"... The Deuteronomistic Name tradition could indeed be reacting (in accord with the second tenet) against the conceptual matrix of Zion-Sabaoth traditions and yet not necessarily because of the “catastrophe of exile”. According to Mettinger, the Zion-Sabaoth tradition emphasized two key aspects: Yahweh Sabaoth is depicted as king (e.g., Psalm 24:7–10), and Yahweh is invisibly enthroned on the cherubim in the Jerusalem Temple (Psalm 46:5–9; Psalm 76:3; Jeremiah 8:19). This results in a dual conception of divinity. This portrayal of Yahweh, according to Mettinger, “is simultaneously both aniconic (i.e., without icon) and anthropomorphic ... No divine image reposes on the cherubim throne [and yet] God reigns there invisibly like a king in his palace.” The Deuteronomistic Name Theology could be emphasizing the second aspect (Yahweh’s presence in the Jerusalem Temple) yet without the anthropomorphic problem that is inherent with the notion of a king sitting on throne. While the Name Theology might be termed “mysterious”, it is not overly so. By choosing Yahweh’s Name to depict his essence and active, abiding presence, the Deuteronomistic tradition is simply choosing one abstract expression over other abstract ideas ..."