corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Corpus-Paul
List archive
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant
- 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 Pauls 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 Gods 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 Agamemnons 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 ones
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 Isaiahs theology? If Isaiah 53 is
central to Pauls 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 Gods 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 (Ancients 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 Platos 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 Gods 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:
Ill 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
dont 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
Gods 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 mans 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
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant,
John Brand, 09/09/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant,
meta, 09/10/2004
-
[Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
John Brand, 09/16/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
meta, 09/17/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
meta, 09/17/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
John Brand, 09/17/2004
-
Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
meta, 09/18/2004
- Re: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant, John Brand, 09/20/2004
- Re: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant, meta, 09/20/2004
- RE: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant, Sheila E. McGinn, Ph.D., 09/21/2004
- RE: Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant, John Brand, 09/21/2004
-
Richard:Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
meta, 09/18/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
John Brand, 09/17/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
meta, 09/17/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
meta, 09/17/2004
-
[Corpus-Paul] Toward a Theology of OT Covenant,
John Brand, 09/16/2004
-
Re: [Corpus-Paul] Second Temple Judaism and Covenant,
meta, 09/10/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.