Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT 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: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
  • Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:30:54 -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:        Thu, 9 Sep 2004 21:03:26 -0700

Richard wrote:
> John, on your interpretation of Gen. 17:2, I disagree with you that
> this is a bilateral agreement.  Y says he "confirms": please pardon my
> ignorance of Hebrew, but I do wonder about possible nuanced English
> words applicable here--both "confirm" and "covenant", but I take this
> as a confirmation of a unilateral commitment or "promise".  In this
> instance covenant means commitment which is unilateral, not a contract
> as with Moses, which is bilateral.

John responds:
To 'establish' is the antonym of 'abrogate.'  God is 'establishing' a covenant which already exists rather than making a new covenant. This is the important point IMO. And, on this basis, we can agree that the covenant with Israel is different than the covenant that is being established through Noah and these are both separate from the covenant that is cut with Abraham.  This interpretation is necessary, if we are to be exegetically consistent in following the use of carat and heqim through the OT.

I have been looking more closely at the use of Heqim in the OT. You might find the Strong's Concordance on-line helpful

(see http://www.sacrednamebible.com/kjvstrongs/index.htm)

Heqim is the Hiphil (causative) stem of quwm (#6965). I noticed that they have a number of listings of the occurrences of this form under 'establish' and 'established' when you click on #6965. This will help you see some of the range for this word (nuances).

A couple of uses that I have found particularly helpful in understanding the sense of 'establish' and 'established' are the parallel passages of 2 Kings 23 and 2 Chronicles 34 (the Kings passage is most likely one of the sources for the Chronicler). In 2 Kings 23:3 in the RSV we have 'the king stood by the pillar and made a covenant ... to perform [heqim] the words of this covenant that were written in this book' whereas in the 2 Chronicles 34:31 has 'the king stood in his place and made a covenant ... to perform ['asah, Strong's #6213] the words of the covenant that were written in this book.'  Thus, a semantic field within the range of meanings for heqim is 'doing' or 'performing' what was promised. This is born out additionally by the Hebrew parallelism of Jeremiah 34:18 'the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep (heqim) the terms of the covenant which they made before me.' Therefore, to 'establish' is the same as carrying out an agreement.

If we take 'covenant' in the unilateral sense, we are looking at a promise which I would submit has conditions attached to it since it is established with Noah and his descendants and not with the other peoples who were destroyed by the flood. Noah 'finds grace in the eyes of YHWH' and is described as 'a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God' (Genesis 6:10). There is a relationship between the speeches of YHWH in Genesis 1:28 ['God blessed them ... be fruitful and multiply ... fill the earth'] and Genesis 2:16-17 ['God commanded the man ... you are free ... you must not'] and God's speech to Noah in Genesis 9:1ff 'God blessed Noah ... be fruitful and increase ... fill the earth ... everything that lives and moves will be food for you ... but you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it ... for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.' The last phrase constitutes a postulate which characterizes Hebrew Torah over against other ANE law codes (Ishnuna, Lipit-Ishtar, Hammurabi, etc.).

Moshe Greenberg ['Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law,' in "The Jewish _expression_" ed. Judah Goldin] examines the casuistic or case law of the ANE codes and has pointed out that the 'life for life' postulate is fundamental to understanding Hebrew law. In this manner, there is a relationship among the covenants with Noah, the covenant with Abraham and the covenant contained in Torah. There is an obligation within the covenant.

We first meet with beryth (Strong's #1285) in Genesis 6:18 with Heqim in the Hebrew imperfect tense (future or incomplete action) so that the sense is that God is promising to keep the terms of his covenant with Noah and his descendants. However, in Genesis 9:17 heqim is in the perfect tense (past or completed action). This would indicate IMO that God was keeping the terms of an earlier covenant by preserving part of the creation along with Noah and his family during the flood.

BTW Someone who has done a good deal of work on the OT covenant is W.G. Dumbrell 'Covenant and Creation' (Paternoster Press, 1997). 

Richard wrote:
Covenant as contract is by
> definition bilateral. From my business, I know quite a bit about
> contract law, but of course in modern times.

John responds:
Three stories from the OT you might find helpful for understanding the covenant idea for comparison with modern times: Abraham at Beersheba (Genesis 21:22-32); Isaac with Abimelech (Genesis 26:26-33); and Jacob with Laban (Genesis 31:43-54).

Dumbrell says that covenant 'refers to a final solemn commitment by which a state of existing relationships is normalized (Dumbrell, 1979, p3). The covenant assumes an existing relationship of some kind but formalizes this and gives it concrete _expression_.

Richard:
  So perhaps we have to
> examine, if possible, what was meant in the ANE. From what I
> understand from evidence throughout the ANE during this time period, a
> covenant/contract required obligations with commitments from at least
> two parties, benefits accrued to both in return for each one's
> obligation to be performed.  I do not find any mention here of any
> obligation Y requires of Abram.  Rather he seems to be telling Abe
> that he wishes to establish a relationship in which he will benefit
> Abe and his offspring, thus the beginning of a relationship with a
> promise, not the type of covenant as was made with Moses, who had an
> obligation to perform in return, that being complete and unquestioned
> obeyance, and maintaining control of the chosen people.  I believe
> "unilateral covenant" as a contract, which is bilateral, is an
> oxymoron.  So we have covenant as unilateral promise, and we have
covenant as bilateral mutual obligation.

> It does appear that Abe is indeed involved in the process, but still I
> see no obligation.  Although he carries out the process of first-born
> child sacrifice, a practice of the times, he does not complete the
> task, which raises the question, would he have?  But then as a
> practical matter, at that time people sought the blessings of the
> gods, so an act of obeyance might be a common practice, but still not
> evidence of a contract.  If it is, then the covenant/contract would be
> ubiquitous and apply to all cases in which people wished and prayed
> for assistance from the gods, in which case there would be nothing
> unique about it.  I take the bilateral contract with Moses to be a
> FORMAL specific contract situation which was approved later by "all
> the people" gathered together to vote.

John:
The theology of the ANE indicated by the Enuma Elish indicates that man was created to care for and feed the gods. In return, the gods would provide 'blessing' in terms of fertile animals, crops and women. This is a contract: You were created with this purpose in mind. If you cooperate, you will receive the blessing of the gods. If you do not, the gods will be against you.

I see something different working itself out in Israel and this distinction I see beginning with the story of the creation of man over against the ANE ideas. What do you think of the following summary?

Often in Deuteronomy the reason (rationale) behind a commandment is that it was to be evidence of their thankfulness. For example, the Sabbath commandment of rest was to include all of the slaves as well as the householders because 'you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD God brought you out' (cf. the rationale given in the Sabbath commandment in Exodus which is because on the seventh day God rested from his creation labor).

God's presence in the community often constitutes the rationale behind the justice he has revealed.  His palace or temple is central to the community and becomes the focal point of all its celebrations.  Deuteronomy 10:14ff makes it very clear that God does not have to live in the community in this manner: `the heaven and the heaven of heavens is Yahweh's, thy God, the earth also, with all that is therein."  However, he has chosen to separate out a people to be his own (v15).  And because in his greatness he does not show respect of persons (v17) but executes judgment on behalf of the fatherless, the widow and the stranger (v18), Israel is, also, to carry out justice on their behalf (v19 cf. 24:17 and 27:19).  Often the rationale behind the mercy God expects his people to show to the dependant in her midst is tied to the mercy he has shown in delivering them from the bondage of Egypt (5:15; 10:18; 15:15; 16:12 and 24:18).  Her thankfulness is to be practically demonstrated by her loving care for others.  In this way all of the law can be summed up in the two great commandments:  Love the Lord, your God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and Love your neighbor as yourself (Leviticus 19:18 cf. Matthew 22:37-40).

Because God has chosen to deliver and to dwell among a people who can do nothing without his help, he sets the tone for the entire community.  And he makes his continued support of the community a function of the community's support for its dependant members.  This is what has been called a commutative transaction "`I give in order that thou shouldst give,' which is to say, `shouldst be appeased and return according to the order of nature.'" This idea is evident all over the world in the idea of sacrifice.  Again, though, the revelation to Israel provides the corrective model. Whereas the responsibility of man in the commutative transaction was sacrifice only in the cultures around the world; the responsibility of man according to the revelation given to Israel was sacrifice and the maintenance of justice especially in terms of the weak in its midst.

In Isaiah God's wrath against sin is set out in terms of the covenant in Deuteronomy. The people have not turned to the poor, the orphan and the widow. They have turned away and in so doing oppressed the poor so that instead of zedaqah there is 'a cry' (5:7). This is the reason for his turning against them by withdrawing his grace - using the metaphor of the tearing down of the wall of the vineyard to convey this idea. I think that we concur in this regard. You said, 'sin of the community is the operative thing.' I am enlarging this to include the idea that the 'sin' or 'breach of the covenant' is an improper response to the merciful acts of Yahweh - called zedaqah in Judges 5:11. I can agree that God turns the community as a whole over to their enemies and this seems to be the idea in Romans 1:18ff "therefore he gave them over ...". At that point we are looking for individual responses, in my view:

Zion will be redeem herself by mishpat
And her repentant ones with zedaqah.
But transgressors and sinners will be
    crushed together,
And those who forsake [Yahweh] shall
   come to an end (1:27-28)

All for now, Richard. Let me know where we are at in terms of agreement.

Thanks
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