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

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. 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"). 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, set in the moral context. The obligation was not
fulfilled, so therefore the promise was not. But as we find in Isaiah, God
relented 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? 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). I think it is a brilliant development (evolution)
written by geniuses.

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.

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.

Richard Godwin.








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page