Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [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: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
  • Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:33:06 -0500

From: "meta" <meta AT rraz.net>
To: "Corpus-Paul" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant
Date sent: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 10:58:48 -0700


> John, if I may be permitted, I would like to offer a revision of my
> theory of the difference between covenant as promise and covenant as
> contract, thus in a sense to "give in" to your perspective. I think
> there is no fine-line distinction. With Abram, the covenant was
> bilateral in the sense of his faith in the deity, which implies if not
> clearly stated, his intention, with obligation, to maintain loyal
> service to the deity, i.e. only this deity will be Abe's god; all
> other gods will be forsaken. Thus Abe's obligation would be that of
> exclusiveness in service, and worship. So then, in this sense Abe
> accepted this obligation as "self-imposed"--but in practice through
> the story it appears he was not so serious about the service part.

John:
Abraham's faith is his belief in YHWH in terms of what YHWH/Elohim has spoken
to
him concerning his heir: 'this man will not be your heir' (Genesis 15:4).
This impels
Abraham to continue to follow the voice of God. The voice of God is his law
which is
why it makes sense that YHWH says to Isaac 'Abraham obeyed my voice and kept
my
charge, my commandments, my statutes and my laws [Torah]' (Genesis 26:5).
This is
what I would say is the universal or natural law that Paul is talking about
in Romans 1-
2.

To jump ahead to Augustine's (and the reformers) interpretation of faith
which is crucial
for understanding how Paul is interpretting the idea of covenant in Genesis:
Augustine
interprets 'faith' in a fideistic sense as right or catholic doctrine. In his
example of the
two men one of whom has a catholic faith and the other who does not, it is
the one with
catholic faith who is justified even though he is ethically inferior to the
man who does
not have a catholic faith. However, this is not what we are seeing in
Genesis. Abraham
obeys the 'voice' of God and this is the content of his faith. True, he
follows the dictates
of his wife and gives in to the fear of Abimilech but we do not see the
intervention of
YHWH/Elohim at these instances. The point seems to be that without the
initiative of
YHWH, man is limited in his ability to be circumspective in his decision
making. It is
only after looking back (in the case of the Greeks who look back to their
mythologies)
that man is able to see where he went wrong.

To Augustine and the Reformers, it is not possible for a man to be accounted
righteous
apart from a catholic faith. There is no natural law that he can respond to
and, therefore,
be justified. However, in the Genesis narrative we do not see the principle
of faith as
fideism at work. Rather, faith is a response to the voice of God within or as
handed
down through one's own family. There is no such thing as adherance to a creed
that
justifies a man or exempts him from the consequences of his actions. Judgment
is
brought to bear on the man who sins.

Richard:

> For Paul, this pre-Mosaic period was governed by law, not Torah, but
> the law we might explain as a sense of right and wrong perhaps
> genetically inherited, a natural law (see Rom. 1:18-32 "invisible
> things...written in their hearts") through which sin was not legally
> "reckoned" (ouk ellogeitai--not accounted, Rom. 5:13)--although the
> Reformers seem to think it was reckoned by God, and Rom. 2 might bear
> this out.

John responds:
Sin is not reckoned because there is no Torah or embodiment of the divine
decrees/statutes. The voice of God is spoken within man's conscience is how I
would
understand Paul to be speaking of the pre-Mosaic period.

If we stay with the Genesis narrative for a moment, we might be able to bring
some
clarity to the differences in our reading of the text. Chapters 1-11 can be
seen as a unit
that I have maintained gradually focuses toward the promise to Abraham and
the
patriarchs (for the purposes of the text, Abraham and his descendants are
the custodians
of the divine revelation). I see this gradual focus particularly in the use
of the
geneologies of this section. I have also suggested that there are five
vignettes which
contain a pattern of 1. sin, 2. judgment, and 3. justice where YHWH/Elohim
speaks to
mankind (not in a specail or verifiable manner but in the heart) to explain
the new
conditions under which their relationship will continue. These vignettes are
1. Adam; 2.
Cain to Lamech; 3. Noah; 4. Canaan; and 5. Babel.

If the judgment can be seen as having a curse that can be undone through
cooperation
on the part of those that are judged, we might see a desire on God's part to
reconcile
with man after he has sinned in each of these vignettes. For example, he
seeks Adam out
and restates the terms of their relationship (which I would see as a covenant
idea). He
also seeks out Cain and responds when Cain feels that the terms of his
relationship with
the creator are too much for him to bear. Similarly, he seeks to save Noah
and his
descendants.

The story of Canaan also contains the idea of a way out of the curse (i.e. he
will have to
submit to his brothers). And Babel although a handing over of the nations to
their own
way is, along with the promise to Abraham that all families will find a
blessing in him,
also a way out from under the curse of the divine judgment. The speech to
Cain 'if you
do right, will you not be accepted?' (Genesis 4:7) appears to be a universal
principle
which we might call a 'natural law.'

I would argue that this is not a genetic matter (at least from the text's
point of view). It is
a truth that is revealed to the head of the family and passed on to the
children. And, if
we look further at the ANE theology contained in the myths, we can see that
there is a
belief that the gods respond to injustice. For example, Enkidu is created
when the people
call out to the gods because of the oppression of Gilgamesh. Also, when Apsu
wishes to
do away with the lesser gods, there is a reaction on the part of the gods
wanting to
thwart this injustice. Particularly in the Greek theogony of Hesiod we see
the idea that
there is some kind of 'natural law' at work where the curse of Kronos, for
example, is
visited upon (and plagues) Zeus so that Prometheus is able to bring the
greater god
under his will by knowing the higher 'natural law' to which the god is
subject. For the
Greeks, this ancient truth contained in the myths is what gives rise to the
idea that the
gods are subject to the same universal as the men whom they have created.

Further, Richard, if I might point out the significance of the special
revelation in
Abraham particularly as it bears upon the 'curse' that mankind is under in
general.
When we look at the mythology of the Greeks, there is a preoccupation with
the curse of
the gods upon mankind. For example, Oedipus is a tragic example of someone
who does
all that he can to be a true man and yet he has the curse that he cannot come
out from
under. Agamemnon is another example as is Democles and Tantalas.

This is how I understand Christ becoming a curse for us: He takes the curse
upon
himself so that all we need do is follow the law of love for neighbor and for
God in order
to experience the blessing of God. Oedipus at Colonos is an example of this
kind of a
belief that Oedipus becomes a curse for those who will honour him so that
they
becoming blessed by the gods.

You said in one of your posts that we need more of Abelard and less
Augustine. I would
agree though I would modify the statement to include the one whom Abelard is
arguing
against (Anselm of Canterbury). Anselm works out the theology of Augustine in
his
syllogism. If man is fallen and incapable of responding to the divine
imperative, then he
must have a mediator who will fulfill the divine imperative on his behalf.
This becomes
foundational to the theology of the reformers. It is the basis for the
polemic against the
Anabaptists and the Antinomians that eventuates in Covenant Theology.
Covenant is
interpreted as a means of grace that applies only for a specific period of
time. Thus, Paul
is talking about Torah as a covenant whose grace has expired. The new
covenant is in
Christ to which all (including the Jew) must come.

My argument is coming from this direction in terms of attempting to
understand the
theological basis for Covenant Theology which is a logical outworking of
Anselm (and,
therefore, Augustine). This is why I maintain that the covenant idea in
Genesis contains
an obligation. Mankind is given an obligation to which he can respond and,
therefore, be
justified. However, he is fuzzy about what that obligation is because of his
nature which
tends to want to satisfy himself rather than glorify God. He feels the curse
(as
Gilgamesh becomes conscious of his mortality) and in his winding way toward
leaving
himself a memory, he ends up with the cult and service to the gods. This is
his 'name.'
But Abraham is shown a different way: God will give him a name and make his
name
great. As he follows the voice of God, he will become a source of blessing
for the
families of the earth.

Richard:
>
> Do you think Paul thought of the covenant-obligation as applying to
> the pre-Mosaic period? Frankly I don't know. If it didn't apply,
> then that might bear on lack of covenantal human obligation in the
> Abraham situation (Patriarchal period), which might apply to the
> meaning of covenant. What did Paul mean by covenant? As far as I can
> tell his meaning applies only to the Mosaic covenant.

John:
My interpretation of the Paul's use of the Mosaic Covenant is that the
particular
embodiment of the divine imperative which we see in the Jewish Torah does not
apply
to the Gentile in terms of the rituals of circumcision, food laws, etc. But
what does apply
is the divine imperative in terms of righteousness which is what God is seen
to be
responding to in the Genesis 1-11 narrative which contains the history of
mankind in
general and not Abraham and his descendants in particular.

If there were no obligation, why is there a judgment in terms of the flood or
the
expulsion from Eden? These imply that there is an obligation and I think that
it is
explicitly stated in the text.

I think that we agree in general, Richard, that the Augustinian soteriology
is a
misapplication of the divine imperative. But we seem to be getting hung up on
how this
is worked out in the text. With patience, I think that we can find the same
page in terms
of understanding one another.

We'll talk again on Monday.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page