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: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 19:31:00 -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:       Thu, 16 Sep 2004 21:23:37 -0700
>
> John:  God is 'establishing' a covenant which already exists rather
> than making a new covenant.
>
> Me:   John, how do you support this statement, without please
> eisegesis of applying Abe's or Noah's experience?  But even if you do
> that, then still how do you support the connection?

John responds:
Heqim is used to in the sense of carrying out a covenant that already exists rather than cutting a new covenant according to Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius' (BDB) analysis in addition to the work of W.G. Dumbrell. BDB states that in all cases he lists except Jeremiah 34:10, carat berit is the technical phrase for making a covenant. It might be better for you to provide and instance where 'establishing' (heqim) a covenant refers to initiating a covenant.

Although an application to the pre-Exilic situation, Hosea understands that the speech YHWH/Elohim makes to Adam in Genesis 2 is a covenant when he says 'like Adam they have broken the covenant' (Hosea 6:7).

We seem to be working with different definitions of eiso- vs. exo- gesis. Your approach has its merit in that it focuses on the evolution of religion and the sociological dimension as to how a society adopts a religious worldview. I find it inspiring.

However, this inspiration works well for me within my own presuppositions.  IMO I am not starting with an external assumption and then reading it into (eiso-) the text when I show patterns within the Hebrew corpus itself to support a given usage for heqim. This is the fundamental approach of any dictionary where a word is defined in terms of its usage within a given language rather than in terms of its usage in one instance or its etymology. You are working from the assumption of Graf-Welhaussen (Documentary Hypothesis or JEPD) in your attempting to show that each vignette must be interpreted within itself. Other scholars working from the same Graf-Welhaussen presupposition argue for a unity of the final redaction of the Hexateuch and the importance of looking at the canon of Second Temple Judaism {see Gerhard Von Rad [Genesis. A Commentary tr. J.H. Marks (Westminster, 1972)], Claus Westermann, “Arten der Erzahlung in der Genesis” in “Forschung am Alten Testament’ (Munich: Kaiser, 1964), as well as B.S. Childs}.  This, too, is inspiring and a great aid to understanding the influence of Genesis.

Genesis 9:1ff uses berit to designate the agreement between God and Noah and his descendants.  As we look at all of the instances in the Hebrew corpus where a covenant is discussed (and BDB lists numerous instances), we see that the basic idea is that of coming to a peace between two parties. Especially in terms of the one party becoming benefactor to the other, the language of blessing (vs. cursing) is very much a part of the agreement.

How are you seeing that the speech of YHWH/Elohim in Genesis 2 is not a covenant?

As far as establishing an agreement that has been cut (carat) earlier, the covenant with David and how it is worked out not with all of his seed but only with the seed who are faithful to the covenant, is a good example of what we are seeing in Genesis. How would you see that the use of heqim is different in the Genesis account as compared with the working out of the Davidic covenant?

An important pattern to note as well is that the faithfulness of the head of a family becomes a basis for the promise that God will 'establish' the covenant with his seed or children. This seems to be the application of Paul in Galatians with reference to the Abrahamic covenant (Galatians For example, God gives Phinehas a covenant (and the usage is more of a promise than an agreement based on his making an atonement for the people of Israel, see BDB Heqim, on Numbers 25:12) that he will have a perpetual priesthood. However, note that in Nehemiah 13:29 there is a defiling of the priesthood and the covenant which is also referred to by Malachi (2:8). Malachi understands that the purpose of the giving of a covenant or promise is 'that he might fear' (2:5). In contrast, the priests of Malachi's day have corrupted the covenant of Levi because they have not kept the ways of YHWH (Malachi 2:8). In response, YHWH makes them despised in the eyes of the people (Malachi 2:9).

> John:  'covenant' in the unilateral sense, we are looking at a promise
> which I would submit has conditions attached to it...."
>
> Me:  OK, so it is established with only Noah, et al, not to those
> destroyed, but you say the condition is not to consume animal blood?
> But since I disagree with your original premise, since I see no
> evidence for it, I do not think the covenant with Moses reflects or
> continues from the promise to Noah.  Of course there are many laws
> established by yhwh, but how do you tie this into a specific covenant,
> as is obviously accomplished in the covenant with Moses?

John responds:
The purpose of the ordinance regarding the eating of flesh with the blood in it is the 'life for life' postulate described in Genesis 9:6. An ordinance or law for any society is a 'standardized norm' or the formalization of what is regarded as 'normal.' What has been the custom of the forefathers often will become the law for the progeny. In Israel, for example, when David's men go out to battle and some stay behind to look after the goods, it is an ordinance that all take part in the spoil based upon the precedent which David set (see 1 Samuel 30:25 en loc).  Noah is the one who set the precedent that is called the 'life for life' postulate and it became an ordinance for Israel but it was not the ordinance for the other nations around Israel.

Richard wrote:
> The life for life
> postulate is evident in contemporaneous and previous ANE laws, as indeed in
> Hammurabi's, not just Hebrew. 
John responds:

You are incorrect here, Richard. The statement I am making can easily be substantiated by looking, for example, at the Book of the Covenant (Exodus 21:28-32) which becomes an application of the life for life postulate and comparing the case of the Goring Ox with other ANE law codes. Whereas the Book of the Covenant stipulates that both the bull that gored a man to death and the owner are to be put to death, the Code of Hammurabi (Sections 250-252) stipulates that monetary compensation is to be forthcoming. The Hittite Law (Section 176.A) also stipulates compensation as does the Laws of Eshnunna (Sections 53-58) [see J.B. Pritchard ANET].

Moshe Greenberg [Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law in ‘The Jewish _expression_’ ed. Judah Goldin (New York: Bantam Books, 1970)] demonstrates that the Biblical Law Codes are the reverse of the ANE Codes contemporary with them. Whereas, the ANE capital crimes involve property offences without compensation, the Biblical Law Codes operate according to the life for life postulate when it comes to crimes against man as the image of God, marriage and the Sabbath.

Richard wrote:
Of course the
> obligations are evident in the Hebrew laws, but the question is, is
> there a specific obligation or mention of an obligation in the
> covenant as promise, distinguished from specific obligations directly
> tied to the covenant as contract with Moses, and the people? Stated
> another way, the relationship between yhwh and his people in terms of
> obligations is continuous throughout the Torah, but how specifically
> related to the promise covenant with Abram? El made a promise with
> Abe, what did he require in return?

John:
We have shown that the promise to Abram was conditional in chapter 17, and you have further delineated the development from the covenant of chapter 12 and 15 to show that the promise was initially given with ‘no strings attached.’ I don’t find your argument that Abram was likely leaving Ur anyway convincing to prove that the covenant was not conditional. The supposition is read into the text but the text itself has the promise following the command to leave Ur which is best interpreted as conditional according to Thomas O. Lambdin (Introduction to Biblical Hebrew) ‘Any two clauses, the first of which states a real or hypothetical condition, and the second of which states a real or hypothetical consequence thereof, may be taken as a conditional sentence.’ The command to leave Ur is by its nature not indicative (it is potential) as is the promise for that reason. There is nothing in the text to indicate that God intended to give Abram a country and a name and posterity without his leaving Ur. The Abram narrative is set up as a response to the attempt of the rebellious nations to get themselves a name. In this instance, Richard, I do not find your interpretation helpful for understanding the text.

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