Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant
  • Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:32:21 -0500

From:            "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
To:              "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject:         Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant
Date sent:       Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:34:40 -0700

I've just arrived back from a vacation and have had a chance to catch up on some of the correspondence on the forum. I am interested in exploring what Paul does with the covenantal idea in his writings. This correspondence on the covenant in the Pentateuch and Second Temple Judaism is a good starting point for an exegetical analysis through which we might arrive at a global perspective of Paul’s theology.

Further, once we are able to establish the relationship between Paul's theology and the former covenantal ideas, we can continue the analysis of Pauline influence on Augustine or IMO better put: What Augustine does with Pauline teaching in his establishment of the basic doctrines of Christendom.

> Response to John's message from Meta:
>
> Thank you John.  I believe David Clines' perspective is somewhat
> archaic. You might note that there were two covenants, rather than a
> "tension in the relationship" of the first, ala David Noel Freedman
> and others.  The first with Abe was unilateral, the second bilateral
> with Moses and the people themselves, who had to agree to it.

John responds:
I am not convinced that the covenant with Abraham is unilateral as you are defining the term in this application.  Genesis 17:2 has YHWH saying ‘I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.’ This is certainly not a unilateral ‘commitment’ idea; it is a bilateral agreement between Abraham and YHWH which is part of the outworking of God’s commitment to the creation and the covenant that he had established with Noah and his descendants (Genesis 9:9). This is, in essence, a covenant with all mankind which is still in effect and being worked out through the remnant of the seed of Abraham. I am not in agreement with the interpretation of covenant that we see in Federal Theology.

Abraham is very much involved in the process through which YHWH intends to restore the creation to himself.  For example, after the Angel of YHWH stops Abraham from sacrificing Isaac (Genesis 22:15ff). It is the obedience of Abraham that assures the blessing of the covenant will actualize. This is a key text in terms of a comparison with other national views of sacrifice that gives us an idea of the importance of the covenant idea where God commits himself to blessing on the grounds of the response of his elect who are to be used as examples to other families of the earth with whom God has also entered a covenant through Noah. These nations are confused as we see in the story of Agamemnon’s sacrificing Iphiginia on his way to the battle against Troy because the gods resist his intentions. He carries out the sacrifice and this begins to unravel his household. Abraham refrains from carrying the sacrifice through and because of this (Genesis 22:16) the blessing is reaffirmed.

Other restatements of the covenant and blessing underline the ongoing importance  of Torah as 'instruction/education' of one’s progeny on their responsibility in the covenant relationship. It is because Abraham has kept mi$mar:t, micwot and torah that Isaac can expect the blessing of the covenant (Genesis 26:5).  And in Genesis 18:19 it is because Abraham will command (civah) his children to follow micwot and cedeqah that YHWH 'will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.' A bar mitzvah is litterally 'son of the commandment' micwot being the nominal form of civah. The Jews to the present retain the idea of passing along to their children the responsibility of covenant.

And this bears directly on the conclusion you draw from the apparent failure of the Mosaic covenant viz its being 'the beginning of the covenantal process of Israel's history which led to tragedy.'  Yarah 'to teach or instruct' is the verbal form of Torah. The Torah is a tool to aid the leaders in teaching [i.e. Leviticus 14:57 lihorot ... zo)t torat]. And, contra your assertion, The Mosaic covenant is a covenant between God and the people (i.e. Leviticus 26:46 'these are the statutes and ordinances and laws which YHWH made between him and the people of Israel on Mount Sinai by Moses'). Any failure of the covenant is tied to the people who fail to follow the justice it embodies (i.e. Isaiah 1:11ff). But this does not mean that God abandons the covenant with Israel: 'if you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword' (Isaiah 1:19-20). We know from Jesus' Parable of the Sower which is tied to prophecy of Isaiah (chapter 6), that there are different levels of acceptance of the terms of the covenant from those who benefit little to those who are fruitful in the covenant.

The blessing of YHWH is presented as a function of the cooperation of the remnant. For example Isaiah 59:7-9:  ‘the way of peace they do not know … so justice is far from us; and righteousness does not reach us.’ Paul quotes Isaiah 59:7-9 in Romans 3:17. How can the Anselmic Theory of the Atonement be exegetically justified on the basis of this connection to Isaiah’s theology? If Isaiah 53 is central to Paul’s thought the idea of death/resurrection must be interpreted as Isaiah applied it and Peter understood it (i.e. 1 Peter 2:22ff).

Because the covenant with Abraham is a reaffirmation of the earlier covenants in Genesis, the covenant is between God and all of the descendants of Noah (Genesis 9:9 ‘I will establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you’). The covenant involves the creatures of the earth and the earth itself so that the promise that all the families of the earth would ‘bless themselves’ through Abraham is a fulfillment of God’s earlier commitment. Peter seems to have understood this when he says, ‘I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right’ (Acts 10:34). The conditions of the covenant are ongoing: cedeqah and mi$pat, so that Abraham becomes a model of what cedeqah and mi$pat entails.

Richard:
  You
> might say that a unilateral covenant is not really a
> contract/covenant, but that I think doesn't matter. The real covenant
> was between Moses and the people, and herein lies the beginning of the
> covenantal process of Israel's history which led to tragedy.  The
> contract/covenant system was common in the area long before Israel
> (your "ancient tribal justice concept").

John:
I have already disagreed with the idea that the earlier covenant is unilateral and that the Mosaic covenant is between Moses and the people. I do agree that the Suzerainty is common in the ANE. Hammurabi clearly states that his Code is designed to protect the weak of society:
‘The great gods called me,
so I became the beneficent shepherd whose scepter is righteous;
My benign shadow is spread over my city.  I always governed them in peace;
I sheltered them in my wisdom.
In order that the strong might not oppress the weak,
That justice might be dealt the orphan (and) the widow … to give justice to the oppressed’ (Code of Hammurabi, 40ff, ANET)

Just as Moses gives a Torah to protect the weak of society, there were other leaders who were attempting to assure prosperity through adherence to ancient ideals called kittum or ‘truths’ (see Moshe Greenberg, ‘Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law’ The Jewish _expression_, ed. Judah Goldin, 1976, 21). This dovetails with the idea of Israel as a model for other nations.

Richard:
Abraham's importance is first
> that he was conceived as the establishment of the beginning of Jewry
> and Islam (the original Father of the tradition), and his faith in God
> that the process is beginning, with of course as you point out, the
> tension regarding progeny.  Exodus establishes God's determination
> that the posterity is not free and that the people have obligation,
> that of fearing God and obeying his rules …

John:
John Locke (Concerning Human Understanding) suggests three different foundations for ethical obligation: (1) God obligates (Christian view) who has the power of eternal life and death; (2) the Public obligates (Hobbist view) and the Leviathon punishes non- compliance; and (3) virtue, the highest perfection of human nature obligates (Ancient’s view) and non-conformity means leanness of soul. This relates to the place of the after-life in Pauline theology – i.e. does Paul obligate on the basis of #1 above or does he obligate on the basis of #3 or do both obligations work together as in Plato’s Republic.X?

I would say that the Torah is the teaching of the Derek or way of YHWH and from the Torah one can learn God’s way, so that the highest perfection of human nature is the obligation of the covenant since the design is that all nations might bless themselves through the descendants of Abraham.

Richard:
> The obligation was not fulfilled, so therefore the promise was not.
> But as we find in Isaiah, God relented ….

John:
Relented? Or continued the covenant through the remnant who were willing and obedient?

Richard:
with mercy and grace and
> fulfilled his promise through his messiah Cyrus of Persia.
> Restoration occurred, but is was meager and of course didn't last.
> Don't you think that analysis is more true to the text?

John:
I’ll await your analysis to see what you think of the modifications I have made to some of your assertions above.

Richard:
I kind of see
> the story that of God's enticement to get the people interested (free
> lunch), and then when they were slaves under captivity, arranging for
> their release and now putting them "under the gun" with the real
> covenant (no longer free lunch)

John:
‘under the gun’ is the Hobbist/Christian (Augustinian) idea and I don’t see that as primary to the covenant relationship.
>
Richard:
> The Moses bilateral contract is not found in Genesis IMO.  If so
> where? Where do you find this real type of "ancient tribal justice
> concept" "elucidated" in Genesis (Judges is under the Moses covenant)?
>  It appears to me that your No. 1 is God's "commitment" which is
> unilateral.

John:
I described in an earlier post to the forum, the concept of cedaqah which is basic to the ‘tribal justice’ idea. I see the same pattern in the first eleven chapters of Genesis that I have pointed out in the book of Judges:

Vignette   I. Sin     II. Speech III. Punishment

Fall          3:6     3:14-19         3:22-24
Cain          4:8b    4:11-12         4:16b
Flood         6:5-7   6:5-7          7:6-24
Canaan        9:22    9:24-25        10:8-12
Babel        11:4     11:6-7         11:8-9

God’s ‘will to save’ is seen in the making garments for Adam and Eve (3:21), the scaling down of the judgment on Cain (4:15), and the decision to save Noah and his family in the flood (6:8, 18ff). These can be understood in terms of the concept of justice illustrated elsewhere:  God takes the initiative in the default of the first parents to the covenant in Eden by seeking them out, encouraging confession and assuring them of forgiveness. Consequences are outlined but he restores Adam and Eve to favor under new, though harsher circumstances. IMO these are the basic elements we see in tribal justice.

Richard:
>
> But the Jews under the Romans seemed to have no chance, as all
> rebellions were quickly quashed.  Paul finds the way out, which is the
> way of the heart, and praxis with needy people while still remaining
> under Roman rule, that is changing the promise from restoration (to
> the land in prosperity) from the Moses covenant promise, to a new
> covenant not from Moses but from Jesus, not restoration, but the
> Hellenized (Greek, Zoroastrian, and Mithraism) idea of spirit
> after-life.  What continually doesn't work must be revised-- under a
> new paradigm.  Paul, IMO, was the genius who conceptualized this new
> paradigm. Thank you for your insights and useful information.

John:
The influence of Zoroaster and Persia on Hellenic thought and how Paul addresses embedded theological ideas in his writings is a huge discussion and of immense interest to me. IMO the ‘way of the heart’ is part of the Deuteronomic ideal (i.e. Deuteronomy 30:14). The revision of the covenant, I would see as the divine response to the human condition that is created by man’s autonomy.

A good deal of fruitful discussion is ahead potentially.

Thanks, Richard.





John Brand
B.A. Bib Stu (Providence College, Otterburne, MB, Canada, 1980)
M.Min. (Providence Seminary, 1991)
jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page