD when Paul and Silas left Syrian Antioch. They traveled overland to the communities in central Asia Minor where Paul and Barnabas had established Christian congregations about eighteen months earlier. At Lystra they were joined by Timothy (Acts 16:1-2), a promising young man whose mother was Christian, but whose father was not. Together, as a growing company of itinerant preachers, they had in mind to go further north in Asia Minor (Acts 16:6-8), to new areas where Jewish settlements in Hellenic cities might give them an open door for talking about Jesus.
While pondering their options at Troas, Paul may have had some medical problems, for the text of Acts 16 shows a shift at that point from third-person references to first-person recollections. Obviously, Doctor Luke joined them in there. It was also in Troas that a divine directive came to Paul in a vision and the company headed across the Aegean Sea to Macedonia. At Philippi they found a small group of Jews worshiping at the river's edge on a sabbath (Acts 16:13) and when Paul spoke about Jesus, a new Christian congregation was formed in the home of Lydia (Acts 16:14-15).
It was on to Thessalonica next for Paul and Silas and their team (Acts 17:1-9). For three weeks Paul preached about Jesus in the Jewish synagogue there. When Gentiles swelled the crowd of Christ-believers, some Jews became jealous and formed a mob to disrupt civic life. The uproar caused city officials to arrest leading members of the new Christian congregation and the group sent Paul and Silas out of town that evening under the cover of darkness. With brief stops in Berea (Acts 17:10-15) and Athens (Acts 17:16-34), Paul eventually arrived in Corinth, where he met Aquila and Priscilla for the first time (Acts 18:1-3). This couple would become fast friends with Paul, keeping in touch for the rest of his life.
Although Paul would spend the next year-and-a-half in Corinth, at the outset his heart remained back in Thessalonica. Already when he was traveling through Athens he worried about how the fledgling Thessalonian congregation was faring (1 Thessalonians 2:17-20) and sent Timothy back to find out more and make a report (1 Thessalonians 3:1-5). Paul had already traveled on to Corinth by the time Timothy caught up with him and was elated at the good word brought (1 Thessalonians 3:6-10). With emotions running high, Paul dashed off a letter of appreciation and encouragement to his new friends (1 Thessalonians).
Most of this short letter is given to expressions of praise for the great testimony already being noised about from those who watched the great grace and spiritual energy of this newborn congregation. Paul rehearsed briefly the recent history that brought them together and his aching heart after they were so quickly "torn away" from one another. What stands out in the brief commendation of today's reading is the final note that these young Christians have "turned to God from idols." This is more than just a change of religion, it is a political testimony about those who know that, at heart, beliefs are not private but public and that changing ultimate allegiances is the same as switching parties.
That is why people are talking about these folks. Their religion made headline news -- as politics!
Matthew 22:15-22
Jesus and his followers seemed often to get into trouble with the political leaders of their day. Two visions of reality collided. Two perspectives on life challenged each other. That is true in our gospel reading for today. Is Jesus a good religious Jew or is he a political agitator? Does he support the current cultural system (and thus fall in line with the Sadducees) or is he an anti-Roman dissident (and so in league with the Zealots, perhaps two of whom are among his inner circle of the Twelve -- Simon, and possibly Judas)? Both groups find in Jesus a common problem and unite in their desire to push him out of the way. So they gang up on him and issue a litmus-test question. Regardless of his answer, Jesus will alienate at least one group and a significant portion of the society now so enamored with him as well.
Jesus is not so easy to trap. Rather than give a polarizing answer, he responds instead with a counter question. More than that, his query turns all the attention back on those who sought to trap him and requires them either to show their own cards or slink away in disgrace.
Application
Nearly everything in our lives revolves around religion and politics, when it comes down to core values and primary reasons. Who is really in charge and why and what difference does it make? Six times over in the book of Acts, the Christian community is called "The Way" -- not "The Society," not "The Institution," but "The Way"!
The church of Jesus Christ is a political movement. It is on the way to somewhere. Every worship service is a political rally; a time when we refocus our energies, study our political platform and policies, and pay homage to the Party Leader.
There is an interesting scene in Acts 4, when Jesus' disciples, now the first church leaders, are arrested by the political leaders of their day. Peter and John have just healed a man with bad legs and have counseled a large crowd of troubled people. Then the high council challenges them: "What right do you have to practice medicine without a license?"
Peter and John have the answer. "We're under marching orders!" they say. "We must obey God rather than men!"
When they are released, Peter and John hold a prayer service that is really a political rally. They raise the song of Psalm 2 to heaven and the king of heaven and earth shakes the world as a promise of things to come (check out Hebrews 12:25-29).
"Onward Christian Soldiers" may sound too combative in an age of growing world accommodation and pluralism but the community of God's people that speaks "Peace!" while the final armistice has not yet been signed before the judgment seat of heaven has capitulated to the enemy.
Alternative Application
Exodus 33:12-23. The significance of Moses' request to see the face of God is profoundly explored in the passage that follows today's reading. Moses was to chisel out two tablets of stone (Exodus 34:1, 4) on which Yahweh would inscribe the summary of the covenant stipulations (Exodus 34:27), which were identified as the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:28). Most of our representations of the Ten Commandments today picture them as too large to fit on one stone surface so two tablets are needed to contain all the words. Furthermore, since the first four commandments seem to focus on our relationship with God while the last six have the human social arena in purview, the Ten Commandments are typically arranged on the two stone tablets to reflect this division. This is not the intention of the ancient text, however. There were always two copies made of a suzerain-vassal covenant: one to remain with the subjected people in their homeland and the other to take up residence in the distant palace library of the king.
What is unique about Israel's situation is that the two copies of the covenant were to be kept in the very same place -- within the Ark of the Covenant. While we might miss the significance of this because of our lack of sensitivity to the ancient customs, the impact on the Israelites would be nothing short of astounding -- the king was planning to live in the same place as the his people! Both copies of the covenant could be kept in the same receptacle (which also functioned as the king's throne) because Israel's monarch was not a distant absentee landlord. As went the fortunes of Israel so went the identity of Yahweh, for Yahweh covenantally committed the divine mission to the fate of this nation.
This is why the Tabernacle was more than a religious shrine for Israel. It was different than a mere ceremonial place for offerings. It was, in fact, the home of Yahweh at the center of the Israelite community. When the sun settled behind the horizon and the cooking fires were banked to save wood as the people traveled through the wilderness, one tent continued to have a light on all night. In the heart of the camp the Lamp glowed in the fellowship hall of the Tabernacle; Yahweh kept vigil while the community slept. In the morning and evening a meal could be taken with Yahweh (the sacrifices, burnt so that Yahweh might consume the divine portion by way of inhaling the smoke) and constantly the feasting room was made ready for the king to meet with his subjects.
What happened at Mount Sinai? God formally claimed Israel as partner in whatever the divine mission was for planet earth. Israel, in turn, owned Yahweh as divine king and suzerain. In effect, Yahweh and Israel were married and their starter home was built at the center of the camp. The religion of the Bible is definitely political!
