"

CONTOURS OF
OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY

Bernhard W Anderson
with the "ssistmICe of St",,,, Bishop

-"
"

Fortress Press
Min ncapolis
Conwurs vi Old TbL1m~..,[ Theology
Cop)'right 0 1999 Au~rg Foru~s. All nght5 r~.-d. Except for- brief qu(>(3t10nS in crit·
ical an:icb or r~io:'oO·~. no pan of Ihis book may b.: reproduced in any mann~ "'ithol.,, prior
",riuen permission from the publisher \);tritC'- Permissions, Augsburg Fonreu, Box ]209,
Mirmeapolis, 1\'IN 55440. To G,org, Em"t Wright
Cover deiign: Brad N OTT D.,.;ign
hllcrior design , Peregrine GrJphics Sel"\.· ,ce~
Co/lragll( ill

Figure .~ on page 82 is reprinted from U.Jmlm..Juogl& Old TI'l41"(\ll ( <llh ed., abridged ) by B.
Biblical Archaeology
W. Anderson, () 1998, by pcrmiS51()t1 of Prentice·Hall, Inc.., Upper Saddle River, N J alJ,l
Scriprure quor.llio~ are from lhe folJo..,,'ing traoslatioffi, Biblical Theology
The New Rcvi~d Stand-ml Version Bible, coprright C 1989 b}' the O"'I$,on oi Q uisliln
Edoxation of t~ National Council 01 tne Churdles of Ch~1 in the United Statcs. Used b)'
perm iSSion.
111c Revised Standard Version 01 the B,ble, copyrigh t &I 19+6, 1952, and ]971 by the
Divi5ion of ChriSli<ln EdU(;at ion of Ine Kational Council 01 ChuT(;he-~. U!;Cd by permission.
The New Intemational Version of Ihe Holy Bible, copyrigh t © 1973, 1978, 1984 by [he
Intemation~1 Bible Society. U,<:d by permission of the ZondelVan Publi~hil"1g Hou><:. All
righ[s rescl"\.·ed. The •r-: IV" and" New Intemaliollal Version· tra dema rks MC rtgisle red in [he-
Uniled SlatCS Patent aad Trademark Office by the Imematioo.Jl Bible Society. Use of citht'r
trademark r,eql.lires the- permission ollhe lntemalton.al Bible Societ}·.
The Ne.... English Bible, copyright @ 1961 , 1970 by the- Ddegates of tht' Oxford Universily
PI"e$S and the Syndics of Ihe Cambri<i8e Uni"t'TSily Press. Rcprinlcd b)' pcrmi~sion .

The New Jef\J~lem Bibit', copyright Cl 1985 by Danon, Longman & Todd, lId. and
Doubleda)', a di~ision of Bamam Doubleday Den Publishing G roup, Inc. Rcpnntcd by
permission.
The TANAKH, The New Jc"'lsh ]'ubhca tion Societ)" Translalion According 10 Ihe
Traditional H!'b"",' Text. copyright e 1985 by the Jewish Publication Soc iety. Used by
permission.
The R~i~d English Bibl!', cnpyright (;I 1989 by the Oxford and Cambridge Un ivffi ity
PrtSSt'$. Used b)' pt'rmis,ion.

libnry of Co"&rtH ea ... loging- ln.Pub]icuion D~ ...

Anckrson, kmlurd W.
Tho:conwtll"'< of Old T""'.m .... "heolosr I lkrnhard~;
..·<th d~ assism..:c of Stc>..,n S..i.>p
p. =
]nc]ucks. bibli<>gr.lphial rd.-n-nces ~nd in<k.~
ISBN 0·S006· 3074·] (;alL p.lp<-r .
l. Bible,. OT- TltNllogy I 8i~l>op. S,n-en If Tod e.
BSI19).5M3 1999
)30'.().j11-dc21 '.1')·10518
OP
The paper used in this publiullion m«IS the lII,mntunt requj rent enlS of .-'mcrican National
Standard for In formation Scieoc...~l'ermancnce of Papt'r for Primed library Materials,
ANSI Z329.<18·198 4.
/I.lanufacnor!'d in Ihe USA AF 1-30i4
03 02 01 00 2 3 5 6 , 8 9 IQ
 CONTENTS

Pn:fac~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. -. - -. - - - .. - - -. - __ ___ _ • __ • •• _ _ . . . . VI1

Abbreviations . . . . . ____ . . . . . . . " .. ... . . . . . . " .. . . . ... • __ __ . ... . ix

Prtlimi/l(uyCo!lsiderali,m, . . . ___ _...... _______ ____.... ___ __ _____ .. , 1

I. The Old Testament in the Christian Bible .. , .... , ... , .. .. . . ___ 3
2. The Rd ative Independe nce of th e O ld Testame nt ____ ____ __ _ .. , 9
3. Old Testament Theology in the Twentieth Century ... . . .. . . ... 16
4. An Experimental Approach to Old Testament Theology _ . 28

PART 1 Yahwth. !hr Holy Olft of {srat! __ ______ __ _____ __ ___ _____ .. . . 37
5 . The Experi ence of the Ho ly ____ ____ __ . _. ____ __ . _. __ _______ 39
6. The Name of Cod . " ... " . . .. . . _.. .. .. ... . , .. . , . ... . ... 48
7. The Characterization of Yahweh ___ ___ . _. ____ __ . _ . ___ _____ . 56
8 . Yahweh and the Gods ..... . . . .. . . .... . . ... . . . .... __ ____ . 63
9_ The People of God ____ __ __ __ _______ __ . ____ . _.... __ .. .... 74

PART 11 Yahwehs Covmallts with t/Je Prople . ................ . .. ... .. 79

,.
A_ THE ABRAH .~.M[C COVENA"rr . __ . _________ _____ __ ___ ______ __ _79
10_ The History of God's Co\'enants ___... . ...... . . . . ... .. . .. .. 81
11. Creation and the Noachic Covenant ______ _____ _ . _.• __ ______ 87
12. The Promissory Covcnam with Abraham .. . .... . .. . • . . . ..... 98
13 _ The Tabernading Presence ___ ___ __ _____ _____ ___ ____ ___ .. 106
14. Prie~dy Theology of Sacrifice and Atonemen t . . .. • . . ..... 116
15_ T he life of Holiness __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _____ __ ____ ____ ___ _.... 121
16. Prophecy in PriesdyTradition . . . . . .. ___ ...... _ _ _ ___ _ _ 128
H_THE MOSAIC COVENANT ___ _______ ___ ____ _____ __ __ ____ ..... 135
17. At ihe./l.·loumain of God . . ... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . __ . __ _____ 137
18 _ Salvation and Obligation ____ ___ _....... .... .. _ ..... 142
19. C ovenant and Law ..... . . .. .... _ .. _ ._ .. .. _ _ __ .. 155
20 _ History Viewed in Oeuteronomistic Perspective .... ... ..... __ 165
2 1. GodandWar ........ _. ____ _____ ____ _____ __ __ _____ .... 171
22 _ Prophecy in the l\losaicTradition . . . . ... . ...... .. .. ... __ _ .181
C. THE D.~V[D[C COVEK.:\,'-'T .. . ___ ____ ___ ___ __ ___ ____ . . ___ .193
13. The Promises of Grace to D avid __........ _ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ 195
24. T he Cosmic Ru le of Yahweh in Z ion .. ___ . _ . .. . __ . . ... 209
25 _ Hiswry Viewed in Davidic Perspective ..... _ _. _. • __ .. _.... 218
26. Prophecy in the Z ion Tradition ... _ .. ___ ..... . . . .. _ .. ____ _224
 PART HI Trials oJ Faith and Horizon, oJ Hope .... ___ .. ___ . . __. ___ _. _237 PREFACE
27. The Crisis of Covenantal Theologies . .... • . .. • .. . . ..... . 239
A.FROMTORAHTOWTSDOM _ .. . ____ ___ _____ ____ ____ ____ ___251
TlJis book is addressed primarily 10 the church: the belieVing and worsh iping
28. Rejoicing in the Torah ... _ ___. . . . . . . . . . . 253
community. It is an imroduction to biblical theology of the Old Testame nt ,
29. The Way of Wisdom _ .. .... ___ _. _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ . __ . ___ 260
inte nded mainly for theological students. ministers. rel igious educators, mission-
30_ Wisdom in Cod's Creation __ __ ... .... . ... .. . ______ . ___ ___ 268
aries. and laypersons who seek a bew:·r und erstandmg o f the biblical found ations
31 . The justice of Cod ___ ...... __ . _. _.. . _.•. .. . . ... . . 275
• of C hrist ia n faith .
B. FROM PROPHECY TO APOCALYPTIC .. .... . ...... . ___ ___ 287 The approach proposed here reflects my teach ing experience over a period of
32. Prophecy in a New Idiom .. ___ _____ _. ___ . ____ . . .... . . 289 years at the T he ological School of Drew Uni versity, Prince lOn Theological
33_ The Dominion of God ve rsus the Dom inion of hil __ __ ____ ___ 302 •
Seminary. and the BoslOn Univers ity School o f T heology Th is period, the second
34. life, Death, and Resurrection. ____ .... . .... . ....... . . ... . . 3 ! 2 half of th e twemieth ce n[UT),. "" imessed the aftenna th of \'\iorld War 11, the turbu-
lent sixties wi t h the "death of God" and crisis in biblical theo logy, the theologica l
Conclu,ion: From tbe Old Trstamro/ to thr Ntw .. . ...... . ..... . ...... 325 crosscurrents o f the seventies, and th e beginning of the so-called postmodern
35. The Apocalyptic Triumph of Jesus Christ ... .. . . .. ... . .... . . 327 period in t he eigh ties an d nineties. The outline of this O ld Testam ent theolo~,'y,
36. Jesus ChTist as Prophet , Priest, and King ...... .. . . . .. .. . 3 37 tested in these cascading experiencC5. had taken sha pe penultima tely at the climax
of my teach ing at Princeton Theological Seminary. as indi ca ted by the course
Appmdix 1 summary of 1982 found in Appendix 1.
Biblical Theology o f the O ld Testament: A Course Precis . ..... . . . ... _. _ 343 The reader will not be surprised to hear in these pages echoes of what 1 have
Appmdix 2 written in l/',dmtan.ihrglhr OM T~lmnO!t (4th e d_. 1987; pa pe rba ck revision. 1997),
•• The Relevance of Biblical Archaeology to Biblical Theology: whi ch al~o considers theological matters, though in a stol)'/history comext. \'<lhile
A Tribute to George EmesrWright ____ _____ .. __ __ ___ ___ _ ... _ .... 345 such a general im roduction would be helpful , it is no t pre requisi te for th is theo -
logical srudy_
Index of Subjects __ ____ ....... . _. ....... .. .. ........ . . . ... ___ 353
The biblical quotations in this work are take n from Ihe NRSV un les~ OIhe rvi ise
Index o f Au thors . .. ........ . _... __ _ __ ___ ___ 354 noted _!I.·ly own tra nslations arc marked B~/A _
Index of Anciem Sources - -- - - - . . - - - - - -- . .- ___ • .... . ... . . .. 356 It is evident from these pages (hat 1 am a de btor to many t heologia ns. espe-
cially the two theo lOgical giams of the centUI)', Walt her Eichrodt and Gerhard von
Rad_ Also I have been profoundly influenced by Jewish p hilosophers <and theolo -
gians: Martin Bube r. Franz Rosenzwe ig. Emil Fackenhei m. Ahraham Joshua
Heschel, and especially my good friend and former colleague, Will Herbe rg. with
whom portions of this book have bee n discussed in vigorous table conversations_
Above all 1 am indebted to my inspi ring teache r, James l\·l uile nburg, who was able
10 interv.·eave creatively the elements o f historical study, archaeological research ,
Stylistic (rheto ricall criticism, and bib!icaltheology_
Further, I am veT)" grateful to my stude nts and colleagues in theo logical schools
who have joined me in wres tling wi t h the issues of biblical theolo gy. and to many

I people in the churches who have hel pe d me to understand the Bible be tter: the
Harva rd-Epwonh Methodist Church in Cambridge, /I.·1assachusetlS; the Un ited
Church of Christ, MiddlebuJ)'. Vermont; the United Met hodist Church o f
\Ierced. California , the Presbyterian Church of Sunny~'a le. California; Se Andrew
PresbYlerian Church . Aptos. Cali forn ia, a confere nce 01 ministers gathered at
Yanzei Univer>iIY. Seoul, South Korea-to mention a lew_
Especially I want to express thanks to my assistant, Sleven Bishop. wh o did
grilduate work with me at the Boston University School of T heol ogy_His percep-
vi ii CCM"'~" of Old Tat.lmrel Tbfoi"!l'Y

live advice and editorial skill have b«n immeasurably helpful in bringing this ABBREVIATIONS
work to fruit ion. In addition, my thanks go to the staff of Fonress Pre~s. p~nicu·
larly to 8eth Wright, ",'hose editorial skill has enhanced the: quality of [his work.
This book is dedicated to my colleague: in biblical archaeology and biblical AB Anchor Bible
theology. the late G. Ernest Wrighl (~ Ap~nd i)( 2, "The: Relevance: of Biblical WIT J- B_ Pritcha rd, ed .. And",! o\'tllT Ellsun: TaB .Rdlltill9
Archaeology to Biblical Theology}. Bdorr his untimely death he encouraged me to rhr Oll T~tlllllmt, 3d cd. 1969
w keep at the: task of biblicalthe:ology. I have continued the: work, though taking BA Biblical Arcb,m)loglsl
a diffcrent path from the one he ....,ould have: blazed.. BR lliblx-al R~rilrcb
BRro Biblr Rwiot.>
Bc:mhard W. Anderson CBC Cambridge Bible Commentary
$c:ptembcr 25, 1998 (BQ Cal boli.:· Biblx-al Olllll1rrly
HBT HorizoHs ill Biblic,ll Thtl~y
HSt·.. \ Harvard Semitic .!-,.·\onographs
HTR Hllward Tbroiogjcal Rwinu
lB G_ A_Bunrick, cd., fHttrprtttri Biblt, 12 vols. , 1953-56
. /DB G. A. Buttrick, ed., IHtrrprttrTi DKtiOI!!I/), 01 Ilx Blh/t, -l vols., 1962
fDBSup Supplement to /IIttrprrtlri Dictionary o} Ihr Biblr
fr.1 Inltrprttnlior.
IRT Issues in Religion and Theology
JAGS Jormwl o} tbt America!! Gri/'!:tnl SociflY
JBL Jounflll of Biblical utrraru rr
JfS J{mfl!lIl of EC~If'l/'l:iclIl Sludirs
JSOT Journal for tbt Study of thr Old T~t.1m/'!,r
)SOTSup JSOT Supplement ~fles
KJV King lames lil,,Ulhorized) Version
NEB New English Bible
NIV New International Version
NJB Ncv,· Jerusalem Bible
NJPSV New Jewish Publication SOcielY Version
NRSV Ncv,' Rcvised Standard Version
OBT Overtures 10 Biblical Theology
OTL Old Tc:<.;(amcn( library
OTM Old Tc:<.;tamem Messa~
QR Ouarnrly Rroirw
RB Rcvur bibliqur
REB Revised English Bible
RdSRw Rdigious Studits Ra,irw
RSV Revised Standard Version
SBM Stultgane:r biblischer /I."lonognphien
SBT Stud ies in Biblical Theology
SJT Scotli,b ]oUnl.:ll of Tbtology
Tfl/day Thtology T.,d.lY
lAW Z6tsr:hrifl fiir air IIltll'! tm1tl'l1t1idx lVil"S/'IlScblljl
ZTK Zritsr:hrifl fur Tbtologir ""d Kircbr
 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS

'These thillgs
fill th, Old Testammt]
were writtell down
for our iustmctioll,
UPOIl whom the "Id
DJ the ages has comt."

I
! CORINTHIANS 10:11

I
 1. THE OLD TESTAMENT
IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE

TlJe Task of Biblical Theology

Theology is faith seeking understanding. I Standing wilhin rhe circle of failh , a
theologian articulates and elaborates the faith of the bd ieving and worshiping
community so that members of the community, or others interested, may under-
stand who God is, God's rd ationship to rhe world and all that is in it , and the
unfolding purpose of Cod from creation to consummation.
\':I7hen rhis definition is applie d to the Bible. ,,'hieh in the Christian communi()'
consists of both Old and New Testaments, the questio n immediatd)' arises, what
is faith}
The \'inter of the Epistle of Jude (v_3) s~aks of "thr: faith tha t "'"as once for all
entrusted to the sainK" Here tlx faith (with a defl nite articl e) means "a clear system
of teachings"2- a body o f doctrin ~ that was packaged and delivered to the com -
munity. This view re A~ts the situation of the church at the end of the apostolic
age wh ~ n it ~came n~cessaJ)' to have a cree dal "rule of fait h: or essential aftlr-
malions of faith , for the purpos~ 01 maintaining the identity o f the community in
the world and dd~nding the gospel against no\'eI teaching I ~.g. , Gnosticism).
In the Bible, with the major exception of this passage in th e Epistle of }ude,
faith is ge nerally a rr!.~ljor.shiP between huma n beings and God. To be sure, fai th is
nuanced in various ways. In the New Testar:nent faith c~nt ~ rs in Jesus Christ, who
re\'eals Cod and introduc~s a n~w age. In the Old Testament fai th is steadfast
reliance on God amid the uncertainties and in securiti es of lif~ . 'The righteous live
hr
by their faith [rrnu ..... (Hab_1,4), that is, by faithful trust and waiting in hope for
God's purpos~ to triumph. This vital fa ith finds expression in essential affirmations ,
such as the sole power of God (as in the Shema, DeuL 6:4 ), but it is weakened, if
not eclipsed, when cong~ al~d into belief in dOClrines.
\'qhen faith is understood in this dynamic, relat ional s~n ~, th~ task of the bib·
lical theolOgian is som~thing other than organizing and systematiZing doct rines .
Biblical theo logians e ngage in the diftlcult task of "beating th~ crust back into t h ~
batter," to borrow a tlgun: of s~~ch , thal is, Ihey seek to go behind thc latcr
incrustations of doctrine to the living experience of faith with all of its ambibruit i ~s,
t~mptations, and struggles. This task requin:s that the theolOgian take into accoum
the various ways that faith finds expression in the la nguage of rd igious imagina-
tion: in poetTY, story, and patterns of S)-"mbolism. Faith is not bound by li teralis m
on the on ~ hand or by historicism on the other, but s~eks to understand how

I. In ~ das~ical ddinition . fi.l" 4""""" i"!r!"(1~", fAnsdm). ~e the intmduc tio n to ')"Iemaric
(dogmat ic) th~"Ology by Danie! L. Jl.ligl iofl, Fm !}, Sffl,~~. U"J,rs~"d;r.g {Grand Rapids, &rdma".,
1991}.
] . Thr NlW h ,-cm, Hib!ic~! Co"''"''''-'' ry, ed. Ra."mond E. Bmwn C'I al. (Eng lewood CMfs NL
Prc-ntice·Hall, 1990 ), 91 (t.
4 Co~lcIIr'$ of Old TtSi.> ..(.d ThroIcgy
words and events are charged with sacred meaning so that they become, as
Abraham Joshua Hcschcl put it, "hyphens« connecting heaven and earth, Cod and
humanity,3 Theology o f this sort is nearer w art than to science, to imagi native
portra yal than to prosaic d iscourse. It appeals to the poet within us, as "deep calls
umo dcq>" (Ps. 42:7). To comprehend CoOs relationship to the world and God's
activity within it, writes Patrick MilleT as he rdb:ts on theological [rends of the
past decades, "it may be that ou r most helpful language will turn out to be located
in poetic spetth and in images that belong more to poetry and Story than to philo-
sophical a na lysis ,~~
The Old Ttslamtlll as Cmlollienl Scriphm
O ld Testament theology is a Christian discipline. SillCe the dawn of Christian ity,
·Old Testament" (Old C ovenant) has been the Sl<mdard label for the Scriptures
that the early Christian community inh('rited from ancient Israel. The t('rm indi ·
cates that the early Christian movement began in th e heart of judaism, that the
pristine Christian proclamation was based on the Jewish Scriptures (called the
Law and the Proph('ts), and that the IWO communities of fa ith belong togethe r, as
Paul argued effectively in Romans 9- 11, sharing a common Bible and therefore a
common story.'
The language Nold covenanf (testam('nt) is reminiscent of a famous prophecy
in the book of Jeremiah (31 :31-33 ) about two epochs: the time of the old l\'losaic
covenant. which ended in human failure; and the time of t~ new covenan t, when
the divine loral, (law, teaching ) will be written on the heart and there will be such
personal know ledge of Cod that religious teaching will no longer be necessary. In
Jer('miah's prophecy t he issue is eschatology, the relation between the old age and
the new, not ben-'ccn two bodies of Scripture.
Thcjewish community located at Qumran o n the shor~of the Dead Sea (end
of third century B.C. to A.D. 70 ) thought of itself as a community of t he new
covenant, Believing tha t the new age was about to come. these covenan ters (prob·
ably Esscncsl searched Jewish Scriptures for propheci~ that were going to be ful -
filled. Similarly, the early Christian community considered itself a community of
the new covenant. In their own way Christians also readjewish Scriptur~ with the
convicti on that the anticipatcd age of the new cove nant had already dawned
through the life, death , and resurrection o f Je'ills, th ~ Messiah (Christ). It was
app ropriate, the n, that in the second century, when Christians compiled their own
writings, they labeled them the Scriprures of the new covenant, to disti nguish
3. Abraham JO'IhlU Hesche1. C.od in 511>n:b 4 1\1.;". A Phif.:"o(Jby of j ,d ais," (New Yon.., hrrlT,
Slraus and Cudahy, 1935 l. 244.
4. From lhe con.;luding pilTiBriph of an editOrial, "Re"i5ilin8 Ihe God \'1;'110 ACls: TToJ.zy, 54.
no. I (l 997) S.
5. See my nHY, "The Bible as the Shuw. 5to l)" of I Prople: in Th OIJ ~n~ Iht NtII' TtlWow:tl
ThriT Rd•• Ii."jbip " ,.J IlK -(x\trt(St.:IlII<I<lai" L'Itr,,/wrt. ed. JaIDC'i H. CharlfiWonh and Waiter P. \Veaver
(Vllley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, t9'H), I 9-37,
The Old TeSl3mem in the Christian Bible 5
tho:m from the Scriptures of ancient Israel. Thus the church has a bipartite canon,
a nvo·yolume book of Scriptures: the Old Testament and th e New Testamem.
Old Tcs lamfflliHdmm) Blbk
In recem )'ears the Christian title 'Old Testament" ("Old CO\'enant") has ken par-
alleled with, or e\'en superseded by, th e n("\ltral dt"SCrip tion -Hebrew Bibl('" This
-renaming of Scripture' is general!)' pract iced in academic circles (e.g., American
Acad('my of Rel igion, Society of Biblical literature), but it has also crept into
Christian worshi p services, wh('re a r('ading from the "Old T<:'Stamen( is some -
tilllC'S introduc('d by; -Listen to a readi ng from th(' H ebrew Bibl('."6
At 001. this retiding of Scripture expresses an irenic, ecumenical spiri t. Too
long has the contrast between the ~old~ and the - fl('W· fostered an ant i-Semitism
that has resulted in VICious hostllit}, and terrible genocide. C hristian ity does not
5Up<:'rscde Judaism; indeed. je5US did not come to "destroy' Israel's Scriptures but to
"fulfl\l" them ("hit. 5 : 17), 10 "complete" them. To its c redit, th e new nomenclature,
"Hebrew Bible; anempts to r('spect Juda is m as a religion in its own right, not an
error that Christianity c ame to correct, Aim. this noncommittal language may
express an opennc<;s to Islam, \,'hich includes portions of the M Old Test ~ ment ' in
the Koran . It is significant that three greal religtOns-Judaism, C hrist ianity, and
Islam- trace their roots to Abraham, the great ancestor of the: faithfuL
Often, howev~r. thiS -politically corrc<:t" language is inAuenced by th e reduc·
lionist view that the sacred writings of the Bible are onh' historical documents that
mus t be interpreted in Ihe cont('xt o i ancient culture, speci fically that of the
ancient Near East. So vi('wed, the Old Testament is not int('rpret('d ·confession-
ally; as the inspired canonical books o f a community of faith , but as literature that
reflects "the religion of Israel: ..... hich . in turn, is part of tht: history of ancient reli-
gions. The great scholar Hennan n C unkcl, who d id so much to awaken a poetic
appreciation of the Hebrew Bible th rough th e use 01 fo rm cntlCism. maintained
that th e biblical interpreter mus t view the religion o f Israel in th(' wider context of
lh(' lilel<lturc of surrounding peoples, such as the Ilabylo nians and Egyptians. In his
poetic universalism, b iblical rheology, w ith its concern for Israel's distinctive the-
olosical witness, was abandon<:"d in favor of the hislOry of Israelite relig ion.'
Prob/flIIS in Rrnmo:i"rI Scriph.rc
The leon "Hebrew Bible," howe\·er. is nOt satisfactory for a number of reasons.
First, this label refers to t he original language in which most of th('se wri tings were
composed: Hebrew. A comparable deSIgn ation for the "\'i('''' T('stam('nt" would be
"Koine G reek Scriptures. " Designating these Scriptures by languag(' gets us into
6. ~ the- forceful art icle by Willi!nl Joh llson E"erel1 , ''RC"n~ming Sc"pIU~,- Clm,Iia~ Cml~1)'
I 14, no. 30 ( t997) 965---66 c ..... ho challen~ " Chri ~li;,"~ 10 thmk thwlol!ically about thi' change
In la ngu.g~
7. O n Gunkd ', romamici'm, ~ my inlroduclol}, e1oS.ay 10 tr.e Iraml;nion of Martin NOIh', A
H,,~.:f p.,:",,,,~,b~f Tr.,j'l"'~ ( En~k,,'ood CMr•. NJ P~ntic<" HJI1, 1972.\, ""ptti~lly ..-vi ii_xx.

difAculties. Not all of the Hebrew Bible is written in H ebre,,': some is wri tten in
Aramaic (pans of the boo ks of Ezra ..od Danid). Moreo"'tr, the H ebrew Bible, as
.... e can see from the t rans lat ion of the Je ....ish Publ icatio n Society (NJPSV),
excludes a number o f writin~ found in the Catholic Christ ian Bible (sometimes
C3lled the Old Testament Apocrypha ) that help to flll in the gap bC"tween the
restoration of the Jewish community under Ezra and Nehemiah (fifth century 8.C. )
and the late r rabbinical and Christian periods.
Second. the term is unsatisfactory bc<ause the early C hmtian church adopted
for its Scripture the Creek Bible known as the 5cpruagint . a transla tion Ihat began
in Alexandria, Egypt, in the third century B.C The 5cpruagint included not only
the Hebrew Bible (preeminently the Law an d the Prophets) bu t also writ ings tha t
came to be called "apocryphal" (ProtC'Stant) or -dcuterocanonical" {C atholic). At
the time of the Reformation some parts of the Christian community (Luther.tns,
C all1iniSts) declared th at only the books included in the JeWish Bible were canon-
ical Scripture. an d regarded the extr.t -apocryphar books as m dul for ediAcation.
Third, the Christian Bible often has a d ifferen t order o f boob . For instance, in
th e Hebrew Bible th e book of Rut h is loca ted in the th ird secti on (W ritings ),
sandwiched between Proverbs and Song of Songs, whereas in the Christian Bible ,
inAuenced by the order of t he Septuagim, it is fou nd among the h isto rical books
(called Former Prophets in Je"'ish trad ition). adjacent to the book of Judges. Also.
the Mminor prophets: Zechariah and fI.-!alachi , are loca ted at the very cnd of the
O ld Testament just before the New Testament. whereas the H ebrew Bible con·
dudes wi th 1-2 Chronicles, which belongs to the W rit ings.
The difference in the sequence of books may have theologlC3l significance.'
On the basis o f the arrangemen t o f the H ebrew Bible some have argued that the
H ebrew canon bears witness to "the disa ppearance of God." In the first pan (Tor.th
or Pentatcuch) Cod is a primary actor and many mi rad es occur, but by the time
one reaches the last pan (the Writings) Cod scarcely appears (e.g., in ChroniCles,
Ezr.t·Nehemiah) or not at all (as in Esther). The di sa ppearance of God is allegedly
connected wi th humanity·s coming of age, e\'en at the terrible cost of "the death
of God.'"!!
If [his is the car'lOnk~1 witl'lC'SS of the H ebrew Bible (wh ich is doubtful), the
Old Testament of the early Christian church (t he Septuagint) makes just the oppo-
site witness. There the last books (the Twelve ~-li nor Prophets) express an esc ha·
tolog ical expectancy of the Day of the Lord, ....·h en God w ill come in majesty and
power to establish a new age on earth. The loca tion of th e pro phets at the end of
the Old Testament was appropriate in a community tha t an nou nced th at Jesus
came to fulAII the hopes and expectations of Israel's prop hets.
8. Sce Jimes A. Sand~rs. "Spinning' I~ 8ib!.:, H ow Judaism ~nd C hrist iani,y Sl1afl(' Il1c
Canon DiffCr('ntly." RP. 14, no. ~ (1998) 23-29. H., diSCIJs'<eS how ,ru, diff.,rent scrip,ur:11 Cinom;
aros<: and ,h., ru,~nC-Ulical implio,tions 0/ th., diilcrcnces belWttn them
9. Ricl1Jrd Ellil)!.n..Dis~ppr~fllr.rt 4 c..J. A Diri~. Al)'s!<ry {BmlOno litde, Brown, 1995).
Rc"ic",ro b)' Ronald S. H.,ndd . BR 11, no. 1 ( 19961 1'7
Th~ Old Tc-mmenl in Ih~ C hristian Bible 7
Finall y, the retitli ng o f Scripture. despite the intention to avoi d the view that
Christian ity supersedes Judaism. may result in too sharp a ~paration be[Ween the
Jewish and the Chrio;tian communi ties. After the Holocaust v.'C wa nt to be: sure that
/udaism has its own integrity as a religion and that, along with Christiani ty and
Isl ~m, it rece ives cquallegal protection and social Jl!"Cognition. But th is separation
can be: earned too faL Christ iani ty and Judaism bC"long closely together in the
d ective purpose of God , therefore, the O ld Testament cannot be tom ou t o f the
Christian Bible. r rom the Christian perspcctillC the literary separa tion of the two
testaments: ...'Tites WiIliamj. Evereu, "undermines the veT)' core of Christian fai th _
The New Tes tament simply doesn't make any sense apart from the Old, and we
TlCed to say so every week in the way wc worshi p."lo
Thus for theological reasons it is best to avoid the term "Hebrew Bible~ and
speak o f e ither Jewish Scriprures Oewish usage) or the Old Tcstament (Christian
usage ). Some people, believing tha t ' old" and "new" are prejudicial (t he new is su p·
posed ly better). suggest shifting to First and Second Testaments. But it is doubtful
that th is innovation will become eS tablis hed. In my judgment. Christ ia ns sh ould
not be h esitant to use their own canonical language in Christian worship se rvices
and in intramural theol ogical discussions.
Early Ch6s tian Scrip tllrt
Before the Ch ri~ia n co mmunity published this two-part canon of sacred writings,
it had no scrip tures of its own. It had only the received Scriptures of the JeWish
people, d ivided into three major pan s, Tor.th, Prophets. and Wmm~. The third
part, the W ritings, was not ye t completed in the first century A.D .• but one of its
majo r components was the book of Psalms, wh ic h was used in synagogue worsh ip.
Indeed. this book was so important that the thi rd part of the Je ....ish ca non cOl.lld
be: refetled to simply as "the Psalms'- Philo of Alexandria. who died about the mid-
d le of the Ars t century. spoke of ~the Law, the Prop hets. and t he Psalrns.~l l The
same usage is fou nd in Luke's Gospel, from the late first century, .... hich refers to
· [he Law 0 1 Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms" (Luke 24+1).
The latter reference is in luke's beautiful story of [Wo disciples wal king from
Jerusalem IQ a nearby Village, Emmaus. They were sad about the crucifix io n of
their leader. and disillusioned abou t the hope thal he was the Messiah of Israel; but
as they wa lked, so the story goes, they were joined by a stranger who interp reted
t he rece nt events in t he light of !sr.teI's scriptures. "beginning with J',.'\oses and all
t he p rophets~ (11. 17J. The str.t nger proved to be: Jesus, wh o declared tha t these
th ings had happe ned "in order that everything written abou t me in the law of
10. Everelt. "Renam ing Scripture: 966.
t 1_ D, \f;1a C""lm p"'!;"". c it.,d by Nah",m Sama. BR 9, no 4 ( I 993J 32-40. Se., also th., pro-
l ogu~ to ,he Wisdom of Ben Sir.o (10 the Protestant Apocrypha ) which rde .. 10 the u:achi ngs
given "through th., law ~ nd lru, prophets and the other books: showing th~, at this time th~
third put of ,h., Hebre-.' Bible i Wri,inSS) ""ai iti 11open-ended. Ben Sir.o's grandson 1r:1",lared th.,
won. From H ebre ...· 10 Creek ca. 13(1 S.C,

I'\oscs, the prophetS, and the psalms must be fulfilled.· We TC"ad (v. 45): "Then he
o~nedthcir minds to un derstand the scriplures."
This story indicates two things. FiTSt, the Scri ptures of Israel do not prepare
readers lor the event of the crucitlxion of God's Messiah and, the other side of that
event, his vinorious resulTl!Ction from the dead. There is a profound di5Continu-
Ity betwccn the witness of the O ld Testament and Jesus' crucinxion and resurrrc-
tion. These e"ents were surprising. and in a ~n!>e u~x~cted and unbel ie,·able.
But 5e\;ond. the disciplc-s "'-ere persUdded 10 belie" e that, in a profound sen~, the
Jesus story was pan of "the great Story and plot of all time and space." as Amos
W' ilde r puts It . ll In a Christian rereading 01 Israel's Scriptures it was indeed "nec-
cssaf)'" (Greek '~Ii) for Jesus to suffer as he did before his vocation was crowned
wilh victory (Luke 24 :26). This event was not acc idemal but belonged somehow
10 the unir:y of God's redemptive purpose. The surp rising no"ell}' of all o f this did
nO I cancd out the expccta tions of the prophets.
Wrilkr. for Our lu!ln. ctiO)l
Hence, early Christians insis ted that the Bible the)' read. that is. the Torah, the
Prophets, and the Psalms, did not belong exclUSively to the Jewish community; it
belonged \0 them too. They could say, as did Paul. tha t "these thin gs were written
down for our instruction upo n whom the cnd of the ages ha~ come" ( 1 Cor. IQ, I 1).
O r as Paul puts it succiOCtly toward the conclusion 01 his Epis!le to the Romans:
"For whatever was written in fanner days was wriue n for ou r instruction, so that
by steadfastness and by the encouragement 01 the 5Criptures wc mig ht have ho~H
(Rom. 15:4 ).
Even today in the Christian communion service worshipers often join in the
·ereat ThanksgiVing" to God "for the goodness and love which you have made
known to us in creation, in the calling of lsr.leI to be your people, in you r Word spo-
ken through the prophets, and above all in the Word made Rcs h, Jesus your Son."
Creation, Israel, the prophets, Jesus Christ-that is the sequence of the great story.
Early Christians, then, !>eized the Jev..ish Bible and made it their own. [nd~d .
whenever the word ·scriplure(s )" (g",~I:.t, 9mpbai) occurs in the New Testament it
refers, almost without exception. to the Jewish Bible. That is probably true of the
famous statement in 2 Tlm. 3: 16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for
leachi ng, for reproo f, for correction, and for training in righteousness." H e re the
5Coprnres of lsrad arc regarded as M God_breathed" on the ana logy of Gen. 2:7,
where God breathes vitality into th e nrsl human being.
In sum: the · Old Testament" is a n essential part of the Christian Bible. h was
·canonical" Scriprure long before the discussions of thc second century produced
a list of authori tative C hristian writings. E"en today this part of the Christian
Bible is---or should be--used in worshi p, preaching, and education. It is also con-
sulted when form ulating Christian doctrine (e.g.. creation ) or when seeking guid-
ance on ethical issues (e .g., questions of social justice).
·.
2. THE RELATIVE INDEPENDENCE
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Early CIJristiall5, we have seen. regarded the scriptures of Israel as their scrip-
tures too. in which they pcn:eh<ed the unfol din g purpose of Cod since creation
and in which they found dues lO the idemit)' o f Jesus of Nazareth. But th is appro-
priation of the O ld Testame nt pro'·ed to be difficult. For the Christian church the
Old Teslament has a somewhat alien character. This has shown up in "arious ways
down through the centuries, beginning with ea rly attempts to reject these scrip·
tures as non-Christian and coming into the present, when many Christians sen'>C
the Old Testament 10 be a problem. This pa rt of the Bible is sometimes wTinen off
as "pre-Christian" literature , be<:ause of its ilncient ~' iews of God o r outdated moral
injunc tions.
The truth of the matter is that the Old Tes tament has a rela tive independence
in tilt: Christian Bib le. That i~ why it is possible for Christians to speak of "O ld
Testament theology: as something rdative ly dist inct from "New Testament theol-
ogy." A bener designatio n wou ld be "biblical theology of the Old Testame nt," a
formulation thal imp lies the esse ntia l relationship between the Old and New
Tc-staments in the Christiiln Bible.'
nle relationship bet ....·een the two testamems is o ne o f continuity ilnd discontinu~
ity. In dea ling with the O ld Testament . the churc h has oft~n fall en into one of twO
eXtremes.
The first extreme has been to overem phasize di5Cominuity. In th is "iew the
-new" has superseded the ' o ld"; hence the "old" must be regarded as antithetical,
preparatory. provisional, inferio r. That was Ihe "fe'" of Marcion in lhe second cen·
tury. who ...·cm so far as to say that the Old Testamen t presents the revelation of
"the strange God; diffe re nt from the God revealed in Jesus Christ. His "iew,
thlX,gh regarded at the time as a heres)", was echoed by the church historian Adolf
Hamack in the rwentieth cen rol),- In his book Mmrior., Th Go!f/d of a Strang! God,
Hamack declared tha t in the second century the church righ tly re ru~d to reject
the Old Testament, that in t he sixteenth century the reten tio n of the O ld
Testament was a fateful necessity that the Refo rmatio n was not yet able to escape.
but that in the period since the nineteenth century the inclusio n of the Old
Testament in the C hristian canon is the sign of "a re ligious and ecclesiastical
I. ~ ,.,., 'itle (If Br<""~rd Ch,lds'. wmk. Bobl..:a[ J""bool"11 of Ihr 0lJ aoJ NM Ttsl<,,_l!, Thc!.:.:; ,,~!
R~ "'" lbo- (l,ri.!i.,n B.N. (L\linncapoljs, FonrCS'S Puss, 1992). The distinct icm bw,.·ec:n Old
Tnl~mc:nl and N~' T t"St~mc:nt thc:ology In the contC"Xt (If b,blinl theology gQCS b.<;1:; \(1 G. L
ll.iuer In ....·orls " 'nuen al t he beginning 04 Ihe- n' nc:t~n1h «murlo'.
•
paralysis."l The New Testament theologia n Rudolf Bu[tmann came very close to
this posi tion in h is view of the significance of the O ld Testamem for C hristian
faith , He maintained that the Old Testament provides olliy a Dpreunderstanding"
for the Christian gospel , in the sense that it shows human inadequacy and failure
that, whe n take n seriou sl}'~ prepare o ne to receive the grace of Cod in Jesus Christ. 3
The other eXtreme is to minimize the distinction be:tween the testaments and
to regard the O ld Testamem as leading directly to the New. This view is he ld , for
instancc , by Hartmur ~s~ , who rega rds the New Testament as part o f a co ntinu-
ing stream of tradit ion that flows through the wh ole Christian Bible.' This view is
espoused in anot her way by W'ilhc1m Vischcr, who !lnds Jesus C hrist hidden in the
Old Testament ,5 For instan ce, Jacob's nocturna l wrestle with a st ra nger at the ford
of the Jabbok Ri,'er (Gen. 31 ,21 ·32) is unders tood to be an encounter wi th the
Lord Jesus Christ incognito.
''These views:' as Pe tr Po komy observes rightly, "ru n the risk of defraudin g the
O ld T~stame nt of its relativc autOnomy, in which it could also remain the Bible of
the Jews, and of relativ izing the unique fe atu res of t he Chris tian message .'·~ He
goes on to say; "the New Testament was ca non ized neither a~ a substi tu te for the
Jewish Bible, nor as its continuation , bu[ as its counterpa rt."' [n short, it has a rela ·
ti,'e independence. Not an absolu[e independence, please un derstand, but a rela ·
th'e one, like that of two partners when joined in matrimon r . Or, to sh ift the fig-
,.
ure, th e Christian Bible is like an antiphonal chOir, in which bot h testaments stand
vis· a-vis each other, joining in pr.Iise to the C od who is creator and redeemer.
uU;"g tlx DIJ ustamrnl Sj'tmk for Itself
One of the implications of this view o f the relationship between the testaments is
that, if we arc faithful to Scri pture, we arc oblig,Hcd 10 let the Old Testamen t s~ak
with its own Yoice, even thoug h tha t means imerprcting passages difleren tl y than
N ew Testament authors do. For instance, we must free texts li ke Genesis 2-3 from
questionable intnpretilt io ns that emphasize the subordi nat ion of women to men,
as in 1 Tim. 2,11 - 15: "I ~rmit no woman EO teach or to have au thority over a m an .
she is to keep silent. For Adam was forme d first, then Eve."' This view does not do
justice to rhe Old Te<;tamem narra tive _Forwhen il is read on its own as "a tale that
is bei ng told: or a process 01 creation that take, place in d ramat ic ~ pisod~s, the
1. English translation by John E. S,,,,,ly and Lyle D . Bienm (D",ham, N.C, .... byrinlh, 1989j
of Adolph Hamack, ,\""rrio~ Dos E."~!ldi"J""'," /rrmJ", Gort Od d ., u,ipzigJ. C Hi nrichs. I 9H j .
3.5= th" lead es~y by Iluhmann, 'The Significance of the O ld T~slamcnt tor th" C hristia n
Faith'" {Ir;1nS E. W. An dersonl, in th~ sympOSium {r.a, I edIted, T", Old Tes",,",,,, ~~J Chr"lioH Fm th
(Phi ladelphia, \'(-'estminster, I 969), 8-15. Hem .. nlS of the prcst'nt discussion havc been dTa"' n
from mv introduction (here, pp . \ _ 7.
Cc,,,',
-I . H artnmt thesiS, set forth in a Germ an css.J,·, ''Erwa gu ob'Co ZUT Einhci{ def biblischen
Theologie." ZTK 67 ( 1970) 417- 36, is cil"d aod summ ari" .. d by Pe tr Pokomy, ''The Problem of
EihJicalthrology: HBT t5, 00. I ( 19'93)90-91 .
5. s"e his essay, ''Eve'Y'''he", .he ScriptufC Is abou t C hrist Alone," in Old Y,stQ",,,,1 dnJ Chn!tJ~"
F,!;tb, cd . Andc1"S<In, 90-101 .
6. l'okorny, 'Problcm: 9 1.
The ReI~ l ive Independence of the Old Testament I1
rda tion be:tv.'een the sexes in Cod's original creat ion is one of mutuality, not sub-
ordination, as Phyllis Tlibk has perceptivdy ,hown.'
O f course , in t he Christian com munity it is proper to regard Scripture as a
whole in a christological pers~ctive, but this does not mean forci ng particular
te xt, to bear witness toJems C hrist or to carr), a Christian meaning. T hat the Old
Testament must be allowed to maintain its own voice, and the New Testame nt 100,
is stressed in Brevard C hi lds's canonical approach to the Christian Bible. Though
the O ld Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfil lment, he wriles, the
O ld Testament has notlos! "its vert ical, e:.:istcntia[ dimens io n which as scripture of
the church con tinues to bear its own \,'itness wi thin the context ot the Christ ia n
Bible."!
Adm in edly, it is d ifllcult in [he community of fait h to allow the Old Testament
thi s rd ative independence, I W.IS once called o n to respond to a paper by
J\'\atatiah u Tsevat o n "Theology of the Old Testament- a Jewish View."'9 He
admitt ed the novd ty of his presentation. for in Jewish circles "Old Test.Iment the·
o[ogy" is almost un heard of-some thing like Dthe zoology of a un icorn," as he put
it. He argued , h oweve r, that the Old Testament should be: allo wed to speak for
itself independenth', rather than being a ncillary to th e Ta[mudlO {or we Christians
might add, to the New Testament ). At one point he used a marvdous illust ration,
the conveyor belt that one takes in some airpo rt s !e.g., Chicago's O'Hare),
connecti ng bo th ends of a long pas~ageway, It is easy enough to take it in one
dir~ction, he says, for "'th~ Talm ud understands itself to be a continuation and sup·
plem~ nt of th~ Old T~stament.H Hut if 011~ wants to revcrse the direct ion . and move
from the Talmud (Christians, re ad, "from the New Testamen(j to the Old
Testame nt, it d~ mands incredible exe n io n. [t is well nigh impossible .
Yet what is almost impossible should be attempted. T h is is also t h~ ,'iew o f
another Je'''ish scholar, Jon Levenson. In his impo rta nt study of biblical theology,
Sinai ""J Zi,"' , Levenson takes his stand ~nnly withi n the Jewish community, with
the result that h e makes numerous references to rabbinica l commentary a nd some
critical remarks about the N ew Testamem, especially Pau l's intcrpretation of the
law. [n the introduction to this work he writes, "I m~ ke no claim that Rabbinic
Judaism offe rs the correct understanding of th~ Heb rew Bible. Talmudic re ligio n
is different from its b iblical ancestor . . . but the change is mo re evolutionary tha n
revo[utionaJ)'." H e concludes: ''The ultimate measure of success or failure adopted
here, however, is not conformity to the Je""ish tradition. but whether or not the
re.Id ing proposed is tTue to the biblical te xts themselve,." lI
7. s"c Phyll is Trible , "A to,'!! SIO!)' Cone Awry ' ,n GoJ ad "" Rh<I"iC" ~J Srx ...~lily, OET
(l\lin neapoi is , Fonrcs, Press, 1975t chap.~ .
S. C hilds. BiHid ThoI"'1~Y . 77_78.
9. s"e his es~,' an d m)' respon>c in HBTs, no. ] (1 9 86) 33- 50 , 51 - 59 , respectively.
10. Th" Talmud is a large body of Je,," ish la", and commenta!)' ,hl t e"oived d uring ,he period
.... 0. 200 to a pproximately the mi d·six,h c~ ntl1TY.
11 . .Ion levcnson. SIn,,; "n) b~~ . A" hI.)" '"!~ tht J..."",h B;h!r ( l\ linneilpoli~' \):?in,!On, 1985), 4.

That is a goal wonh striving for: 10 8i\'~ an interpreta tion that is "true to the
biblical texts Ihem~lve·,. so Ihal this body of literature h he je\vish Scriptu res, Ihc:-
O ld Testame nt) may speak with ils own voice in a ~Iativdy independent way.
Co nli II~ ity{D iscon lirm; ty
It is precisely this rel ative independence Ihat we: C hrisl ians mUSI grant Ihe Old
Testament in th e Christian Bible. There is a ch asm between the tw o testaments.
one that can be: bridged only by those who are able to ma ke the confessio n Peter
made at Caesarea Philippi, that Jesus (whom the re:ader knows to be the cruci-
fied and resurrected one] is Cod's Messiah, the Christ ([I.·lark 8:27-30). T hai
chrisLOlogical confession establishes a deep discontinuity with Israel's Scrip ture
and , at the same time. a deep con tinui ty in t he purpose of Cod. The discon·
tinuity is expres~d in the Gospel of Matthew: · You have heard tha t it was said
to those of ancien t t imes, ... but I say 10 you .. -" (Matt. 5:2 1·21, 1 7). The con ·
tinuit)' is exp ressed in the same Gospel : "D o not think that I have come to
abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish , but to fulfil!"
(Matt. 5: 17 ).
This h ermeneutic (o r mode of interpreta ti o n) 01 continuity/ disconti nuity will
result, on the one hand , in a critical assessment of the S<;riptureS of Ihe Old
Testament. Some o f th is literature has been supe~ded in God's ongoing purpose,
for instance, the prilctice of holy war o r the sacrificial sy~tem of the temple . On the
other hand. th is hermeneUlic will enable t he church to understa nd that the O ld
Testament has its own positive theological will'lCSS that often supplements and pc:r-
haps even corrects the N ew Testament witness. Some theological dim ensions in
the Old Testament are taKe:n for granted in t he New. such as c reation theology or
the prophetic message of social justice. BOlh testaments arc theologically neceS-
sary to each other if the church is to hear in the h uman ""ords of the Bible the
word (revelation) of God .
Tbt Cotxistmct of tht Jtwish alia OJristiall Communi/it'S
This whole ques tion of the relation belween the Old and ew Testaments
demands that we come 10 terms with the coexistence of the Jewish and Christian
communities in t he mySlery of God's purpose. Too o ften the downplaying of the
Old Testament has bee:n connected wilh an li.Semitism, which should have no
place in Christianity, although tragi cally it has pe rsi~ted down through history. A
special kinship exists between Christianity and)udaism--more so than in Ihe case
of Islam, wh ich also traces its spiritual ancestry 10 Abrilham.
Onc o f the outstand ing atlempts to deal with t he ki nsh ip between the JeWish
and Christian communities was that of the political philosopher Eric Vocge1in in
his five-volume study, OrJu 'lId Hislory. In this work he addressed the: ques tion
many people ra ised during the twentieth Ce ntuT)'~probabl y the mOSt vio lent in
hu man history--of whether "the c~aled order of society. in one way or anothe r,
•
The RelatIve Ill ck()("odence of the Old TesGmem 13
co~ponds 10 an unde rlying order of the universe.~ 11 h is highl y signi~cant that
Voegdin laid the foundation for his massive study by turning to the Old
Testament, or morC' specifically to the phenomenon of ancien! Israel in the context
of the religions of the surround ing world.'l He was nO! concerned wit h Israel as a
political state or with the religion of Israel but wilh Israel as the bearer of "revela·
lion" that provides a key to understandi ng the search for order in human h istory.
Vocge1in maintained that Israel's exodu> from Egyp t was nOt just a politicill
e~'e m in world his tory but an exodus from a symbolic world that ena bled ilncicm
em pi res, like that of Egypt. 10 sec: themselves ilS belongmg 10 a cosmic order.
Cods ilnd hUfTliI ns, cosmos and h istory. the heilvenly order and earth ly empire,
were bound up in one compact wh ole. Israel, however, broke from this "cosmo-
logical sym bol ism" and achieved a sense of "transcen dence: Ihil l is. iln aware~ss
of the rule of God that cannot be ide nt ified with the political order or ~ny~hing
"wo rldly." The revelalion of the Iranscendent God and God's created orde r,
e:xpressc:d in the symbolis m of the biblicill language, came to inspired persons,
ocginning especially with Moses, whose souls were so auuned to God and God's
cosmic ki ngdo m (rule: ) that t he:y represented a new type of hllman bcmg m wo rl d
hislC!),.
Accordin g to Voe:gelin, God's re\·elalion came: ~I a gre:at COSt. which he
described as a "mongage" of Israel's mundane existence on th e transcendent rul e of
Cod, as evidenced in attachment 10 ,m
elhnic group (the: pc:o ple Israel ) and a
promised. Iilnd (the land of Israc:l). As long as Ihis mongage: \,'as in c:ffen. God ...
revdat ion could nOI achie\'e Ihe univers.J1 implications ant icipated in the call of
Abraham (Gen_ 11: 1-3 ). In Christ ianity, however. this mongage was liqUidated . so
to spc:ak, and the promises to Israel ",'ere eXlended IC all people (nol JUSt the cho·
~n people ) on the wh o le "eanh" (not just the "land" of Israel).
H ere we fin d a bold attempt 10 deal wit h a fundamental theological subjen:
divine revelation. Even Ihose who do not share Vocgelin's philosophical presup-
position5 will be iI!1ured by the author's treatment of rel igious symbol ism . p,micu-
larly the symbolism of biblical language. To this malleT we sha ll re turn again and
again.
The thorny problem, however. is the proposed understanding of the rd at ion·
ship between the )e"' ish and Christian communi t ies of fai th . It is ironic that
Voegdin. for whom re\·elat ion to Isra el is the found ation and staning point, comes
OUt with a negat i\'e assessment o f th e fu ture of Israd in God's purpose. As a
ChriStian, he fi nds much that IS tme and good in t he Old Teslament. but t hese
t 2. Pet~r L Bergcr. A R~""" o} An;Ids. ,\ \aJmI s....--,,~. ,,"J tbi R,J:k""oo,"Y aJ th. S./Jtrr..;:~r~l (~'. .... d_ ..
Ne"" Yo rk., Doublrdl)·. 1990), 60-61 .
13. En c Voegelin, O,d" 3"J Huwry. "01. I, };r."j clnJ R" ·,/"-r",,, IllalOll R(H.I.II~' LOUisi;ma S tat~
Un;v. Prc~~, 1956). s.,~ my rcviCVo' cs~y, ' Pol it ics and the Tnnst:endr::nt Vrxgo:::hn's Philo<ophical
and Theolog ical Exposition of the Old Te<>tam<:n1 in the- Conle'l o f Ihe Arn;,e m Near Easl : Th
Po£ioc~f SrinKl R"'I""" 1 (Fall 1971) 1-29; re"Md and updated versIOn In Er>C" If"..gt!i~" Sr,zfri, J.w
Od,,: c-d. Stephen A McKn,ght iBaton Rouge l-Ol.l1sian~ St~le Un;" Press (978). 62-100 .
14 CC~!Q1Ir:s of Old T!S!",,,t70! Thrulogy The Re1ati\'e Independence of the Old Teslamem 15

benefits are only partiall}' val id because of the ~mortgage"-the attachment of This is the mystery 10 which our subject. the relation be£Wttn the testaments,
God's revelation to the concrete realities of this world: ethnic identity, a nation pertains. The Jewish and Chris tian communities belong together as closely as
stale, life on the land. Hence , just as Israel made an exodus from ~cosm ological civ- £wins in the womb of God's creative purpose . In a deep se nse both communities
ilization" under /I.-·Ioses, it must-owing to its inescapable involvement in th~ mun- belong to Israel. the people of God (cf. GaL 6: 16). They have in common a Bible ,
dane spherc---engage in an "exodU5 from il5elf." It is th~ destiny of Israel to die and the shared history of the People of God, which provides th e basis for creative dia-
to be superseded by the unive rsal revelation of God in Jesus Christ, in whom the logue. 16 They diffe r-and probably will differ till the end of time----ove r the ques-
promises to Abraharn are extended to all peoples.'4 tion of the climax of the story, whether th~ pilgrimage of God's people leads
through the Jewish Scriptures to the Talmud and a continued life of messianic
ex~tancy. or whether that pilgrimage leads through the Old Testament to Jesus ,
Tlx Aly\tay of D rrill~ flrellou
the Christ, who came not to destroy but to fulfil! the Law and the Prophets. 17
In my ju d gm~m, there is (I ~tter way to view Jew ish -Christian rdationship, and
correspondingly the rdation betwee n the Old and New Testaments_The particu-
larity of God's revelation to the ethnic group ISI<Id and the universal outreach and
induslvity of the Christian community need not conflict. The vocations of the two
communities--one to be the ~ople of the Torah and the other to be an inclusive
community that knows no boundaries (see Gal. 3,28 )-are complimentary in
Cod's purp~_ That view was set forth in Franz Rosenzwdg's classic, Tbt Star of
Rtarmpljo!1. 15 At the center of the Jewish community is the fire of God's holy pres-
ence (cL Exod_ 3:2: #the bush burned, yet it was not consumed"); in the othercom -
munity the rays of the fire reach outward into the whole world (cL John 1,9: "the
true li ght that enlightens everyone").
That view, [ believe. is consonant with Paul's agonized discussion of the rela-
tion between the t\"O communities in the face of Israel's rejection of Jesus as the
Messiah (C hrist). The stalemem that ~alllsrael will be saved" (Rom. 11:26) does
not mean that the Jewish comm unity of faith will make ~an exodus from itself" and
that all Jews will be Christianized. Rather, Paul grapples with the "mystery" (Rom .
I! ,25 ) of God's dection that includes both Jews and Gentiles in "the Israel of
God" (Gal. 6: 16). God is faithful 10 the promises made 10 the ancestors of Israel
and extends the meaning and power of those promises to all who have faith, those
who are true childre n of Abraham (see Romans 4). The eschalOlogical realization
of God's pu~ that "all Israel will be saved" is a mystery hidden in the grace of
God. It is that mystery that promp~ the apostle to exclaim at the conclusion of his
anguished and not altogether consistent discussion:
o the depth of Ihe riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How un~earchable
are his judgmentS, and how inscrutable his ways!
- Rom_ I LB

101,. V<X"gdi n, I,r~rl ad R",,]"!i,,", 144, 3 15, 506. Se., furth~r m~' C"i~y, ' I.rael and Revelation:
BR 13. no. 5 (1997) 17, 46-----t7, from which some of this di~uS5ion is laken. Also mr ~5~y pre·
.~nted to the $ecofld International Conference On Vocgdin's Work, held at tile Unive,.;ity 01
Maru;hC"iter /July 1997), · Revisiting Voegd in's JIt~d ~nJ R",,\aIiDn aft"r Twenty-he Ynr:s"
15. English translation by \'(Iil1iam W. Hallo (Noew YOI-i<., Holt, Rinehart and Wil15ton, 1971 )
af Fram: Rosenzw"ig, D" 51(moo- ErlOIMng (1930). Se" runh", Anon L Mackler. "(Jfliversal B"ing
and Ethical Particularity in th" Hebrew Bible, A Jewish Response 10 Voeg"lin', Is,,,,1 "nd
R."d, r,,,,,,· ]oumal ojR d'9i"" 79, no. 1 (j arl. 1999) , 19-53 .
16. s"e th~ imponam book edited Jnd inmxfuc"d by Fri.z A. Rothschifd. Jtt!n',b P=p<CIiv<s Dd
a,ris~"~;ty (New Yon:, Cro.sroad, 1990}. Th" book presents the ~'I""" of 6~.., J"wish thin k.".; on
th" relation of Chriman ity to Juda ism. indudi ng lea Baeck, Martin guber, Frnnz Rosenzw";g,
\Xiill Her~rg, and Abrnham J. HC"iChe1. "ach of whom is introouced by a Christian .h"ologian.
Note my introduction to the ".~y by Will Hcrbt:rg. my lricnd and fanner coU"agu.., '1uda;sm
and Christianity, Their Unity and Difl",,,nc.. -
I7. ThC"ie .... ords echo the concluding paragra ph of my U~J""I,mJir..g /1.0 00 Tf'5I<i"""t (4th ed ..
Eflgl ..,,·ood Cliffs. NJ, P""mice·Hall, 1986 ), 643.

3. OLD TESTAMEN T THEOLOGY
IN T HE TWENTIETH CEN T URY
Bgore vrnturillg into a treatmen t of biblical theology o f the O ld Testament, let
us pause to c:omide r w ha t ha s been going on in this field , especially in the tw en ti -
eth centu ry .
For centuries the re was no separa te disc:i pli ne of biblical theology , ra ther, th~
issues of biblic:a ltheology were deal t w il h in the context of c:hurc:h dogmat ics o r
the system of C hristian doct rine. A modem example of this would be Karl Barth's
multivolume Kirc!J1idx D~g rntllik (Cl",.",;h Dogmatics ), which, when dealing w ith the
various nlbri c:s of doclTine (c. g. , th e docnine of creation), gives ~xtend~d treat-
ment to th~ biblical witness on the subject. I
Some biblic:al theologians insis t that th e only way to do biblical the ology is [0
organize the disc:u,sio n acc:ording 10 th e nlb rics of doctri nal theology, wh ic:h are
broadly: G ud. humani ty, salva ti o n, esc: halO iogy. This approach has been stou tly
ddended b~' Robert Dema n, among others, in h is Pnfacc 10 OIJ ustam('r.t Thfolog)'_"
In the discuss ion of methodol ogy-how 10 go about doing b ibli c: al theol -
ogy-a fundamen tal question is the meaning of the prepositio n · oj in ~theology
of the Old Testam ent." Is th ere a th~ol o gy of Isubjec:tive gen it ivcj th e Old
Testament , one that is intrinsic: to th~ O ld Testame nt itself? Or is there a theolol,.,),
rela ted to. or in acc:ord Wi th , the Bible tha t is th ~ produc:t 01 theologic al reOec tion
from a C hristi an standpoin t; Bre\'ard Childs's magnum opus, Bib/i'<l1 Thfolog), of IN Old
(lHd Nrw Tcs!tlmml, ( 1992 ), is com patible w ith a dogmatic approac: h, as evident from
some of the c:ha pte r tid es in the final section enti tled "Theological Reflec:tion o n
the C hristian B i blc ,~ These chapters include "The Ident ity of God.~ "Go d th~
Creato r," "Covenant, Election, People of God," a nd DReconciliation w ith God,"
The Rise of Biblical TlJ(%gy
The ris~ of biblical t h~ology as a disc ipline s~ pa rate from dogmat ic theology is
usually traced bac:k to the inaugural lecture in 1787 ofJo han n Phillip Gabler at the
U niversity of Alt do rf, Germ any, "A D isc: ou rse on th e Pro per Distinction berv.'~en
Biblic:al and Dogmatic Theology and the Correct Delimitation of T hei r
Boundaries"> In this ieclUre Gable r declared that the two d iscipli nes d iffer bccaus~
L KaTI B.l rth , Kird,lic1>r ~,.a t'-k. 5 vo!.. in 14 \Zurich, Evangdiscoc Veriag, 1932- 1970 1,
Cbwf<Cb lJcg"",tics, j vols. in 14, traIlS. C W. Bromiky, e t aL {Ed inbu!),;h, T '" T Cl~rk. 1936-19771.
2, R~n C. Deman , A Pnjacr to Old Trskl .. nll Throu,gy ( N~w H~ven, Yak Uni,'. Pre". 19 50);
this approach is d aboratcd in idem, T!.r 1Gw",ldg, 4 G.J i. ,1r.citr.t ha,1 (Kew 'ro rk, Seabo,y,
1968).
3_ Th~ Engl ish transl ation from the I"" tin IS b~' J. Sand~'s · 'X'unsch and L Eldridg~ , 'l P.
Gable, and I h~ Distin<:tion be",'...,n Biblical and Dogmat ic Th~oJogy," SJT 33 ( 1980) 133- 58.
Sn Roll J> Kni~rim, 'On Cabler,~ in n.- TJ,k of OIJ Tnl'",'ml Th",Io!lY iGrand Rapid., Eenlmans,
1995 t 495- 556,
Old Test~me" t Theo logy in the Twentieth Century 17
~ach uses a different met hod: th~ biblical th~ olog ia n uses a his[Orical approach ,
while th~ ~yst~matic theologian has a didactic int~rest, to give te aching (doctrin e)
[0 the church_
The first step for the biblical th~ologian , acc:ording to Gab kr, is to consid~r
the h istorical context (p~ riod, authorship, soc:ial c ircumstanc: e) ,- th e next step is to
c:ompare the various his torical texts to see \"her~ t hey agree or disagree; the final
step is to sift o ut wha t is historic:ally inc:idental from wh at is time lessly true. It is
this "pure b iblic:al theology," freed from what is temporary .md passin g, that the
d ogmatic: theologia n uses in se tt ing forth teac:hing for the c:hun: h. Thus biblical
theology stands over aga inst dogmatic: theology, the one being baSically historical
and the o t her doctrinal.
Gabler raised a new ques tion, but he was unable to give a c:onstru cti" e answer
that stood the test of discussion. In h is searc:h for ideas that an: timelessly and uni-
vers ally valid, he was too muc:h under the influence of the rationalism of the
Enligh tenment. In retrospec:t it is evident that his g rou ndbreaki ng essay only
opened up the question of wha t biblical theology is and the method appropriate
to t he disci p l ine.~
HiS101)' of S"/lltllio"
A c:reative attempt to take seriously the h istorica l character of Scripture was made
by Joha nn Christian Ho ffm an n ( r 810---18 / 7 ). He espoused t h~ view that the
Bi ble presents a "history of salvation" (HribgrsciJiciJlc). that is. an un folding drama
of God's saving purpose, manifested in c:rucial events, Hoffman was intluenc: ed by
the ~federal " or "c: oven ant" theology of Joh n Koc h , or Cocceius (d. 1669), onc o f
th~ early Protestant theologi a ns, In his S,/milia Dodrintlc dr Foderc (Summation of
Co vena nt Doctrine) Hofl man insis ted that people should c:ease turni ng to the
Bible fo r proof lex ts (die/a probmll'<I ) to suppOrt docnine , rather, t he y should
study the d rama tic movement o f th e Bible as a whole. For him th~ Bibl~ prese nts
a series o f revelatory stages, a history of redemption, ~xt endi ng from c:reation to
consummation. T h e canon of the Bible, in th is view, is dynamiC in t he s~ n se that
it is based on t he sequenc:e of sacred hi story, the story of "the marvelous d~e ds
of God."
This dra m atic: understa nd ing 01 the Bib le, which is rel1ected to some degree in
my study gUide, Tk U"fo1di>:9 Dr""," of tlJ( Bibk 5 has ha d considerabl~ influence in
the rv.'emi~th c:~ntury. It is defe nded , above all, b}' the New Testam ~ m t heo logian
Osc:ar C ullm ann in h is book St11"aliol1 i" His/ory ,6 Although he avoids using the term
4. See B~n C. Ollenbu rger, · O ld T~tam~nt Theolog}'c A Discourse on lI.1ethod," in BiJ,!i",1
Tb< ol0!lY' P,oH, .. s dnJ Pmp<ct'm~, In HOMr 4) Om·sli""n Ikhr, ed. Stn'en J. Krahchick et aL
(N.,h.. ill~, Abingdon. t 995:., 8 1- 103 .
5. F,rsl u,,,d in th" Swdmt Christia n :-' loH'm"nt of the 19 50, an d 1960<;;, laler pub ri~hed in
seve",1 recen,;ons. The ,'ersinn published hy Fortress Press (1988) is sti ll in c;fCIllation , This
study gu ide is strongly inlluenced by historic.:li cri tici'm_
6. Oscar Cullmann, 5-r.iV<llion m H" tory, 'rJn~. S. C . SO"'(OTS {No:-w Testament library i London ,
Se'I.!, 1967l.
J8 C:m IOll'; 01 OlJ Tr;I~"'aol Thro!<>gy
"hi~IOI)'of salvation" (Hrilsgl'S{'bichlr ), he maintains that the Bible portrays a series
of eve nts that the biblical authors regarded as rel'ealing the saving presence 01
God in human h is tol)'- not h istol}' in ge neral. but the special h is tory reported in
the Bible,
Theology of D,uiH( PrtSO!Cf
A creative attempt to deal with biblical theology as a whole, including both Old
and New TC'itaments, is the fascinating work by Samu(-I Terrien, with its elegant
title The E1~lil'( Pmo:cc, Terrien maintains tha t "it is the distinctiveness of the
Hebraic theology 01 presence rather tha n the ideology of the covenant wh ich pro-
vides a key 10 understanding tile Bible."7 The biblical theology of Cod's presence
is rooted in the cult (community ,,,orship) and finds expression in symbolism tha t
appeals to both the "mystical eye" (Gods Hglol)''' j and "the ethical cat (God's
"name~) , Both types 01 s}' mbolism are neCC'i~ary to express what is fundamental in
both testame nts: the real presence of the holy, transcendent God who is both
revealed and hidden (lsa, 45,15). This study, which has not received the attention
it deserve~, is important for biblical theologians who wanl to take se riously the
symbolic, poetic, aesthetic dimensions of Scripture,S
Two Major Old Teslamellt ThwiogitS
The question of whether there is a theo logy that can be derived from the Old
Testament itself is answered in the alnnnative, but in quite diffe rent ways, by the
two grea t Old Testame nt theologians of the twe ntieth century, the Swiss theolo·
gian \'7alther Eichrodt and the Cennan theologian Cerhard van Rad. In their
separate ,"ays they broke with the liberal "iew that had emerged since the
Enlightenment that in the Bible one can trKe a spiritual grOWTh or evolution from
the primiti,'e level of I\:\osaic religion to the "ethical monotheism" of the prophets
and the New Testament. This "modem use of the Bible" was popularized by Harry
Emerson Fosdick ( 187&-- 1964), minister of Ri\'erside Church in New York City,
who mJintained that ~abiding experiences"-rclevant even today----underlie the
"changing categories" of the biblical devdopment ,9
fichrodf's COVCI"m! T17(%gy
Eichrodt defined the task of Old Testament theology by raising a question, #How
to understand the realm 01 Old Testament belief in its structural unity and how, by
exami ning on the one hand its reli gious em'ironment and on the other its essen-
tial coherence '''ith the New Testament, to illuminate it5 proloundest meaning." w
7. Samuel Terri~ Il, Th Elu!;p~ Prl';l!,er, Tow~,J ~ Nw Biblical Tho!~)' (Sail F",[}ciscoc Harver &
Ro,,', 1976 ), p . "",,'ii.
6. See my later treatmem of oo"enaJ\lal patterns of <ymbolism, chapt~rs 4ff.
9. Fosdid,s writings indud~ Jly AlaJm, U" 4 tb, &blr (New York , Jl.1acmill an . 1924), and A
G"U, 10 UdmL,~J;"g Iht Rb!, {N~ York, Harper and Bros., 1936 ).
10. \1;'ah11er Eichrodt. The!,,!!)'..>j Ih O U Tr; /a"""I, trans. J. A Il"k~r, J "ols., OTL (philadelphia,
\)Vestmin,' ~r. 1961----67). 1,31.
O ld Te~ta mem Thwl o~'Y in the Twentieth Century 19
This dennition indicates two fundamental concerns. First, Eichrodt wanted to
understand the Old Teslament in the context of the culrural em' ironment of the
ancient Near East. To appreciate this imereS! wc must consider the situation in
which he found himself as a biblical interpTCter, \Vhen he ,,'rote (in the early
1930<;), Old Testament theology was overshadowed by study of the rdigion of
Israd, which in rum was viC',.'ed in the wider context of the histol)' of religions
(Rtligionsg(scbidJlr), There was much excitement abou t the rediscol'e!), of the liter_
arure of ancient cultures, for example , the excavation of Ihe palace of Ashurbanipal
at Nineveh (from the late sixth century B.C.) [hal yielded [he Baoylon ian story of
the flood (Gi!gamesh Epic) and the Babylonian creation epic (f!1Ilma fl ish }. II Also •
beginning in 1928 new light was thrown on (he rd igion of Israel by the discovery
of the Ras Shamra tablets, Canaanite mythological te xts dating from the four-
teenth century ~.C 11 It became increasingly clear that the Old Testament was pan
and pared of the !iterarure of the ancient world. Eichrodt attempted 10 revive the
task of O ld Testament theology by demonslrating that something un ique was
going on in ancient Israel- not JUSt a general hislOrical·cultural development but
a special movement of divin(- re\,dation.
Another concern was to understand the Old Testament's "essential cohere nce"
with the New. Eichrodt wanted 10 let the O ld Testament speak in its own way, but
also to show that its message is consistent with that of th(- New. He insisted that
the Old Testament has a relati ve independence, but that it belongs wit hin the
canonical context of the Christian Bible,
\'fhat, then, is the witness of the Old Testament tha t was unique in its ancient
cultural environmenl and coherent with the message of the Ne,,, Testament?
Eichrodt maintained that the domimnt thrust of the Old Testame nt was the
inbreaking of the kingdom 01 God into ancient Israel and its dynamic movement
toward Ihe manifestation o f God's dominion in Jesus Christ. In this se nse, the
Bible as a whole disc loses a history of salvation- a movement of d ivine redemp-
tion, evidenced in God's entrance into the historical arena 10 call and constirute a
people and, through that people, 10 lead toward the lime when God's kingdom
would come on eanh as it is in heaven.
Furthermore, Eichrodt maintained that [he theologian can take a "cross-
seclion" (Ql!CTKb-!1I'/t) of this dynamic development at any poim in the historical
process in order 10 explore the Old Testament's structure of belief and 10 perce ive
its integrity vis-it-vis the religions of the environment. JUSt as a logger can cut
through a tree and study the structure o f its growth, so the theologian can study
the ~crOSS-5ection" thal shows the ~i nner shape" or consistent stllJClUTC manifest in
its development, The faith of Israel is not a miscellaneous assortment of beliefs,
noris it only a process 01 growlh and development, Rather, it manifests a stllJctmal
1 I. For "an~l uionl of both oi these swri ..., ,e~ ANET. 42---14 and 71- 99. A popular "~rsion .
quit~ acc ... ,ib l ~ to the gen~ral re~de r, is O'-"ld ~e rry, G,Ig",.,!h· A Nw R",Jeri"!i iM frc!lfi,h I'm,
(Ne,,' York : Farrar, SlraUI J nd Giroux, 19'91 L
I 2 . See A'-!FT, 129--55.

un ity or theological int~grity that is fundamentally the same in all h istorical stages.
Eichrocl t's approa.ch is sy r., bror.j( (~happening toge t h~r: li ke noteS snuck simulta-
neously in a musical chord). though he also anemptecl to do justice to the J'<1dmmi(
dimension ("h appeni ng through time," like the successive no tes of a scale}. In his
view Old Testament theology does no t concentrate on growth or evolu tion (e .g ..
the growlh of the idea of God ) but on "slnJC tura l" features tha t r~m ain the sam~ in
,Ill historical periods.
..
Finallv Eichrodt maintai n~d that when a cross-section is taken, the structure of
the ·log,n visible at any place that one chooses to make a cut, is cove nantal, that
is, it manifests rela tionship betv..e~n God and people . He was not concerned to lifE
up a particular covenant (e_g. , Abrahamic, 1\oI05aic , Davidic ) o r to study t he uses o f
the t~rm "covenam ((.rritb); rather, he wanted to stress the relational characte r of
ff
t he faith of ancient Isra~L The Old Testament cloes not dea l wit h Gocl as a se pa-
rate subject (theology ) or with Israel as a sepilrate subject (anthropology ), rather,
theology and anthropology belo ng together, in relationship. Hence the impor-
tance of th~ copula "and": God tlIl J Israel, God and the world, God anJ hum an
being- the major captions of h is work.
Here , then, we nnd an attempt to d~al with th~ dy namic (historical) and the
struc tural (systematic ), the diachronic and the synchronic . [n this v i ~w the Old
Testament discl0'5es a movement in time toward th~ New Testament r~vela tjon (a
history o f redemption ), but Ihe faith o f Israel, the people of God, maintains its
identity and integrity during the who le movement.
This impres~ive proposal was instrumental in bringing about a revival of int er-
est in Old Testament theo logy. But the question was qU ickly ra ised an d debated,
Can the whole Old Testament be brought und er the umbrellil of ~covenant", There
are ilctually se\'c-ral covenant "theologies" in the Old Testam~nt, as we shall see;
and not all the literature of th e Old Testament belongs in any kind of cov~ nantal
fram~work (e .g .. wisdom litera ture such as Job , Proverbs, and Ecclesiastesl .
Furthermore, Eichrodt's attempt to disc ov~r "structural unity" W3S unsuccessful;
there is tOO much variety and diversity to allow for thaL Nevertheless. h is ~mph a .
sis o n th~ rdatio1!al character of Old Testament th~ olog}' was a salUlary contribu-
tion that we need to re tain . The Jewish philosopher Abraham Joshua Heschel said
something similar from h is perspective, revela tion is not the disclosure of Cod's
nature or ~sse nce but of Cod's "relation to history."' ]
V<m Rnds Story-Idlir.g Th~oJD9Y
\'(l~ rum now to the second major O ld T~stam~nt th~oJogian of the twem ie th cen -
tury, Gerhard von Rad. His monum~ ntal work, Old Trslammt ThwIogy, came Out in
two volumes: TIK TIKo/ogy DJ Tsrads Historical TraditioNs ( 1961 ) and Tb~ Theology of
t 3.Abraham .loshua Heschel. God;~ S.ar,b of Alan, A PI';/oSllphy of. J~.l";,,,, If'",,' York, FalTllr.
Srr~us and Cudahy, I 95 5). s,,~ funher my ess.>y, ·Coo:xi~fe,.,ce "'jth Go& Heschd's Expositi on o f
Biblical TheololO'.- in Ab,~ru'" JOl""~ H,,,bt/, &~roril!g Hts Lif•• mJ Tlx,,!/h:. cd. John C Merkk
(Ne,,' York, Macmillan, I985), 47---65, e5pe<i~lIy 53~58
Old Testamen t Theology in til~ Twentktil Cenrury 21
["'Ids Propbetic Twailiam (1965 ). This work represents a radical depanure from
Eichrodt's prese ntation.
Von Rad criticiz~d Eichrodr's work for not doing justice to th~ charact~r of the
Old T~stament itself. {t was 100 structu ra l, too syst~m alic , and not suffiCiently
dynam ic and histo rical. C onsonant with this criticism, he advocated a new
methodology, one that uses form criticism and the h istory of tradi tions. Form crit-
icism is a method that srudies Ihe lite rary lorm of sCTipturalunits in their social set-
ting (e.g. , a po~m for an ent il ron ~men t ceremony; cf. Psalm 2 ) . Tradition history
is a method that studies the expansion . combination. an d reinterpretation of liter.
ary units (poems, stories, law code~, oracles, prov~rbs, elC.) from their original for .
mulation in oral tradition until th~ final formation of the tra diti o n as the received
Scriptures. 14
His me thod was s~t forth in his programmatic essay, '-The Form-Critical
Problem of th~ Hexateuch : in which he tried to accou nt for the simplicity of
Israel's ~arly confession of faith , fo und in the so-called linle historical credo (Dem.
265·10), and the greatly expanded elaboration 01 ils content in the Hexateuch as
a wholeY In his view th ~ final literary composition (Hexateuch ) was th e end
result of a history-a history of traditions. It is this hiStory that the theologian
must take seriously- no t events in a history of Israel or even e\'ents in a "history
of salvation: ,It least in the o ld sense, but a h istory of tradi tions, that is, history o f
Ihe interpretation and rein terp retation of th e core confession of faith .
Thus von Rad 's m ~ lhod is diachronic . T he Old Testam~nt , he said, is by and
large a history book Ihat, in all its diversi ty. bearswimess 10 the h istory ofYahweh
with his people. 11 presents the unfolding drama of the divi ne purpose with Israel
frum its beginnings until the coming of t he Son of Man . This "histo ry: howev~r,
is not ordi nary histofY as John Bright and j\·lanin Not h have written, but a his tory
of traditions, in which an early Israelite confession of fai th was co nstantly being
reinterpreted in new situations. Past tradition was always bei ng conu;mporized in
new limes, new circl~s , new ways; a.nd this went on continuously unti l nnally the
process of r~ i nterpretation reached its climax in the New Tesla.menl.
Accord ingly, th e ta.sk of the Old Testam~ nt theologian is to ~relell" the story
just as Israel told and reto ld it . "Eve nt,« von Rad said \,'ith a critical ev~ toward
Eichrucl t and all systematicians, "has priority over logos." In this history of tradi·
tions there are many breaks. many ne\.. starts, man y d isconnected testimonies.
T here is no systemat ic unity. bu t diversity, variety, mult iplicity. Indeed, h~ w~nt so
far as to say that th~ atte mpt to find anything In th~ Old Te5tament that gives it
theological integrity or unity is misguided. H ere we are dealing wi th a process, a
mO\Cem ~ nt. a history of traditions tha t has no "c~ nt~r" {,\·filll!. The proc~ss reaches
14. Se~ defimtions of '"form criticism·' and -canonica l cri tici,-.m- in my Udmkw.Jir.g "" O IJ
Tf'!,~",,,,r (abridged 4th cd .; Englewood Cl iffs, N.j., Prcmi<:~-H. n. (997). 487--38, 578 .
IS. In Gerhard ,'on Rad. Th Problnn 0}1b" H"','!f'"~cb dlld O:h", f<!ay<. tT<ln5. E. W Truem. n
lJ icken (Ne ..... YOfk McCra",_H.ll, 1966). t ~7S
•
22 C""!.:Pcinoj DU TdlQllln:l Tholo9y
its culmination inJesus Christ, who is the: cenlcr of the Bible (obviously this means
the Christian Bibk).
This, 100, is a magnificent presentation. For a brief time it swept the 6elduntil
the demise of the "biblical theology movement" around 1970 (approximately the
rime of Brcvard Childs's book, Biblic<l1 Tbtology in (risis). Several probkms emerged
in the course of discussion. For Oilc thing, von Rad made a sharp disliOClion
ber..'ecn -ilcrual history" and ·swry of faith : Theologically. he was concerned. not
with events in history but ...,..ith a history of traditions, ~nstl\lctcd according lO
the method of form criticism. Also, von Rad was not very dear about what gave
Israd a distinctive theological integrity and sense of identity over against till.-: envi-
ronment. He spoke about "thl: innl:T connection (Zuslllftlftathlll!g) of Old Testament
sp<:ech about Cod: but surdy this cohc:rencc: cannot be explained only on the
basis of a h istory of traditions. ,\iloreover, von Rad seemed to deny that the Old
Tc:stament speaks with an independc:nt theological voice, c:ven within the
Christian canon. Apan from Jesus Christ, he said, thc: Old TestameT1t has no thc:o-
logical center o r integrity, and belongs only 10 the history of Israel's religion. It is
with words to this effect that his 011 TtStalllatt Tbro/05Y doses. 16
The Future 01 Old TtStammt T/xala!/y
So, where do we go from hc:-re} As a student humorously asked, -Is thc:rc: life after
HtilsgtSl:nicnld
Waite r Brueggemann begins an essay on "FulU~ in Old Testamc:nt Theology"
with the observation: "TIle only [Wo things sure about Old Testament thc:ology
now are : 1. The ways of Walther Eichrodt and Gc:rhard von Rad are no longer ade':-
quate. 1. Therc: is no co nSe':nsus among us abo ut w hat comc:s ne':x t.·"
BTlllg9C-llllll's Bipolnr Thoblgy
Among scholars of a younger gene':ration Brue':ggemann has take':n the': lead in
addressing the problc:ms and possibilities of producing an Old Testament theology
in the': "postmodem- climate of biblical studies, that is, in thc: period afte':T the dom -
ination of the': c:ighteenth.century Enlighlenml:nt_ '8 In advancc: of t he recent
appearance of his own major opus, Thtol"9Y of thr Old Tf'SliIlllmt,1 9 he wrote several
t6. c;..m.,rd ~~n !bd. OIJ T...I.:;..... r n:....\ofy. mlns. D_ M_ C. Sulker, 2 vols. (New YOr1:
Ha~r &: Row, 1962--65)' 2:428---2 9_
17. Wah~r Bruegscminn, OL:I T<,!", ..",I ~)': EISI')" "" S"ln,efJ,,'t, 7lonu. '"" Tm , ed_ Pa.trick
O. ,\Iiller (Minne~pol~ Fort..:•• Pn:ss. (992 ). 111 . Th~ 1\.0( and I~mlent in the: Old T~tament
field i . ...·dl described ilnd InillYled by leQ G . Perdue, TU Cou..~ oJ Hi,I«)" Rmw.!I""tl..g 00
T<,!r~ .. "!I Thoh>gy (M inneapol iSe Fortrns Pn:-ss, I 994),
18. A he1phti introduction 10 po'itmodern philosophy and its impaCI On Christ ian theology
is A Pri~r aJ Posr.."J,.",j. , ed. Stanl",,· J. CrenI (Grand ~pid>, Eerdrrnon' , 1996). See al<o AlIan
I>.lesill, Propt,ro oJ fxl~: Nirt"~ H~gn: FOOlfQ~k ~ IBo:rkdey: Un iversity of C.lifomi~
Pn:s~. 1985).
19. Wah~ Bruegaemann. n...k'!1y cf tr.. O!J TI'I"',"",~ Ttrtimmty. Dis~1t. Ad_MY (Minn~apolis:
Fort r~' Pn:ss, 1997).
Old TC:Slameru Theology in ,he: T...·~tic:th Century 23
preliminary c:ssays that give some indications of how a Mn~w" Old Testamenr the.
ology should be conceiv~d.
To begin With, he proposc:s that the biblical theologian should Macce pt a mode
probably mor~ appropriate to our cultural moment of scatt~rin8 and our intdle(>
tua! moment of hermc:neutical self-kno ..... ledge: WI: should be realistic about th~
brc:akdown of any consensus in biblical studies and about th~ inescapabiliry of a
hermeneutical perspective. This is no t ime, hc: avers, fo r "a grand design" that
"i nd ud~s and aC<:OUnlS for everything: such as allemptC':d in the monum~ntal
works of Eichrodt and von Rad.:Co
Specifically, this mc:ans that "we might cease to ask about a w:tu for Old
Testament theo logy and ask about boundarie':s, edges . limitS, parameters, within
which faith proceeds and beyond which it may not legitimately go." Unlik~
Childs. who, as we shall see, decla~ that the canon of ScriplUre sets the bound·
aries, Bru~ggc:mann proposc:s a sociological criterion: ~cultural embrace" and "cul-
tural criticism." By th is he means that "in every issu~ [und~r discussion ] on~ may
ask the: extl:nt to which Israd borrows, appropri ates, cohnes with the general
practicc: of th~ ancient Near Easte':rn culture and the extent to which it makes its
own distinctive statement out of its own concret~ experience, whi ch has the effect
of transforming cultural forms and valucs."'l l From these statements it is d~ar that
Old Testamcnt theology mUSt tak~ seriously the rdigions of the ancient Near
East, which in this discussion are d~signatC':d ~the common theology."
Old Testament theol ogy, he says. will be "bipolar-; it will reflect the tension
betv.'een texts that serve to "ll:gitimate StruCture" ( t h~ common theology ) and
those that, by M cmbracing pain,~ challenge the established order (Israel's distinctivc
witnc:ss). It is not that the theologian selects onc: or the other: eithc:r those texts
that legitimate order (creation theology in this sense) or those that express the
pain of opp ressed minorities, ra the r, it is thc: interaction of the twO (hat constitutes
the dynamic of Old Testamc:nt theology.22
Now that Bruc:ggc:mann's monumental Tbtol"91 has appeared, ""e can appreci-
ate the fulfillment to which th~5~ prdiminary remarks point. To begin With,
despite': his criticisms of historical criticism, as a child of the Enlightc:nment he is
profoundly under its influence when he concentrates on the "multipliCity" and
"dc:nsiryM of Old Testament texts. This book could only have h<::en written by onc
who had becn subjected to the analytical dissec ti on of historical criticism.
Two major movc:mc:nts in biblical crit icism provide the lens, 50 to speak,
through whKh Bruc:ggema nn views the O ld Testament. The first is rhetorical crit-
ICism, the child of form criticism.- dx second is SOCiology. a rd ative newcomcr on
the scc:n~ of biblical criticism.
20. Walt~r Bru~88em~nn. 'Furun:-s in Old Te~wn<:nI Theology: In O IJ T<'! "'I!I"') Tb..,J"gy.
11 4 .
2 t. IW., 11 4-15 .
22 . This bipol~r dialectic Isdiscuss..-d in hi. t ...·o lead ~ys OIl O ld T~"mc:nr Iheolo/IY in 00
T..."' ......' TI..obgy,"A Shilpe for Old T~tar=nt Th.:-oiog)'. J: Snucture legit imation: 1_2t , w · A
ShIp<: f.,..-Old T~t~ment Theology. 11, Embr.tee oi Pilin," 2l-H.
14 Conrmm cf Q!J T.,t.v.oml Thto!ofy
Tbt Hmno:tIloc of fA"!llUl!}{
Rhetorical criticism is a method that concenuates on the art o f expressive speech
found in biblical texIs. Form criticism had concentrato:-d on literary un its and their
"setting in life" (e.g., the "covenant la ....suit,W Hebrev.' n'b, d. Jer. 3:4-13), rhetorical
criticism g.xs beyond this into a study of the language itself: its Style. structure,
symbolism. assonance . and so on.:1; Bnleggema nn tilkes a step further: for the O ld
Testamtcnt theo logian ~speech is the real ity to be srud i ed.~ for speech creatcs the
world in which God is presented. The theological task is not to seek some realit}'
behind the text, fo r instance, a hiSlOrical event that may have happened, or even
the Bcin!: of the Cod who transcends the «:ality of the texl. Rathe r, the theologian
stud ies Israel's speech about God in biblical texts in their multiform variety. The
question is simply and profoundly, · What ~ said! - Israel's testimony in ",·ords. H
At the OUtset of th is nelO.· venture in Old Testament theology. Brueggemann
pays tribute to the influence of Paul Ricoeur, an outstanding philosopher of the
twentieth century. In Ricoeur's philosophy of language, the basic question is one
of epistemology, Ihat is, "How do we knolO.'1":l3 He rejects the view. dominant
since the philosopher Rem: Descartes ( 1596-1650). that human beings are
thinkers ....,ho cogitate an eXlemal world that can be fationally (mathematically)
measu«:d. historically explained, and subjected to scient ific contro l. Th is ratio-
nalism, summed up in Descartes's r09ilD "go sU'" (I think, therefore I am), underlies
the modem scientific world. It is man ifest, for instance, in so·called hiscorical crit-
icism that subjects biblical texts to rational analysis and historical verification.
Instead, Ricoeur advocates a mode of inte rpretation (hermencutic) that relies more
on the imagination. A biblical text (say, a narration, a prophecy. a hymn of praise)
"opens OntO a ..... orld, the biblical wo rld, or rather t he multiple world s"'" ponrayed
in diverse kinds of biblical literature. Th~ task is not to understand the intention
of biblical authors, or 10 penetrate the ancient historical situation out of wh ich the
tex ts came. but 10 hear the Ptestimony" of the text, wh ich has a poetic funct io n in
that it projects a ~new world of being: differe nt from ~the ""'orld of ordinary expe-
rience: The reader is invited to enter and · in habi t~ the new wo rld of the Bible and
thereby to find a new being.J6 'The Bible is one of the great poems of existence:
says Ricoeur. an d therefore like any 8fCat litcurure offers a ne¥.' being, but it is also
unique in that it brings onc CO the limits of discou!"!iC about Cod and to "the name
of the unnameable."":!'
23. A 81"':at pio~r in this !kid ""~James l'oluilenburg. 1'onn Criticism and Ikyond; ,1 p~ .
;dent i11 addr~s~ 10 Ih~ Soci~ty of Biblical liter.llure, 1DL 88 ( 1969) 1- 18. A migni Rcent example
of the use of this met hod is found in Phyl1is Trible'~ study of Ge~i, 1_; in c;.,J ,In.! t~ Rh«~n'c oJ
Stx"'llily. OBT (Phi!3delphia, Fortn:ss P,<.:ss, (978 ).
24 Brueg~ann, Thro[.,gy <f th. OJJ TrsL"" .... r. 11 s-.20.
25. For a sum mary of RICocur's philowphy of lanijUolge. see the mlroduClion 10 Rko<;ur's
essays. F,g~ ,,,,,, 1« $..rtd, R,ligill1l. .\'~,,~IWt. ~..J 1""JI'",,:i1l1l. ed. jI.·1ark I. \X1albce {:-I;nnc:apoli~,
Fonr~s Press. 1995} 1- 31.
26 PJul Ricoew", 'Toward a HemencutIC 01 the Idea of Re....,latlOn: HT/{ iO ( t 9m 2i-JJ.
2i. Ibid.. 16. Sec: funher my di'iC\luion 01 the name 01 God. chapter 6
Old Testament Theology in the T"""nt;eth unrulY 25
Socioilll}y and Ibt Bible
Another major influence in BNegg~mann's Tlxorogy is the SOCiology of knowle~,
which views human language as expre5sing the interests and values of a social
group or, in the Marxist vers ion. the gTOOp that holds power. Under the influence
of Norman Gonwald, who proposed a quasi'{\'larxist d ialectic of t he conflict
between those who have power and tho~ who are oppressed by the powe r hol d -
ers. Brueggemann perceives that the drnamic of Old Testament theology is found
in this bipolarity. Con....'ald, to whom he is indeb ted, has anempted to translatc
theology into sociology without remainder. In his vie",' "Yahweh" means "the his-
IOrically concretixed, primordial power to esrab lish and sustain social equality."
' Chosen people" means "the distinctive self-consciousness of a society o f equals
created in the Imertriba! order and demarcated from a primarily central ized and
slratined surrounding world." And so on. H~
Sociology o f th is kind helps to understand the "bipolar" drnamic of Old
Tes tament theology: the conllict between 'cultural embrace" and "culrural criti-
cism: Brueggemann wants to avoid the reduction of the ology to sociology. H e
decla res th at God is not only ~in the fray" (the social process) but Pabove the fray"
(beyond the reach of sociological analysis ). 'The poets and narrators in Israel: he
says, "do, in fact. speak the mind or Cod [sic J .~ who is beyond the historical process.
Yet "biblical anis ts enter into the struggle in which Cod is in volved," whe ther to be
the god of common theo logy who sanctions order or 10 be the Cod who acts with
liberating power and does what is nev.' and unexpl':cred .~ Althoogh Brueggemann
wants to emphasize both order and novelty, structure and protest. one gel!i the
impression that "the word of Cod" is spoken most authentically in those texts that
deal with ~Ihe embrace of pain: that is, the cries of those .... ho lack power.
This sociological approach. influenced by the Marxis t dta lectic of powe r and
power1~sness, can have a heuristic value. enabling us to notice theological d ime n-
sions th at o lherwise might be overlooked. This sociology calls our attention to the
problem o f filit h and ideology, an issue [ha t we must wrestle with from time to
time. Sociological me thod, however, has its own limitations. It may enable us to
sce how Cod is "in the fuy,~ but it offers little help in un dernanding how God,
.... ho is ~above the fray,W speaks a word of revelation. If the Bible IS the Word of
Cod in some sense for a community of faith. it surely contains more than "a rumor
of angels.~ thal is, h ints of divine transcendence. lo
T(5tiltlotlY and Trial
To organize h is th eological exposition of t he Old Testament. Brueggemann adopts
the metaphor of the COUrt trial before the nat ions, found centrally in thc poetry of
28. Korman Gotrl<.'ald. Th Tr:~ Dj \'"bwh, A So.~ <f /;,.. R'!iglP't of lib.",rrJ /sr,,,l. 12lo--roJO
3.C.~. {/I.·laryknoll. K .Y.; Orb,s, 19791. 692. S~ my n:-o,''':,,"' in TTdoy 38 (April 1981 ) 107--8.
19. Brueggemann. -Shape. 1,"' In O!d Ttsla....,r Tbrolcgy . 19.
30. In R.....". of Ar:i,1, ( n:-o,•. ed., N~ Yolk, Doobled.ay. 1990) the S/XioloiPst Pet~ Befl!CT
explor~ .he cp..!e!'lion (If who:tho:r SOCKIlogy Can reach beyond it5 own methodologICal limita·
tions. The result~;ore nol encouragong f~ the theologian.

26 CQnl<nors of Old Trst.>OI(nI TIxoleogy
Scc;:ond Is.a.iah (cf. ha. 41 :1-42 :4). This lrial has thn:-e c!"ments, (I ) Israel makes
its con:- lestimony, grounded primarily on the God o f the exodus who lil)Cntes
from bondage, (2) Israel and Ihe nations make a c;:ou nt" rtestimony about the Cod
wh o upholds order and granls fenility; and (3 ) this dialectic prompts Israel. as an
advocate for Yah ...·eh. to make a new th=logical witness.
In his clabor.uion of Ihis metaphor. Brueggcman n invit.,... us to break OUt of
paSt theolog k al categories and 10 view the wi tness of th~ O ld Testament in an
emi rd)' new way. This creative proposal will no doubt prove to be a powerful fer-
ment as a new cenrury begins.
Like its predecessors, this bold rheologic;:al \'enture rai~ quc<; tions for theo-
logical discussion. First, there is a bask methodologic;:al question: how does onc
ascertain the ' core testimon),win the contexl of the wmultiple worlds· presented by
texts of the Old TestamenO Brueggemann, of course, knows wdl the rich diversity
of the Old Testament, nevenhdess he speaks of "Israel's charac;:teristic speech
about Cod.~ "the usual modes of speech.- ··consensus testimony.~ ll In describing
what is allegcdl}' Israel's "normative" testimony, Brueggemann dra ws widely on
Old Testament texts , .... ithout giving a clear criterion for selection.
Brueggemann attempts to deal ....,ith Ihis met hodological proble m by appealing
to a "grammar oi faith ," which stans Io,'ith Cod as the su bject (verbs), moves to the
objecl5 that are transformed (nouns), and indudes adjec:tives that portray the char-
ac ter of the Cod who acts. This apprmch, however. is questionable when onc con-
siders that the meamng of a theological sentence depends on the context in which
it fu nctions (e .g., Deuteronomistk, Priestly, Davidi c)Y
Se<:ond, Brueggemann "brac;:kets out all questions of h istoricity; such as ~wha t
happel'lCd or the historical circumstances tha t prompted the testimony.33 The
D
Old Testament Thoology in the Tw"nliclh un",!ry 27
C h ri stian theologian has to deal in some way with the factuality of the crudfixion.
t o say nothing of Ihe reality of the rcsurrection.
Third, it is ques tionable .... hether Brueggemann does justice to the fact that
Old Testament theology is in a special scnse a Christian discipline, as the desig-
nation 60 ld Testament" suggests. He seems to feel that the so-c;:alled Old
Testament stands by itsclf, independent o f the: Jewish and Christian communit ies,
and then:-fore may be understood in in own right .... ith the method of modem
rhetorical cri t icism.)7 But this does nOt do JUStice 10 the canonical status of these
.... ril ings in [he Jewish and Christian Bibles. This literature is inseparably related to
a m mmunity of faith , M the people of God,~ that produced ;t and im" rpn:-t" d it dur·
ing its historic;:al pilgrimage. In the mysterious grace o f Cod the Christian com-
mun ity. along .... ith the Jewish, belongs to the Israel of God (Gal. 6,17). In the
future, new light may break forth as these rwo commun ities of faith engage in dia-
logue about t he meaning o f the Scriprures they hold in common:18
Finally. in Bruc:ggemann'li th= logical exposition the question of "revelat ion"
comes to the fore_ H e does not say tha t the biblical tcstimony rrowls God, but that
the testi mon y is ad judged to be truthfu l and is takflllls revelation. "That is, the les-
tim ony tha t Israel bears to the ch aracter o f God is taken by the cedesial m mmu·
nit)' of the text as rel iable disclosure about the true character of Cod_"39 /I.'lore clar-
ity is need ed on th" identity of this "ceclesial communi I)' of the tex( (t h" jury) in
whic;:h the testimony Ot("OIIIrs revela tion. Brueg8emann concludes his ThQI~gy with
a ringing c hallenge to this communit)', where.... er it is preSent, to "ngage tilt theo -
logic;:a! claims of the biblical tcstimony and to reorder its life according to "the
.....orld of Yahwe h-"40
In conclusion. Brueggemann maintains that new revelation occurs. and will

W
c;:oun ·cannOI go behind the testimony to the e,'ent it has to take the testimony
;
as "t he real ponrayal."J· Hen:- the analob'Y of a lrial seems to bn:-ak down, for gen-
n<!.lIy the COurt seeks facrual C'o'idence other than the test imony (e.g., DNA tests,
ballis tics tests. fingerprints). There is a problem here, I believe. that cannOt be
resolved by "bracketing out" histQricity.;5 The dime nsion of ~tacticity and his-
toricity; as Will Herberg emphasized, cannot be ignored th=logically.306 Surely a
occu r, through the dialectical conAict between Israel's core testimony of Cod's sav-
ing power and (he countertestimony of Gods maintenance of order. In the fac;:e of
c;:ountertcstimony, whic;:h also claims (0 be true, the coun has to decide what is (he
truth. The questio n of the true linguistic ponrayal of Cod is debatable, and a fi nal
... erotc;:t has not been reached. In the great court trial, '"the ....ait ing is long and dis-
c;:orx::en ing, because other gods are sometimes most formidable. And th" jury only
trickles in----here and there, no..... and thcn -"~ I

31. Bn«gge:mann, Tbecl/l§y of It.. O IJ Tt$lo ....r, Ill- 30.

32. This cometagl approach to Old T~ta"",m tilrology (",hid "''' a", follcr..·ing in Ihis
book) is also SU88"Sled by Philip Pete. j"nson, G'QJ,J Hol'M', A Kry ~ rh: Priesriy G",crpri07l of rh.
World, jSOTSup 106 (SilefAeld: jSOT Pr.,.;s, 1992). H e sp"3k~ of a "con,,,prual approach" (p.
214) bilsed on "group-s of texts which refleel a diSlinc<i,'e 1"1 of conc"rm and a ",Iali...,,]y uniA"d
37. Th,s il ;0 Ie-gilimar" objecuon of Denn,s T. O]o;,on, "B,blical Theolo8Y 3S Pro\'ilional
outlook (e.g. , the prophets, th" Droleronomic hi$IOI)·. the Pri(",;lly writing, lhe wisdom wri lingS).
Mono\ogizaliono A Dialogue wilh Child~, Bn«g;:em;tnn and Bakhtin: lM/,<-.,! r"'f1/'mdliono A
Th~ lend 10 reflect the prt<iominance of a cen~in style of writing or Benr" (e_iL cullic law ). and
)"""",1 of Co;?l!tJl[~orm)' App,e<>d",! 6 ( I 99S} 161-80.
a panicular social I"tling it.a;. , th" priesthood):
38. See the discussion of the- election of 15r.1d , chapter 1
B . BTlt<:l>Vcmann, "T"bNiogy of the Old TnL,,",,,t, I lB.
39. Bl1.Ieggemann, "[I,"''''9y of Ib, 00 Ttl l~"''''l. 12 I 5<oe his n. 9, ""her" he commems on ",·hat
34 Ibid .. tlO-ll
il lTIt~ns "10 tak" §Omclhing;os realil)':
35. See Appendix 2, "'"The Rt:"""ance 01 Biblical ..'I,rcharoiogy 10 Bibliul Th"oIogy, A Tnbule
40. Bl1.Iegge~nn. -{l.'Io,·ing Tow~r(\ Troe Speech; in ibid .. 74 3_50
10 Ccorge- En>e'§t Wright:
41.lbld., 750 (th" finall"ntences 0 1 the book).
36. Will Heroerg. f aith E""dlJ ~I His ~'Y (Philadelphia, \I::'eslminSlCr. 1976), 156-60.

4. AN EXPERIMENTAL ApPROACH
TO OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY
This period oJ tlllcfriaillty, if nOI confusio n, in t~ biblical [h~logy field is a
good time 10 expenment wiTh varioos approaches. That is what I am offering: an
experiment in Old T~tamen t theology_ This experiment, however, is based o n
"Iaboril.tory tesLS- in teaching Old T~tament th eology, a COU~ Ilxgan teaching
at Princeton Thcoklgical Seminary in 1968, At first I staned gin~rly wi th a course
on "Mo tifs of Old Testament Theology" (echoing a course ta ught by my esteemed
teache r, lames r-,·Iuilenburg). ' Over Ihe years I gradually became bolder, un til even-
tu ally I actually titled a course "Old Teslil me nt Theolo g}'" o r, as at BOSlOn
University School of Theolo~:y, ~B iblica l T heology of t he O ld Testament."
From AlII1/Yiis 10 5Yll lht'5i5
Looking back over the past th iny years. it is evident that a revoluti o n has been
going o n. The re has been a shift horn ane mpts to explore t he earl iest phases of
Israelite tradition, ....,he ther by isolating putative literouy sou rc es o r prel ite ra ry
lonm of oral discourse, to an emphasis on th e final cano nical sha pe of the biblical
'books" or larger scriptural units (e.g., PentateuchJ.l
In the fanner period the important word ......as "tradit io n: an Engl ish te rm t hat
e ncom passes both ' tha t which "" as handed down" (c ontent or IraJilulll j and "the
tra nsmission of wha t was received' (p rocess or traditio). Gerh ard von Rad , who
domi nated the d iSCUSSIon, sublitled his theological work: "A Theology of Israel's
Traditions," H e was nO! really concerrM:d wit h the fi nal canonical shape of biblical
books. Admittedl y, in the prebce to h is co mmentary on Genesi~ he quoted
approvingly the observation 01 the distinguished ph ilosophe r o f }uda ism, Franz
Rosenr..--eig, that tOe sign 'R." usco:d to designate · redactor." must not be under-
ra ted; the sign should really signify Rabbmu, wh ich in H ebre...' means "our master:
for we are dependent o n the editor who has give n us th e Scriptures in thei r final
fonn .) But von Rad was baSically concerned with the process of tradi tion-the
transm ission and appropria tion of mate rials handed down---not the Anal redac-
tional or canonical fonnula tion. Similarly, James Sanders emphasized the "canon-
ical process" in which t he received tradit io n, a~ appropria ted in new situations in
the history of the people of God, became Rada ptable for life.~~
I. See my mbul~ 10 Dr. MIli1enbu rg, "A Teacher like
Elijah," BR 14. no . 1 ( 19981 16.
1 Se(' Roll RendforH, 111e Import<l nce of Ih" unon for 3 Th ('Qlogy 01 Ihe Old TC5tarrn! nt:
in C"",",...J Tbd4gy. OST (Minncapolis: Fonm;s Prt.'S<' 199 3), 46-56.
3. Gerhard von Rad , GtMis, lrans . John "'larks, rev. ed .. On. (Philadelphia: Westminster,
19i1 ) 42 .
~. This ulnoC I;\'(' ,·,e ..... .... hi(:h suggests a h... ,hellCUlic for ,h" appropriation of Ihe sacred Ira·
di[ic)n lod~y. is ~I fon h in such .... riting\ n TO.db.."J Ca.:o~ (Ph iladelphia, FOTt~ Pm;s. 1972l.
An F..xrenmemal Apprwch 10 Old Testament Thrology 29
(\'Ir writings rdh:! this shift in scholarly emphasis--Mfrom analysis to synthe-
sis_'" Under the influence of my leacher. James r-,'Iuile nburg, [ cilme to appreciate
(he li ((~ ra ry <;tudy of the Old Testament, as advocated eSpe<:ial1y by H ermarm
Cunkd, the founder of fonn crit icism and the subsequent shift to Mrhetorical crit-
icism.'"t> And having nudkd undervon Rad. 1 "Ias much inHucnced by t~ history
of Israelite tradi tions, ~ginning wilh the early oral period Indeed. I look the
time 10 translate Ma rt in No th's study of the hIStory of the tr.msmission of ~nta ­
tcuchal tradi tions?
Brroard Chi/dss Approach
A decisive turning point was rea ched in 1970 with the: publication of Brevard
C hilds's Bihliclll Thtology in Cm;f,$ Chllds showed the weaknesses of a biblical the-
o logy resting o n the revelation of Cod in histOrical events. During the days o f the
so-called biblical theology movement (jUS t afte r World "(lar 11), Ihis ~'lew had been
sel forth preeminentl)' by George Ernest W riSht in his monogra ph God lVbo Acts.
in which he took a stand againsI a doctrinal approach and emphasized historical
rec ital. that is, the narra ti\'e of God's acting in the world.9 Ch ild ~ was crit ical of
any attem pt to ba~ b iblica l theo logy on objective historical events (the Albright
K hool). and he extended his criticism 10 history in the sense of ~hislOry of tradi-
tions" (Noth. ~'on Rad. and others). He insisted tha t there mUS t be "a still more
excellent way."
CmoJl anJ Biblical TbroJogy
The even better way. in Childs's view. invol\'Cs laking seriously the fi nal fonn of
the traditio n, not just as il is shaped by redaclors but oS set fort h in the canon o f
bi blical books tha t the commun ity of faith aCCeptS as auth oritative. Agai nst his
critics. he insis ts tha t emphasis on th e canon does not meon a flat interpretiltion o f
Scri pture, which lacks the d yn amic of a d,achronic move ment. The interpreter,
he declares. must take seriously Ihe -depth d i men sio n .~ that is, the stages o f
c~ .mJC.,.,.,.,.;ry- {Philaddphil: Fomn, Press. 1984). and -AciapYble for wft The NaIUK and
Function of Ca non: In ,\ s..;n../", Vc. Th ,\Itghly Att, ~f GoJ. bWJ1 0" ~ &blr nJ Arrb.::",j.,gy""
AIr>no.>ry "f G ElJ1l'! Wngill "d. Fr.mk M CIlK5 Jr el 1I ,(;;,rden OIY. N .Y · Doohleda}·. 1976),
j 3 r --60,- sec my "x,C"r'Kkd rt"\'i<:><o' of Sanck~l contribUlion in RdSRl't' 15 ( t ?tI9) 97-100.
5. See. for i11SlanC", my essay. "from AnalYSIS 10 Synlhesis· The Interpretalion of c.:,ncsis
I- I I: JBL 97 { 1978} 23 - 29.
6. s"" .~t ui le nburg's monumental (.,;~y. "Form Criucism and !!c)'ond: JBL S8 ( 1969) 1-18.
t "tanin Noth . A Hi"ory of Ptl<t.:~tlKh.d Tr",litrot<', fran~ Rern lmd W. Ander§On (Engl"wood
Cliff~, N.L Pr""1 ice· Ha ll, 1972 ; "'pr Chko, C~li f. Scholm Press. 198 I). ~ now Th Hi' !<Jf)' of
[",,,f; Tt.dib,.., n.. HrriW;!' of M"",~ NOlb. ed Slt "en L Mc Ken z;(' ~nd M . Pa"ic k C",ham.
)SOTSup 182 (ShdAdd, Shd~dd And~m ic Press. 1 99~ ).
rto<cl"Jlr i. Cm';, i I'hi laddphi~:
8. Br"va rd S. C hild>, Ribl;c~! Wl";lmin~lcr. 197{)j.
9. Wrighl . G", \I'h:1 Arts, SBT 1/8 (Chicago: Regne!)', 1952 ). Wrighl's valid concern for Ihe
acl< of God--no< JIl~ ,he .... ord(~J of God-h~s been comidered ~new by P~trick D . Milln-.
" R~";';il'nll ,h" God '«fho AC ls: 7T~J.:ry 54 no. I ( l99n 1-5
30 CQnt<Ju,.. aJ OIJ Tc>t.o",,,,t Thrology
devdopm ent that took place in rhe long period befo~ the tradition was given its
final scriptural form. However, the purpose o f studying the depth dime nsion
through source criticism, form criticism, tradition histo ry, and redaction criticism
is not to recover the theological in terpretation that lies behind the present text but
to understand the Bible in its fi nal unonical shape. M O ne can better appreciate a
symphony," he ~ys in th is connection, "if one has been trained to recognize the
contribution o f each of the vario us mus ical instrume nts i nvolved.~[Q
Childs's e xposition of b ibl ical theolo gy is gove rned by the followi ng
considerations:
t. In the canon of the C hristian Bible, Old and N ew Testaments are bound
togethe r chris tologically, that is , each bears witness to the God revealed in Jesus
Christ.
1. This interrelationship of the Testaments respects the disc~te witness of both.
T he Old Testament , speCifically, has a quasi-independent status in the canon_
3. \'V'hen turning to the d isc~te witness of the O ld Testament, Child, follows
a historical outline as far as possi ble , tha t is, from Genesis through Ezra. Thus he
d iscusses theolog ically, in conve rsation with biblical scholars, "Creatio n,« "From
Ede n to Babel,~ MPatriarchal Traditions," "Mosaic Tradi tions," 'The P05session 01
th e Land and the Settleme nt:" "The Tradition of the Judges," ''The Establishme nt
of the Monarchy," "The Divided Ki ngdom,~ MExile and Resto ra t io n.~ When this
chronological outline runs out , he turns to special materials: · Prophetic,"
"Apocalyp tic,~ "\'1i sd om ,~ and "Psalms.n
4 . After treat ing the d isc~te witness o f the New Testament follOWing a similar
chronological sequence ("Th e Church's Earliesl Proclama t ion~ to "The Po st·
Pauline Age"), C hilds turns to "theological ~t1ections on the Christian Bible: con-
sidering in parallel the Old Testament witness and that of the New Testame nt.
Here he abandons h istorical se quence and turns to a topical discussion: "The
Identity of God,w ~Cod th e C reator," NCovenant, Election, People o f Cod," "Christ
the Lord; "Reconciliation with God:
and so on. One can see clearly that, in
Childs's view, biblical and dogmatic theology are dosely rel ated.
This is truly a monumental \"ork that will be discussed for ye ars to come. For
two decades 1have struggled with Childs's canonical approach, finding in it things
to ag~e with and to differ over. On the positive side, it has bee n a major influence
in moving me to concentrate o n the ~nal form of the Scriptures that we have
re<:eived. Also, I welcome the insistence that the Old Testament has a rdativdy
inde pendent place in the Christian Bible, although I ",'ould emphasize more the
di alectic of conrinui tyfdiscontinu ity between the Testaments. 11 My major diffi-
culty is that th is approach, being so dose to dogmatic (heology, does not give suf-
ficient t heological atte ntion to th e »discrete witness of the O ld Testamenl,~ and
especially to t he pattern of symbolism that governs lirerary units in the ir final
10. Scc Br.:-... ard Childs, B:b1ic~l Thvl",/). of tb. Old nnd N ..", Tfll.1",,,,IS (,\'1ioneapolis: Fortro:s,
p,."..;s, 1991), "Methodological Problem.: 104-6, quotation , 105.
11 . See abovt:. ch~pter 1.
An Expe rimentill Approach to Old Testament Theology 31
form (e.g., Pentateuch, Deuteronomistic history ). As noted above, biblical theol -
ogy finally turns out to be a discussion of theological topics. Perhaps there is
another way that follows more closely the Old Testament canonical structure.
Hernltlletltical Con si3eratiolls
The fo llowing presentation also begins by taki ng a firm stand in the community of
faith known as the church. At the same t ime, I give due consideration to the way
the JeWish community reads this common Bible and, from time to time, e ngage in
Jewish·Christia n dia logue . n There is a gTeal deal o f affinity be"'''een this presen-
tation of Old Testament theology and the "e ntry into llle Jewish Bible" given by
}on Levenson in 5.11<1' ,md l io!) .I )
In this ve nture, 1 recognize tha t [he Old Testament con ta ins a d iversity of
materials that resists being pressed into a coherent, Slfucrural un ity (th e weakness
of Eichrodt's approach ). Nevertheless, theolOgical understa nd ing is aided by an
organization of the di verse maleria ls, rather than JUSt reading the Bible "from cover
to cover." Other organizations may be helpful too, ruc h as the work of Christoph
Barth, God with Us, which is organized in a sequence of narrative statements, M God
Created Hea ven and Eanh," "Cod C hose the Fathers of Israel ," "Cod Brought
Israel our of Egypt,Wand so on .14
Also, I ~cog nize tha t invariab ly we read the past through the lens of our own
experience or categories. \'{Te are sociolinguistic beings who want to bring the past
into our world and appropriate it on our tenns. T h is e piste mological limitation,
however, does not justify a ddibe rate reading of the past through a panicular lens
(as in the case of some liberat ion theologies); it only warns us to be deliberate
about allowing the pas t, in so br as possible, to speak to us wilh ils own voice,
rathe r than being ventriloquists who project our voice onto the Bible. \'{Te must
allow the Old Testamem to b e a different, even an alien, voice tha t speaks to us
from another world o f discourse,
Mo~ove r, as Karl Rahner lj has well said . Ih e inlell'reter must have a poetic
sense tha t yields to a nd appreciates b iblical image!)' if she or he is to hear in the
Bible "the Word of Cod .~ This vie",' is echoed in Waite r Brueggemann's Yale
Lectures on Preaching, in his introducto!), essay, NPoet!)' in a Prose ·FlatUned
World ," where he effectively quotes Wait Whitman:
Aft..- tb. sr,,, a" all cras, J, (as th,),)lrm nirrd)' rrol"J. )
Afl..-Ib, ;r(1:.1 rnl>J4i~s a~J f71gif:ftrS bm~ arco!IJplilh·J tb<ir twtl..
Aft...- tb. xobk '''0'''''''''. "ftrr :hi Klf!:tistl. I'" rh<-rnilt, tbr grologi!J, Ithdogill,
12 5« Roll RendlOrff, 'Towa rd a Common JC\>·is h -Ch.; sti~n Readin g of the Hebrew Bible:
cha p. 4, in Ca""" ad ThroIDjl)'.
13. Jon D . U:vcnson. Sj~ai ,,~J Z:""" A" felt), jn:~ :b. Jt",;,b B,b1, (Minneapolis, WrinSlOn~ 1985).
t4. Chri lloph B~rth , GoJ ,,"I~ U, A Th,,!cgi<a/ I"tm1~dio~ '0 IN Old Tc>tm..",t (C",nd Rapids,
Eerdman., 1985j_
IS. Karl Rahner, A\.:m R..,r./ Writie!,l, tran5. KC"in Smyth, Theological lnvc<.igation5 4,
(B.lt im orc H elicon. (966), 363.

Fir."Uy I&"U (Inn Ibr pod "",,1/,y of tb..1 lWr.Ii,
Tbt tfllt SOl! of GoJ Ih.JUuom sirly;PI§ hi, sw.gs. 16
Singing a new song (ps. 96:1) requires avoiding, on the one side, the $cyl1a of lit·
eralism and , on the other, the C ha rybdis of historiciSffi_ The texts of the Bible
invite us into a world-a real world-that is construed by poetic imagmation,
Therefore, we shall g ive due anenrion to the co\'enantal patterns of symbolization
(Priestly, Mosaic, Davidic) that govern Old Testam ... nt books or block.s of mater-
ial (e.g., the book of Isaiah, the Chro nicl er's history).
Gods COV(lIallt5 UJitb hrad
Accordingly, let's stan with a due found in the New Testament. specifically Paurs
discussion of the relation between the Jewish and Christian communities in the
economy of God's purpose: in Romans 9-1 I . In a context ,,,here Paul expresses sad·
ness that his own people, the Jews, do nOt accept)esus as God·s M essiah, he lists
seven historic privileges tha t belonged to Isra el as the people of God:
They an:: [srael ites. and to them belong the adop tion. lhe glory, the covenants, the
giving of the la ...·. the ...... orship. and the promiSC'i; to them belon~ the patriarchs,
and from them. according to the flesh, comes the Messiah . ...·ho is o~·er ~II. God
blessed forever. Amen. I '
-Rom. 9:4-5
This is a very solemn statcment, as indica ted by the concluding "amen." Its solem-
nity is heightened by Paul's use of the tenn 1sraelites" {rather than "Jews· )--the
ancient sacral temt for Israel as the people of God (Gen_ 32,28 ). He lists seven pre-
roga tives of Israd--cight if onc CCM.in ts the last statement that the Messiah sprang
out of Israel.l!
L Sonship, that IS , Israel was adopted or elCCled as God's son, according 10
imponant Old Testament passages: Exact. 4;22, Deut. 14: 1,- Hos. 11: I .
1 . The glory, o r · gl o rious presence" This refers to the resplenden t manifesta-
tion of God's presence ( ~!boJ, "glory) during Ihe wilderness wanderings (Exod.
16: 10; 40:34) o r in the Jerusalem temple ( I Kgs. 8: 10-11 , Ezekid 10; ele.).
3. The covenams-the Abrahamic (Genesis 17), Mosaic (hod. 19:5, 14: t -4;
renewed at Shechem, Josh ua 24), and the Davidic (1 Samuel 7; Psalm 89). Some
manuscripts read singula r, oi<ltlKkl, in which case the reference would probably be
to the Mosaic covenant. But most translations render the plural dia,rx6i .
16. See \'\falrer Brueggemann, F;""lly (,,"'t"S Ih. Pod, D"nng S~=b for Pforla ..aIlQ" . C"l;pe<:i~lIy Ihe
,mroduction, -Poet')" in 1 Prose-flattened W"o rld" ( Mjn ne,poli~, FOrl=s Press. (989) I- I I. The
hnes ~ re fTOm Wait W'hitman's ·p~>'lItgc 10 l ndi~: :UOI- 5, in UII'" "J G,.:!S (Nc,,· York· New
Am~"';can library. 1954), n~ .
I 7. Tb<: last .... ords could be punctuated. · whu i, Cud over .11, fore-.·cr prai-;ed: ;t$ in N [V.
18. ~ ,he diKUSsion by J. A. FII2myer In N"" JrrlJ«. Biblic.:/ C_"""~''Y, ed. Raymond E.
Rro ...·n et.1. {Englewood Oiffs. NJ.: Prentice·H.n. t990). 856.
An Expcnmental Approach to Old Tesl~mem ~ology 33
4. The giving of the law. the revelation of COO·s will, as give n to M~ (e.g.,
Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 a nd Deuteronomy 5).
5. The worship, chat is. the cult-wor5hip in the tabernac lc or the temple,
",here God cho'>t" [Q Ix: present as -the Holy One in )'our midH." The book of
Psalms is the book of worship for the praises of Israel.
6. The promi~-primarih' the promises made to Abraham (l and, posterity,
re lationship w ith God that would benefi t othtr peoples). although promises of
grace wen~ also made to "'·toses and to David (Deut . 18, 18-19; 2 Sam. 7; 11-16).
7. lbe patriarchs, that is, th e anceslOTS of Israel who were invited in[Q special
relationship with God, so that God was known as the Cod of Abraham, lsaac. and
Jacob (Exod. 3;6). The Israeli tes, Pa ul could say (Rom. J 1:28), werc lo\'cd b}, God
on account of thc patriarchs.
Thus election, promises, covenant, law, God·s holy presencc in the midst of the
people, as they gathered in the te m ple for worship--thcse arc some of the major
subje(:ts of the Old Testament. Instead of taking these up one by one, I propose an
organization according to the major co"enants "" jth Israel: the Abrahamic. the
MosaiC, the David ic.
The tenn ··covenant" (Hebrew /J(rilh) points to a fundamental reality in Israel's
eXpC"rience: God's special relationship with the people. Afte r a thorough revle'" of
the controversial discussion of this subject, especially since the time of the founder
of modem biblical criticism, }ulius Wellhauscn (from 187810 1918 j, E. W'.
Nicholson concludes that "covenant" expresses "the distinctivcllC'is o f Israel·s faith";
So. f~r from ocing merely one ~mong i wide range of teffilS and ide.as tha! emerged.
t1ouri~hed, .and had their day, "coven,l n l" is a central theme that se~d to focus ~n
enti rely idiosyn<:r.llic .... ~y of looking i t the relauonship bet .... een Cod and his cho-
sen prop[ .... and indeed, belWttn God and the world. As such it d~es 10 be put
b.ack 'Oquareiy on the itgCnda for §tudems o f tne O ld Testament. 19
Our inte rest will fasten not on covenant itself but on a paUrnt of'i)"1IIm.lisJll---or
perhaps one should say, a theological perspeClive-that is exp ressed in each of the
covenants. Each covena nt, considered in its scrip tural context, nua nces in sym-
bolic tenns what it means to live in the presence of the holy Cod, who has e ntered
int o special relationship with the people Israel.
Copomllt Tra.ifdprirl
Now, it so happens Ihat each of these covenantS is dominant in a major block of
Old Testament literanm: (see fig . I). The Abrahamic covenant is fundamental in
the Terrateuch (o r Pentateuch, Le., Tetrateuch plus the last verses of DeUler-
onomy ), which reached ils final form at the hands of Priestly writers. The Mosaic
covenant is dominant in Deuteronomy. which serves as a preface to the historical
work)oshua through 2 Kin gs (Fonner Prophets, or Deuteronomistic history ), The
19. E. W Nid al""n. G<>1 dU Hi! Pt(>{<it, CC'Jt!ot~~1 d~J TI>t.:>I"9y i. Ibt OU Tt51.n<n1' (O"fo<&
Oa...,ndon, (986), ,.
 An Expe";mel\taJ Appr<HIch to Old T~t3ment Thrology 35
34 C""~O<Iro; of DU Trs~1"tIO I Thokl9y
perspectives. OWing to the gravity of the problem of evil. however, each of these
Davidic cove nant is dominant in th e major book o f the Wri tings, t~ book of
perspectives was tried in the balance and found wanting. prompting a movement
Psalms, as well as in the Ch ronicler's history ( I and 2 Chronicles).
from torah to .... isdom, and from proph«:y 10 apocalyptic.
Finally. we shall see ho .... these theological perspectives converge in the Ne....
FIGURE I. GoJ'S C(llImm'lls wilb [srall
TestilrTlent, though it is not my task to give a derailed discussion of New Testament
PRIMARY SCRIPTURAL BIBUal F[GURES MNOR PROPHET theology. The Christian community celebrates Goers apocalyptic triumph in Jesus
COl''TEXT Christ--over all the powm of sin, darl::ncss, death, and any thins tha t th~atens to
Abrahamic Pentateuch in final Abraham and Sarah Ezekiel separate people from the love of God known in Jesus Christ. In the last analysis,
Covenant1O Priestly fonn Jesus Christ is hailed as prophet, the one who stands in the Mosaic trad ition like
Jeremiah; as priest, the one who, standing in the Abrahamic lradition, is acclaimed
Mosaic Deuteronomy, Deutero- ,\-Ioses. Aaron. and Hosea,
as a priestly mediator be""'«n the holy Cod and hum an beings (Epistle to the
Covenant nomislic his tOlY M iriam (d. Mic. 6:4) Jeremiah
Hebrews), and as kinS. that is. the Son of Cod of the Davidie tradition.
Royal Book of Psalms. Davio Isaiah In this exposition of Cod's covenants with Israel we shall be influenced by the
Covenant 1- 2 Chronicles shape of the canon, considering fi rst the Pentateuch, then the Former ProphNs
U~hua through 2 Kings), then th e major prophets who are associated with par-
ticular theological perspectives, and finally the Writings. chiefly the book of
Thus the th~e major figures in Old Testament tradition are Abraham (ado Psalms and the Chronicler's history, which reRect Davidi!= (or '"Zio n~) theology.
Sarah ), Moses (add Aa ron and M iriam ), and David the great king , Yahweh's The moveme nt from lorah to wisdom, evident in the book of Psalms, aIlows us to
ano inted, who was regarded as the prototype of the Messiah to come. explore other books in the ~!ri t in~ (wisdom ItteratuTC: Pro\'crbs, Ecclesiastes,
II is also siSniAcant that major prophets were influenced by each of these th eo- Job ), with some consideration of wisdom writing<; outside the Hebrew Bible
logical perspecti\'es: Ezekiel by the Priestly theology of the tabernacling presence (Wisdom of Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon). The movement from prophecy to
of the holy Cod in the midst of the people . Jeremiah by [he Mosaic covenant as apocalypt ic allows us to <onsider the book of Isaiah in its final fonn and writings
expressed supremely in the book of Deuteronomy; and Isaiah by Zion theology that lie at the boundary of the New Testament in the Christian Bible: Zechariah
with its salviAc instiltltions of tempk and kingship. and ;"lalachi.
After exploring these theological perspectives, we shall see ho"" the great
cataSlrophe of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of th e temple affected Tbrolo~y ami I",agi7lalion
each and preopitated a profOllnd theolOgical crisis. In this period. the time after Whi le this presentation is organized, as much as poSSi ble. accordins to the Glnon-
the crucial e--.'ent of 587 B.C., the tragedy of Israel Gllled into question the cove- ieal sequence of the books of the Old Testament, we shall also be influenced by
nantal relationship between God and people and precipitated the problem of historical and sociological consideralions. Each cO\'enama l perspecti\'e belongs to
th codicy, or the justice o f Cod, as expressed in the skeptkal wisdom literatu~, a particular histOJieal and social setting. The Pnestly perspecti\'e belongs to the
Ecdesiastes and Job. In this period of suffering and change, when the foundatiOns priestly order of the Jerusalem temple, perhaps dating intO the period of the
of Israel's faith were shaken, torah came to be identified with wisdom, an inde- monarchy (around the middle o f the e ig hth century according to Jamb
pendent movement in Israel that origi na lly was sponsored by th e royal court. J\·1ilgrom ),l' though it ..... as given its final shape durin8 the I!"xik. The DO!"Uter-
Prophecy. as represented by the great classical prophets (e.g., Amos, H osea , onomic perspective reachC5 back into the period of the northern kinsdom (the
Jeremiah ), moved into apocalyptic, as evident from the book of Isaiah and late capital, Samaria, fell in 721 R.C.), though it was given its final expression in and
prophetic writings such as Haggai and Zechariah. around the reform of Josiah on the eve of the fall of Judah (587 B.C.) . The Davidic
The Pentateuch and the Abrahamic CO\'enant, the Deuteronomic hiStory and covenant belongs to thl!" tim e of the Davidic kingdom. inaugurated by David and
the Mosaic covenant, the bools of Psalms and Chronicles and the Davidic Solomon and surviving throughoot the prophetic period and beyond (reflected in
covenant: in these major blocks of littratl.lrc we find three dominant covenantal th e book of Isaiah as a whole ).
Thl!"se covenantal perspecti\'es represented the symbolic world of particular
20. This is a br~d way 01 describing the aoc'""tral covenant made ",ith Abraham. lsnc . ,nd social circles and reflected the tragic reality of Israel's historical experience before
Jaeob. Remember that in the final P";titly form of the Pentateuch the Abrahamie covenlnT
embraen and !K!ppOrtS the Mosaiccovenant found in the book of hodus.. ~e hod. 1;[4 and rd- 1 [ . "On the Par.mx:ters. D,lt ... and ProvenallCe of P: Uv.li,wl 1- 16 (AnehOf Bible 3; N ..w York ,
~I\CCS to "the God of your aocntors, the God of Abraharn, of [",ac. and of jacob" (Exocl. 3·6.
Dooblcd...y, 1991 ).
! 3, t6. etc.).
36 Contours 4 01.1 T~t.>",(>,t ~()~y
and after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 R_e But the symbolic po....·er of the language
transcends the roc ial location and the historical circumstam;es in which it was
originally expressed and was rdeased with new power when the tradition became PART I
SCriptllT( for the commun ity of faith . n
The task of the biblical theologian is 10 enter and unde~tand the biblical YAHWEH , THE HOL.Y ONE OF ISRAEL.
world(sJ conSHued by imagination . \'('hen the symbolism Rnds an echo in our
poetic response, as "deep calls 10 deep" (ct Ps_ 42]). the Bible may speak toda y
with the power of the Word of GcxI.H
For I am God. and 110 mortal
A Mtditafioll tlJ(, Holy 011(' ill YOllr midst.
ROBCRT What did you mean when you said t hal SI. Calherine and SI. HOSEA 11 ,9b
Margarel tal ked 10 you every day?
JOA.'i [of Arc ): They do.
ROEEIIT, \'(!hat arc they like?
•
JOAN (suddenly obstinate), I will tdl you nothing about that: they have not
given me leave.
ROBEIIT, Bur you acrually sec them; and they talk 10 you just as I am tal king
to you?
JOM';, No, it is quite different. I can not tell you: )'CXJ must not talk 10 me
about my '·01cl'S .
ROBERT How do you mean? Voices?
JOM~ r hear vokes telling me what 10 do . They co me from God.
ROBCIIT They come from you r imagination.
JOAN. Of course. Thai is how Ihe messages of God come 10 US . l~

2l . ~~ further my ~""i5I)1, "lIibljal Theology and Sociological lntcrp,-.,t;otio,,: TToloy 41

( 19S5) 192-306.
23. On Ih<- role of imagin~lion in biblic.a.1 understanding, sce tit.: ' It.:rmc-neolic of languagc-'
~dvO(ated bv Paul Ric~r. d~scd ibove, chapter 3_
H . G:orge Ikrnard Sha..... s..i~t lo'm ( 19J4). scen.. 1_
-
5. THE EXPERIENCE OF THE HOL.Y

111 the last section of the introduction! raised the question: Where do we go
from here, The hermeneutical issues aTC so complex, and the disagreements are so
great,. that only the bravest, or perhaps the most foolhardy, dare IQ enter the fray.

A1etlJodo!ogical Rajlliml1l'11!s
If one ~tt<:mpts a theology oJ (subjective geni tive) the Old Testament l there are
several methodological requi rements:
1. \Xle must Rnd a valid starting point in the midst of the multip lex liH'rature of
the Old Testam ent in its tripartite division; Torah, Prophets, \Xhitings.
2 . From that starting point, we must ascenain the fundamental witness that
remai ns constant throughout various mutations, from the final text baCK to early
stages of tradition.
3. \X/e mu~t do justice 10 the diver~ity of Israd's th~ologi ca l ~xpressions and at
the same time show th e integrity of the faith of ISTJ.el in relation to the religions
of antiqui[}'-
4. \'l'le must show tha t this theologicJ.1 exposition stands in cominuity and dis-
continuity with the New Testament.
When one considers the scope and magnitude of the task, it is appropriate 10
say in the words of the psalmist. "Such kn owledge is tOO wonderful for me , it is
high, I cannot anain unto it!" (Ps. 139,6, KJV )

Serkin9 a Slilrlitlg Point

In past g~ n~ralions some theologians have sought a · center"' in the O ld Testament:
perhaps a central theme such as God's redemptive action (based on the exodus) or
the dominion (kingdom ) of God (based on Israel's experiment with monarchy )_
This search has been in vain; the Old Testame nt does not have a center in the same
sense that Jesus Christ is the center of the N ew Testament. Nevertheless, it is
important to consider what part of the Old Testament is ce ntral, in the sense of
being fundam~ ntal to Israel's theological understanding_
\X/hen t he matt~r is put this w ay, there canno t be serio us doubt about th~ part
of Scripture that th e JeW ish community regards as central . The Tora h (Pentateuch)
is central and primal)"_ At this point, I bdi eve, we stand on solid rock, though all
else around may be shaky ground _To be sure, the Christian community tends to
shift from the TorJ.h to the Prophets, from Mosaic law to prophetic promi~_ l But
the community that shaped the Israelite traditions as "Scripture: according to a tri -

1. On {he distincdorl b" tween Ibto!~y of and throl<>"ilY db",,1 the 01<1 TL.,;tam~m, see above.
chapter 3_
2. Sce Hln5 "on Campenhausen, n"
Fo""alCo" ~J tbt Cbri<rid" Bi~I •. Ir~",_ 1- A. Rak~.
(MinrI"apolisoFonr" .. Pr", •. 1972 j _
40 (""lttIITl of OI.l' Trsl<r ...",r ThtO~y
partite ca.nonical structure, r~ognized t he p rimacy of the Torah or the Penta·
teuch. Other scriptures (Former and uner Prophet s, Wri tings) surround this
canonical cenl(~r in concentric circles (sec fig . 2) and, in an exlended sense, could
be regarded as ~Ionging also 10 Torah {as in John 1034. which quotes Ps. 82:6 as
· written in your law-). 3
FIGURE 1. Tbt Jrwish Scripfum (Tanakh)
~'RITIN CS
"\,\lOPHf?'s
TORAH
The canonical primacy of the Torah was cenilkd in the period of the restora·
lion when, und er the kadership of Ezra, it became the constitutional basis of the
Jewish communit}' (ca. 400 H.C.). from this time on, the Torah was authoritative as
canonical $criprure . WhalC'o'er may have been the hislOry of the tradi tions before,
it was in this final fonn that the Torah was normative for fa ith and practice.
Admitted!}" it is tempting 10 shift the emphasis 10 some other pan of Scripture:
to the prophets who preached '1 et justice roll down", or 10 wisdom literature,
which resonates wi th modern intellectual struggles; or 10 the book of Psalms,
which is basic for worship and private devot ions (sometimes the book of Psalms is
bound up in an edition wi th the Kew Testa ment)_But if we are to And what is "cen·
tral" o r · foundational" in the Old Testament, wc must lay aside our predilections
and aSCe':nain the theological witness 01 Israel within this primary context, the
Torah {pentateuch}_
Tbt Holy Qllt of Israel
When wc turn 10 this central pan of the canon, it is evident that what is basic is
Israel's witness to divine ~'da t ion: the self·disclosure of the Holy Onc (qaaosh) so
that the people may call on (worship) Corl by the personal name, YH \X!H
(Yahweh, usually translated »the Lord~) . At the fountainhead of Israd's sacrerl tra·
3 XC Ron;old E_Ckmcnl~, OIJ T""''''tIOl ~" A fr&' A/Jp'""rb (At[lntl: John Knox. 1978).
Ch.:Ip tcr S. lhe O ld Testilmem as La .... •
The &;pericnce of Ihe Holy 41
dinon and pervading the lite':ra ture': of t~ Old Testament is this witness 10 the rev.
da tion 01 God, the Holy Onc. In a very early poem (probably elevt:nth cen rury
H.C.), the Song of the Sea, Yah""eh is praised a~ "glorious in holiness:
\Vbo is I,kr ro~ /1"00:9 Iht ~J5. 0 Ya6 ..bJ
Wbo IS Ht ro~, jllfonoll1;~ bdintl!.
a~'6O!IIt i~ ~'ai~. do;",! __ tUt<; '
- Exod. 15,1 1 (BW4.)
Cenru ri es laler. in the eighth century, the prophet Hosea expresserl th e meaning
of Gorl's prC5ence with the people.
fori ~ .. GoJ ( d) anJ ""/ " mort,,] IK<I~ [ iib1.
Ux Holy 0..( (q..Jq.J,1'" y"''' "dll
- Has. 1L9b iRSV)
"God is boly,"' e mphasize':d Emst Sellin, a leading O ld Tcstament theologian of a
former generation; "herein we': touch on that which conSlinJ[es thl': deepest and
innennost nature of the Cod of the Old Testamem:~
In Israel's tradition holiness is associated with the name of YHWH {Yah\o,'eh).
This is evident in the formu la of God's self.identiAcation, "I am Ya hwe h, your
God" (e.g., Exod. 3:10, Lev. 18:1 ). "The Old Testament: wrote Walther Zimmerl i,
a major Old Testament theologian, "holds last to the: identity [Srlh;gkrilj of God
...·hich it kno",:s under the name Yahweh. Throughout all change it Armly main-
tai ns that this God, Yahweh, wants to deal .... ith his people, Israel'-! This is a help-
ful contribution that throws light on "the cons tancy and persistence 01 Israel's
rendering of God."6 Israel's rdation to the holy God. named Yahweh, remaiTl') a
theological constant in the midst of change and di,,-ersit)'.
H ence it is not just faith in "CoO tha t distinguishes Israel, but rathe r faith in
God known and worshiped under the name "Yahweh: 1'he true divine name, to
which all others are secondary, is Yahweh.~ observed Ludwig Koehler. 7 He cited sta·
tistics: this pe rsonal nam e appears more than 6,700 lime'S: the nearest competilOr is
the': gener<l.lterm r/cbilft, occurring some 2,500 t imC'i, which means "Cod," or some-
times "god.s .~ In short. Yahwch is the name that Israel invokes in lament, thanksgi\'-
ing. and hym nic praise in the Psalle':r, with the exception of the so·called E10hist
Psalter (Psalms 42-83), ",'hich prefers the general term Elohim. The Ars t petition of
the Lord's Prayer is that Cod's Mname- may ~ hallowed. that is, Sl':1 apart as holy_
4 Emsl Sellin, Tt>wlogrt J,; All'" T<$w",,,,r. :le'pz;g: Qudk !< Meye •. 19;6;. 19: quOIe<! by
John G;.mmie, ff<,111.<lS m ]!'~r!, OET ( "'l ln nupoh~ Fo n~s Pr~u. 1989), 3.
5. Walrher Zimmerli. 01.1 T.,rn ..",t Thtcl"9Y in o..liin" ,rins D~"1d E. Green (louiwillc: John
Knox. /978 ), 14.
6. The I.nguag~ ;' thit 01\'('.her BnJcggem~nn, ~d,tor'S loro:wurd toJohn c..mmie:, Hnlinns i~
Isr.,tI. x.
7. ludwlg Koehler. 00 TtSI4 .. t'IIl T1ow1.>gy. I... n. A. S Todd (Phil~del phiil' W<:ilminuer, 1957).
36. 4 1.
r.
42 CO"IO~I'I pf Ol~ TtSl<I!Ml: T'broID9'Y
Ho/illtSs in tlx History c/ Rrligiom
The sdf-disclosure of God. symbolized by the giving of the personal name
Yahwch, occurs in the genera l context of [~ cx~licm::C' of the hoh' and thus in
the contexl of ..... h;ll Israel has in common, to some deg.(C', with other religions.
1"he concept of ho l in~s: ~rves Dale i'>.'l oody. "is the ground on which all rel i-
gions meet.'"' To use a musical analogy, hen: wc nnd t he "ground ba~s· (foasso 0 ! 1l-
nalo ), a Icnn for "a musical phf'aS(: repealed while the upper voices purwc their
courses. sometimes im provised."'9 In other words, holin~s is the primary datum of
Israel's know ledge of Cod Ihat is reflected and rdr.actcd in various traditions:
priest!)', prophetic, and sapicmial. 10 Holiness is the fundamcnlaltone that s.ounds
through the whole range of the li terature of the Old Testament.
This is not a ne\" discovery. The point was stressed }'ears ago by 1. Hand in
his book. Dir Rrligioll tiff Hlilighi! (Tbr Rrligioll of Ho lillrss, 1931 ), and has been scc-
onded by othe r Old TeHament theologians. 11 H .lnel's pathbreaking book in the
Old Tes tament field ...... as influenced by t he monumental work of Rudolf OltO,
Dill; Htjligr, which appeared in English translalion as Tbr ldw of/hr Holy. Il ln fact ,
it is rumored that the systematic theo logia n Paul 1i ll ich once remarked tha t the
t hree most important books o n religion in the tv.'entiet h cemury were Albert
Se hwe itzer's Qum for ,r.r
Historicdl 1rsll5, Karl Barl h's fpist!r 10 Iht: Romans . and Rudolf
Olto'S raM of ,be Holy.
Writing from the sta ndpoin t of Ihe history o f religions, Ouo maintained Ihal
all religions. especially the religions of antiquity, give expression to a sense of mys-
tery, that is, "feelings 0/ the non-rational and numinous· or "the sheer absolu te
wondrousness that transcends thought.~ 1 J To this d imension of m>~tery and won-
der he ga\'e the term "the numinous" (from La tin lIu"'rn, "divine spiri t or powet).
Ouo's work has been carried further by orilC:r studies in the phenomenology of
religion (o r "compara tive religion'"). especially Mircea Eliade's examination of
hierophanies o r "ma nifestations of the saCTed~ in \'ariOlls cuhures. 14
8. Dilk Moody. W(ltJ pfTrwtb tGrand RapKk En-dmall'l. 1981 i. 9-1.
9. For music appr«il(ors, .. good .-~ampk i<; Pachdbt"r~ ·canon."
10. This is shcr,.·n by Goommic. H~L=r.t!! '" kmt!.
1I . Johiln~ Hlnel. Ch, Rrli,)_ J. /I'iJighH (Cutersloh. C. Ekrtel~mlnn, 193 I ). Of thc ,·arious
schobrs ciled in Goomm;c's book (p 3). I should like to d",,,· attention ,,",~cial1)' TO the Dutch
theologian ..... ho IQS inlluenced me i great d.,il, Th. C. V~zen. A~ o..ll_401J To!'".m! ~
(2d ed., Oxford, Oxford Univ. Pn.:55. 1970; Dull:h original. 19-t9). 1-t9--(il. ·'The hohness of
Cod:· ..... ritC"S Vriczen (p. 151 ). "is the c.,nnal id.,a of Ih., Old Testilmc-nl failh in God" See his dis-
tu~sion of Cod's holiness, '49-62.
12. Rudolf 0110. T1K IJ", ~J tbt Hely. tr.l.n!. John W. Ha,.,':), {2d cd., New Yori:· O xford Univ.
I'ress, (950). First published in G.:rman in 1912 The G..-nnan lid., should strictl\' be Ir~n~lat<:d
M "Holiness or 'The SenS(" of the Holy." for Ih., hol)·, in Ono·~ '.~.. ca nnot be reduced to a con-
cept.
13. lbid .. i1
14. ~, for instance, Min:n Eliade·s book. P"tlrn"," u..l"',,,IIs>r Rr!i~''''''. rrilns. R. Sh«d
(Clev.,llnd: World, 1963, French Otiginll, 19-tS)
The Exp.-rience of the Holy 43
1lK Ovrrwhrlmi1:9 M)'>I"')'
.'\ ccording to 0 110, the sense of the holy (the wonde rful. the a ....eful , the numi -
nous) has [v,.·O ilSpcc[S, dreild and fascination . One is drawn to the mystery and at
the same time repelled by it, as in Ihe case of Moses' experience at the burning
bush (Exodus 3). Similarly in the sto ry of the theophany at .....Iount Sinai (Exodus
19) the people are d raw n to the mystery of the sacred mountain, but they stand
back in fea r and d read lest they be consumed by d i"ine holiness.
Fa~inatjon and dread, ho .... C'VCr. are human m¥>oJ:SfS 10 the peculiar nilture of
the holy. In Duo's \'iew, the hol~' is no t JUSt m)'s t~ry described by '>lK h words as
"the ineffable , the wholly other, the transcenden t: Even more fundamentally the
ho ly is power that 0110 describes as;
• 3wdulnes~, pleni tude of po..·er which evokes i s.ense of dr.-ad
• 0~·erpoweringne5s, plenitude of being. absolU1e unapproachability
• urgency. vi tality. will, (orce. mo'·emem. excitement. activity. energy, [metil-
phoriully aJ consuming f1 .... il
Dtlo Further stales that already in the Bible there arc: all empts to '" ra tionillizc"
the m}'~te ry, that is. to con\'ert it into a theol ogical concept (such as the idea of
God} or into eth ical \'alues (as in "ethical monotheism" ). But these conceptualiza-
tions and rationalizations cannot destroy the senSe of the hoh' that erupls again
and again in the presence of the mysltr:mll r,""/'IId""" as in the book of Job {the voice
fmm the whirlwind}. The sense of the holy is "beyond our calegories of appre-
hension and comprehension, and causes the radical disablement of me laphor: 16
The holy Cod is veiled in mystery and is even ·beyond good ilnd evil : all our
moral categories. Perhaps o n this level there is common ground between Je ....'SI
Christians an d Buddh ists. who. though nOt usually using the word ~God: believe
that the truly Real is beyond conc~Ptualizatio n and therefore approachilble only
through medi tation. I,
A possible weakness of Onos book is that it can be underslOod as reducing
holiness lO a state of consciousness, that is, Ihe holy is vie"" ed soldy horn the sub-
jecti\,e, anthropological side. la Read this way, Ihe work could be laken to support
Sehleiermacher's em phasis on "feeling" (Gtjiib/r). which accounts for the polemic
against it in neo-orthodoxy (e.g., KarJ Barth). But th is objection must be weighed
against Ono's contention that these feelings are human responses to manifesta-
tions of numinous divine power. In any case. in the ancient world, and c1eilrly in
15. See Camm1e'~ precis of 0110·$ study HO/'''fll i~ 11,~t! 5.
16. Da,·id R. EIlumenlhal. FQricg r\>( ANsmg G~· A Thto!~gy 01 PrO!fl) (loui. villc, W~t ·
m"'~ter"'John Knox, 1993 ). 23.
17. See the reporr on the Kerlll,lcky meeling for dialogue bet\o'een Buddhists and Christians.
·Vi'·ergencc, Conv{"rgmce, Buddhi~I·ChriSli~n Eru:oumcl'l." Cbti~U~~ ( .... ,"1')' I 13. no. 29 (1996)
964--73 .
18. A Cilv("at of c:;.,rhard von Rad. OU Ull","",: ~1"91. lnons D 1-.\ C. 5t3Ike~. 2 ,·ok. (Ne ..'
York, Harpt"f" So Row, 1962--65 ), 1,205

lsrad, the holy was ~x~ri ~nc~ d as power that breaks into {h~ human world.
thrca[(~ning ~xist ence and arousing bo th fascination and dr~ad_ Holiness is not a
qua lity, or a state of consciousn~ ss, bm is power- highly active. energetic,
dynamic. ~ven threatening.
Eartlutuakt, Wind, mid Fire
A classical iHus tra tion of th~ manifestation of the holy in Israel is the ponrayal of
th~ theophany at Mount Sinai . in conn~ction with th~ issuing of the Ten
Commandments (Exod_ 19,15--10,11 ) and Ihe making of the covenant ( 19;3 -9,
24,3·8)_ H~r~ holiness is tremendous power manif~st in a fierc~ mountain stonn_
'There was thunder and lightning." th~ mountain was envdoped in a thick cloud,
a loud trum~t blast IHled the air. causin g the people [Q tremb le ( 19,16; 20,18}_
The naJT<ltor says thal Cod. veiled in a cloud. d~sc~nded to th~ moumaintop ~i n
fire," causing the mountain to shak~ with seismic uemors ( 19, 18). The pre5ence of
God o n th~ mountaintop charged the whole mountain with dangerous power, lik~
high -voltage electricity, hence th~ ~o pl ~ were warned not to approach it or
touch it l~st many of th~m die ( 19:21 -22). Indeed. Mos~s was instructed to s~t
bounds so that the people would not com~ n~ar, ~otherwise Yahweh \"i\l break out
against th~ m" ( 19:24, also 19,12·13). So terrified were the ~ople at Ihe omino us
display of Cod's holiness that they ask~d M~ to go up into the mountain and
sp~ak with Cod and th~n come back [Q them with a message, "but do not let Cod
s~ak to us, or we will die" ( 19, 18- 19).
In th~ story of /I.·l os~s· call and commission (Exodus 3), the presence of Cod
is symbolized by fire: a bush that burns yet is not consum~d. The appropriat~
response was for Mos~s 10 remov~ his sandals. for Ihe presence of Cod made the
very ground on which he was standing sacred. In other contex ts, God's holiness
makes objects so sacrosanct tha t on~ cannot look on them (Num. 4: 18~20 ) or
touch th~ m without suffering harmful effects (hod. 19:12). Holiness attaches
especially to the ark. regarded as the th rone s~a t on which God is in visibly seated
( 1 Sam. 4,6 ), and th erdore inspires lear when esconed into the city of Beth-
shemesh: "Who is able to stand bdore the Lord, th~ holy God;." (i Sam. 6:20).
Thus the holy manifests it>elf (i n Cerman d'll H"ligc is neuter) as pow~r-power
that breaks into th~ human world with shattering forc~, like fi re or electrici ty.
wilh positive or negative effects.
This dem~ntal ~nse of the holy is. in lar8~ m~asur~ . ali en to the mod~rn. s~c·
ular world. The closest modern persons may come to this ~x~rience is the OntO -
logical awar~ ness of the wonder of being, a dimension that Abraham Joshua
H~schel explores in his writings_ 19 H ~ ap~a!s 10 the basic human sense of the sub-
lime. manifest in spontaneous awe and radical amazement.
19. hpeciall y Go) ir- Sf~ n;h o} ,\ tin ( N~ .... York, Farrar. Straw, ."d G IfOUX . 195 5).
Th .. Experience of th .. Holy 45
Awe enablc-s us 10 pcrcei"c In rhc world imimations of thc divin ... to ~nse in small
things th<-. beginning of infinite signilkanc .. , to sen~ the ultimat .. in the COmmOn
and th .. simpl .. , to feci in th .. rush of tho: passing the >t illne~s 01 tfle etcrnal.10
Moreover, scientisl5. like Alben: Einstein. who contemplate the vast imm~n5ities of
cd~stialspace and of the atomic world find themselves overwhelmed by a sense of
,~·onder. Ei n s t~ in wrote,
TIle mOSI beauti/ul Ifling wo: can experience IS tfle mysteriom. It is the source 01 all
true art and scieoee. H~ to whom tflis emotion is a ~tranger. who Can no longer
pause 10 wonder and stand rapt in 3we, is as good ~s dead, fl is eye, are closed. Th,s
insight illto the myStery o/liie, coopled though il lx with lear. has al~o gi~'en ri~e
to rdigioll.1t
I1is more difficult, however. for modern ~ople to
understand the holy as ~pri­
mal ~ n ~rgy"---divin~ or demonic power that breaks into the human world created
by our languag~ and symbols_ Th~ holy is Iiterall}' "OU I of this ...·orld," to use a wdl·
worn expression. \'\'hen it invades the human world defined by our language . our
customs. our t:hought----e verything that is "famil ia r«-it excites t h ~ r~spome
described by Ouo: dr~ad and Fascination. awe and wonder.
A Sound oJ Sheer Silmu
Many ~ op l e, anci~ nt and modem, turn to the quiet aspects of nature 10 find sym-
bols of th~ divine, as in the case of Pharaoh Akhenaton's beautiful ~Hymn to the
AtonW- the sun disk that symboliz~s the b~nefic~ !1I rays that lavish Ihe eanh with
light and life. This beautiful Egyptian poem s~~ms to ha\"e- influ~ nced th~ compo·
sition of Psalm 104, onc of Ihe great creation poems 0/ the Eibk_l1 Also th~
Egyptian view is refl~ct~ d in Psalm 19, which exclaims that "the heavens declare
the glory of God" in an inaudible anthem and which ponrays div ine beneficence
in the daily circuit of the sun.
lsrad's poets . however. turn not just to serene metaphors but to violent ones:
the fi~rce mountain SlOnn that breaks the cedars of Lebanon (Psalm 19 ); the roar·
ing of a lion that fills people with t~rror (Amos 1,2). an aw~some day wh en peo -
ple will flee to the mountains and caves from the display of divine maje-sty
{lsa. 2, 12·21l; a whirlwind out of which God speah Uob 38 ). The- pres~nc~ of
Cod is disturbing, upsetting. awe·fut.
20. Ibid., 75. See m~' essay on HC"SCh~l', hibl ieal tfleology "Cocx'"cn<.:e with Co& Heschd',
Exposilion 01 Ei bl,cal Theology," particularly the scction On 'The Sen..: of the Holy: in Abr~h~ ..
J""b~~ H'KJ:.J· Exp!miMg H,; Lif< .. d "fh,;.o;rbt. ed. Joh n C ,\ 1erkk (New York: Collier ~1acmilbn,
1985), 49---52 .
2 L Albert Ein'tein, quoted in an unpublished es5-.'.}· on "'The I\hracle and 1\!y<to:'ry of Lie" by
Joy,e SUIT!" Gris...·old (t 998).
11. 1di<cu<s bridly P5-.'.lm [04 artd its Egl'ptiart poralkl in my <mdl' book on the Psalm" 0..:
<>f Ih, Drp:i.s (Pruladdphla: Wesl mlnSler. 1983, r~v. ed. iorthcoming, 2000), 44-----15. The "'hole
Egyptia n po~m i, found in AVET, ~69--7 1 .
46 (""lown of DU Tt5111111n11 Tbto!.Jgy The Experience o f the Holy 4 7

Ono properly describes the experience 01 the hol}' as having a daunting or
threatening character: M wrath Mis the code word for this aspect of the divine char-
acter_ Divine · wrath Mis daunting especiall), 10 those who perceive nOlhing in the
divine but goodness, gentleness, love, suppon as a lovi ng father or friend. The
holy, however, cannot be domesticated or humanized, it remains a stranger in our
world . There is a sense in which Cod is k nown as an enemy. before being known
as a friend. H Wal ther Eichrodt observes pointedly that if Christianity surrenders
the fundamental awareness of God as · power before whom the creature cannot
sta nd: "of the opposition between Cod and his creatures,wit would then lose M that
note of absolute urgency withou t whic h th e Gospel e ntrusted to it can ne'\'er be
the Godhead than the personal traits that aTe emphasized in b iblical traditionH
The new eleme nt in Israel5 experi ence of the holy. however, is that the holiness is
associated primarily with the name o f Yah ....eh. The holi ness that breaks into th e
human world, exciting wonde r and dread, is not imper;onal power but has a per.
sonal ~faceH o r CharaCler. Thus the Torah . our slaning poim, brings us 10 the pri.
mary confession t hat the God whom Israel worships is "the Holy one in your
mids t" (lsa . 12:5·61- The name of Yahweh, the God of Israd, is qaJosh (holy).
Th roughout the Old Testamem we hea r the ama;:i ng announcemen tl ha l this ho ly
power is also saving power, il is not o nly transcendem bul immanent. dwell ing "in
our midst. In the book or Isaiah. a poet hears God's word,
W

OIher than unth inki ng and superAc i al. "J.~ n..., "'Y' 11.. loi§b "nJ holy onc
In the Eli;ah story. which presents Elijah as a kind of second Moses, the Sinai ""'" ;"b,,!,,'1l .1m!;I),", wbost """'. IS Holy.
theophany is interpreted in a new way. Acco rding to the narrative context, in the ··1 J,r,,1I iM rht bigh "KJ boI)'" pia",
ninlh centul)' II.C. EHjah had fough t valiantly to preserve Is raefs religious tradition ,,~J also Il'irb I~ who arr ,"""trill "Md bw",blt /11 s~in/,

based o n the covenant at Sinai. But he was up against a power establishment to m>iw tbt spin-/ of rht /:"",bk,
""J 10 .t!'iw t/t( Lv,," of rlK ",,,t,,·!t.-
e mbodied in a [)'rannical Queen and a pusillanimous ki ng_ D iscouraged and
- [ >.1 . 57: 15
exhausted. th e prophe t Aed for his life into the southern wilderness ( 1 Kings 19).
There in a cave (reminiscent of the cave experience related in the exodus story,
Exod_ 33: 17-34:8) he witnessed a disp lay of God's hol iness in a fierce mountain
storm, powerfully portrayed in Menddssohn's oratorio Elijah_
In this case, however, the narrator emphasizes that Cod was IWI in the eanh-
quake, 1101 in the wind, 1101 in the fire. Th{'S{' demonstrat ions of divine power "'ere
only a prelude to th e rea l th eophany. Whereas at Sinai (o r H oreb) God spoke to
r,.·1oses ~in th underw (Exod. 19, 19), this ti me God spoke in u a soft murmuring sound"
(NJPSV), or M a gentle ...· h i~ per· (NIV), or~perh aps Ihe best uanslation-"a sound
o f sheer silence" (NRSV). "When Elijah he ard it" (Ihe sound of silence), he stood
at the entrance 10 the cave. where h e heard the d ivine question: "\'('hat are you
doing here t" and Ihe d ivine imperative 10 take pan in the polilical struggle .
Accord ing to th is Story, Cod's holy power does not crush h uma n ITecdom but
addresses it, as happened at the ··burning bushMwhe n Moses was sem as an agent
of God's purpose.

TM Filet 0/ God
In summary, holi ness belongs essentially to the divine, whether experienced in
Israel, Canaan, or elsewhere. It is th e Wllolly Other. which exceeds everyth ing
worldly : all human concepluality, all moral categories, all metaphors. It is the
power that belongs to ~the very essence o f deil}'_wIt may be mo re fundamental in

H A ~ LaLcm~ nl iLttributed. I ~Iie"c , to Alfred Nonh Whitehead.

H Ekhradr, OIJ Trs~!r.ml "Thto logy, 1",,,<;.. J. A Ba kn , ] vok , OTl (Ph;]adelphii :
\VCSlmin~ter, 19(11--67), t ,~76-77. Sce h i~ discu'>'>lo n of 'The Hohncu of God: 170-82. It is 2:5. Blumcmnal. in Fao~ I", A.Owr;r.g God, ma,"l~i",. however, that "'Cod hiS IWO esscmi. 1
~r."Ingc thlt it took E,chradt 270 P~II~"5 10 ("1:lJCh Ihi' fundamental dimension o f Old Tcsli meol ;m.ibu t= hoIine>s ~nd personality" {p. 7 and chips 2 and l ). \~Incr "persona lity' is """,ti.;-i!o
thcoiogy. God's ocing i~ a ph ilo ... phiul QUeslion thal ...-ill come up lalCr.

6. THE NAME OF GOD
1- ThOlI Rdatiol1siJip
w - uod. 6:2
Holiness is no t impersonal power, Nlt. but is m"nifest as "Thou,u signified by a per-
sonal name , Yahweh, which people use in the "I _Th ou" relations hip of prayer and
worsh ip. \\"!alt her Eichrod t, an eminent twen tieth.century O ld Testament theol o-
gi"n, " 'rites:
"Hol( i~ the ,-,"pithc{ deemed ~ ltest to describe the divine Thou whose narur<: and
of'l!",Yions are summed up in the divin e Name.- and for this n.-a!oOn it corn....., to me.ln
th. t which is disti nctivel\' characteristic 01 Cod, that ",hid, constitutes Cod's
nature. !
This is perha ps the most amazing thing tha t Israel has to say to the world, the
Holy is not just power- th e awesome power manifest in th e >wnn, "eanhquake,
wi nd, and fire,~ but is power manifest in relationsh ip with people, saving power
and ethical concern. ne wonder 0/ this "I -Thou~ relatio nship, to echo the t itle of
Ma rtin Buber"s classic: is celebrated by a psalmist \~'ho, beneath the stany sky, is
overwhelmed wi th the realization that the Creator, who contro ls th e vast unive~,
is mindful of, cares about , th e existing perso n.
1Ifbr" I look ~p ,1t your bl"vrn,. I'" Il'<l'"
vf Y"~' fingffl ,
, ( t!x m(lo)"~ "J ("I ,1"" you h",,<, m it: pt,et.
u '),~1 ,5" jmil mortal, th,n Y"" ,)""wti '" IIfir.djul ofb''''
"b~",,,,, brin;l. rb.>1 )'''~ ,ho~til"l:t
"MKr of Hi",'
Ps. 8,3-4 (RED)
Tb. Givi"g of Gods Nmn(
In the final edition 01 th e Pentateuch, produced by Priestly theologians. grea t
stress falls on the name Yahweh. as the Holy O ne o f Israel, the c reator and
redeemer. The Priestly writers presented a 101,.10117 (generations} h istory, from the
time of creation to the Mosaic period. They sch ematized the history as a h istory
of covenants: Noachic, Abrahamic, II.-Iosaic. l each period being characterized by
a particular divine epithet,
Elohim (God)
• From creat ion to Abraham :
• From Ab'al1am to '\-\ OSI:~' El Shaddai (Cod Almi ghry)
• From Moses on, Yah"·,,h (Ihe Lo rd)
1. \Xialther Eic hrodt, Thwlogy oj Ilx OIJ T,,/a"''''t t",ns. J. A. llahr, 2 ,"ok , OTL
(philadelphia: WestminS ter, 1961 ---67). 1:274.
2. Martin Buber, I ,md'n,.,.", trans. R G. Smith (Edinburgh, T & T cr.rk, 1937L
3. See the disrussion of the Prie,lly periodization of history in chapler 10.
The Name of God 49
n us in a Priestly passage, we read:
God also spoke to Mo~s .lno SJid to him, "I am the Lord [YahwehJ- I appeared to
Abraham, Isaac, and J"cob "s <Ad Almighty [El Shaddai], but by my name "The
LORD" [Yahweh J I did not make m\'~!f know n to them.
n is is the cultic name that the people are to use in worship. To praise God, as we
know from the book of Psalms, is 10 ·call upon the name of Yahweh," in lament
(Ps. 116:4 ) or in thanksg iving <Ps. 116: 13 ).
n e Priestly writer inherited and interprered onc strand 01 Old Epic trad it ion
tha t traced the cultic practice 10 t he time of Moses Icontrary to Gen. 4;26b).
Remember th e story to ld in Exodus 3, about /I,·loses' experience of the holy at a
mountain in the wilderness. ne narrator says thal when '''loses e ncountered
"God" (Elohim ), he was told that he was sta nd ing on holy ground an d should take
off his sanda ls as a gesture of reverence. When asked the name of the de ity, he was
wld in a somewhat evasive manner th~ [ he should le ~d the Hebrew slaves out of
Egypt in the name o f the god , Ya hweh (tra nslated "The Lord").
It is doubtful tha t the passage means to say that th e name Yahweh was
unknown and unused in t he time before f,.·loses. According to nad it ions in the
book of Genesis, the name Ya hweh was used in the pre· /I.·\osa ic peri od, indeed,
one strand of (faditio n traces the usage 01 the divi ne name all the way back into
the primeval history, to t he tim e of En ash (Gen. 4:26b: "At th at time people began
to invoke the name of the Lo rd [YH\X'H rJ. The Priestl y writers, howeve r, are
concerned about the beginning o f the cult. the service of worsh ip. YH\xlJ-I (the
Lord) is the cultic name that the peopk arc to use when invoking God.
He re we are not concerned wit h archaeological questions: Where did this
divine name come from' \X!ha t does the name: in itself mean? Was the name also
found outside Israel? These quest io ns, which belong to the hi sto ry 01 religions,
have been debated lor many years. Rather. our interest is theological; \X"hat does
it me an for Cod to ha ve a personal name)
IiK Namr it: RrlatiOl'5h i~
Start at t he level of ordinary human relationships. "\Xlhat's in a name?"' That is the
question Juliet asks in Shakespeare's tragedy, ROrllro and JU/I/I (Acl 2, Sce ne 2 ),
uWhat's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet'« The answer,
of course, is that everything is in a name, the name signifies personhood, ide m ity.
'The name is the soul [selfl: observed Jo ha nn es Pedersen . ~ To be nameless is 10
have no ide ntitY- The greatest tragedy that could befall anyone \"ould be to be
stri pped of his o r her name, to be reduced to a numbe r, a ci pher (e.g., a Social
Security num ber). The astounding witness of the O ld Testament is tha t the holy
4. }ohannes Pede r~en. /""rI, fl' Uj. ,,~J Cuhurf, I rans. As laug Mo l1e~, 4 vols. printed in 2
(Oxford, Oxford Univ. Pr.....,s, 1926-40), 1- 2 :245- 59.
50 (""Iown ofOIJ TN/""1>I1 Thtc!"JIY
God is not nameless but has a peT50nal na~ , so that w OT5hipeT5 may call on this
God in prayer. usi ng the language of "Thou·
Paraphrased in more philosophical language: God does no t remain as Being:
being-in. itself, metaphysicill reillity and power; ra: ther, Cod is kno .... n as being.in.
relationsh ip, being wi t h identity. being that is identified with a people. The name
o f Yah ..... eh sig nilles the being of Cod turned toward a people wi th personal con·
cem a nd cthical demand . Cod chooses to ha\'C idcntity. to e nte r into relatio nship
w it h the finite and the human , 10 be "God with us" or "God in our midsl.~
Accordingly, Israel does nOI build altaT5 (0 an un k nol.m God, but to the Cod ""ho
is known personally and therefore is to be both feared and trusted .
I1 would be fruitless theologIcally to try to und e rstand the signillcance o f God's
giving a personal name b}' exploring the sounds an d lette rs of the word · Yahweh"
itself (a causative verbal form , "he causes 10 be~) ,! or e \'en the cryptic etymology
of the teuagra mmato n in Exod, 3: [3-15, chych mhcr cby(h (I am who I am ), The
nam e Yahweh cannot be understood by e xploring its etymology, any more than
the name of any person-you r name o r mine--ca n be understood by analyzing its
co nstituent elementS, JUSt as a peT5on's name belo ngs to hi s o r her life SIOI)' and
loses its meaning w hen abstracted from that na rrative co nte xt, so God's name,
Yahwe h, belongs essentially to the StOry or h isto ry in whi ch the H o ly One bro ke
into the world of slaves wi th redeeming an d demand ing powe r.
That is how it is in the book o f Exodus, the na me of G od is given in connec -
tion with an event in whi c h Cod's holiness was manifes te d as saving powe r, as sug-
gested in the: condensed narrative: "I am Ya hweh your God who brought you out
o f the land of Egypt" (Exoo, 20: I). The prophet H osea speaks in the name of this
saving God:
rrt I """" hm. Yabrd, )""" GcJ
n.-rr ~"Ct Itv W,.} aj E!1Y1'I;
)'1l'I b."", no Col f..d "".
anJ ,,".Jo lilt Ibm '" ~a l<Il'ia'
- Ho<;. 13,4
Rn>crtr"f Jorfbt Ndmf
In Ihe story of the burn ing bush, the div ine na me is not gi~'en ope nly and dirt'ctly
in answer to the people's request ("\'('hal is his name f hod. 3:13). but only indi-
rectly in a wo rdplay on the tetragrammaton (DI am who I am"). The narrator seems
to sugges t hesi tancc, a holding back, in giving the divine name, for when Cod's
name (i dentity ) is known it might be used wrongly, e ven to gain power o ver God,
as in Ihe SlOT)' of }acob's nigh tlong wrestle w ith a stT<l nger, God incogni to
(Gen. 32:29 ).
5. Construed as a Hiph il (causative ) form of the vcrb !.wh, the etymology would be "He
C3U~S to be ",hal is' (or wh~ t happen s), IhJt is, the One who is crealor .. nd lord . Frank )1.-1.
Cro<;s argues that originallr the wo rd wa~ part of a cuitic sohriquet, Yah",~h SilOOO lh, · He
who create<; the heaven!)' arm t('S" . sce h ~ "Yahw"h and El," ('",,,,,ar.,rr My1r. ,,,,J H,hrrw Epic,
fr!<ry5 '" tht: Hino?, of ri>c Rtf'yiOfl of Israrf (umbridge· Harvard Univ. Press, 1973}, 44- 75 .
The Name of God 51
The ret icence about disclosing God's name, and Ihus making God accessible in
human language, must be taken wi t h the utmost theological serious ness. There is
a sense in ",'hich Cod is nameless, beyond all h um an "naming" in language, even
our highest though ts and loftiest metaphors (see lsa . 55:8-9). Imagination cannot
really " image~ God .. it can only point to th e holy God, who is beyond hum an la n-
guage, even t hough God chooses to speak through human words.
Paul Ricoeur observes tha t the Bible is nOt only · one of the great poems of exis-
tence; which invites us into a ne", being like other great literature, but also il is a
unique poem "because all its pania! fonns o f d iscooTSe are referred to t hat Name
whic h is the point of intersection and the vanis h jng point of all ou r discooTSe
about God, the na me of the unnameable."6 ln an essay on · Naming Cod; Ricoeu r
remarks th a t God is '" the being who m h umanity can nOt really name, that is, hold
at the mercy of our language."7
j\'! ystics, bm h Jewish a nd Christian , acknowl edge "the inex p~ssible tra nsce n-
dence of Cod, the ineffable intln it}' of the d ivine." Speaking of a med ieval mysti·
. cal ph ilosophe r, churc h historian Paul Rorem writes that
the Dionysian aut hor stays on I he "d!!" of Ira Ilseclldence, audaCIously stT<limng lan-
guage and thoug ht. r~rting finally 10 negation and ~ilenc" , a11 in the effort 10
paim beyond o'-'f"sd ves, our bcit words and highest tho'-'lIhts, to K1methinll who11y
other, the '"Y'l<riw"" Ir"",,:J" ,". 8
Th is is the g reat bibl ical paradox: that the God 1.lho is beyond naming chooses
to be know n by name.
As a sign of reverence for Cod, and to avoid an)' p rofanation of God's name,
rabbis laler connected the vowels o f a.10Mi (Lord ) with the sacred consonants
(YH\X' H ), indicating thereby tha t this substirute form of addft'ss was 10 be read
whenever t he telragrammaton is written. The translators of the King la mes
Version d id not understa nd this li lera ry co nven tio n but read the given consonanlS
and the subs tirute vo wels together, w ith the resul ting hybrid ro nn ·}eho vah ....
This auirude of reverence, exprt:"Sscd in honoling Cod's na me, is certainly
appmpria te in prayer and worship. Onc of the Ten Comman d ments (hod 20])
s tipulates that in the covena nt comm unit)' '"you shall nOllake the name of YHWH
yoor God in va in" (or '"make wron gful use of" the name, NRSV). Paulllllich, the
distinguished theologian and ph ilosopher, once observed that we fee l a kind of
"sublime e mb arrassment' when wc s.ay "God": indeed, "the presence o f the divi ne in
6. Paul Ricoeur. "Toward a H~rm~neutic of the Ide~ of Revelallo n: ffTR 70 {1977J.
l7-33, quote from 26. ~e abo"'."" . ch~p lc r 3.
7. Ricocllr, ·Namin~ Cod:in Figurlng:1H SnmJ· Rti'9,on. N,m~I:p(, ,1nJ 1>M9i1U>li~~, tT<lns.
Davi d Pellauer, ed. Ma rk I. Wa ll ace (,....·Imneapolis: Fortress Prn~ , 1995), 228.
8. From a paper by Paul Rorem (March 25, 1998, Pri nce ton Theol08ical ~minary) on
a ~i xth -centu .y N~oplaton ; c phlloso pher·theolog lan !;illed PSl'1ldo·Dionysius {to disli n·
lIu,sh him from th e real on" m" ntioned in A(:ts 171. "Empathy ind Evaluation in I\ledieval
Chu rch H isl:ory and Pastoral Mmist.}': A Luthernn Readtng of Pseuoo-Dionysi\.ts: p. 14.
9. For fuTt~r discussion of "Je ha"ah" and the synalfOllUe usage "the Lord: $('C chapter 8
52 C~"I~nrs of 00 Tt5lc1l>1t'!lr~:r
t h~ name d~mands a shy and trembling heart: 1(l The profanat ion of Cod's name, as
Tillich also points OUt, is I'lOt jusl a ma tter of speech_ God's name i\ " 'TOngfully used,
as proph~ts insisled, whene\'er it is invoked to support social injustice or 10 ser,'e
na tional imerests Uer, 7:3-4). The holiness of God means that God is ~yond all the
p ht'flom~na o f th is ""orld. God cannot be caprured in human conceprualization or
mobilized to serve human inlerests. God is ·t ~ dusive Presence- I I
GodS- SfiJ-Rrotllltioll
\'Qha t is at stake in the giving of Go<fs name, then, is ~\'dation-the d isclosure of
God's identity and the manifestation o f God\: pr~nce. This brings us to onc of the
thorniest problems of biblical theology: the rela tio n be tween story and hiStory. Is
God's presence gi\'en in a story that is spun OUt of poet ic imagin ation and is essen·
tially fictitious, Or is God's presence ma nifest in a h istory, in the dow n-to·earth suf·
feri ng and liberation of sla\'t'S that in some degree is ope n to histori cal c riticism,
Today many theologians have given up on the notion of the revelat io n of Gorl
in history. I ] History, when studied scienti~cally (as Kh o lars attem pt to do in uni·
versities), does nOI disclose God or a nyth ing ··s u pe rnatural." Ernst Trot'l tsch, a
lead ing theologian of the nineteenth century, casts his long shado w o ver modern
biblical study. The theologian who uses a historic al me thod, he ob-ier.... ed, can
reilc h at best only historical probability (not ce rta im y ) a nd can un derstilnd past
evems even those claimed to be unusual or miraculous----only in terms of analo-
gilt'S familiar in the presem. In Ihis ~'kw, the study of history brings us only to the
awa reness of historica l re lati ... ity, nOl to the God who lTanscends the rdativities of
human society. H
Raltiali(ln as E(7<'!,1
In ... iew of this prevailing historical skepticism, )ewiYl philosopht'l'i such as ~'Ianin
Buber and Emi t Fad.enheim seem to be •...oil::es crying in the wilderness." In his lit-
I,
tle book Cod's PrtSnlct in History, f ackenheim bases philosophical reflection on a
Jewish midrash, w hich states th,lI a t the .... ery begi nning of [he bi b lical tradit ion
10. Paul Tillich, "Th~ Divine Name," C"hrnllm.iry and (rilis 20 ( 1960-61) 55-SS. In th is
scrmoo he spoke of a thredold embamJssment--of t~ct, of doubl, ~nd of awe.
11 . Samuel Tenien, Tb.. ElwI!Pf Prr\n'IC"t; s= especially the discussion of "The Disclosure
of the Name" (bad. ) : 1-4 : 17), 109-19.
12. See Leo G. Perdue, Th Ccllllp;r of Hillory, RtcOn,lTllcling ou r."~"'<l'Ir Tbwl09Y
([I.·linneapolis: Fonress Pr~s, 199~ ) . In his Tb.olojj y of tht OU Ttll"'''<l'If \\'lalter Hrueggcm ~nn
"brackets out" questions of historicity, s«" above, chapter 3. On Ihe ,etrieva I 01 the idea of
,e,·elation ~e Mark J. \\'lilllace, The 5r(o~J N~i"{I" R~rth, R;(ot~" ~MJ rb,. Nn., Y~lr Th~lo§y
(J\l acon, Ca.., Mercer Uni". Press, (990). especially 1 11 - 25.
13. Sec Ca.rTet E. Paul, "Why Troel1sch7 Why Today? Theology for Ih" 21st Cent~ry:
CbriJliQM C/'IIlWry 110, 10 ( 1993) 676-S 1.
1~ . Emil L Fackenh6m, GoJ'I Prnrr:n' ;" History, Jewish Affi""'!i~ ",..1 Pb;r"SOjlbic~1 Rtfltcliotos
(Ne .... York, New Yeri: Univ. Press, 1970).
The Name of God 53
someth ing happened at the Red Sea that was more marvclous than Ezekicl's Visi o ns
of wonderful simili tudes of God. There the ""omen "saw what Isaiah. Ezekicl, and
all the othe r pro phets never saw: He continues, "The j\·l idrash insi~ts that not mes-
se ngers, nOl angels, not intermedia ries , but God himself aC tS in huma n h istory_
a nd he was unmist akably pre-sent IQ a whole people at leas t o nce: 15
Note the la nguage: "a t least once." fackenhcim does not claim that God is at
work everywhere, or tha t Cod's footprints are visible on the ~n ds of time. H e does
not advocate a Hrikgncbi,bfc, a history of ~I ...ation uaceable in t~ Bible_ Rather, he
is imp ressed w ith the mystery that lies at t~ root of Je-..'ish tradition.
H ow un historical explana tion come to an arbi trary halt in order to accept the
lnexplicable----the presenct' of Cod. God il ~ems, mUSt be c)lpcllcd fmm his£OI)' by
the modem histori an, just as (Cod) is (xpelled from naTll~ by the modem
sc;enliR 16
The resul t is, he writes, th at neit he r modern Jewish nor modem Christian theo -
. log ians ca n affirm God's real presence in hisLOry blit , at most, Cod's provide nce
over it.
Atte mpting to undel"'i ta nd the mystery of the sea, which is enshrined in a ncient
poetry a nd Story, Fackenhei m says that those involved in the event did no t inter-
pre t it as a mi racle but experienced it as onc, as an act of God. Following the lead
o f Ma rtin Buber's d iKussion,17 he insists tha t the evenl was a ··n a(Ura l-hi~torical "
e \'enl t hat , ho",'ever, had another d imension. "Those present at the Red Sea: he
conti nues, d id not i"/", their Cod from the natural-historical elie nt in;m attempt to
ex pla in it by a God-hypothesiS. Rather, their experience was fundamentally an
"abi d ing astonishment." a sense of ",'onder that pro\'ed to be a turn ing point in the
life of a people. Exce pt fo r this abiding aSIQn ishmen t, the Sole Power would not
bl" prese nt, but only a freak ish even t tha t ne<:ded explanallon . But "OI l that hour·-
a fateful hour in t~ dest iny of a people-Israel experienced holiness b~aking into
the world. lne remit was, ils ....e can Stt in the unfolding tradition, · Israel wonders
and keeps o n "'io ndering« as th is crucial event is recalled and reenacted.
A t t~ source o f the Israeli te tradition and manifest in t~ whole of Israel's
Scri ptu rcs is theological ....onder, a sense o f the holy. God is nOt a phenomenon of
our world o r e ven comprehensible within worldly categories. The Ho!}' is t he
co mpletely O ther. t~ U nf~miliar, the Strange. If the hot), God intrudes into the
hum a n worl d , from th e outside so to speak, the divine presence will be experi-
enced as w onder tha t e xcites both dread and faKination, both fear and truK Isra el
testifies that once -at least once-the holy Cod, Ihe Sole Power. was mani fest in
thi s w orld , and that th e name: of this Power is Yahwt:h, the Holy O nc, <1l1do,h_
At o ne poin t in h is discussion of "revelalion" through t he Bible, Paul Ricoeur
warn s aga inst a narro w "theology of the w ord" that is co ncerned only w ith "\"o rd
15. Ibid. , 4 .
16. Ibid., 4-5.
17. See my d iscussion of Sober's vk,,' in r lR U";"9 !Vo,J QJ tl.r Bibl< (Philadelphia.
\'('estminster, 1979), 58- 59.
54 C.,."lou ... DJ OU Te! I~ .. ml n,,,,J,,!/y
events" , " God'~ mark is in h istory before being in ~peech. h is only secondarily in
speech inasmuch as this history itself is brought to language in the speech.act of
narration," ls
The biblical story of Cod's revelation to Israel is based- in some dcgree----on
rrill events that happened in the experie nce of an ancient people. This has to be
affirmed even though we cannot settle such questions as, "What happened at the
Reed Sea?" The anempt 0/ s.cholars like John Bright or Manin Noth to write a his·
IOry of Israel is a meaningfu l enterprise, e,'en though the historical events are du -
sive and can neve r be proven sCiemifically_19 The Bible presents a realistic narra-
tive, rooted in concrete experiences , not one that is completely spun OUE of the
imagination, Therefore, the theologian has to reckon with th e activity of God in
the world, echOing the fundamental concern of ceorge Emest '\X/right's famous
monograph, GClJ U'bo Arts. In th is view, rdigious language does not "create" real -
iry, as in so-called postmodem linguistic th eory, but is a "response 10 the rea lity of
divine activityHin the world,lo
RfVtiation III Word
God's reve lation, however. was not only eventful bUE word·ful. It was a speech
event. expressed in the symbolism of la nguage.
This is evident in the story of Ihe victory at the Reed Sea, which a critical his·
torian, Manin No th, regards as the "bedrock" of the exodus tradition, To the ear-
liest stage of th is tradition belo ngs the ancient Song of ,\ 'Iiriam, In contrast to the
later Song of the Sea (Exod. 15,1- 18), !Vliriam-not ,\lloses -is the primary actor
and interpreter. 21
5'''9 10 Yahll'lh, 1';U,"pba"I;5 bc-,
horn a~; Mlr bt ba, bulla ,,,10 rbt >fa.
- Exod. l.L1 I ( B~rA )
The salvation at the sea was not JUSt a historical experience, as Buber and Facken -
heim maintain, but it was at the same time a speech event----one Ihat was gh'en lin-
guistic expression in Miriam's inspired song. The verbalization of the experie nce
is fundamental , for we would not hear abou t the historical eve nt , and celehrate it
in ab iding wonder, were il nOI for r.,'liriam's song and the accompanying story,
18_Ri~oeur, "Henneneuric of fkvelarion ,K 6--7.
19_ Stt Appendi)! 2, 'The Rdev~nc.e of Biblical Theology 10 iJibJical Archaeology."
20. Se<: /I.-targaret S. OddI's perceptiv" review of Le" C. Perdue's contributions 10 Old
Testament theo logy, "History or Metaphor." RtlSRn' 24, no_ 3 (1998) 24 1- 45 _She slX"dfi-
~aJ1y contrasts C_ E Wright'S view 01 language as a witness to ~the realilY of di"ine ac tivity"
"'ith the postmodem "kw ollangu<tge as °a human e)!ercise in creating worlds" (p. 244). ~
the discussion of Paul Ricoeurs henneneutic of language, above, chapter 3.
21. See my es,..)', "The Song of ~'\iriam Poetically and Theologically Considered,Nin
Dimel'Im, ,PI Bibli,~1 Hcbnw P<>rtry, cd. Elaine Follis, )SOTSup 40 {Sheffield, J50T Press,
1987), 285-96, also PhyUis Tri ble, "Bringing Miriam out 01 th e Shadow,." BR 5, no. 1
{1989) 14---15 , 34.
The Name of God 55
If this was true at the earliest stage of tradition, it is more so in the finalliter.
ary stage that ~'e have received from the hands of Priestly ed itors. The revelation
of God, identified by the name Yahweh. is not a distant e\'ent that historians
attempt to recover. !t is an event enshrined in .he symbolic la nguage of the story
as it unfolds in the Torah, especially in the book of Exodus.
In the community of faith, which receives and passes on this slory, people
know God through what is written, "scripture" Scripture testi Aes to re,'elation in
words as well as events. In a profound sense Scripture is the Word of Cod. It must
be added immediately, however, [hat Scripture is the \,'ord of God in human
words-words that arise out 01, and are sha ped by, ancient cul ture and by the
socialli{e of the Israelite pe ople. God condescends to speak to us not in the
tongues of angels but in human la nguage with all its strengths and weaknesses.22
Cods word is incarnate, so to speak, in human la nguage n
Gods P7l'5(1!(e ill tbe World
In summary, the O ld Testament bears witness to God's presencc in the world, par·
ticularly in an I-Thou rel ationship with the people IsraeL To ponray God's pres-
e nce, the language of poetic imagination is used, as we shall sce in laler chapter~
that deal with cove nant patterns of symbolization (Pan 11) . Cod's revelation, how~
ever, does no t belong to an imaginary world but occurs in a real world of sufferi ng
and joy, of hardship an d hope. It belongs to the h isto rica l world in which ancient
Israel li ved and, in a profound sense , the world of violence. oppression, and
tragedy in which we Jive. Biblical theologians must deal with the activity of God
in the world and----the reverse of the same coin- with the words of God (cL Jer,
1:9, ·words") . Cods revelation in }esus Christ is manifest in bnth actions and words
in the New Testament as welL
If God is really and truly present in the world, th eological problems inevitably
arise. Religions and philosophies that are c<;semially othef',\'orldly, like the gnos-
tic cults of the ancient Hellenistic world, do nOI have to cope with God's incarna·
tion in the concrete realities o f the huma n world. Relig ions and philosophies that
are atheistic, such as Buddhism, which nonnally dCK"s not speak of God or cre·
ation, do not hill'e to struggle with the apparent absence of God in times of suf-
fe ring and change (see the laments of th e book 01 Psalms). Because Israel took seri·
ously the revelation of God's presence in fhi, ~' or1d, through act and word, it had
to face in a unique way the problem o f "theodicy," the justice 0/ God in the face of
a world of violence and suffering. Therefore, we shall turn in due course to this
existential problem that touches the »e xi stence~ of every person who comes into
the historical world (see Pan ilL 'Trials of Faith and Horizons of Ho pe").
11. Se.., the subsequent discussion of God's "condL"SCension" or "accommodalion," chap-
ter 8.
B . See Terence E_ Frelheim and Karllried Froehlich, TIt Biblt as W"rd 4 Co; in ~
p",tmoJcm ABt (Minneapori" Fortr~..s Pre>s. 1998)_
,
7. THE CHARACTERIZATION
OF YAHWEH
Wt' have Sl't'tl that Ihe Cod revealed to Israel is not an indfable, inscnJlab le,
unknowable "Ir" but a "\o"ho: as expressed narrativdy in many ways. for example,
"God who brought Israel of Egypl,~ "God who created heaven and eanh:
OU t
God, the Holy One, chooses to have iden tify. £0 be an [ in rdation to a Thou, to
know and 10 be \.:.no""o. Cod has a name and gives that name 10 the p!'Ople so that
they may address God in prayer, though in doing so God takes the risk thal Ihe
name will be used in vam. Knowing the name. people will uy to make God pan of
their ""orld, to use Cod 10 suppOrt their nation or thei r purpo~s, in short. to make
Yahweh · our Cod" in a possessive se nse. As Walther Z imme r!j putS it, the danger
is the ~cage of a deRnition." '
In this I-Thou rela tionsh ip, Yahweh's ch'lTacter is made known to the people.
The English "" ord "character" is a rich term with a variety of meanings, it ma}' refer
to a pe rson's panern of behavior; it can mean a dist inc t ive tra it or allribule (from
t he basic meaning of G reek ,bllr.1 kldn, "to engrave"); or it can refer to a pcrson in a
play, SIOry, or novel, that is, a character.
God as Actor jn a Drama
Since Yahweh's name is gi\'en in the com exl of a Story cemering in the exodus of
slaves from Egyp t, it is (empting to empha~ize the las t meaning indicated. The
Bible presents Yah""eh as a character in a story or drama. and in this literary sense
Yah ....eh is the God .... ho act!>. to recall the title of a li n le book by Gl"orge Ernest
Wright '.!rinen in the da~'s of the- biblical theology movemem. l
This approach is proposed by Dale Patrick in an intriguing book, TIN Rrndtring
"J God in tbr OIJ Ttstall"'III .J He describes himself as a refugee from Ihe biblical t he-
o logy movemen t .... ith its (Xce-ss;ve emphasi~ on God's act ivily in hislOry. He
believes that onc can prescrve the concerns expressed in "God's mighty acts in
h istory" by movi ng from hislory to story. Thus he proposes to revitalize biblical
theology with a paradigm drawn from "drama and the other mime-tic arts: The
t ....o "sovernins concepts" of this paradigm arc ~characteri ziltion· and "dramatic
action:
By characterization I mean the representation of personages in such a way Ihat they
en ll~ge ~n Judience's imagination, in <'i~nce causing us 10 entcrlain their exiSlence
1. Wahher Z,mmerii, 0lJ Tr;I.:".",,1 ~ogy ,.0..1/,"<. lr.J.os. David E Grttn (,.1.danla, Jotm
Knox, 1978).20-21 .
l . Wrillhl. GoJ 11'&0 Acts. SBT 1/8 (Chouge· RCllne!)·. 1951 ;" x"<O" abovc. chapln-3.
3. Dale Pltrick. Tb< R...Jm'og of GoJ '" I"" OU Trsla"""l. OBT i Minne~poli<, FOfl<e<S Pres~.
(98 1).
The Characterization of Yah"'eh 57
as 1"',nll individu~k By dr.J.matic action is melnt tne- representation of d~ and
ocClllTICnces ",ilhin ~ spKiolCmporal ir.lme"'ork, exhibited in such a way that the
al.tdicnce cmcrs in as partici pant.~
Accordingly, he proceeds 10 M characterizc" God, the ac tor in the biblical drama.
This is a fascinating book, because it helps the reader 10 take the Bible sen .
ou~ly aslilrml:m. Others, also under the influence of new literary criticism, argue
that attem pts to go behind t he text (circumstances of composition, authorship.
etc. ) are illegitimate. The power of a ShakespC'arian play depends not on its aCa/-
rate port rayal of h istorical realit ies o r e\'en its historical ~referent," bu t on the way
it creates an imaginary world and draws us into the dynam ic of the plot. Onc can
go a step further and say that the "chara cters" in the drama have reality only in the
context of the SlOry. That is true, for insta nce, in John Fowles's Tb. Fr"" h L'ndnldll ls
I-VOIIUIII. The author tells us that he creates the cha racters and lets them have a life
of their own . Similarly, so it is argued. the biblical narrators preSent God as a char-
acter in a SlOt)', a dramatis prrsOlUl.
This vi ew i~ set forth in a very interesting .... ay by Harold Bloom in The Book of
J. where t he author- a professor of EnSlish literature at Yale U niversity-argues
that the Yahwist Epic (the J source of h istori cal cri ticism ) chuacterizes Yanweh
vividly as an impish, mischievous. unpredictable, COntradictory character. But this
wonderful character is only an actor in a story. allesedly composed by a woman!
In ano ther recem book, Glut A Biogr'lphy. Jack Mites maintains th at the structure o f
the Hebre .... Bible, viewed slTict!y as a literary .... ork, provides the basis for writing
a history of the "character called God.S
This approach has intriguinS possibilities for interprelalion. For one thing, it
enables us 10 ilpprcciate the bold anthropomo rphisms of Scripture: Yahweh is like
a human bein&, with eyes, car, nose, mouth . hands. feet . and so on. It can even be
~a i d that God "laughs" (Ps. 2:4) and that God M rested and was refreshed" (&od.
3 1: 17). Moreover, Scripture is J'('plcte with more subtle anth ropomofllhisms and
amhropopathisms: Ya hweh thinks, n:grctS, decides. loves, hates, remem ~rs, and
so on. The ascripl ion of human traits to Yahweh is appropriate in a s[Ol)' in which
Yah ....eh is an actor, .... ho enters into relation with human beings on the stage or
history. So viewed. the Bible has at least the inspirational powe r of a Shakespearian
drama or other great literature.
But a disrurbing question lurks in th is narrative approach. Is Yahweh only a ng·
ment of tne literary imagination, an actor who has real ity only in the s[Ory7 This
seems to suggest a form of Docetism, a heretical vie~' in early Christianity that
regarded Cod's re~'el ation in Jesus Christ as only an imaginary appearance, not a
flesh·and · blood J'('a lity. Brevard Childs's cri tic ism of narrative theolog)', and specif.
ically Dale Patrick's approach. exposes the problem : "Only in the Ilnal cha pters
4. Ibid .. 1.
S. Huold Bloom, Tbt &.c~ of J (Ne ...· Yor\!;, GrO\'e \)/eidenfeld. 1990}, J~ck .\1il.,0. C"']· A
Biogmf00' (New York: Knopf. 1995;'.
•
58 CO~!OIIn of OIJ TtI~~"l'IIr Tbtokyy
does ~ arrempl, in a $Ome..... hal IOrtuOUS manner, to Tela!e his litc:rary characteri-
zation of Cod to the problem of God's reality_<q;
The Cod of the Bible is nOI a mere ·character" in a drama. The reality of the
holy God is prior 1'0 , and transcends. the story ,hat exp r~ it. ~Holy· describes
(he being of God, the essential nature of deity. A )ev.-ish Ih=]ogian, David
Blumenthal, maintains {hat holiness and personality an: the l'A'O "esSl"n li al attrib-
utes· of God's being? To ascribe · personality" to God. h()\4'ever, prI:SCntS difficul·
ties, unless this is a way of saying Ihat God is known personally.
In dealing with this difficu lt subjecl, an analogy from our interpersonal rela-
tions may be helpful . , cannot probe into the innennost being o f anolher bul can
only know that person---his o r her "personality" or ·character"---...in a re lationship
expr~d in words and deeds. Analogically, ..... e can k.now the mystery of Gods
being only as God chooses to be known in relationship with us. s As Walther
Eichrodt appropriately obser.... es: -'Holy' describes the character of God as it has
been made kn own to this people.""9 Such knowledge is covenan tal or relational
knowledge, symbolized by th e disclosure of God's name (nature, identityl.
Ivl'lflif(~'lltion of Cods Cbaracfn
Another meaning of 'character: as noted above, is a person's 'pattern of behavior."
• go:-neralion .
In this sense God's character is manifest in God's dealings with the people Israel.
This behavioristic meaning is b rought out in a striking passage. Exod. 34:5·9.
It is found in the conteXt of t he portrayal of the "root experiences" of biblical tra-
dition. that is, as Emil Fackenheim puts it, the "saving expe rience~ (exodus) and the
"commanding experience' (Sinai).1O In [his passage Yahweh is represen ted as pro-
claiming the sacred name, Yahweh--of ' calling upon the name of Yahweh," '0 use
the lilUrgical lonnula (Ps. 116 : 12- 13).
Consider the StOf}' in Exodus 33 and 34. Moses wams to know whether Yah"'"f:h
will really accompany this people imo the future, a people who so easily bemy
God and take God's name in vain, as illustrated in the SlOry of the golden calf. He
wams to k.now Gods "ways: that is, how God acts in relation 10 th is fickle people.
First, ,,"loses says, "show me your ways: and he rc:cc:i...·es the answer that God's pres-
ence (pall;"' , ' face") will go with him (33: 14· 15). Then he requests: "show me your
glory,· and receives the response that Yahweh's goodness (tulr) will be displayed to
him and that God will proclaim before him rhe name Yahweh ( 33: 18-19).
The: CharacleriLllion of Yahweh 59
In the story Moses' concerns are appropriate because: Cod has ch osen to 5t~p
out of the: mystery o f h olin~s and to ~nler tne: human world. to be: presen t as the:
Holy One in Israefs midst. Yet this people. JUSt h~ving entered into covenan t with
their r.aving God. have rak~n the: name of God in v~ in by "making gods" that
belong to their ",'orld. How can Ihis people Jj\'e in the prc:sence of the holy God?
And how can Ihe holy God be with and go ..... ith this pc:opl~ into Ihe future? This
is the force of the requesls: show me now your "ways," o r show m~ now your
Mglory" Thus, according to th~ Story. Yah ...'eh promises to display the divine
"goodn~s· and to proclaim the name Yahweh before Moses.
The narrator goes on to ~y that M~ is placed in a cave (see the E1ijah story,
I Kgs. 19, 11 - 13}!1 so that he can sec Yahweh only i n passing"-from behind, not
in a direct face-to -face encounter. Later (a fte r an editorial transit ion) we hear the
proclamation in ancient lirurgicallanguage (Exoo. 34:6·9). echoed in \'arious con·
texts in the Old T~st a mc:nt (e.g., Ps. 103:8-9). The ancient confession of fait h is a
description of Yahweh's character.
Th", Lord, the Lord [Yah"'eh, Yahweh l, a God mcrdFu I and gracious, slow \0
~nge r. and abounding in ste~dfa>t love [':!esedl and rnithfulness. keeping steadfast
lovo:- UJelfa j For {he Ihous~ndlh gencrallon. forgh'ing iniquit}" ~nd 1rans~r~s ion
and ~in, yet by no mo:-ans clearing Ih~ guilty, but Visi ting {ho:- iniquity of tho:-
parents upon the children and the children's children, 10 the th ird and fourth
-E~od. 34,6·9
H ere it is d ear that Yahweh's holinesS---lhe power of deity-is not manifest
arbitrarily or capriciously. To be sure. Yah ...·eh is characterized by Rwrath:' a man·
ifestation of divine holinc:ss. As expressions 01 holy po"' er, God's actions cannot be
comprehended in rational categories, n and some ti mes seem to defy understand-
ing in terms of a covenantal relationship} ] as shown in Ihe archa ic SWI)' of
Yahweh's attempt to kill Moses, the: covenant mediator, on the way 10 fulfill his
mission {Exocl. 4:24-26}. Israel's prophets proclaimed that the holy God shows
host ility toward human brings and their way of life.' 4
Nevenheless, in the proclamation of God's name we hear that Yahweh is "slow
M
to anger." Ind«d, Yahweh is tru~twonhy : Yah ..... eh is "rich in" or "abounds in stead-
fast love and faithfulness {rab brstJ Ij.·HIKtlb }, or as NEB translat~ . is "ever constant
an d true." See the magnific~nt poetic expression of the themes of Yahweh's -over-
Aowing wrath for a moment"" and Yahweh's ~e \'er1asling 10\'1'6 in lsa. 54,9 - 11 .

6. Bf~... ~rd Childs. Bif.U",I"Tbn>/og:y of rh. Old~.,J NfU) T"I.<"""r, (,1,.1inn~apolis, Fortr("Ss PrtS~.
1992). 19.
7. Blllme01hal. Fad"i/IM A""si~jl' God", A ~1cjy of Prornt (Looisville: WestmiMterl)ohn KnOll.
11 . Comp31"C" the Eliiah ~IOry, 1 Kgs. 19: 11. I 3. discus§cd ~bove, chapler :).
1993).
11. R"c~1l Rudol f Ono's observation th~t divine .... rath is a m:lOil("S{ation 01 Cod'$ holiness.
S For th,s analoi)' I am lI"udul to my friend, Victor Nuovo. Profeswr of Philosoph>'
~bo"o:-. chapter 5.
Em"rirus, Middlebury College.
I 3. A point mado:- df..aivdy by WallCT BroC8gcmann. ·Uncxpected R..dicalil)l: in rtlWi"fl4
9. W~ltl>tr E,chrodl. Tbto1cgy 4 tbt OU T" ..",,,,1. t"ms . .L A. Baker. 2 vols .. on (Philadelphia:
tbt O!J T"ImtIlr.(, Tnl;"''''':r. Dilp"lr. A:1V«MC)' (:..1 inneapolis: Fort~ss Press. 1997). 2SQ.....S1.
WC"Slminuer. 1%1-67), 1:273.
14 Scc-. c.g.. Ezo:-kic:l's m"'sa&e of "divine "'mh and m~TCy: in chapter 16 b..low.
10. Em,l FKkcnheim, GoJ'i ~r i" Hi~ID'Y (5;an Fr~o<:isro, Harpc:T Torchbook, 1970).
 60 Co"wm of OU T,,~,!IItI1 ! Tbrology
Y.Jhu>th's Filjlhf~lm51
In this characterization of Yahweh, the Holy One, we ~nd one of the most impor-
tant theological terms in the Old Testame nt, brsd, It is very difficult to render into
English, as evidt'nced in the \'arious translations: "mercy" (K)V), "steadfast love"
(NRSV), ·love" (NIV), "kindness" (NJPSV)_ "Loyalty~ is probably the best transla.
tion, as e\'idenced by the adjacen t term "faithfulness." "loyalty and fai thfuln ess" is
a hendiadys . a figure of speech in which two words, connected by a conjunction,
connote a single idea.
Here Yahw'eh's relation to the people is described in terminology drawn from
interpnsonal relationshi p. The relations hip could ~ a political cove nan t or
"treaty," such as the treaties made betv.'een ancie nt H ittites and their vassal states
( to be considered in chapter 18). Or it could be a cove nan t of friendship, such as
the "sacred covenam,« lite rally "a covenant of Yahweh ,~ between David and
jonathan ( I Sam. 20;8 ).
Following Katharine Sakenfcld's treatment of the term. bmd refers not to a rela.
tionship in which panies an: strictly equal (peers), but rather to relationships in
whic h one party is "superio r" in the sense of haVing more power or influence
I.
because of social position. As lo ng as Jonathan had the superio r position as th e
king's son, it was his obligation as a friend to help David escape from Saul's wTath;
but ) onathan made David promise that whe n their roles were reversed and David
rose to power, Da"id would ma nifest loyalty (!l'5t'd ) to h im ( I Sam. 10: 12-171-
David's obligation of friendship las ted even ix:yond Jonathan's death ( 1 Sam_
9:1, 2, 7).
Such loyalty, according to Sakenleld, is not a virtue but ralher an obligation-
SOmething 10 be done, whi ch accounts for the emphasis on "faithfulness in action",
to do, to maintain, 10 love mtd {Mic. 6 :8 ) _ Moreover, we must not think of
noblesse oblige-people 01 high standi ng behaving nobly toward inferiOrs, for
example, the rich gi vi ng condescendingly 10 the poor. Rath er, royalty arises from
the relatio nship itself, not from external law or social custom. O ne is free 10 be
loyal or not 10 be loyal , even though the weaker party may have no other source
of help.
It is significant th at this term, which describes a huma n relationsh ip that is
The Characterization of Yahweh 61
In the major covenantal perspectives oi the Old Testament, the Abrahamic, the
Mosaic, and the Davidic
YIli:tu.vb5 Wratb
Yahweh's loyalty, however, is not indul gent love or what might be called ·cheap
grace ." To be sure, Yahweh ~forgives iniquity and sin," but Israel's betrayal of the
relationship evokes divine judgment. thoug h-as we have seen above--on a lim-
ited , terminating basis. Yahweh "isits the sins o f the parents on [he children only
to the third and the fou rth genera tion, that is, a contemporary ge neration (parents,
children, grandchildren-who may be living at th e same time as an extended fam·
ily )_ Yah.,'eh's anger is ho ly anger, but it is brief; it does not cancel ou t Yah,veh's
"loyal1ove;" which continues unbroken through generations withou t number.
For a briif ",,,,,,,,,I 1 ~"'mJQn,J you,
but wilh 9""t mmpm,ior. I U'l!l1"thr. y<J-lO,
iH ol>tljlowill!/ ~'''' Ih Jar ~ ,"o,",d
I hil '"y J"" jrom )'~~,
but ~~i!h ">r,w,ti,,g lw~ I ~~JI h~ ~" ",,,,~,,;,;,,,, er. yaw,
"')'S t~, LOR/) {Y"b~,J,], )'Olir RdWl'l(1".
- lsa. 54:7·8
The meaning of di"in e failhfulness is beautifully expressed in Ps. 103:6- 13. a pas-
sage that ec hoes the ancient litu rgical pro<.:iamalion of the name of Cod quoted
above (bod. 33:6-9 ).
Onc of the great teachings of lsr:ael's prophets is Ihat God is characterized by
divine PtlIJyo~ _ 1 6 Unl ike the deity of some Greek phi losop hers (e.g. , ArislOtle), God
is no t apat hetic- above and beyo nd human suffering and historical tragedy-but
is "pathetic« o r, to use a bener English word, "compassionate" God's faithfulness
inc1udt."S concern for and iden ti ~cation with our human condition, lrut-in the face
of manifestations of injusti ce or violence-it also has the dimens ion of anger and
hatred. as many of Ihe prophets declared.
JW it. 1 d'opi>r )'Q~r Jrsliva ls.
~"d I !~kt HO dfl,ghl i" ywr , o!rmH 'ISI(lllbli",.

st rong and steadfast, is used to describe the rdation between th e holy Cod and the
people. Yahweh, the holy God, acts with freedom , is not bound by any necessity T.1kt ",,ry,,y from m, Ibt nQ;5r oJ )'w, W>1,H,
1!I'i/i ~ol ii,ll" 10 tbt "'110.1)" oJ )'~~r harpl
(cf. hod. B, 19, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have
Bwt Itt jw,tiC( mr! JOIDl1 like w~lm.
compassion on w'hom I will have compassion"). [n freedom God makes a commit-
""J rlghlrou,n", /ikt "" "".rjlow'''!/ 5J,,~," .
ment to the people, and is free to keep or tenninate the relationship. But Yahweh
- Amos 5,2t - 2 ~
is trustwonhy, rich in ~J . God's faithfulness is firm , not fickl e; it is steadFast, not
capricious. This tenn comes close to the meaning of the New Testamen t term To summarize: holiness is not o ne special characteristic of Cod among others,
,h",l's, \'Tace" later we shall see how this important theological term is nuanced but is man ifest in all of Ya hweh'~ ways. \'({rath and compassion, judgment and for-
giveness are dimensio ns of Israel's experience of "the Holy One in your midst.«
15. K~tharine Doob Sakenfdd, FaitbJw/n('i5 in Actio~ · Lcyail)' ;~ Biblical P<rsp..-ti~" OBT
(Minneapoli" Fort,-"ss p,-".;~, 1985 ). S~~ al,o Cordon R Clark, n.- Word -Hcsrd" i~ t1>. Hr)""" Bibk, 16. Thi' is the th~is of Rabbi Ab",ham Joshua H e-;.chel'~ magnificent book, n" Prapbtt' ( N~ ,,'
JSOTSup 157 (Shd~~ld, )SOT Pres~, (993 ). York , Ha",...r and Row, 19621.
 62 CClP' le"., <:>J OIJ Tll:l.lom:l T'hr%9)'
Notice the words of th e psalmist: "BuI there ;5 forgiveness ....ith you, so that you 8. YAHWEH AND THE GODS
may be fca red [RSV 'revered'r (Ps. 130:4).
Cuided by the b iblical witness, a biblical theologia n does nOI stan with the
concept o f personality and say tha t God is a glO rified personality. Rat her. one
begins wi th the holiness of Cod, whose reality is beyond our worl d, our existence, 011t~ of the tasks of Old Testament theology. as noted earlier, is to show the
our categories, and from thal slan ing POint goes on to affirm that Cod's rdation· distinctiveness or integrity of Israel's faith in relation \0 Ihe religions of the en"i·
shi p to us is expressed in persona l terms, even in the familial terms of parent and ronme nt. The re has been such tremendous advan ce in the study o f the h istory of
child,
religions in the lwentieth century, beginni ng particula rl y with the work of
Hou' , .on / gi,>(),o./ w,\ E~h r~)" 1 Hermann Cunkd,' that any theologian who ignores th e religions of amiquity
H"", Csn / b",.J you 0=, 01"".1-, may be: charged with theological irTesponsibi!ity_ The tremendous comributions
of archaeological research , such as the d iscovery 01 ancien t Babylonian lite rature
My ~7f rrcoilJ II'Itbm lW, and of the Canaani te tex ts from ancient U g<lTit , make t his t;osk u navoidable _
fly c""'~~5'Si,", grows """"" sr.J tt7d!7. Thc§e contributions have been highlighted in such journals as Biblical Arcb4f-
/ ",ili /101 txtcult.y fim;t a~r;
o!o;ica/ R~no and Bibk Rn'inI.
f viii 11(11 "JI<l'" Jnrroy E"brll'-"', Also, we have secn that the distinctive testimony of the Torah is the sclf-
flY{ 1a", GcJ a ..J /10 "",,,,,1.
disclo5Ure of the: H oly One in the concrete historical experience o f a people,
tbt Hoiy Ont , ~ your ,.,dSI,
anJ Iwi/l Mo t (Ol"( in u'mrh. Israel • and that this revelation occurs in the context of the religions of the anciem
- Hoo;. 11,8-9 world. Israel's knowl edge of God, unde r the personal name Y~hweh, was given
within the general human experienu of the holy. According to the tradition,
Contrary to ,'vlarcionites, ancient and modem, the re is no antithesis between Yahweh is not a differen t god from the Cod of "ncestr,,1 and prime\'al times. but
divine wrath and divine mercy; rather, both arc comprehended in the experience the same God who is hencefonh known and served in a different way in the
of the presence of -the H oly One" in our midst." Israelite cult (h od. 6:2-3).2

Ya hwth alia tht Worship of El

It is smking that the name of the people of God. yirra"d, co ntams the theophorous
element d, the name of the high god of the Canaanite pantheon. Indeed, the
earliest rderence to the Israe lite people outside the Bible is in t he so-called
Merneptah Stde (ca. 1220 8.C.), in which an Egyptian monarch celebrated in
exaggerated language his victories o\'er various peoples: Israel is desolate, its seed
is nm. l One would expect the name of the Israeli te confede racy to be linked with
the element Yah, as in the case of other names like Eli;ah ( ~-ty Cod is Yah ....eh ) or
I\;ticaiah ("''ho i-s like Yahweh?). This El-name Sttms to indicate that the revelation
of the Holy Onc under the na me Yah ...·eh is rdated to, or founded on, the prn;-
ous ....orship of El in Canaanite cultuTC.
Some of the old El lilies arc p reserved and emphasized in Israelite tradition,
for example, El Shadda i (Gen. \7:1 ,- bad. 6 :2 ), usually translated "God
Almighty,~ or El Elyon (Gen . 14: 18·20). usually translated "God Most High:

I. Se.. t~ brief trealment of the work of H"rmann 0mhl ( 1862-t932) in my "Introduction"

to Martin NOlh's A H1!IQ')' ~ Pc><l<IltIICbsl r,-...:iJli6ns (Engiewood Oifk, N J.: Prentice-H.II . t972,
repr. Chico, CaIiL Scholar's Press, \981 ). xvii i-IO<.
17. This ipplin nol JU5' 10 IhI: Ok! TC'5latnel'"lt bul ilso to d", .... hol" Bible. A n.l fisticia" Ius 2.5« discussion of the nilmC of God il'"l chipter 6 aOo-.""
Gllculilfed that O",,·si""Ih of .1I tr... references 10 d;"me •..Tillh" ;Or" found in IhI: New Teslament.
3. M'IT, 378.
 64 C"nliJu" vJ Old T"~"'''''I n,.,,1vgy
Wirh an ecumenical outreach, Israel has simply taken ove r these ancient
Canaanite epithets and identified them with Yahweh. A good illustration is the
curious story in Gene~is 14, which, according to literary critics, stands ollEside the
major pentateuchal traditions_ On his return from a skirmish with four kings in
the Valley of Salt (Dead Sea), Abram paused at je ru!>alem, a Canaanite stronghold
at that time, and ~kfchizedek , the priest-king of Salcm Oerusalem ), blessed him
in the name o f eI d)"Q~, "creator of heaven and eanh" This title Ncreator" .~q""tl:t) is
used of El in the Ugaritic texts, where the high god is called "creator of creamres."
According to thc story, Abram respo nds to r.,,1clchizedek's blessing in the name of
"Yah\"eh, creator of heaven and earth" (Cen. [4,22), that is, by identifying
Yahweh with El and thus bringing creation theology into the worship 01 Yahweh.
Thr Incomparability oJ Ya/Jwt/)
Onc theme used in Israel's praise is that no other god can be com pared with
Yahweh. It is found, for instance, in the Song of the Sea. by ge neral agreement onc
of the oldest poems in the Old Testament. The poet exclaims ,
IV)", i~ likt you, 0 LORD [r~k'rhJ """0,,;/ tlx godp
"'''}tll'' ,;, hdin,!;,
- Wbo is lil" you,
~"'f5i)"",~ ,~!rnJor, Joing ~"mJml
-Emd. 15, (1
Similar ascriptions of praise are found elsewhere in ~ti c literature. for instance
in Deut. 33:26, which affirms that there is none like t he God of kshurun ("upright
one,w a poetic He brew title for the people of Israel); also Ps. 89:5-8. which states
that then; j~ no god like Yahwc h in the heavenly council.
In these texts, devotees regard Yahweh as superior to other gods. Language
like this, also found in texts fmm ancie nt ]\-ks.opotamia and Egypt, re presenrs the
extravagance of adoration . In the Hymn to the Moon God. for instance, the wor.
shipersays, M O Lord, who is like you, who can compare with you?ff4Indeed. some.
times the same worshiper could ascribe incomparability to different gods, perhaps
like a suitor who says the same sweet things to different objects of affection. This
only gocs to show that ancient Israelite poetS were influenced by the poetic con -
ventions of surrounding religions in ascribing praise to Yahweh.
Israel's borrowing horn ancient religions can be traced in other areas: for
instance, the appropriation of the old myth of th e battle of the creator god wi th
the po,,"'ers of chaos, the theme of the kingship of Cod in the heavenly. council
the notion thal Zion is the center of the eanh, and so on. From very early limes.
Israel's language of faith was influenced by Canaanite cu lture and religion.
4 A'!IT, 383. See also tho:- Hymn to th~ Moon God, Sin, quoted bd ow.
Yahweh and the Cods 65
Bill it is going too far to say that Israel was essentially a breakaway Canaanite
cult and that there were no essential differences between Yahweh and the gods of
Canaanite culture.! There are afflnities , yes, hut also major differences.
Mytbopoelic Lallguage oJ Faith
The major advance in our understanding of th e religions of Israel's environment
has bee n the rt:i1lizati on that these religions "'ere not crudely primitive, as carica-
tured by earlier interpreters. bill were very sophisticated and, in some respects,
profound. For one th ing, the religions of the ancient world employed mythopoctic
language to express the experience of the divine_ This was stressed years ago in a
book by scholars at the University 01 Ch icago entitled Bqorr Philosophy, later reis·
sue d unde r the title Tb! lute/kcfutll Adpenlurr of A,,,ir"i .0\,1.11:. 6 /I.-lircea Eliade and other
students of comparative religion have shown that myth provides poetic language
for expressing the experience of the divine l
Also, in these religions thl.'" experience o f the holy was expressed not in the
la nguage of "ltff (mysticism ) but in the I-Thou language of prayer. This is evident
when one turns to the prayers and hymns collected in what is commonly known
as "the Bible of the Ancient Near East.~ Ar.cimt Nrar Easttrn Trxt, Rdati"!1 to t~ Old
Tt5talrlfflt , edited by). B. Pritchard. A beautiful example is a hymn to the moon god
named Sin.ij
o Lord, dr(d" "f tht Jrstin;rs of b"",.,. "d "'rib. ",hasr "",J ~o O~f ~I!er;,
l!fho r"~lroll ",,'atff m<1 fir( , kaJ" oJ riI'm!] m~t~m. ,,'hnt GoJ i. lii:t rbm
I~ bwre: who;5 exaltrd? Tt>o~! Tho~ ~Io~r~,t n~[I.J
0., r,;rlb who;. tx"It"J7 Tbow-' Tbo~ "toxe art n:a!trJ.
Finally, the high gods and goddesses were regarded as powers who upheld
order in sociely in the face of lhe ever-threatening forces of chaos. They were
arranged in a hierarchy, an orderly system, with the hi gh god El presiding over the
council o f the gods. These gods dealt with all the concerns of human life: fenilily
of the soil, political security, mil itary adventures, life in the household. wisdom
and th e arts, and s.o on _ It is not surprising that Israel drank deeply at the wells of
ancie nt religio ns.
5_ Sce [he book by Mark S. Smith, wilh ;15 intriguing tid~, n, E,"[y Hi,/ary of Gv1 (San
. Francisco, Harper & Row. 1990), wher~ Ihi ~ ,·iew i~ mli nta incd.
6. H~nri A. Franl/ort. el at l~!.!I"hd AJI'<1'!~" of AIocirlol ,\I.:IY. A" ES\~y On 5pwru~I'" n.o..J1br;~
lb. Al1ci",1 N.m fast {rep rinr ed., C hiugo, U ""'er>i[}" o f Chicago rr""~, (977).
7. For in~tan(e. his booh ellS"",' ~r.J Hi'to')·. ]1" M)'Ib 4 th, flrrnd Rn"", {San Franc;sco,
H~"",r & Row, t 954} arId Th 5,.mJ ".d tb.t PfOJa~" Th "'~'u ... of R.ri;ia~ {San FranciSCO: Ha"",r",
Ro,,·, 1961 }.
8. AH}'mll to the Moon -God : ANIT 386

66 ConlOQr5 of ou Tnl<llllt>ll Tholoj;y
Ynbwtb as Ibt ScJt Powtr
The distinctiveness of the Yahweh faith becomes evident when one considers the
two characteristic features of the religions of antiquity and how Israc:l responded .
The first of these is polytheism; the second, sexuality in the d ivine realm?
That the relig ions of t he: anci ent world were es!.C:ntiaHy polytheistic needs no
demonstration. By contl'<1st, the faith of Israel, at least in its mainline expression,
was based o n a Aerce: devotion to Yahweh. The Am commandment of the Deca-
logue reads: ~ou shall have no other gods before [or besides] me- (Exod. 20:3),
and the second commandme:n t rejects the ancient practice of re presenting a god
in a visual image or ico n: ~ou shall not make for your=lf an idor in the fonn of
anyth ing in heaven, on earth, o r the water under the earth (i_e_, the whole cre-
ation ). It would be: exce:ssi\'e: to claim t hat these are expressio ns of strict monothe-
ism, although W. F. Albright used them to argue for j\,1osaic monot heism. to This
incipient monothe ism d id nOT come to full expression until later in the ~ms of
so -called Second Isaiah composed during the exile (e.g., lsa. 45: 18). At the Arst,
however, Israel confessed out of their own h istorical experience that Yahweh is the
Sole Power and tha t the people are to worship Yahweh solely, as demanded in the:
S hema (NHea t).
Hear. 0 Israel! The LORD (Yahweh ] is OUr God, th~ LORD [Y~hweh] al one. You
shall lO'>'e the Low [Yah"'c:hj your Cod with all you r heart and with all yOllr soul
and with all your might.
ISl'<1d is to have a single. not a divided. religious loyalty_
YablVtDSlralinl'y
The reaso n for this demand for .... hok heaned devotion to Yahweh is evident in onc
of the aspec ts o f Yah .....e:h's ·character" or · charactcristjcs." as indicated in explana.
tory words added to the Sc:cond Commandment: 1"or I, the loRD [Yahweh ) your
God, am a jealous (zealous] Goer (Exod. 20,5). Indeed. in another ,,'ersion of the
covenant la ...• it is said that Yahweh's name (or character) is Jealous.
You shall ",'Orship no Ot~r god, for the Lotm [Y~h"'eh] ",hose name is Jealous
(~anJIQ ), i$ a jc:alou, God (rl ~a.."" ).
-Exod. 34: H
This tenn q'amlll is diftkult to tl'<1nslate adequately_" It refers to Yahweh's ener-
getiC power and therefore could be translated ~zeal ," as at the conclusion of Isa.
9:7: !he <:e31 of the LORD (Yahweh] of hosts will do this." Also, it refers to the
9.ln this diSC\lssion I ha''C been influenced by ~ Ic:crur~ gi\'cn by m)' Princclon Seminary col-
lc~gue.J.J . M. Robcrrs.
10. W. F. Albright, Fro .. Ibt SlCP1t A;c to Cbri)I,.... ity t2d cd.; Baltimore, John Hopkins Uni". Press,
J957j
I 1. On Ez.c-kid's use of ,he lem, s« bclo.... chapler 16_
Yahweh and the Gods 67
int ensity of Yahweh's claim on t he people and the refore could be- translate d
jealousy· H owever one renders it. this divine: characterisric -like · wra th" or "for-
give nc:ssn- is an expression of divine holi ness in the world that exc ites "fear" or
re\'erence. As Gerhard von Rad remarks: "Zeal and holiness are in fact only differ-
ent ~aded expressio ns of one and the same characterist ic of Yahweh" 'l
According to an old tradition embedded in Josh ua 24, the ancestors of Israel
\<I.' e re polytheists. Terah, the father of Abraham and Nahor, "served Lworshi~d]
other gods" Uosh_ 24 :2)_Joshua exh ortS the people to ·put a....ay the gods that your
ancestors served beyond the River and in Egypt : and to -se rve the LORD
[Yahweh f wholeheartedly (24: 14 ). In this nanat i ~'e: cOnleXt [he reason for exclu-
si\'e devotio n is also based on the c haraCTer of Yah weh: Yahweh "is a jealous God~
(24: 19) who. in the case of defection, will display co nsuming wrath. In the world
many '"gods" com~te for human loyally, but for Israel the re is only one divine
po ....er- the Sole Power who has broke n into the wo rld .... ith saving power and
demanding will.
GoJ a):J tht Heavenl)' Co~n(i1
Before leaving the subject of pol),the:ism, let us co nsider a major metaphor that
Israel adopted to portray Ya hweh 's relation to the gods of the su rroun ding v,orld_
These gods were considered to be members of the: heavenly cou ncil, o\'er which
Yahweh , the supreme Cod, preSided as king (as in 1 Kg s. 22: 19-U l_This is prob-
ably the meaning of the "plural of maje:sry~ in Gen. 1:26, ~let us make .. .": Here
God is speaking to the heavenly council. This adm inistra tive council is called the
council of the bmr rlobim, the 'so ns o f God" o r the -h eavenly beings," as in the
hymn of praise to Yahweh, the hig h God, in Psalm 89.
lLI lt.. brat'mS pr~;!t yow, w""Jrrs. 0 LORD [ Y"hYb).
y;m, Ja!IhJ.l~tS! lR tbt as!tl>tbly of 1« I;dy Q~.
Fo • ...... ;,. r!.. SM "'" lit C.,.p.>IfJ 10 tbt LoRD [Y~J:.w"b.i
w&o a..""!! ~ bt3llf!lly btings ;1 lib It...
LOIW [Y~Im'fb}.
a GoJ jr:<rt4 i~ Ibt cowllCl1 of ,bt holy Oftn,
!J ..."I a,.J ~U'!'SOl!tt at.o.." ~!I Ib.>' ~If II' QM..J /m,, )
-Ps. 89:5·7
The mythical langu age is retained in other psalms:
Fo. Y~Mb is ~ !1n,!1 GoJ,
and ~ !1m11 Kill§ ~bot'r ~Il !Jod;.
-Ps. 95:3, also 103:19·20
The book of Job, one may recall . opens with a scene in the heavenly council
where "the heavenly beings" or "sons of Cod" co nven e before the high Cod
(Job 1,6 ).
12_ Gc:rhard ,-on R3d, O!d 1<)r....."" Tbt3!09]. tr;lns, 0 . :-1 C Stilker. 1 \'01.. (New Yo&.,
Harpt'r St Row, \ 962---65 ). 1,205. Scc his "alullble dlSCUS~'OO of lhis t~rm, 203---11
 68 Cont~urs of OIJ Tn/a"'''''1 ThoIog)'
The metaphor of the heavenly council is u~d in different ways. In Deut.
32:8·9 we are told that Yah ....eh , the sovereign of the council, assigns other gods
the oversight of the provinces of various ~oples but re~fVes Israel as -Yahwch 's
own portion: This is one way to deal with Ihe many gods, 10 PUI them under
Yahweh's adminiSlTalive sovereignty.
Another use of this moti' is found in Psalm 82, where the high god El (he re
idemified with Yah ...'eh), 11 presides over the divi~ council and indicts the gods for
failing to administer justice, with the ~h that the foundations of the ean:hly
social order are sha king. The divine King renders a judgment that strips the gods
of their divinity:
I SIly, "r"" a.. .;r>is,
""ldm. '" rbt ,\lolt High, alJ of YCli,
nwrrthtlrSl. you .ball Jit L'~ ""'fI~k
a~J f~1I1,.r ~~y print<."
~P~, 82.6·7
Here the other gods are divested of dh'inity and Yahweh alone is hailed as the
ru ler who upholds justice in the earth.
The metaphor also appears in the proph~ of Second Isaiah , which begins
with the announcement of the heavenly King, Yah ....eh, in the heavenly council
(lsa. 40: J) that Israel, having suffered for their sins, will have a future in the lor,
giving and comfo ning grace o f Cod. In this proph~' the poet declares that the
olher gods are only idols. who pale into poweness artifacts before Yah ....eh, the
universal sovereign of the nations and the creator of the ends of the eanh (e.g .,
40: 18·20; 45 :20-22). Here we Sland fionly on the ground 01 thc monothe ism tha t
was characteristic of Juda ism at the time of the beginnings of Christianity.
StXuality ill Ibt Divill ~ Rralm
We rurn now to the second major fe .. ture of .. ncicnt religions: ~xuality in the
divine realm. Not only were there m.. ny deities, organized in a pantheo n, but
every major god was paired with a goddess. In th e Canaanite pantheon, the high
god El, the fathe r of the gods, had his female eounterpan, Asherah; Baal, the god
of stonn and Icnility, was related to his conwrt Ashtane (lshta r), .. nd so on. In
Israel, at least in the mainline tradition rc-prescntcd in the Old Testament, this ~X,
ual model was rejected. Yahweh had no wife or consort. To be ~re, outside the
land of Israel. in the JeWish colony at Elephantine. Egypt. Yahwch ~ems to have
had a conson, Anath, according to th e Elephantine papyri of the fifth century B,C.
13, At ka$t thiS interpretation is proper in th~ context of the so · cal1~d Eloh islic Ps.aher
(I'r.aln'$ 43-83 ), where Elohim has often be-en wbslituted for YJhw~h. Simon B. PJrkcr argues.
hm.'C'>'er. that origi nally, bdoll: Ihis interprer.llion "W35 pressed upo n the pulm ' contexru~ lIy,
yah ..... ch ..... as onc of the gods, urnkr the prc-sid",ncy 01 El or Eh'on jP•. 83. 18). who protC"Sted that
his colleaguC"S (gods of the nations) were go\'eming unjustly (Tho:: /kginn,ng of the Rcign of
God · rsalm 82 itf :"'Iyth and liturgy: R.B 102 [1995 ] 532-59 ).
yah .....ch ~nd Ihe Gods 69
Archacological investigation sC"t"ms to indicate that, at least in popular religion,
thcre was worship of the mother l:oddess in Canaan tOO, I~ which should not sur-
prisc us in view of polemical passages like Jer. 7: 18 (t he queen of heaven ). If so,
most e\'idences of this masculine-feminine n:latiol1l;hi p havc been cdi ted OUt in the
process of the fonnat ion of the scri ptural tradition. The statement of the Shcrna,
· Yahweh is our God , Yahwch alone- (Deut. 6:4 ). implies that Yahweh has no
fcmale panner.
Yabwrh vtfSlIS Baal
Indeed, there was a spectal an imus against one aspect o f C .. naanitc U1lturc: th e
worship o f Baal and Astane (Ishtar), thc Lord and the: lady. As we know from the
Ras Shamra lite rarure, there was a Can.... nite mythos (s rory ) about the relat ions
betwcen Haal and his sis ter/consort, the maide n Anath. In thc judgmcnt of many
scholars this story was dramat ized o r acted out in cuitic rituals, which signalized
the cnd of the old ycar and the spri ngtime of a new year.
The prophc t Je rem ia h was es~cially crit ical of Baal re ligion. maintaining that
Israel's turning from Yahweh to Raal was the supreme expression of the people's
betrayal of the covenant loyal!}'. This is evidenl in a rehears al o f the Israelite story,
I ~rowgbl y ou i~lo" ~1t1llifo,ll"nJ
to? ,,,I III ! rwiU nnJ ilj .;ocd thil:';s.
But u·bn< Y"" cnk rlJ you JryltJ "'Y /and,
,;,d "",Jt "'y /xrit.1gr ~~ dbo..-it:~!"'n.
Tht pntlll: Jid nOI >dy. "\Vbtrr ;s l~ LrHt:n [Y,,(o..,'"tt. j,-
Tbos<: ll':"" b.mJk Ibt !,,~, JjJ ftDt hw3' "'"
rb, m!,,., 'r" l'S!JftSSlJ "9<"~lllllt,
Ibr pr~l~ prop.MSotJ!ry &,,",
",.J..."I aJ!" Im"1lINI Jo "Or /'fDjI.
~J er 2,7·8
Specifically, Jcrcmiah criticized family members lor joining in making cakcs for
Ishtar, thc Queen of Hea,'en the mo the r goddess worshiped in the anCient wond
Uer.7:18).
In a world o f religious tolerance and sy ncre tism, onc wonders why Israel's
imell'reters were so hostile to BaaHsm. One reason, sociological in nature, is [hat
Baal religion was tica up with the eity·state culrure aga inst which the Israelites
revolted in the ~riod o f the judges and la te r. Elijah's eonlcst again~t Baal, in Ihe
famous scene on 1\·lount Carmd ( I Kings 18)," was in part a political struggle
against the Phoenician mercantile economy that threatened Israel undc r the inllu-
ence of the aggressive queen, Je zebcl. Strict alleg iance to Yahweh, the Cod of
Si na i ( I Kings 191, gave Israel a sense o f social identity. Another re ason for
14. Sec \'i-'; lIiam l),,~·~r. R",,,,I Arr:/,a'«o;;,,,1 D,s("o"tti!1 ",.J Il,N,r,,) RtlC~,~~ (Se~ \l1e. Uni'·crsily
of \Vashinglon p~s, 1990), 128--66.
15 5<,:", the dIscussion of thj~ 1'.~sa8e above chapter 5.

opposition may have: h=n ethical in nature. Israditc:-s, with their strict family ethiC,
re:acted against "the iniquity of t he Amorites" (Gen. 15 ,16), manifest in practice:s
that they found abhorrent. '6 Finally, Israel's interprete:rs preferred metaphors for
God derived from the political arena: king, judge:, divine warrior, she pherd (often
a term for leaders t prophet. In these metaphors the basic issue is no t masculine·
feminine relationship, indeed. a man or a woman could perform these rolc:-s, as in
the case of a judge. D eborah Uudges 4-5 ), or j\'iiriam, a prophet (hod_ 15:21-22).-
rathe r, these metaphors suggest a social role in a covenant or "treaty" between God
and people.
Despite the animosi£)' toward Baal and the mother goddess, Israel took ove r
much from the very rdigion that the prophets opposed, including the feminine
dimension 01 Baal's goddess. This is evident especially in the book of Hosea. where
the myth of the: sacred marri age is transferred to the relation between Yahweh the
husband and Israel the wife (chaps. 1- 3). [\·loreover, Israd's poc:ts made use of the
fe minine or ·womb" dimension to express Yahweh's compassionate nature and nur-
turing care. I, Numerous other instances of motifs of Baal religion we re appropri-
ated and applied to Ya hweh, for example, the epithet "rider of the clouds" (Ps.
68A ),- the identification of Z ion with Ihe summit of Mount Zaphon, Baal5
Olympic home on Mount Cassius, north of Ugarit (Ps. 48'! )i and the slaying of
the mythical monster uViathan. "the fleeing , twisting se rpe nt" (Isa . 27: 1), which
echoes the very lan!:,'llage of the Baal epic. l ~
Neverlhcless. onc cannot escape the masculine w ay in which Yahweh is por-
trayed. Many o f the images are masculine : divine warrior, shepherd, king, father,
lord. In Hebrew Yah,.,..eh is described with masculine pronoum and ve rbs_
Yahweh's masculinity is forcefully emphasized in such passages as:
I. I "'" H~
L?OO bIoI'> ",/I Y"''' tm~'9r"ji,,,,, Jar "'Y 0= s"kr,
o~J 1 w,11 ~ol ,.,."."",," y""r sins.
- lsa.43,25
Inr Lord, lroovab
Some of this masculinity has ~en unnece:ssarily introduced into biblical transla·
lions, and much of that has been corrected in rece: nt re nderings, especially the
New Revised Standard Version ( 1989). A special example of this is the substitution
16. See "the det~(abi e waY's of the nations" listed in DelK 18,9-13. Whether unaanite reli.
gion am'ocated ri(ual prosriUllion (the aCfing out of Ihe sacred marriage between Baal and his
consort in ~ templd is not cenain. See Phyllisllird, "Male arId Female He Creafed Them, Gcn .
U7b in the Comext of the Priestly Accoun( of Crea tio n,' ffTR 74 (1 981) 129---59 (reprinted in
,\ji,!rng p""",! ~d AI"wm. [Jrn(i:;", Wa""" aM Cnd" it< Ar.orn! r.r~'!. t 23-54, OBT [MirIneapoiis,
Fom-es<; Press. 1997)\.
17. In prophetic spee<:h "the womb is a ms;c metaphor of divi rlC compassion" k g., Hosea t 1.-
JCL 3120), on female imagery see Pbyllis Tribk. "Narun:: of Cod in tbe Old T~~mem," IDB5"~,
368-69.
18. See my «ssay, "The Slaying 01 the Ficring, Twisting Serpen(; in Fro,. ( ,,,,Ii,,,, 10 N<w
C ",-.-I'QK, O ~T (Mmneapolis, FortT«SS PT«Ss. t994), chap. 12.
Yahweh and the Cods 71
of ' -the Lord" {Hebrew adonai) for the personal name Yahweh, which the Christian
church has adopted from the Je,.,..ish synagogue. In Jewish tradition the name was
regan:led as being so holy th at it should not be uttered with human lips, lest one
take the name 01 God in va in. Accordingly, the rahbis punctualed the com.o nants
of the tetragrammaton (YH\VHJ with the vowels of "du"ai, a plural of majesty
meaning "lord" \X'hen consonants and vowds, so punctuated. arc read together
the result is "Jehovah." The hybrid form was used in early Bible translations and is
still used in some circles, for exam ple, Jehovah's \'fitnesses_ This rendering survives
in some o f our hymns, such as 'The Lord Jehovah Reigns" or "Gu ide Me, 0 Thou
Great Jehovah." Most Bible translators , howevcr, follow the synagogue practice:
accept [he Om (what is vocalized ) and say "(h e Lord" ( ad01:ai), not the Kc/hib (what
is written ). the sacred tetragrammaton.
This solution, howcver, has problems_ For one thing, "The LORD~ is a title, not
a personal name; it is as though my "'ife were to speak of or to me as "the profes-
sor" or "the revcrend,~ rather than addresSing me by name. Funhe rmore. the title
is emphatically masculine . In , he English language this may not be immediately
evident, for "lord" echoes aristocratic language tha t is ra.her archaic .- we do not use
"Iord: and the counterpan, 1 ady.wany more. To us the language may sound lofty,
solemn , majestic. It suggests God's so\'ereignt'o,' over the whole world and all cre-
ation. But in other languages the substitute for the sacred nam e has a shockingly
masculine ring. For instance, the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy" b egins this way in
Spanish: 19
s,,~IO! 5""t~.' 5,"'1~'
5.;;-or Olllni{loI(J«r . ..
Ko wonder tha t some religious bodies in the United States have debated whether
to use the substitute for the name in worship1
In dealing with this problem, se veral options are available. ( I ) \X'henever pos -
sible use the word HCod: a practice followed in th e so-called Elohistic Psalte r,
Ps.alms 43--83_ Notice that Psalm 53 is practically the same as Psalm 14, except
tha t it uses "God" ( dobim ) instead of the sacred name . (2 ) Boldly use Yahweh, as
does th e Jerusal e m Bible_ As a compromise, the Book of (Ollllllon Prayer retains
Yahweh at only two places, Pss. 68:4 and 83 : 18. Also it retains "hal1el uj ~ h,W ins tead
N
of translating upraise the LORD" (3 ) Use {he hybrid te rm "Jchovah. which at least
has the advantage of being a name, not a title. and is solemn and unusual.
In my judgment it is beSt for the church to abandon the synagogue praClice_
The Elohistic Psalter offe rs a recommendation for liturg ical practice today: when -
ever possible use "God'" instead of "The LORD" Another possibility is to use "The
Holy Onc," BO Holy One,'" a usage for which there is ample bibli cal (e.g., Hos.
11,9b) and rabbinical precedent.
19. See the ,\'"" AltlboJ;,1 Hynonil! (Kash\",lIe, Un i l~.,j !'-le,hodisl Publisbi ng HoC!,e. t 989 ). no.
65 . Some of thi s discussion i< laken irom my edi[orial, 'Sto"i ng Beyond Mascul ine Melaphor.:
BR 10 (1 994 ) 22, 57- 58.
•

-,,- yah...."h and tke Gods 73

God's COIJdescrnsiol, it Yiere. to meet human beings at thei r own level. just as a pall!nt gets down on the
Ooor and ~Iisps' to a child. ll This view IS echoed in the foreword to the Nw lmnl1l
Such aw:mpts to minimiz~ th~ masculinity of Yahweh arc, howe\'cr, only Band· BihliCllI Commflllary, where the editors speak of "the marvclous condescension of
Aids that in the ~nal a nalysis do not cure the problem. It is helpful to call atten· God in transmitt ing His wo rd in huma n language.":ll
tion 10 feminine dimensions of Scripture Ih,1I have Ixc n overlooked or cove red up One should not, howeve r, take God's concession to human limitations, for the
in the past. .. nd we can be grateful to femi nist in lerprders for brin8ing these pas- sake 01 being God-with -us, to establish nonns that endorse patriarchal society,
sages to light.20 YCI one can only go SO far in this dir«l:ion; attempts 10 produce a sanction war as a political stratcgy. or ya lidate pr~iemific views of Ihe universe.
gender- ncutral lectionary result in jarring translations that, in the ex~rience o f God's revelatio n cannot be tra pped within the limi tations o f human language.
some, diven attention from the worship of Cod 10 Cl language probkm. The fam il- When we were children, we spoke, re asoned, and acted like children (sec 1 Cor.
iar John 3,16 is rendered this way in an Ninc1usivc version": "For God so loved the 13 :1 I), bu t now that ...·e n e mature and cnligh tcned-a nd for Christians that
world that God gil"c Cod's only C hild, so that everyone who believes in tha t means bei ng "mature in Chrisf- we arc no longer bound br earlier Iimitalions. 1 4
Child may not perish but may havc eternal life.'"2' I think , therefore, that t he dcsirc to use mclusive language in Ihc churc h has
In the final analysis onc has to come to terms with the masculinity of Yahweh. theological support; for the God ",horn ,,'e worship is beyond sexuality. To be
The Bible cannot be "depaUiarchaHz~ : to use a ja.... breaker that I think Phy1!is SUn!, the la nguagc of the Bible is priVileged; and the cano n of Scripru~ is some-
Trible coined. Here we face a problem that must be dealt with theologically- no, thing given. [t would be a mistake to tJ)' to rewrite the Eible in modem lI:: nns, or
sociologically or literarily. to recas t the canon so lh~1 it comains other books than those give n to us. The
In my judgment the problem must be understood in tenns of Israel·s funda - Bible is the Word of God in huma n words . to cite the (raditional fonnula tion, and
mental witness: the inbreaki ng of the Hol y One, known by the name Yah ....eh , into it is our task to read the Bible in its own idinm so that. as the Holy Spirit gui des.
t he ....orld tha t is deRned by human language, human customs. human wa}'s of we may hear Cod speaking to the peoplc of God today.
thinking. ~xuali ty d0e5 nOt belong to the hol}' Cod. God is neither male nor
female, nor is God both mille and female (in which case one would use the pro·
noun H e/She). God's holiness transcends the dist inctions. the divisions, the defl·
nitions of th e human world. Yet when Cod ch~s to be God in relation to a
people, that self·disclosure occurs under the limitations of the human ...·orld. It
occurs under th e limitations of pauiarchal society. for that was the kind of society
that prevailed in ancient Israel and in the rest o f th e anciem world-for th at
maner, in much of the ""orld today. It occurs under the limitations of hum an lan-
gua~, and in th is case under the limitations of the Hebre ...• language, wi th its
masculine-femin ine grammar. It occurs under the sociological limitat ions of
Israelite !iOCiety. ,,·jth its conceptions of holy ""ar. its family structure, its geograph.
icallocation, itS m)'thopGCtic vi ew o f the world. If God were not man ifest under
these li mitat iOns, God could not be known an d could not establish relationship
with a people.
Some of the greal scriptural interpreters of the past, for instance, the church
father Jo hn C hrysostom (ca. 344/ 354-407), spoke of Cod's accommodat ion to a
humanity limited by its language and social relations. The Greek word for it was
5)'I!ilAlahal"is and the LUin was arcolllllla.-Mtio--f.enns that n!fer to God's ·StOOping,Was

10. s." Cull,," Murphy, 'Wo"",n and th" Bible; AIIa",ic ,\ 'o~lt.iy 172 August 1993,39-64 , 22 Se<- Ford u:wis Ballles, "God \'\·'01' AcCOmmoo3t;n8 Him~1f 10 Human Cap;acity." In t 31
idem. ·The Bi ble According 10 Ev,,; US fI,"1l' j a..J World R,p.:<>l (Aug. 1(1. t 998 ) -16-52. Also Al ic~ (1977) t9-38. np~cial l y 22-16 .
L La.ffcy. An /"rroJ. wO"ll I.l rh. OIJ T<>t. .....1 A Ftrllmil/ Pmpt<li"" (M,n""apolis: FOTIrC"S1 Pre<s, 1988), rn.
H. .k""",
Nw 8ii>l.",~1 (,,,,,,,,,,",'7. ~d. Ra)'mond E. Brown ~. ~I. (Enill~.,.,ood (jiff,. N.L
Alicia Su,kin Omik~r, Fr-ini5t R,.,;si.., tld tb,. a,1>It (Oxford, BIKb.·"U. 1993). Prennc,,- H~n. t 990}, xv. quoto nltl 1no, ~·"(yc1icll v.; ""'''''''. t 3.
2 L. Th Nw T<>w.ml on<J Pwlloo" Art i..dti, ... l'trnQII, ed. Victor Roland Gold "r..J. (Chrford: 24. On th~ qun.ion o( masculineif"m,""'~ ~Ii[ionship" in the ...·I>ok BIble, Old and N"",
Oxford Un;". P..-ss, 1995). s." 11><: rc-v'c-w by Ga'1 R. 0'001)". ' Probing an Jnclusiv" Saiprur,,; T«ta""'nI5, <;tt th" hdpful d~u~~ion by Sarnoo T(1Tien T,ll tbt "",rt S,,,,,"!· A Bibftr,.J ThD""n' of
CJ..n,w.: ( ....41'7 11 3 (July 3- 10 . 1996) 692-94 . ,\ \;I..J:>oo,l ",.J 1I'..... ~tooJ ( PhilJ<klph~ Focuess Pr~, t 985).

9 . THE PEOPLE OF GOD
\1'e have sett! that the exposition of O ld Testament theology begins with the
sdf-disclosure of the holy God who chooses to enter into relationship with a par-
ticular people_ This community is to be Cods »w: asured pow~ssion OUt of all the
pcopl~" (Exod. 19:5) and to be the agem through whom divine blessing is medi-
ated to other families of the earth (un_ 12;3 ).
Tbt God oJ Israel
The name of this people is "Israel." In a secondary sense the icnn, both in biblical
limes and tociay, may be used of a political Hatt' k. g_. the northern kingdom of
Israel or the modern state of Israd i_Sometimes the term "'nation~ ~Qy ) is lIsed, as
in the di"inc promise to Abraham (Gen. 12:1), the "eagles' wjngs~ passage (Exod.
19:5-6), amI the "little historical credo' (DeuL 26:5}----usages that probably rdl~ct
the nationhood at th~ tim~ of David. Ilut ·'Israel~ is primarily a sacral tenn that
ref~rs to a community of faith , "the people [H ebrew am] of Yahw~hw \,'ho are
bound together by various ties (kinsh ip, language, territory), but fundam~mai1y by
a religious devotio n. l Yahweh is "the God of Israel," and Israel is "the people of
- Yahweh.~ as we read in the ancient poem inJudg~s 5 called "the Song of Debor(lh,"
dating /Tom the premonarchic period.
n., mo~"L~ic\ 4~"krJ o,for, rbr Lo.~1> [Y"b~"b), tbr 0", 4 Si,,~;.
b.f~" tbr Lmw [Y~bt.!"b]. I~ God of I!nlrl.
- Judg. 5): cL ~.. 11
The designation of the people (IS '·Israel" goes back 10 twO cenluri~s before
David, the time of the "judges~ ( 1200-1000 H.C) . This is evident not only from rhe
Song o f Deborah, just quoted, but also from the earliest rderence 10 this people
outside the Bible, in the victory stde of Pharaoh Merneptah (ca. 1220 0.C).1 In
vin.... of contemporary political realities, one must ~ mphasize that this ethnic group
was called ~lsracl'· long before it became a na tion-state.
During the early monarchy Israelite slOIylelle rs proj~ct~d ba<:k to the pre·
monarchic era, or even before into the ancestral period, the ideal unit), of the
people as a twelve· tribe confed~ratio n , symbolized by the twelve stones in th ~
middle of th~ Jordan River Oosh. 4:8·9) or t h~ tv.,elve pillars at the foO( of Sinai
(Exod. 24:4 ). [n the final form o f the P~ntat~uch this pan.!srad ite consciousness is
reflected in the stories o f the an<:estors, ~ specia!1y Jacob who. during a crucial
en<:ount~ r with God at th e ford of the Jabbok Rivt:r, rec~ived the new nam ~ Israel
(Gen . 32:22· 32 ). These stories are not straightforward history but narrative por·
trayals of the ups and downs of faith as the people of God, rep rese nted by their
1. ~c Ronald E. Clement', 111" People of Cod:· chap. j 01 OU T.,-~"."'I
(Atlanta: John Kno>:. 1978).
.4p~r",,{b
2. On Ih", Mcmeptah ~dc, sce abm'c, cbpler N.
-,
Th~r~oplc ofGod 75
ancestors, move toward the horizon of Cod's promised future.
This ~opl~, Ih ~ n , is defined primarily by relation to the God who is manifest
in th~ "root ex periences" of exodus and Sinai. Ya hw~h is the liberating God "who
brought you OUt of the house of bondag~~ (Exod. 20: I ). Ya.hweh is the command ·
ing Cod, the ~One of Sinai" Dudg. 5:5j, who mak~s known the d i vin~ will a<:cord·
ing to which the people are [0 iiv~. This God speaks in relational language: "1 will
be your God and you shall be my ~opl~" The formu la "your God .. _ my people~
recurs again and aga in in nalTa tiv~. prophetic oracles, and psalms of praise . [n a
profound sense, which transce nds political boundaries and divisions, Paul could
speak of the Christian community as being essentially related to, and indeed pan
of. "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6: 16). Thos~ who have the iaith 01 Abraham are his
true desc~ndants, <:hildr~n of Abraham and Sarah (Rom , 4: 13· 25).3
In the Bible th e primary term for ~xpr~ssing th e relationship between God and
people is "<:ove na nt.wAfter mu<:h scholarly discussion, it has b<xome evidcntlhat
covenant is a fundamental r~ality in the rel igion of lsrae l.~ The Hebrew lenn /ltnl
seems to have {h~ rOOI meaning of '·bond, ietter,~ indicating a binding relationship;
and th~ Gre~k t~rm s)'dbd:r a. lso suggests the idea of ··binding, pulling together:
Anoth~r term used in the f\:ew Testament , diMh(kt , means "will , testament: point·
ing mor~ 10 the obligatory or legal aspect o f a cov~nanl.
The theological signifi<:an<:e of <:ovenant, howev~r, cannot he d~ t~nnin~d by
the etymology of the Hebrew word. As in th~ cas~ of words we use today, mean·
ing is detennined by use o r function in particular <:ontexts. One cannot just con·
suIt a dictionary; one has to know how a word is used in a context. J\'\oreover, the
importance of «<:ove nant" cannot be detenn ined by <:ounling occurrences of th~
term, for th ~ context impli ~s the rela tionsh ip even ,.... hen the speCific word is not
used. Word <:ounl is not parti<:ulariy helpful. I[ would be wrong to estimate the
imponance of the church in the Gospel of John by counting the number of limes
ril/1sia OC<:UT'i in the Greek text. ~'Ioreov~r. when we move from a historical study
of Israel's traditions to an examination of the Torah in its Llnal fonn , it is dear that
the hean of the Pentateuch is God's co\·enant at Mount Si nai that summoned the
people Israel, gra td ul For their liberal ion from bondage, to respond by living in
obedien<:~ to God's commands. As evident in the StJU<:tUTe of the Pentat ~uch ,
God's cove nant with Israel is central and fundamemal. Ronald C1~m~nts has stated
the maller forcefully;
It is from within thisli!c",,}, perspcrtive [hat w~ s~ that the concept ot covenant
betw~n God ~ nd l.",d is central to the O ld Tes[ament, oev~n though the idca of
co,·enam ma}' nOI always ha"e bttn u<;oed "'ith comparable ircquency through all
ag~ of !sra~lit~·Jcwish rdigioJl.o
Tb",r~~-y, A F,,,h
3_S ~'" above, chapter I.
4. Stt E. W. N i<:holson , C<>.:i ad Hi, p",~1t (Ox/oni: Clarendon. 19116).
76 C""",." of DJJ TtslalMll "T'broI~)'
In the light of Ihis ·canoninl" approach we ~\": Ihal '"Ihe PenQ.leuch is a
covenant Jjlerarure.- Cle11lents contlnUC'S:
When Iherdo~ ...·c spuk of an Old TC'Iumcnt. wi[h me ....ord ' 1~lamen( ansin,.
by w .. y of Ihe L1I1m It'lIa"""tu.... as u~nsl.lIion of the .... on:! "u)'o'cnlnl" {Hcb~
btrfr}, this ,s In all ~nlla ls enllrely appropria te. The Old T~t.ament is a o;:oyenlm
luerau,lre becIouse it recounTS,)i its focal po,ntlhe I1liIking of the ~l"IIm beTween
God and f~n.d , and cemral lO ,ts WUClUre is the ~ntation ollhe dem~nd$ thal
fall upon fsnel as a consequence ml his cavenlnl."
CDdi CoL'tMllfs lV,rb Jsmtl
As ""'e ha ...e scen earlier. Ihe theologian Walther Ekhrodt look thc word
"covenant: underslOod in the broad 5Cnse of "relalionship," as the organizIng prin-
ciple of h is great ""'ork on Old T~urn<:ol t heology. There is much truth in his
CO\'enantal approach, which emphaSIZes the copula -and·: God .uullsrael, God mod
Ihe wo rld, Cod <lmI the iodividuaJ.7 In the Old Testame nt, however. the tenn
"covenant" does not have a smgle meaning. nor is it a theolo~i cal umbrella thaT
covers cvcrythmg (the metaphor IS noticeably ahsent . for instance, in wisdom lir-
erarure ). Indeed, there are several CO\'cnant5 belween God aod Israel. 10 say nOlh-
ing of the universal, ecological CO\'enant with Noah. embracinH all peoples, all
nonhuman creatures, and th e earth hself ( ~ncsis 9j. As note:d previously. Paul
apparently recoHniz~d this plurality of covenams wh~n at rhe beginnin ~ of his
im portam discussion of Ihe relation bctv.'een the two communities. Jew ish and
C hristian (Romans 9- 11 ), he gid, 1hey arc Israciitcs, and to th~m belong .. th e:
covenants· (Rom. 9:4 ).'
In ,his stUd y I propose 10 conCentrale on three covenants.: the Abrahamic
covenant sel fonh c1assially in ~ncsis 17, the t-.·lmaic covenant found in the
book ol Exodus and ciaboraled in Deuteronomy, and the Davidic covenam for-
mulated in 2 Samuel 7 and echoed in t he book o f Psalms (e.g., Psalms 89, 132) and
the: Chroniclers \'<'o rk ( 1-2 Chronicles). Each of these great figures of Is raers his-
to!),-Abraham. r.,·loscs, David----stan ds fO(' one of three ways of fonnula tiog or
symboliZIng the: relationship between Cod and ~ople_'!
These thT« covenanu are each covenants of grau, for they rest on the gra-
CIOUS miliative aod superio r status of the divioe covenant maker. A parily
covenant, o r covcnaot bet"'ccn equals. does not make sense. for Cod and human
beings are 001 on the §arM I~el . To claim equality with God, or t'\'en 10 be like
Cod, is the heiHht of presumption or sin, as wc arc tol d in the paradise story (Gen.
3,' ). The d iffe rence between Cod and human beings is c mphasized in a cruCial
passage in the book of Hosea, N I am Cod. not a human ocing, the Holy One 10
S. e lements. OU Tt!'~"."'t r~y. 119.
6 . Ibid.
1 5« the diSCUSSion of Ekhroch 's cO"en,lnl~1 Ihc:oIogy• • bov",. chaplel 3 pp 18-20,
8. In the .. bove di'IC~sion \Chapler.. 1 noled Ih." MIme textual wotlYiSClo <cid singular
'covl::\lnt" here. bo.Il Ihe plU.lill "' KrC'f'lt~ by mOSI In,",1al0~
9 ~ the dlKlmoon abo-"/: eh"pter"
The People of God n
yOUT midst" (Has. 11 :9). If the holy Cod ent~rs the world and establishes rcia-
lionship with human Ix-ings. the divine-human rciatiooshlp will be one of!:ncJ, to
recall our preo.'ious diSCUSSIon, Ihal IS. a relauonship based on the gracious corn·
m itm~nt and spontaneous loyal ty of Ihe stro nger pa rty to the ...·caker.
Each of t h~se three covenant formula tioos symbolizes the rel ationship
between God and people in a different manne r. Each ~x hibil$ a particular [hco-
logical accent, a d isti ncl ive symbolic ~'iSla YCt all of t hem arc occessary for
exprcssiog the presencc and activilY o f the holy God in Ihc midsl of the ~ople.
~tthere be any misunderstanding. I should state again th al in thrs d i~sion
I do 1'101 underslaod -covemn( as a lheological concept. Rather, a cov~ nant for-
mulation is a pattern of symboliZation. a linHUistlC gcs talt . Of'-to use an expres-
sion of Waiter Brueggcmann--an -imaginalive con~II1J.JL" IO The Scriprures tha t
deal with these covenaotal persp«UVC'S are artistic ""'fItiogs SIOf)'. poetry. 'lOng-
that invltc us into a literary "world: in ""'h!Ch th e rdarionsh ip between God aod
peoplc is expressed in Ihc language of imagination. Th is artistic coostroal. how-
ev~r. does not mean Ihat Cod appears in an imagi na li \'e world. rather than in the
flesh·and·b lood world of hiSlOri,a l reality. as Docetim laler supposed regarding
God's revela tion in Christ. To be sure. Cod is presenl in ISJ"iIel's concre le hislOry.
in Ihe "root experiences" o f exodus and Sinai, but Cod's hol)' presence in Is rael's
h is torical ~xpc~nce is expressed in symbolic la nguage:. in covenantal formulations
Ihat appea l [0 our re ligious imagination.
/Jiaitctiml c,,1l1 fr,,1JcfiCIJ:s
In GlIofs PmtIICt n. H iskR)'. Emil Fac.kenheim helps us 10 understan d our theological
task. In the community of fai lh, he points OUT. lhe people reellaC I the ·~ expe-
riencc" of the presence o f the: H oly Cod in OlIr mldSI wi th a SCnse of Immediacy
and personal invo lvement. The)' relive the cxperience in the celebJ"il tion of wor-
ship. or they act it OUl in Iheir dail}' lifcsTyle. The Bible is not fun damentally a
book o f theology but an "unfolding drama" in whic h we are lOVlted to be coactors
with God. The task of the theologian. howevcr. is 10 stand bilck from immediate
involvement and reilecl o n the "1'001 expcnence"; ·and the momenl such reflection
occun.~ says Fackenhcim. it fCVeals The root experience to Ix- shot through with
at least Ihree all,pcT\'asive. dialtctinl contradictionS." 11
Th~ first dialectical contrad icTion IS divi ne rranscendence and divine imma-
oeoce (or io\'olvement/. H o w can the Cod who IS beyond Ih is world. aod there-
fore unlimited in power. be Involved in the limitatio ns of the human world? The
second dialectical comradictioo Is dlvme sovereignty and human fre~ dom . Cod's
power i~ so great that it could o\'erwhelm and crush human freedom. How then
can a man iicstation of Cod's holy presence iss ue in a call to dec isio n aod respoo·
to. Stt W~her B~.!Isemann·s lyman Beechc-, LectUI'ei. F,,,,,Liy C_n u.r Pro. 0..""" Sptab J.,,,
~Mo< (.\ 'linnColpolif< fan~ Pnss 19891.
11. Emil F3Ckenhcim CoIl Pmnocrlll H,SUf)' )tw'tsb A.@--I_, <]'C) ~.J.k..l R.jl.d""" {~
York. Nn.' Yod Un;"'. Pr.-ss 19701. 16-19
78 Co~:OIII'\ of 0i.:J Tcsra",,,,,l 1\«":>1)'
si bili[)'1 The third CO ntradiction is \xtv.·een the universal sovereignty of God ove r
all h istory and creation and the panicularity of God'~ revelation to Israel. How can
the Sole Power manifCit at the Reed Sea be th e God of all peoples( PART 11
Of course, beneath all of these polarities is the problem of evil, which came to
be expres~d as the problem of theodicy. H ow can the Cod who is transcende nt
YAHWEH COVENANTS
but involved, all -powerful yet granting human freedom, universa l but active with WITH THE PEOPLE
libera ting powl"r in the life of a people-how can this God tOlerate the evil that we
pcrcei'·e in history and narure] As we shall s.ee, all of Is rael's covenant theolOgies--
Abrahamic. Mosaic , Davi dic- proved 10 be inadequate in the: face of the: eno rm ity
A < THE ASRAHAMIC COVENANT
of the: problem of evil tha t impacted Israe:l wilh shanering fo rce in the time: of th e
destru ction of Je:rusale:m and the: exile of the people (587 ~ _c. and later}.
In our th eological reflection we shall discove:r that these di alectical contradic-
tions, or paradoxes, are evide nt in each of the th rtt co nuruals of Gods. covenant
Yahweh appeared to Abmm and said to him:
with the: people_These paradoxes are: present in each covenantal pers~tivei yel ") am El Shaddai [Cod Almighty].
each one gives special expressio n to one of the pola ritie~.
I. The Abr.1hamic cove nant deals with Ihe relation be:twttn the universal and walk befo re »le and be blamtless!
the pa rticular. The Cod ...·ho is holy, \"ho is creator of the cosmos and th e Lord of I will establish my covellant
all bei ng. human and no nhuman. is known to and through a panicular people-
the desce ndants of Abraham and Sarah.
between me and yO tl,
2. The M osaic covenant deals ...ith the relatio n bc:tv.·een Cod's sovereignty and and [ will make YOII txcttdillgly fmitfll/ .t"
human freedom : th e Cod who has all powe r in hea ven an d eanh, who holds the
""hole cosmos in almig hty grasp, calls people to decision and to r~ponsib1c: pan- ClJ"':ESIS 17,2 jBWA)
nership with Cod.
3. The: David ic covenant deal~ with the mystery of divi ne transce ndence and
immanence; the Cod who is far off, the h igh and Holy One who inhabi ts etern ity,
is near to the hu mble and the contrite. and indeed is Immanuel, "Cod ..... ith us. w
It is tempt ing to choose just onc of these covenantal pe~pect ives; some liber-
ation theolOgians, for instano.", an~ critical of the Davidic covenant and fallor th e
Mosaic perspcctille. But in the O ld Testament all of thC5C cO'-'enantal pc:rspecti~
in teract and are interrelated. In the nnal a nal~'sis. all are necessary for expressing
the relationsh ip betwee n God and people.
Thus diversity of theological perspective is not something that a theolog ia n
seeks to overcome by imposing uniry on di\<erse mate rials; rather, sc riptural plu-
ralism helps us to deal with the paradoxes o r "dia1c:ctical Con tradictions" inher-
ent in the experience of t he presence of t he holy God in the mi dst of a people.
In this sen~, f plurihus 111'11'111 (ou[ of many, one) i~ sti1! a 800d motto for a b iblical
theologian. 11

Il. 5C'e John Golding.1Y, n.:l~ul DrO'<1SiI)' a,.J I;'" Aw!bo';lyo!thrOUT...",.c,u {Crand Rapids,
Ecrdm;ofl'i. 1987). " 'ha cOn'lidn>; ~ral ,.·ays of Rcing (h. IlK "ln~ voices of .he Ol d
TeSlamen. arc- nOl in OppOSition to ':;J.ch o.hcr 00. b.:long .ogeth.:r
 10. THE HISTORY
OF GOD ' S COVENANTS

\Vhen Oflf seeks to understand t he theological pe~pectives of the Bible, much is

to be said for starting at the Ix:ginning, with the book of Genesis, and following
the canonical sequence_ O f course, many readers have bravely tried this approach
and have ohe n gotten bogged down. usua ll}' in the book of Leviticus_ The main
reason for lack of theological exciteme nt is that ma ny readers fail w grasp the total
contnt in which the books function .

Theological COfltext
Th e importam::e of context is ~ident whe n one turns 10 the first canonical unit of
(he Old Testament, the Pe ntateuch or Torah. 1n the Priestly perspective that gov-
e rns th e Torah, especially the first four buo ks, the unfoldi ng narrative is punctu-
W
a ted by three divine covenants, each of which is termed (In "everlasting covenant
(ImH alam ). ' Each cov~ nant ha s ils own character an d scope, and ~ach prepares for,
a nd provid~s the foundation for, the ne:-ct. By di\'iding th~ biblical narrativ~ into
succ~ssive periods. characterized by a special cO\'cnant, Priestly writ~rs pmvid~ an
imagi nat i\'e vision of a history that sw~cps from the da\<fn of cr~ation to th~ cli ·
mactic revelation at Mount Sinai, when God cond~sc~nd~d to "tab~rnacle" in the
midst ot" the people. Read in this "periodiz~d histor;.'," th~ individual narratives
have a fuller, larger mean ing."

A Perio,1izra Covt'nan/ His/or)'

let us survey the miHvdous theologica l vista presen ted In the history of God's
covenants (see flS· 3).

PrnaJ ,
Th~ first p~riod ex t~nds From creation to the end of the primeval history
(Gen~sis I-I n. like other a ncient trad it ions,! the period is divided in two by a
catastrophic flood, an event that marks the transition from the antediluvian times

l. The book 01 iku leronom)" e~"ep' for th;, la" "hapter, Goes not bel ong ~s"'ntia!l)' to the
Pnestly hi,tof}' but ,efV~, a. a bridge 10 I h~ ~nsuing Droteronom i~,ic history {Joshw. IhrolIgh]
King. ). SIT fu n her my discu,sion of "The Priest ly Po<m of View; m Udmt.tt'.J,,,g Ihr OIJ T"Ia .."",
(abridged p.1perbac k 4th cd , Englewood Clift. t'J, p,-.,ntic~ · HaIL I 997), 45+---65.
c

]. O n the Priestly pcriodi za tion ui h;"IOI)', ,;,:" Frank M, Croo;s, 'The Priestly Work : in
G~",,,~il< .~l)"!b ~r.J Hd",-~' f~ic f""Y' n' tht Hiswf)' o::f 11~ Rt!ig:cx of har! (Cambridge, Halyard Univ.
Pr~s, t973 ). 298---100.
3. For instance , the Sum~riJn Kmg L,s!, ",hi"h goe< hack 10 the SffOnd mil lennium RC..
begin, .... i.h an anledillI\'ian p,-.,.mble rha' i. followed by a lis, of kings who ruled ' after the
flood" Sec WIT , 265 .
 ,

History of God's Coven,m ts 83

Israd and the land given to Israel ( r.(ls y;';rlld). As we shall sce: in greater detail
FIGURE J . Tbt PM!lr P(rioJiwliol' of History
(chapter 11 ), thi s is a promissory co\'enant that looks toward the future:. guaran~
teeing the promi<>e of a great posterity, the grant o f the land of Canaan, and the
1'0 . ,.....a! P.,.,od presence of God, who may be: invoked by the personal name Yah ......eh.
(A,ne-lis 1-11
Viewed in Pric:stl)- ~rspec trve, the M osaiC cove nant does no t supe~e pre -
CREATION \'ious covenant s. The universal N oachic co\-enam provides the t'almenical context
fo r the panicular covenant with Ihe an ccswrs of the ~ople Israel: Abraham, lsaac,
a nd Jacob. Moreover, the Mosaic covenant does no t replace the Abra hamic
CO\'e nant but is ba<>ed on it, just as the Abrahamic cove nant presupposed the
Noachic covenant. Indeed . God's sp«ial revelation in th e time o f Moses is
.'-<OKJ.ic eo.·~nanl Abnhtni<: Gn·""'~l regard ed as an e n dor~ment or fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenan t, which God
c....:w. 9. 1· 17 ~ 17.1 · 1 ~
Mrcmembe:red" whe:n the descendants of }acob were oppressed in Egyp t (Exod_
Sahh..,It l.I.,l<Y!w... Do ...... El Sb.:JJ..t, Dclty. I....... 2:14; d. Le,,_ 26:45). It was "the God of the anceslOrs~ \,,.ho spoke to Moses a. the
'"!L_'_ _'_·_·_.. _____ >C.~_·_C_j"'_~
_ '_..... c:_-"-'------S~~---'"j
.....I '" (boJ ,,;
burning bush, assuring him that God had not forgo tten the promises of o ld and
THE CULTIC CO'~'-~'U NIIT ( <.Llo) tha t God had come down~ 10 rescue the people from slav ery and 10 Ic:ad t hem into
U
T~k
'»<n' <,ol "~,, ..
P ,,,,' l y ~
·the land prom ised, "a land flowing I.,ith milk and honey" (Exod. 3:1- 12).
Ut,..;.., '" IH::ly 40,.•
PrrioJ 11/
to the tim~'s "'after the: flood" (Un. 10, I ). The account of the: cove:nant wi lh Noah In Priestly perspective, the Sinai cove nant, within wh ich the people live and wore
and his family afte:r the tlood, in Cen. 9 ; 1- 17. is one 01 the important theological ship, is regarded as "an everlasting covenant" (Exod. 31,16). Indeed. the whole cul-
passages in the book of Genesis. comparable to the Priestly creation story (Gen. tus introduced at Sinai is the Cod - g ; ~'en means of grace that enables a holy ~ople
I: 1-2 :3) and to the account of the: covenant with Abraham and Sarah (Genesis 10 live in the presence of the holy God o n a ho ly land. As set fonh in the book of
17J. passages to be: considered later. Leviticus. sacrifices are prOVided lor the expiation of sin and r«onciliation with
TI-K: oachic covcnantls spc:ciAcally designated as a bel! a/alii , an Meve: rlasting God (see later, chapter 14).
covenant" o r co~nanl in ~rpc lUi ty (Gen_ 9:16)_ This is a cO" enant of Ngrace Thus the: goal toward .... hich t his covenant history moves. from Ihe: begin ning
alone' (w.i<t gratill) because its permanc:nce is based soldy on God's pledgc, guar- of creation, is the labemacling of the holy Cod in the midst o f a .... orshiping com -
anteed by a solemn d iv jne oath . and therefore is not conditione:d or th re:a tened munity or "congregation" ( wnbJ. The peo ple Israel are bound to God in an "ever·
by human behavior. N otice that Ihe flood 510ry e:nds with Yahweh's co\'t'nantal lasting covenant," or "a commitment for all time" (le.... 24:8. NJ PSV ). Und er the
promise that never again would suc h a ca tastrophe strike the eanh, t'Ven though influence of the Mosaic covenant, to be considered later ( part lLB, chapters
· the inclination of the human hean is e\·j) rrom yout h" (Gen. 8:21). 17-22), the eve rlasting covenant, on the human side, has a conditional c:iemenL
" '\oreover, the Noachic co\'enant is a un iversal covenant that embraces all The people may "break- this covenant by SJ)\lrning Cod's commandme nts and
human bcing!r--l. he descendants of Neah and h is wife. This covenan t is not mad~ therefore suffer d ivine judgment (ll"". 26: 15); but 11 the pc:ople confess, and make
exclusively with Israel, the people of God, but with "all peoples that on eanh do amends for, the ir iniquity and tha t of their ancestors, Yahweh will stand by the:
dwell: as we sing in a well -known doxology. Funher. it is an ecological co\'enant everlaSting commitment made to t he ancestors.
that includes the whole nonhuman creation ("'every living creature of all flesh ," Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies. r will not spurn th"m
Gen _ 9,15) and the earth itself (9: 13)_ This universal covenant, ...·hich demands IItterly and mak my (o""nanl with th em . for I ~m the lORD [Yahweh J their God.-
reverence fo r life, both animal and human, has tre me ndous implica tions for global but I will rem"mher in their fa"or the (ov"nam with their ancestors whom r
ethics wd ay, as we shall see (c hapter II ). brought out of the land 01 ESypt in th" ~ il!ht of the nMlons. to be: rheir God; r am
the LORO [ Yahweh].
-Lev. 16,44- 45
PmoJ 1l
The second period in the history o f Cod's covenants extends from Abraham to
(ovn:all/ Sigil,
Moses, the mediator of the Sinai covenant. Here the biblical Story moves from the
In the moveme nt of the covenant hi story, the three covenants are accom panied by
general to the sp«iAc. from humanity and the: whole earth ( =I~) to the people
three: signs. (I) The rainbow of the N oachic covenant (a universal phenomenon
84 COfIWllr'I of OU T.,-I.7",...,' Tht~ogy
afu:r a Slonn) signifies that the whole realm of narure and 01 animal and human life
are embraced within God's promi~ . (2) Circumcision is required in the Abrahamic
coven ant as a sign of membership in the cove nant com munity. This rite is binding
only on males, though the covenant itself is made with a fam ily, headed by
Abraham and Sarah. Female circumcision, still practiced today in some parts of the
world , is not sanctioned. (3) The Sabbath of the Sinai!ic covenant (Exod. 31 :
12_17), anticipated in the "sabbath rest" at the end of the creation Story, is the sign
of the Sinai covenant. Thus in a beautiful illclusio or en~'elope construction. the
Sabbath climax of the Sinai StOry recalls and recapitu lates the beginning at cre-
at ion and binds the whole scheme together.
Thc-.-efo.-e the Israelites shall k«p the ubb,nh. observing the s~bbath throughout
t ~ir gerx-ratoons. as a perpetu~1 covenant [bml 01". ]. h K a sign fOf"C''Cr [/co];' .. ]
betWLOCn me and the P«Iple of I~rac! that in ~ix days the loRD [Yah,,'eh) made
heaven ~nd earth, and on the seventh da)' he ""'Icd, and "'as refreshed.
-bad. 3t :I6-17
11(0109'-CIII NIII1~cts
Also, in Priestly perspective each of these covenant periods is characH:ri~c-d by a
s pecial theological emphasTs. In the period from c~ation to Abraham, the narra·
tor uses the general name for deity, t1obim. in order to stress Cod's cosmic and
worldwide sovereignty. Thus the biblical Sto ry opens w ith "In th e beginning
Elohim . . . ."' In the period from Abraham [0 Sinai, the characte rist ic d ivine epi.
thet is El S haddai , as at rhe time of the Abrahamic covenant:
The lORD [Yah\<.'"hJ ap peared to Abram, and !;,lid 10 him, "I am God Almighty id
Iba44~il; walk before me. and be blameless."
--Gen. 17: .
The d ivi ne promise to be God to you and yoor offspring aner you in an
M
W
everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7) anticipates the Te\·elation at Sinai when Cod is
present to [he people. known and invoked by the personal name that signi~es the
I-Thou relationship.
God ! dQ),,·.. ] al§O spoke to Moses and !;,lid to him: "I am the- loRD [YahwchJ. I
iPfXired to AbrahiUTl. lsaac, and Jacob as Cod Alm18 hty I d I~i]. but by my
rhlme The LORD' [YH WHJ I did not make- m~'<;elf kflO'oo'n to them."
-ExOO. 6:2·3
Thus the biblical narrator presents a "" onderful vista of three periods. c harac.
terized by three covenants. three signs, and th ree divine names. The whole story
from creat ion to Sinai is anchored m the worship of God who is creator and
redeemer.
4. The ~talement in Gen. 4.26b, "'At th ot time [the time of Adam's grandson ) people b.:gan to
,"voke the- name- of y,h"'e-h." comc-s from iln Old Epic tradition that PriC"Stly editors have- appro.
pri"ed ind all"",-e-d to nand, despit« itS tension .... ith their over.>1l prnmtation.
History of God's Co"enants 85
In the primeval history the final Priestly editors have reworked an Old Epic tra-
d ition (the sources J and E of historical Criticism ), bringing il into the periodized
history that moves in a succession of COvena nts toward the Sinai reali~ation of
God's plan. At fou r crucial points ed itorial interpreters have presented distinc-
tively Priestly passages that, like the pillars of a vaSt bridge, con nCCt creation wi th
the Sinai re~'elation (!;ee I1g. 4 ).
FIGURE 4. Prirslly PiJlnrs
CREAnON NOACHIC CQVE1'i"AN"T ABRAHAI'-IIC COVENM",'T SI:'\AIll-fEQPHANY
Gen. Gcn.9: 1-17 Gen. 17 Exod . 25-32,
35-40: Lev. 1-17;
1: 1- 1:3
urn. 1-10
The hand of the Priestly interpreters is espcrially heavy in the exodus and Sinai
materia ls, for in their view this is the climax towa rd which the whole histOiY
moves: the tabemading p resence of the ho ly God in the midst of the ~ople.
Lrods oJ A1tal1il19
In their theological presentation Priestly theologians have handed on what they
receive d, the O ld Epic trad ition. How this epic tradition arose is a question that,
pmperly s peaking, lies beyond the bounds of Old TCl;tament theology. By the time
the mditio n was edited by Priestly editors, it had undoubted ly received lilrrary
form. As it result of the incorporati o n of the: e pic account int o the Priestly frame -
work, Sto ries found in the hiStory of God's covenantS have severalle\'els of mean -
ing. Echoes of voices of the past are heard in the ~nal canonica l rend ition. and one
must take these into account in theological interp retation.
As an illustrat ion, consider the story of the testing of Abraham in Genesis 22. 1
The Old Epic story deals with the pmblem of human fai th: H o\,r can onc believe
God's word of promise when all the evidence, humanly speaking, seems 10 den),
a ny possibility of full111me:nt? At fi rst , Abraham and Sarah have no child: Sarah is
barren. Vet Abraham believes (puts his faith in ) Gods pmmise, despite lack o f evi-
dence ( 15: 1-6). Then, when the couple finally have a child in their old age, God
strangely asks that this son, th e o nly link to the future fulll11m en t of the: promi~
of a great posterity. be placed on the altar of 5ilcriHce.
t.,·\odern women readi ng this story are perplexed, and men should be too, b}'
the fact tha t Sarah, Abraham's wife, is completely left out of the s tory..-\braham
does not even consult her about the strange command to oHer up Ihri' son as a sac·
rillee, but strikes out on his 0""n. 6 Th is is it shocking ""eak ness of the 51Ory, from
5. Sec my "-;5ay, "Abraham . Friend uf God; [If 1 n (t9S8i 353-66.
6. See- Cullen Mu",l\)" -\'(;Iomcn and ,he Btble ' A!!~"!", ,\lontbl:y ~72 iAugus' t993 ) 39---64.
esproally 39--45. 48. 50-55,58 . 60 62--64 .
our point of view. The story is told ITom a patriarchal vantage, evident in part by
the fact d"!at the family line is traced through the 6rstbom son, lsaac. COl"ISidering
the StOry from its own presuppositions, however, the intention is to portray the
ambigui ties and perplexitJes of the experience o f faith . The narrato r leads the
reader into the dimenSfon of the absurd. The God who gives the promise of a
future actually asks tha l the bridge from the pr~n l to the futurc-Abraham's
only son-be destroyed, to show thal Abraham's faith is in God, not in the
promise itself.
Priestly interpreters, ho ....ever, are more interested in the theological lobjec-
ti~'e) aspect of the d ivine promise than in the expericmial (Sllbjec ti~'e) dimension
of fai th . To Abraham and Sarah GcxI has made an irre~'ocable prom ise of land and
posterity, guaranteed by a covenant oath bao;ed on God's hol iness. J USt as the land
was given to them as an "everlasting possession,w one that cannot be taken away
despite historical developmenlS, so Cod has made a binding commitment 10 the
ancestors and their descendants. Israel .... ilI have a future. despite all e\'idence to
the contrary.
The refore, at the beginning of the exodus SlOry Priestly interpreters observe,
in connection with Pharaoh's attempt to reduce the Israelite population and e\'en
to exterminate the people, that God "re membered" the covena nt with Abraham,
lsaac, and lacob. Despite the ups and downs of human ex perience. the ambiguities
and perplexities of faith , the everlasting covenant with Abraham and Sarah stands
firm . God's covenant is ~a commitment for all time~ (Uv. 24:8, NJPSV).
Tbt Pn'Cidy Tomh ill a Nulshell
To summarize: In the Priestly view, the successive periods 01 re~'elation ....ere
marked by a sequence of names for the deity. In the nrst era, with its ecumenical
horizon, the deity was known as doh'DI ("God"). In the o;econd period, the deity was
known to Abraham by the special name d sbad.LJi loften trans lated wCod
Almighty"). Not unti l the third (Mosaic) period was the cultic name (YHWH}
introduced (hod. 6 :2·3}--a name so holy that it must not be taken in vain, so
ineffable that no layperson could pronounce its sacred syllables. Thus the disclo·
sure of (he sacred name, at the very climax of God's historical design, inaugurated
a new and special relationship between God and Israel. In this Priestly view the
goal toward wh ic h everything moves is the constitution of Israel itS a cultic com-
munity ( rdab}--a community called to serve God by following the la ....s that order
life and worship. In short, Israel is a holy people living in the presence 0/ the holy
Cod. The Priestly view of the historical moveme nt from Creation through a suc-
cession of covenants to the realization of the divine purpose is illustrated in Rgure
3, ''The Priestly Periodization of History" (p. 82).'
7. This su.mmarizi ns p,a~S~ph and Agure 3 an: from my U~Jm!"d,"9 I'" 00 Tr;Ia ..."'t ~ lh td.
abridsed, by Anderwn, B.W" Cl 1998. The Agun: i. r"print"d by pnmi..ion 01 Prentice·Hall,
Inc .. Upper Slddle River, NJ.
1 1. CREATION AND
THE NOACHIC COVENANT
The first seglflMtf of the periodized history of God's covenants (Genesis I-It )
sets before us the spacious vista o f creation. The story extends fro m the creation
of heaven and eanh (th e universe ) to the near retu rn o f the earth to primeval chaos
in the time of t he flood , then on to the new beginning aftel'\Olard, signalized by
Cod's universal covenant with humankind, nonhuman creatUres, and the earth
itself (Genesis 9 ). In its present form this primeval history-bener, primeval
story-is a preface to Ihe special hislOry/story that begins with Abraham and
Sarah.
That the Cod whom Israel ....orships is the creator of heaven and earlh is the
fundamental doctrine that Christianity received from )udaism and that both
communit ies of faith announce to the world. The doctrine received its classical
formulation in the so·called Priestly creation story (Cen. 1; 1-.2,3 ), and is elab-
orated in hymns of praise (Psalms 33. 104), prophetic doxolog ies (Amos 5:8-9,
Isa. 40:21 · 26. 28), and wi sdom reflect ion (Prov. 8 :22,31).
Crratio ex Chaos
According IQ the Genesis creation SIOty, God created the universe by executive
command, without any resistance or struggle. Moreo~'er, Cod created out of
chaos. The ea rth was once lobu wabobll, a "vast ...'~ste" (REB) or '"formless void"
(NJB ). The expression in Gen. 1:2 refers to primeval diso rde r, which persi!Ots even
after God's creali"e work wrought order and harmony (a maner to which we shall
return later). The view of malion cc nihilc, set forth in late ]e\... ish writings (e.g., 2
Macc. 7:28) and early Christian doctrine, is nOl supported explicitly by the bibli-
cal ten.
The formulation "creation OUI of chaos" is influenced by t he m},thopoeric view
of creation, found in ancient myths. 1 In my judgment, the use of the chaos motif
in the biblical story does not justi fy the view that originally the CrealOr had "mas-
tery« only over chaos and that God wHl not have complele sovereig nty until the
eschatological consummation.l That view may be supported by a putative early
version of the biblical story that was influenced by the Bab>'lonian myth of the cre-
ator's battle with the powers 01 chaos. In the final biblical form of the creation
l.See the da,,;c ,,'ork o f H"rmann Gun kel. "'The ln~uence 01 Babylonian Mythology Upon
Ih" Uiblical Creallon Story: translated and abrid;,\<',j in CITo1II01< t~ Ih. OLl UI~,,."'t, "d. El. IX'.
Anderson, IRT 6 (.~linneapoli s· Fortn:ss Press, 1984 ), chap I. Also my work, Crr~!io" t""'~' Cbao.,
Tht Rri~~rp'IL~6.,c 4 Mylb;,,,/ S)"IIIk>I,s. ill ID. D;bIt (Minnnpol is: Fortn:ss Press, 1987).
1 Thi. vi"",' is advocated b)')on Ltvcnson, Cffll~',", ar.J IlK PCo"SlSl<I«r of Evil (S;.n Franci<co;
Harper I< Row, 1988 j. Se", hO"'''''''''f, my essay, 'The Pernslcnce of Chlos in Cod's Cn:ation: BR
12, nn. 1 {1996) 19, -H , which isU5ed in part in thiSd,s<;ussion.
88 c,,,,/oufJ of 00 Te!'!'",,"'/ ~
stOI)', however, d~spite vestigial remains of the old myth, the pr~vai1 ing vie\" is
that Cod creates in absolute soverdgnty.
One should not~ that at no poim does the biblical narralOf equate chaos with
evil. Rather, chaos is primeval disorder symbolized by rurbulent waters and UnCTe-
aled darkness. Order and chaos belong to the creation that, as a whole, the
Creator perceives to be · very good" (Gen. I :31 ). Since chaos persists, it is proper
10 say that God co ntinues to create , inviting human beings, made in the divine
image, into the o ngoing crea liv~ process, TIle Genesis ponrayal is compatible
with a new revolut ion in science in which the Newtonian view of a static. ordered
cosmos is superseded by that of a complex, dynamIC universe in which order and
chaos belong together.'
Funhennore, in the mythopoctic view the triumphant Creator establishes
boundaries for th~ chaos th at con tinues. According to th~ magniAcent creation
~m , Psalm 104, wh ich in some respectS parallels the Genesis creation stOI)', the
~t uses the myth ical language r.llh~r freely to ponray God "rebuking" and driv·
ing back the restive, insurgent waters of chaos and assigning them thei r place in
the orderly scheme 0/ cr~ation . In Genesis I , by contrast, there is no resistance,
the chaotic element is completc:ly in Cod's control. Creation hy tht': word, indi·
cated by the co mmand execution fonnulae ("'Cod said . .. and it was so«), expresses
Cod's absolute sovereignty (set': Psalm 33). Israd's witness to the solt': soven:ignry
of Cod and the essential goodness of Cod's creation led int'Vitably to the problem
of Cods justice (theodicy), an issue to which we shall return when treating wisdom
literature (Ecclesiastes andJob l.
Crrofion ill the &giMi><g
Some transla tors tone down the fam iliar translation of Gen. [, I , i n the ~ginn ing
God created the heavens and the earth: by construing these words as part of a
temporal clause that leads up to the main sentence in either v. 1 or, more likely,
v. 3. So translated, the text may be taken to refer 10 a process of creation, not an
absolute beginning_ T his translation has some support by analogy wi th other
ancient creation texts (e.g., the Babylonian cn:ation ~pic, which begins wi th a tern·
poral clause, "When above, .... Akkadian mum/! (/i5/'). Translators vacillate on this
matter. On the one hand, in the RSV, for instance, the first word of the Hebrew
Bible (hmJbitb ) is construed to refer to a definite, absolute beginning (»In the
beginning Cod <:Kated the heavens and the eanh»; cf. John 1: I), but the N RSV
n:gards this as part of a temporal clause ("In the beginning when Cod began to cn:·
at~ .. ."). On the other hand, the NEB translates the opening words of Genesis as
a temporal clause, "When God began to create, . . » whereas the successor REB
revens to tht': traditional translation_ Both translations of the Hebrew are gram·
matically possible. But styliStic study of the Genesis creation Story fa\'ors taki ng
3.. Jam,"" Glriclt, Q,.;~ M,.~, Nrw $.;icr.cr (Ne ..· York. Pengu in, 1987), "To \.Ome physicist5
ch3~ is ~ !'C~nce of procO:S$ r.uher Ihan <!:ate, of becomi ng rather Ih~n bemgr (proloi,.'ue, p. 3).
Creation and the Noochie Covenant 89
the first words of the Bible a~ an absolute declarative st':ntence, as in the Gn:ek
Bible (Septuagint l, our earliest henneneutical witness. 4
Discussions of creation and science must take into account differences of lan.
gu~ , The Ceno~'sis storyteller uses languag~ metaphOrically, draWing deeply on
ancien t my lhopoC'lic ... ie-..'s, by contrast, scienti Ac aCCOUntS use language that aims
for exact description. Though using different kinds of language, the SCientist and
the theologian have common interests. Some maintain that the "big.bang" theory,
which holds that the universe was created in a fiery explosion at a sharply defi ne d
instant som~ sixteen billion yea~ ago, is compatible with the Genesis creat ion
Story, which opens by portraying the beginning of creation in a cosmic Rash of
light. 5
The Wodl/fu! Order o} Creation
The picrun: presented in the Priestly creation story is one of symmetrical order
and esthetic harmony. All of Gods creatures, from the sun and moon that measure
tht': times to the animals thal creep on earth, havt': a panicular function in the won-
drous whole. Something man:elous happens during the second part of the creation
drama: the emergence of biologicallile (n(pbrsb banab, "living being[s]," 1:20),
characterized by the capacity to move in a particular medium (water, air, land) and
to reproduce its kind or species. The h ighest form of IJtpbnb banab, according to
the Story, is QiJalll. constituted sexually as "male and ft':male ." As in the case of ani-
mals ( 1:12 ), the primary purpose of heterosexuality is reproduction: "Be fruitful,
muitiplr. , . ." Cod's blessing releases the sex"Ual feniHty that makes futu re genera-
tion of 'pecies pOSSible.
In a sense, (here is equality between human and nonhuman c reatures in Cod's
creation. Both are "r~oob ba)')'ab, living being ( 1:20, 2,7, 19), both are ht':terosex-
ual c reatures who receive a blessing to reproduce the ir kind ( 1:22, 28), both share
th\.'" same earthly habitat and depend on e arth's regularitit':s and resources, and
both are va lued in God's sight. Yet equality of status before Cod does not mean
equality of position and responsib ility. To quote the well -k nown words from
Ceorge Orwe1fs AnilMl FanP , NAil animals are equal, but ~ anima ls an: more
equal than othe~." In the biblical Story, the being who is »more equal" Ihan other
eanh cn:atures is adma, "human being" or humankind.
Made if1 the Im.age oJ God
The creation SIOI)' reac~ a climax ""ith God's solemn resolution, announced in
the hea.'enly cOlJncil (NLeI us .. .«), to do something special.
... Stt m}· e<;"'y, "A St)'I~lic Study oi the Bjblic~1 CreAtion Story: reprinted in Fro. WMo. '"
N.., ( ...;111'3>1. OBT \ Mon~~poI i.: Form'Ss Press. 199-4), chap. 3.
j. Sce my e<;",y. "Throlol/Y <ond Science, Cosmic Di~nsiom of tlY Cn:ation Account in
GenCi 'S: In Fr"", C"'~lio~ 10 Nr", C"'Hio~ . chap. 6.

Ltt ~s.ale! ulam [h"'~IIi'Y] ill a~ r ;....g<. afttr OI'r li~tI<tSi,
smJ Id u.c.,. b~DC Jo.ix iQII
owr !ht j1sI. of d:u~.
«'tf IN bidl 0{ II.r ,,,r,
«>tf :ht C4/tI~ alii wcr aU ""!.:i btasf5,
at:J aw /lU cr=!mg 11I~11;'<lI""'" "" It.. ...tlb_
..--G~'"- 1,26 ( B'«~A..)
In th~ execut ion of th is ~lution, Cod creates humankind as Jmaic and femal e:
showing that both sexes share the divine image. Their spe<ial surus In God's
creation entitles them to exercise a spe<ial task. Therefore, i mm~diatdy aft~r the
crNtion of "male and female· in Cod's image, they an~ giv~n a d ivi ne blessing that
~mpowers them to have dominion together over th~ earth _
& forrilt, IIIuJliply.
fill ~/n tIIrrb mlJ s.. bJu. ill
Rwu wtr il)(filb of tin l«l.
CI.'t/' ,bt !>irJs of tht /liT,
alii WIT tilt..., Jioir.g ma''''t IhM 1.0",'
"" lb. Mrrh.
---Gen_ us (BW'A )
Here it is c1~il.r t ha l the prim ary purpose of sex is procreation, as in the case of
nonhuman crearu~. Scx for pleasure in an I.. Thoo rel,uio nship is nOt mentioned,
though other biblical texts suggest that th is is also an aspect of the goodness of
God's crea tion (e,g" the Song of Songs)_ In the ~nesis Story, the expansio n of
human populatio n throogh sexual procreation is a man ifesta tion o f human domin ..
ion over the earth. By contrast, in th e Babylonian Atrahasis myth from the eigh ..
tecnth ce nrury g,c., the gods are disturbed by the th reat of growth in the human
population and seck to place limits o n it .~
The Genesis text was .... ritten for a time .... h~n overpopulat ion was not a prob.
lem. The comma nd 10 "be fruit fu l. multiply, and ~1I the earth : the first command ·
ment in the Bible, has been fulfilled, for loday there i5 scan::dy a h~bitable spot on
ea rth that lacks human beings. Today the: ex~rcise of human dominion requires the
commandment to ~min population gro .... th and save the planet for posterity.'
w
The expressions "image of Cod and 1 ikeness of God" occur only in the
Priestly rC(;e nsi on of the primeval history (but d . lsa. 40: 18).. Th~ tenns r<'!fer pri ·
marily to function or role. They indicate that '"Jalll is created to be Cod's r./lrntr.-
/aliiit' on earth, just as a ch ild represents the parent on a family esta te. A helpful par-
allel usage occurs in ancie nt Babylo nian and Egyptia n teXIS that describe the king
6 On th~ limi tUion of population growth in the Atrahas is Mylh, se~ No'/"'n: Loh~n k . 5J ..
--rn~ Futu~: Biblical Witness to the Ideal of i 51abl~ 'IX'orld: in G"'al J1c.".-" I,D" 11:. Old T..u" ",,,,1.
lrans. R. Walls (Edi nburgh: T. a: T. Cla rk, 1982), 183- 101 _
7. 5« Bi ll McKibben . "'The u se for Singlc·child Families: [bri,li4I~ [", Ial)· t 1S. rw) . t;
( 1998 ) 498--504, ~pled from his book At..yhr 0...: A Pmo.-"z/ ....J &:",.""",,,,1.1;1 A:-Jl ...... 1fD' s.=."l, ..
Gi1.:l F~""li" (New York: ViIlird Books. 1998 ).
Creation Ind the Noachic Covenant 91
in \imi lar language. For inSlance, in an Egyptia n text t he deity addresses Pharaoh
Amenophis Ill:
y"" arr "'y btiOl"J S"". p,odwcd Jnm TOy .""'l>ffl.
"'y ;II«Ig' .Micb I b.wt rst.rb(,,/nl "" rbt tartb.
I baot IK<IJr Y"" .... 1c ,bt t..rrb i_ pt<Kl' I
Here the emphasis is on the king's role in the royal office, his function ~x officio_
An alogously, in the b iblical texts the image is not some thing ill human nature
lreason, will . con5Ci~nce , immortal soul), but refers to the bodily, social role of
Ildllm, consisting of mak and female. Viewed in Ihis perspec ti" e, Ildam is not an
autonomous bei ng, at liberty to ru le the eart h arbitra ri ly or vi olen tly_ On the con ..
lrary, huma n dominion is to be exercised wisel y and benC'Volently so that God's
a o minion o,,'er the earth may be manifes t in ca re for the earth and in the exercise
01 just ice_
The them~ of human dominion over the ,,"'orks of the Creator is echoed in the
e_qu isite Psalm 8. looking up at the night skies, where th e Stars twinkle like aia"
monds and the mo on shines in queenly sple ndor, this poet marvc:1s that God, who
created thC' heaven ly bodies. is actu all y conce rned about tiny human beings and,
morC' tha n tha t. draws them into God's cosmic ad min istration, giving them domin ..
ion over "the works of [God's] hands .~
W}.n, 'loo).. ~p ~t yo~r ht.l11tl'~, rlot wo.~ of yOII/ km.
<11 fix '"""" Ilrd I'" ltars )'~~ J:allf lfI i~ plact.
",kt;1 ~fr~jl.,orul, that)'OII sbot.!J ht ",;,uJwl aflri....
.1 );.,.""'" bn"9, tlwl you sbOl'lJ /Iller MIKt of hi.,)
)1I Y"" ha,,, _ilt bm/inl! Icn Ih<z" .. gi>J.
C1OII'JI"'9 J"., t..3J with glory ad '-mol'.
y"", "",J., hi.. IIloUlrr OI!(J' al/lbal you ~I'I'-.k
-Ps. 8: ~·6 (REB)
This -coronalion- does nOI give huma n beings license to violate God's c reation or
to misuse its resources; rathe r, they are called to be God's vice .. regents in the
e arthly sphere of d ivine sovereignty.
The modem notion of a spli t betv.'ccn na ture and history, which is said to be
the basis of the subje<:tion or exploitation o f nature fo r human pUrposes,9 rec~ives
no sup pon from the biblical crea ti on story. Wh at we regard as two discrC'te
spheres, history and nature or material and spiritual. are one realm in God's
creation _Therefore, the creatures of the naNral world take part in p ra ising God
(Ps_ 98:7-9, "the Roods clap th eir hands· and "the hills sing together for joy"), even
8 _ Ancient tcxts ar~ qootcd and discussed in my ~SiY. "Humin Dominion over Nature:
reprinted in Fm", C.... ,I(Jr. 10 NM (rr~ti(>JI. chap . 7 ,
9_ This Ih~~ is ~t forth in a famous (:ssa~' by lynn Wh itc Jr.. llIc Biblia.l Roots of Our
Ecological Cri,i. : ....·hich AI'S! appeatc:d '" Sri",,, 155 (1967) t20 3- 7, I di~ .. it in "Human
Domi nion ovn Narure; chip. 7 in F,D,. (rr~li<)!< to Nrw (rNli"".
92 G",loMl'i of Old Tma",,..,t n..o~Y
'" nature is involved in the human u agedy (see Ih ~ ilood Sto ry ) and "groans in
rravaiJ" with human beings (Rom. 8;12 _23 ).10
The CorruptiOJ1 of Gods (natioll
In th ~ book of Genes is, creation i\ not p~nted as an independent Hdoctrin e-- · but
belongs in the context of an extend~d Story that moves from th~ beginning to ....ard
the fuhll1ment of Cod's purpo<;e for all creatures an d the whol~ creat ion. In th is
narrative perspective, creati on is embraced withi n Cod",; covena nt, speCi fically the
N oachic covenant.
The primeval h isto ry displays a Structure and movement th at, li ke o ther
ancient versions of myt hical beginnings. proceeds fro m crcation to ilood to a new
begi nning after tht: flood. Tht: major divisions are ' b dore the flood~ and · after the
flood" ( 10: I). The continuity of history from thc primeval h istory into the ances-
tral history is indicated by the seqUt:TlCt: of gt:nealogies (th e so-call ed begats). Five
times in the prime\",1 h istory and 6ve in the aTlCestral story the unfo lding narrativt:
of Gen~sis is punctuatt:d with tht: recurring formula, "th ese are th~ genera tions
of.. . ."1 1 The fonnula occurs first at the introduct ion to the story of parad ise (Ge n.
2:4a), suggesting that this is the rt:al begin ning of the primeval history. The
Priestly creation story. wh ich stands apa rt from this s-eheme. shows that the pre-
suppositions for the human story and the his tory of nature are given in Cod's orig-
inal creation.
Those materials that are generally accredited to the Priestly trad ition do nOt
mention a "fall" of human beings or a "fall"" of nature. After the c reat ion, the d i~'inc
image continued to cha racterize huma n beings (Gen. 5, 1-2). By incorporating
episodes from Old Epic tradition into Iheir presenta tion (Genesis 2- 3; 4-, 6, 1· 4 t
ho wevt:r, Priestly theologians have given a realistic picture of the ",'orld in which
we live. The world does not manifest unambiguously the goodness and harmon y
of Cod's creation; rather. it has been corru pted by hu man ~'iolence, as sta ted in the
introduction to th e Priestly rew orking of the old flood story.
Now the eanh was corrupt in Cods sight, and the e~nh "''<IS IlIJed with violencc .. . .
And Cod said 10 N03h, "I hav~ dc-tennined 10 make an end of ~II Aesh, for th e
earth is filled wi th violencc because- of them:
- Gen. 6 : 11- 13 (RSVj
In the reworking of the tradition. "viol ence" (hal1las ) is illustrated in vign~ tles from
Old Epic tradition: disobedience in the ga rde n o f Eden, murde r in the fim fam ily,
lamech's lust for blood revenge, the heavenly beings wh o foreibly seized human
maidens and had intercourse- with them. All of t his indicatcs th at there is a tragic
n See Rownuy Ibdford Ruc-ther-, G.:ia .. God, A. f,oj""B,!I. ThccJo;y 4 f.IIrt.!! H",J;"f (San
Franci<coo Harpe&nFraneisco. 1991 ), chap. I.
Il Stt Frank M. Cross Jr.. 11te PriC"itly Work: in c..Y"",~l lt Al)·th "u H<h,tW E/'if. f,...-Yi i. ibr
Hillcry nJ ~ DJ 1.....-1 (c..mbrid&e HaIV~rd Univ. Prffi.. 19(3). 193-315
Creation and d.e N03Chic Covenant 93
dimension in human life. The misuse 01 the freedom that God has given to crea-
tures, pa rti cularl)' to human b~ i ngs, has resulted in brokt:n relatio ns: ber...-·een
human beings an d Cod, ...·ithin th e human family, and between social groups. If
this is to be called · sin;' it is no t the transgression o f specific laws set down in a
cooe, but a pervers ion of the human will tha t results in corroption of the goodness
of cocl·s creation .
The narrator ponrays corroption that affec ts "all Aesh" as .... idespread, even uni-
~·e rsal. Viole nce is. as it were . a disease contilminating all creatures, an imal and
human. tha t share the earthly ()~OS or habitat . As we kno w all too wen from the
tr.1gic twentieth century, probabl y the mos t violent in the history o f humanity, this
disorder n01 only affects the social o rder but also permeates the animal world and
po!1utes the environ ment. Power COnu pIS.
In the primeval history it is not suggested that violenct: is rooted in "nature:"-
in the nonh um an worl d. In the natural re-aim, 01 course, there is great violence:
c.1nh qua ke . wi nd. an d nre, disea se and pestilence, o r a~ in evolutionary theory,
"nature red in tooth and claw." Perhaps, as Byron Bangen suggCSt S, "what manilests
itself as natural evil in (his world is the chaotic. the unformed, the still disordered
tha t Cod h.1S yet 10 shape and fashion and coordi nate with the exis ting creation."H
In other words, chaos persists in Cod's c reation and Cod eontinues to create.
The b iblical story. however, does nOt ment ion this violent lace of nature. Eve n tht:
flood itself. wh ich may be reminisce-nt of a natural calamity caused by the ram-
paging ",'aters o f the TIgris and Euphratcs Rivers, tS reguded as a sign o f the sever-
ity of Cod·s judgment, nOI th e caprice of natu re . The b iblJcal Story makes an
uncomfortabl e point: the vi olence that cOTfUpted ·',111 flesh- is traced to Cod's
noblest creatures, who were madt: in the ima~ o f Cod. In creati ng human beings
wi th an indepe ndent will and with creative freedom , God risked the potential
c haos that results from human violence .
God; AJisl.1n
The fl ood 5101)' opens with the arrest ing announcement that Cod has made a mis·
take and resolves to stan ovcr.
The LORD [Ya hw~h J sa ..... that the w;ckcdncss of humankind was gre~1 in the- eanh,
and I hat every indination of the I hOlJghts ,,{ their hearts was only evil continually.
And the loRD [Yah"'-c-hJ was sorry ,hat he had ITl<Ide humankind on the earth, and
it grieved h im 10 his heart.
-Gen. 6 :5-6
This state-ment challenges us to think more deeply about Cod's -al mighty- power.
The greatcs t limitation to Cod's sovereignty is human freedom, fundamentally
unpredictable and uncontrollable. In .l sense Cod acts experimentally, wai ting to
see what the hum an response .... ill be. As the older KJV put it, God -repents"
12 l:Iyron C. Bang.:rt . -Why O ..... ls Maller. l\Ioo;.qui lOC"i Bile, and Exis.enc;e Remains I My<itery,
A Case tor ( r", lio 0: Ou;os • OR I; {\\"rinter- 199;-96/ -421.
...
(lIiMIII).13 [n other words, God's will is not an im:xorable fatc or an unalterable
nec~sity, bul is Ocxible, chan~abk-. open 10 the huurc. According to the flood
stOI)', the Creator TCsolves to ....'i~ the slate dean and start all over. saving a rem·
nant of humans and animals to provide ~ed for a ne....' generation. O f course,
incipient in th is mass demuction of the innocent along with the gUilty is the prob-
lem of the justice of Cod (theodicy), which Abraham later art iculated in his expos-
tula tion .,.:ilh Cod on the eve of Ihe holocaust of Sodom and Gomorrah lGen.
18,22-13),
A Ntw Crratioll
In the fin al pri(CStly version of the story th(e flood marks a radical new beginning,
indeed a new creation that corresponds to th(e original creation . This is evident
when one reads the creat ion Story and the flood Story side by side. There are
num(erOU5 affinities, even in language. In the creation Story th(e (ean h is created out
of watery chaos, in the flood story the rnllhbul threatens a retum to the lohu wabohrl
of Ge n. I:2. In the creatio n story God pushes the waters back so that the dry land
(earth ) may appear; in th e flood story Cod causes a wind 10 blow over the watery
expanse with the result that the earth h<:g ins to green <lsain. [n the cfe<ltion Story
Cod blesses human beings ....,ith fe ni lil}'; an(er th e flood God blesses them an d
giv(es t he same imperative: "Be fruitful and multiply' (9:1 , 7). Othe r corre-
sponde nces and afAnities could be added. The new beginn ing is lik(e the origina l
beginning, only with a ma}or diff(erenC(e. [n this case, God deals not w ith primc."'o'a[
disorder (chaos) but with t he d iso rder created by the misuse. or abuse, o f hum an
h-ttdom.
The Noachic covenant , then, is a covtl"nd oJ mlllioll . U First, it is universal. The
storyteller indicates this by saying that God made th is cov(enam with the family of
Noah. regarded as representati\'es of all humankind. r.,·t oreo\·er, it is ecologkal.
The narrator indicates this by saying that Cod made this covenant with the earth.
pledging to preserve the constancies of narure ("Secdtime and har.'csI, cold and
heat, summer and winter, day and night") as lo ng as th(e (earth lasts eec-n . 8:22).
Above all, il is a covena nt of grace-an "(ev(erlasting co\'enant~ (hrn"1 oln.,.). one that
lasts indefinitely because it is p redica ted not on human actions or anyth ing Anire,
but on Cod's free and gracious commitm(ent to the who le creation.
Tlx Ethic DJ fix NfHlcmc (OvtlUlII I
The Noachic covenant provides the basis for a g [obal (e thic. For o n(e thing Ihis
covenant stresses the universality of God's grac(e: all creatures are (embraced within
13 Depending on the co ntext, the Hebre .... verb ",b.o.n mea ns la h~"e ~ change of mi nd.
repen t, re~ t, U in Jeremiah's parabk of the potter And I~ d~y, Jer. 18· f · 12. ~e my esSolY,
"When Cod Repents; 8R 12 (1996) 2t, 44 .
14. See my esgy "Creation and the No;J.chic Covenant:' in Fr_ ("~n.,,, 10 "'"" Crr~ I''''' ,
chap. 9.
C reuion and the NOilchic Co~nal1t 95
Cod's mercy and care, without an y exception. We are apt 10 place limitat ions and
to draw distinctions, along ethnic. re ligious, national, or other divisive lines. But
the Noachic CO"'(enam spo:aks of Cod's inclusive grac(e, the sign of which is th(e
rain bow t hat may ~ s~n by all pe:op[(es after a StOrm.
FunhennoT(e, the OiIchic cO~'(enant (emphasiz(es n!"verenC(e for the mystery of
[if(e, symbolized by the blood. P(ermission is given to hum an beings to daughter
meat for tood. but with appropriate reserve and re-.'erence (Gen. 9,4-5). Their
God-giv(en freedom d~ nO t en lill(e th(em 10 kill for spon o r to destroy whol(e
speci(CS. Th(e nonhuma n CT(ealion is nOI Ih(eR Simpl y for huma ns to US(e or (exploic
Animals too are precious in God's Sight, an d this val uation may (ext end to trees,
Ao ....'ers. and oth(er parts of -nature." [n sho n . huma n beings are caretakers of God's
creat ion. As W(e ha\'e ~n , this is what is involved in being mad(e in the imag(e of
God, to rul(e the earth in wisdom, juslic(e. and compassion so that the rule of God
may be manifest in huma n actions.
Finally, th(e Noachic covenant stresses the dignity of human ~ings , those crea-
tur(es ...·ho h,lYe 01 sp(ecial place in Cod's creation because they af(e made in the
imOlB(e of God, a th em(e tha t is repeated in this co ntext (Gcn(esis 6). This rules out
th(e viol (enc(e of murder (as sp(ecifically stated in 95·6) . but the Noachic principle
could be extended 10 include other forms of violence , such as genocide, warfare to
obtain [a nd or to (ens lave o thers, child abuse, d omestic battering-the list could go
on. Suflk(e it to say t hat the Noachic co\'enant provides a theological basis for
(ethical obligation in a plura[istic world.
Gads Covl1lll~f Commilmnll
Thus the primc."'o·al h istory moves in a vast sw~p from crea tio n, through a cata-
strophe t hat threatene d the eanh wilh retu rn 10 pre<:reation chaos, to a new~­
ginning or new creation that lies beyond tragedy. [n th is narrative context, th(e
biblical narrators ponray the greatness and misery of human beings, but always in
the awaren(ess of the sovereignty o f God, whose power is flexib le and whose love
is st(eadtast. The biblical storytellers and poetS are realists. H uma n beings do have
thc tcrrible pow(er to pollu te the eanh ....·it h thei r lifestyle. They do have th(e capac-
ity for viol(enc(e to th(e d(egrce that the eanh ma)' Ix: th rea lened with a return to
chaos. This is the precarious possibility of human history, as W(e have sensed in the
violen t twentieth century. Nevenheless-and this "nevenhde%" is rooled in th(e
Noachic cQvenant-th(e Cn:ator remains comm itted unconditionally to the cr(e-
ation in an (e,,~rla5t i ng covenant. An eschatology, or ho pe for future: consumma-
tio n, i~ incipient in the flood ~(01)'. For the C reator move<; human h i~tory horn
potential chaos toward a new age in which the relations between human ~ings,
non human creature~, and their environment wi ll be reordered. T he rainbow is a
sign of th(e purpose o f God that overarche~ hislOry from creat io n to new cf(eation.
Significantly, th(e NoachJC covenant had spedal meani ng in th(e aftermath of
the fall of Je rusalem in 587 S.c., ",'hen people had experienced the viol(ence of
destruction and [he d i51ocation of exi le from homeland. A poet, writing in th(e time
of "the «;I i ~ of God" (!'-'Iartin Bubds phrase), decla red , hat rh(e "hiding of God's
96 (llEtOllfl oJ O!J Tt5I.1,.t'IIl Thtol"gy Creation and the NOiJChic Covenant 97

face (prcscneer was only momentary_ Cod's "covenant o f peace~ endure<; forever,
despite the vic issitudes of hiStory.
For IIns i51illt lboo JaYI 0/ NO<IIr.
WM. I IR'Oft 1Nl lilt ""Im cf No~
ltV_li "tutr ~!j.1i. CI;ftT lbe "'rtlr_
Set ""'" I m 5<I'Om nollo bt ""4ry Inlb 'JVfl.
IOtIlrr 10 ..lruh yo~ ~i,,_
Thov!j6 tbt "OIIn~1i.l lot s}-",b1.
ud tbt hilll bt .....Ot!fJ,
Yd lIly ..."faib;,l /OPt { ~d1for you ..".u wl bt f~.
II<lr lIly (ot'tIiOInl of />t4Ct bt """",,1.
Soly. lilt LoRD [Y"hnb}. ",,,-, b~; ["",,..,,,w,, P" Y""_
- Is.a_ 5-l,,9- IO (NIV)
In Christi an perspective, the t'oachic covenant belongs 10 a history of God's
cove nantS that leads Up to the ~eve rlasting covenan t" made through the blood
(sacrifice) of Jesus Christ (Heb. 13:20). Christ's covenan t of peace does nOI super·
sede t he Noachic co\'enant: it is buil l upon it. as th e tem ple atop the graduated
levels of a ziggura t rests on a broad foundatio n_
to the Old Testament wi thOllt having to regard it christocentrically a.. a book tha t
poin ts not JUSt to Christ (the /I.·lessiahl but to JIS" ! C hrist. Theology of creation,
to which the Old Testament bears witness, is common ground on wh ich the reli-
gions of the ",·o rld- at leas! some of them---may stand togethe r, in d ialogue and,
pcrha p'i in some !;Cnsc. in worship. 16
It is oo[c\o"onhy that in the Psalms of God's kingship (Psa.lms 47, 93 99). to be
considered later (chapter 14 ), the nations are in vited to praise God in ecumenical
worship. The basis of this global wimess is creation faith.
Dtclarr 1GoJi: Jglc<y ".twt; tbt IIlItior.s,
bil 1113"''I/owS II>O rh "1110"9 "t} tbr lItopln.
FOf g,r~1 is lilt LORD, "d 911"dy 10 bt pr"i~J;
lit IS III bt rtVffl'J ~J,o,,'f ,,1/ gcJJ.
For ~rJ 11.. g<iJ; oJ tbr t>wpltl ~rr ,;"11.
bul lilt LORD fY~bwb] sMllbt Iltavtns.
- Ps. 96:3·5

Creatioll alld Global Witness

The New Testament makes surprisingly lew references to God's c reation of the
universe. This paucity is not to be explained by saying that the Christian gospci
sh ifTs h orn creatiOn to redemp tion, as Marcion argued in his deviant re interpreta ·
tion of the gospel in the second cen w ry, rather, creation is presupposed as a fun-
damental witness of the Scriptures that the church shared with th e Jewish people.
Paul's preach ing to the Gen tiles presuppo!>Cd some knowledge of the Hebrew
Scripture<; on the pan of sympathizeT5 wi th Judaism_ As Robcn Bellah says, even
when Paul preached to ~the biblically illitcralc Athenians· in his famous address On
the Areopagus as ponrayed in Ac ts, h e spoke of "God who made the world and
everyt hing in it, [Cod] who is Lord of hea\-en a nd earth- iAc ts 17: 14} and in this
se nse Pau l "had to conven [ hearers] to }udaism before he could conven them to
Christianity."" In the early Centuries. so church historians tell us. rhe Christian
church re lied on Je1. .. ish theologians whose monot heis tic fai th was TOOted in the
doctrine of creation.
T he pan of the Christian Bible tha t has often proved to be mmt diffi cult-the
Old Testament-actually has strategic importa nce in the church's witness to the
wo rl d. The 50·called O ld Testament (or H ebrew Bible) is th e: commo" Bible
shared by Je...'S a nd Christians, and to some degree by l'vluslims as ",·cll. With in the
Christian canon, the Old Testament has a relat ively independe nt place. as wc have
seen (c hapter2 ). Hence, in making its witness to the world, the church can appeal 16_ The laSt (.... 0 paragr.!pl» are- e~lr;lcled from my ·'Cre-alian Theology U J. s.,sis for G lobal
~'i\nC"Ss : published by {he Go:nccra I ~rd of Evanjjclism ... od Global I>·tinistric"s. United MC'lho-
1S. Roben: N. Ikllah. "AI Home and Not ~ I Hom~_ Rdigrous Pluralism and Religious TNlh · disl Church (N"",' Yo.t. U!l. IC, 1m }. .\ ·lissl0n E~'angcli5m Series "2. The: original addtrss ( 1996)
Clrrisl'~~ Ct'IIbuy Ill. no. 13 (1995) 423-24. ....J.s rcprc-sented at th~ Fish" , u'C(ure- aline Cla remonl School of Throology.

12. THE PROMISSORY COVENANT
WITH ABRAHAM
It! the history of God's covenants the second in the ~ence is the covenant
made wilh Abraham and Sanh, the ancestors of the people of God, Israel. This
covenant looms large in the period of biblical Judaism, beginning w ilh [he Secooo
T=tple, that is, the postexilic eTa of reconslnlClion. ""10reo"er, it is .ery important
fOT understanding the early Christianity Ihal emerged OUI of Judaism . At the
~ginning of the Gospel of Luke it appears in the Bcncdicrus, spoken by the father
of John the Baptisl:
Thus [God] b~1 sbow" tbt "'my pram'Std to <nI. ""WID,.,;.
anJ MS mIltrrlbmJ hil holy 'C~all(,
I~ Mth that bt 'lOon to <lw ' d~Ctllar Abr"k. ..,
to gra~! us Ih~r 11'(, bti><g r(scurl fro", tbt 6".1, f1{ 011' ":"" t<'\',
,.ight srrot hi... witbr,ulirar, in hcfi~'lS anJ rigbtlll.HIItS! !>tjD" bi", all our J.'YI.
- Luke 1:72 -75
An Evt riastil19 Covtnaut
like the Noachic covenant, th e Abrahamic co~'enanl is designated as an
ing covenant" (Wit ola". ), a covenant in perpetuity. This covenam has perpetual
validity and can never be ab rogated plttisdy because it is ba~d soldy on Cod's
finn c:ommitment- God's faith fu lness (fJrstd) or ' ste3dfast 10~'e:
Tbert:fort: it is a covenanl of sola gratia, grace alone. Wller we shall stud y
another covenant. the Mosa iC, that is also a covenant of grace but is conditional
in character (chapter 17). The Mosaic covenant t:mphasizes ,he call to huma n
decisio n and the fateful results o f the exercise of human freedom. By contrast. the
Abraham ic covenant is unilateral in the sense that it is oosed on God's loyalty,
wh ich endows the relationsh ip with co nStancy and durability, not on the people's
response, which is subject to human weak.ness and sin_ This covenant is sealed by
God's solemn oath (as stat ed in the Benedictus), an oalh based on God's holiness
or essential being.
Tht: unilateral character of this covenant is stressed in GenC'iis 17, a passage
from Priestly tradition. According 10 this crucial text, God-here known as El
Shaddai. 'Cod Almigh ty'"- lakC'i the initiative to en ter into covt:nant relationship
with Abraham and Sarah and their descendants. The language is very [heccentric.
God resolves to "establish (se t up] my [Gods] covenant" as an ~everlasting cove-
nant." which will stand in perpetuity because it is grounded in Cod's holy will.
Circumcision is not a condi ti on but a sign of membership in the covenant co m·
munity, and is b indi ng only on males. Other members 01 the fam ily-women and
children--are obViously incl uded. Individuals may fail to Keep the covenant" by
The Promissory Covenant with Ab... ham 99
not ~ubmitting to this rite o f admission , but Cod's COV~nilnt with the community
represented by the fa mily of Abraham and Sarah sta nds forever.
In delinea ting th is ~pecial cove nant betWeen Cod and people (Genesis 17),
Priestl y theologians have built o n an older tradition found in Gen_ 15:7-21 , where
the word · covenant" (btrH) appears for t he first tim~ in th e ancestral history. This
curious t:pisode, apparently from O ld EpiC rradition associa ted with the sout hem
place Mamre, nea r Hebron, ddiC'i und~rstanding . Abraham is portrayed as secur-
ing some animals and b irds and then cuning them in two. At sunset a deep sll!Cp
falls on him, while in th is trancelike State. a smoki ng flr~ pot and a flaming torch
(symbolizing Cod's partici pation ) pass through th~ bloody corridor betv.'een the
pieces_ The passage is so archa ic t ha t its ancient m~aning has almost compietl:ly
eroded away. Not ice. howeve r, that in this eerie covenant-making rite, during
which Cod made a pledge under sol~mn o at h. the patriarch was in a passive
state, asleep _ The covenant was made unilaterally by Cod, Ab ram was a passive
recipie nt _
A CovrnaNI of Pro".;)(
This strange account in Gen. 15 ,7-2 1 also indicates that the Abrahamic covenant
Ivas promissory_This covenant is characterized by the giving of promises, not th e
imposition of obligations.
Notice the context. The account belongs to the history of the promise that
begins in Genesis 12 with Cod's command to Abram ro lea".e his home country
'e~'er1ast­ and to go toward iI horizon that C od would open before him. To the ancestor of
lsrad three promises are gh·en. Fi rst, God will make of him il g,.-eat "nation: The
use of t he te on "nation" (goy. as in 18: 18) rather Ihan the fundiamental tenn ~peo ­
plc" ( " m), apparently refl.t:cts the nationalism of the early monarchy, when this tra-
dition was given written form. 1 5«ond, God promises 10 gl\'e his descendants the
land of Canaan--Ihe flrst refere nce in the Bible 10 the so-called promised land. 2
Third. through this people blessing would be m~diat~d to all the brok.e n and scat-
tered families of the earth_ It is unc~rta i n whether the verb should be translated as
a passive, -be blC'iSCd." suggesting that blessing will overflow from Abraham's peo-
ple to other natio ns. or as a refl eXive, "b1C'is themselves," meaning that the nations
will bring bbsing o n themselves by invo king the God of Ahraham_
In an)' ca~, tht: promise to Abraham is seen in the horizon of Cod's worldwide
purpose (see Rom_ 4 :10-2 5). The na rrative background is the primeval history
that ended in failure, signified by the abonive building of the Tower of Babd and
the scaltering of human bein~ (Gen. I I : 1-9). Having failed to achieve justice and
peace in the primeval h iS tO!)' (see Cen. 6:5· 8 and 8 :21 ), Cod intends to use
L In ··P"op\t· ~nd 'I'at ion ' of Isr;lel; JBL 79 (1%0) 157-63. E. A. SpciseT argues [hat anci en!
Israel ite [Tadition s!",ak. 01 "t he peop le of Yah"'ch' (c.g.. Exod. 15:13 ; Judg. 5, ]1), not "the
nat; on ofYahwch."
2 For a dis.<;lJ5,ion of the prom i'!-C of lan d. scc my cssay. "SIBndina: on God's Promi'!-C';;
Covenant and Contin uil}' in 8ibhcal Theology: in IIib~t<>1 Tbtology, Prcbito<J.nul p~, ed_
Stevt"n J. KTafrchick ". ~!. ( N~5hvilk · Abingdon. t995), 145-54.

100 Co~t.olm o} 0!.1 UJIa ..",1 Tb.alog)'
another strategy: to call a people for a special service (cf. Exod. 19:5 ·6 }. Later in
the unfolding story this theme reapp ears in conne<:tion with the Sinai covt."nam.
'The whole eaI1h~ belongs to God, yet God selects this people ,ls-rae!, as "my uea·
5Ured possession" so that they may serve God as Na priestly kingdom and a holy
nation~ (Exod, 19:5·6, echoed in 1 Pet. 2:4-· 5 L
Faith atld Dwbr
Today it is sometimes supposed that ge nuin e faith leaves no room for doub t. This
popular view finds no suppOrt in {he ancestral history, ",",here Abraham, the iather
of the faithful , has "the courage to doubt,~ or perhaps one should say "the iaith to
doubt."l With the exception of t he Story of the testing o f Abraham in Genesis 22,
where Abraham seems completely submissive, Abra ham is {he representative of
faith that boldly seeks understanding (especially in G en. 18: 16·33 i ·
~nesis 15 portrays two episodes in which Abraham expresses doubts about
twO of God's promises. Fir;t, how can he know that he will have a great posterity
when he has no son ( IS: 1·6)? There is no tangible evidence to support the div ine
word. Sarah seems unable to give him a son. and so far his head steward, Eliezer,
is slated to inherit his estate. The story goes that one night as he looked up into
the starry sky God reaffinne d the promis<:, saying that h is posterity would be as
innumerable as the. star;. Then comes a crucial text, much discussed in Christian
circles (see Rom. 4: 16·15; Jas. 2, 18·26), which NJPSV translates,
And be<:ause he put his trust in tile loRD [Yal1"'eh], He m:koned it to l1 is me-ri l.
- Gen. 15,6
Sometimes th e key verb is translated 'believed" (NRSV ). This is not, however, the
kind of belief that rests on rational argument or conclusive evidence; it is the beliei
that is approp riate to a relationship. as wh en one says: "I believe my friend: that
is, put my tru~t in him or he r. The evidence does not come first, rather, fai th comes
first, th en seeks for understanding that Weighs evide nce.
In the second episode, Abraham aga in exprt."sses doubt about Cod's promise of
land. How can he know that he will possess it (Gen. 15,8)) The evidence for the
validity of this promise was pretty slim, even nonexistent. At Ihat time the land
was under the control of powerful Canaanite city·states, and the whole social sys·
tern was under the hegemony of great empires, especially that of Egyp t. The
descendantS of Abraham and Sarah were sojourners in the land, living o n the
fringes o f th e political and social establishment. Whe n it came 10 burial of the
dead, according to a story in ~nesi s 23 , Abraham had to negotiate wi th Hittites
to buy a parcel so that the ancestors could. at /east in death, claim a panio n of the
promised land.
3. Forth e former S« the book b}' trn, Scottish theo logian Roben M . Oav id<.O n, n .. C~~';>JI' to
Da.bt, f"pk>m--!l"~ OiJT""". ,,,1 n""" (London. SCM, t983 ). The lalte r is Ihe title 01 a book br
mJl good friend and former colkague at Col gale University. M Hol~ HM'Ishomc (Engic",oo.-l
(lifl., N ..!., Prentice ·H.Il, 1963,\.
The Promj~'iOry Covenant with Abraham 101
In the SlOt)' Abraham's question about the validity of the land promis<: is not
answered by pre~e nti n g e\'idence. but only by the strange covenan t rite, consid-
ered preViousl y, in ""hich God submits 10 an oath and thereby cenifies that the
promise is true For a long time the de5Cendants of Abraham and Sarah will be
"al ie ns in a land that is not thei rs," indeed, they will be oppressed as slaves for
ce nturies (Gen . 15, 13· 17). In the long interim between promise and fu lfillmenr,
the people must li \'e by faith . Only in retrospect wil! they have a Faith that under-
stands the working of Cod's purpose in the langled evems o f history.
Thi~ covenant of promise does not free onc from obligation, indeed, in the
paraUd chapter 17 God summons Abraham to "walk before me and be blamdess~
( lIlmilll, i.e., a whole person . a person of integrity). The cove nant recognizes
.:1.braham's integrity and responsibil ity. The emphasis falls, however, on the giving
oi promises, not laws. 1'-."0 wonder {hat Paul. in h is proclamation of God's uncon ·
ditional grace displayed in Jesus Christ, went back before the Mosaic covenant of
obligatio n to th e Abrahamic covenant of promise (Romans 4). Abraham was held
up as th e !,'leat representative of that faith which is a trusting response to God's
word of promis<:.
The Threefold Promisr
Genesis 17 is one 0/ the most important theo logical discourses in th e Old
Testament. This chapter sets Iorth the divine promises that are guaranteed to the
people in the Abraham ic cove nant of grace . As in th e O ld Epic tradition found in
Gen. 11: 1-7. the promises here are th reefold.
Firsl PrDmist (4. Gen. 12:1 J
Abra ham and Sarah will have numerous descendants. Indeed , by a Hebrew word·
play on the patriarch's name, Abraham is to be "the father o f a multitude of nationsM
i see L7;4 ) . Funhennore , th e promise is made that Sarah will be a "moth er of
nati o ns, king; 0/ peoples will come from her" (see v. 17). This assurance of the
fruitfulness of t he people of God is picked up later by a prophetic poet during the
period of th e exile, when it s<:emt."d that Israel was barren and had no future,
lack 10 !hr ro<~ (ram .mic" y W ",<f! J".~n,.
m,J!o Ih< q"" r:)' f, o", whicb yew ",,,,, J~g
locI:!a Ahm j;"", yallr F lri,rr
"",f 10 S.~rah 'ft.O oort yw,
Jor ~I ~'~, hI "''' u'[.,-" 1cairN bE" .
but J blmd bE'" and "",J. h,,,,
mm,)".
-IS<!. 51: 1·2
5(('01..1 Promi,( (c/. Go: 12: 1)
This covenant assures Gods special relationship 10, and pre~e nce With, the people
of Abraham and Sarah , for El Shaddai (God Almighty ) promises to ''be God to you
and to your descendants after yo u." This promise poims forward to the Prie<;t\y
102 ConlO~rs oJ OU Ttslil"'''''1 Thtolllg)'
paso;ag!! in Exod, 6:2-9, where El Shaddai discl0'5es the proper name of God that
signiAes relationship 10, and presence with, the people,
! ",. Yabnb .. fld I ...ili r"lY yCOl 10 be ..y fIropit,
ord I R·ili btc- . ymo, G..J, "nJ yCl/i ,h,n i=,.,
I{..,t ( ,"" y"Mt..
- Exod. 6,7 (BWAJ
In this view, t he people of Cod is a worshi piog community that is allowed to
know God's personal name {ident ity, character} and therefore to be in an I·Thou
relationsh ip. To worsh ip Cod is to ~call upon the nam e ofYahweh· in times of dis·
tress. as in psalms of lament (Ps. 116,4) or to "call upon the name of the Lord- in
t imes of ddiveraoce from trouble, as in psalms of thanksgiv i ng ,~ In a song of
t hanksgiving, a poet says,
Wb"t sh,,11 (JI'(I( back 10 Yahvrb
fo, all bis /nJrrjrs 10 me)
J ",iUli}llbt "'P of saloar""n,
~r.J c,,11 01, rIH "".. I of Y~bwtb.
-P~ . 116:12· 13(SW.!I. )
Third Pro".ist (cj. Gttl , IM-7)
The Abrahamic covenant is connected essentially with ltle land, the geographical
dimensions of which ne already stipulated in G<:n. 15:18-21. The language is that
of a formal, legal grant: "I wilt give to you. and to your offspring after }'OU, the land
where you are now an alien, all the land 01 Canaan, for a pe~rual holding« (1 7 :8,
Stt also 48:4). In strong legal terms, the perperual covenant (boil ott",) assures th e
claim on the land as a "perpetual holding" { a ~!(=fb oIo11l1).
This "covenant of grant: Moshe \Xfeinfel d o~n.'C5, is analogous to the royal
grant Widely pracliced in the ancient world. In this legal arrangement the donor,
usually in recognition of past loyalty, b inds h imself unilaterall y by oath to gi~'e
property permanently.' So in th is case the gr<mt of t he land is based on Ya hweh's
oalh, is given in recognition of Abraham's past loyalty, is an irrevocable grant in
perpetuity, and is unilateral, for no specific obligatioTlS are imposed. The rea l·
estate d ime nsi on of the Abrahamic covenant i.. highlighted in a s[Ql)'1:elling psalm;
Tht Lod [yflh.,.b1"'" G;.J . .. is ..inJJ". of ~i! CCI1tNrn! for .......
o} !.Ix III(IrJ Ih.:.l bt 'OWI",~..JrJ, for a rixn.scnJ gmtr~r""'l,
I~ 'O_d~r rh.:.r ht IIL<I~( u>itb ADraha ...
biJ slIlorn prom i"l~ ls=c.
•>hid, ~ CC~jif771IJ to }~,ob a. a '~'Iwll',
~ {Iratl "5 an fl)f,I" '!i~!.I 'Ot'tI1~d,
4. s"e .bo~e, eh~pLer 6, and my book 0..1 of Lt.r D,Pl!:'!, Th P,,,i,., Spt"~
(Ph iladelphia, ~/e'Srminster, 1983, Tl:V. ed. forthcoming 10(1)). chap". ,and 4.
5. Mashe Weinfeld. "The Coven ani of Cran( in the Old Tesumem and in Ihe AnCient Near
Eas,: )AOS90 ( 19701 184--203.
The Promissory Covenant wilh Abraham 103
l<lyi~9, 'To )''''' J will;irr Ibt Ia~J of Cm"-<ld~
", )'OO'r (10ft"", Jiff ~r. ir.b""t... cr.-
-Ps. IOS.8·11
The real -C'5 tate dimension of the promise is fundamental and at the same rime
probl~matie. especially ....·hen o~ considers Ihe -forgon en peoples" who were dis-
inheri ted; the KenitC'> , the Kenizzites, the Hinites. and so on, who are listed in
pedantic d etail (e.g., Gen. 12;1 -7; Exod. 3,8}.6 The problem is exacerba ted in
Deuteronomy, where the invading Israelites are told to ·show no mercy« but to
destroy the artifacts of Canaanite culture (Deut. 7: 2; 12:3). The problem is mi ti-
gated somewhat by the Detlteronomic explana tion that this policy wou ld prevent
th e Israelit es from being ·ensnared" by nath'e culrure (7 ;25 ) or that God was giv·
ing th e land to the Israelites not because of their "rig hteousness" but because of
"the wickednes~ of these nations~ (9:4), But these considerations, while helpful
SOCiologically, offer no theologica l solution. We remember too well chapters of
American history in which the biblical motif of the promised [and was app ropri -
ate d at the expense of Nati",!! Americans.
We wi ll have to re turn to this major p roblem o f biblical th eology late r.
Suffice it to note for the present that Paul. who insists that Cod's promises to
Israel are endorsed by Jesus Ch rist, rein te rprets "land" in its larger se nse of
"ean h" o r "wo rl d" (Greek 1:-05m05 , Ro m . 4 : 13 ). In this broader se nse, th e "meek"
will inheri t the earth (l and). As \"'a[te T Brueggcmann o~n.·es: "The good news
is not that the poor ,ne blessed for being poor. but that to th em belongs the
kingdom. that is , rhe new l an d .~ Broeggemann presents this Christian interpre-
tation of the promise in the conteXt of a call to the Christ ian community to
engage in discussions with the JeWish comm unity about Mthe land questi o n ,~
whi ch is inextricablv rooted in the common Bible (Law. Prophets, Wri tings)
shared by bo th comm uni ties.'
He re. then, \.rc find a distinc tive covenanta l perspective that casts its inALH:nce
over the ,,,hole Pentateuc h and ind«d ovcr the ""hole Bible. both Old Testament
and New. To summaril:e,
I. The Abrahamic CO\'enant is an -everlasting cO\'enant" based on the sover-
eign ,....ill of God, not on human behavior.
1. The Abrahamic covenant is a covenant of grace. based o n the unilateral ini-
tiative of the covenant maker, not rh!;: virtues o f the covenant reci pient.
3. The Abrahamic covenant is a guarantee of th e validity of God's promises,
speCifically, [hat the people of Cod will be froitful, that they wil l possess the land,
6. Se., mv ."say, "SI~ndin8 on Cod'~ I'romi~<:s: in Ilil>~("i ~/.!.I)'. P",bl"", ~nJ Pm~({:l;''''. <:<I.
Kraltc hick c~ 31. , 145-54 , where I conside, Ihe problem of the d'Sp05S<:<;5ion of nalive inhabitants.
fo< Us TOJ,, )' 7. Wait." Bru.,gg~mann. Th L;.,.J , OIlT ( Phil"dclph;~ , FOflre'S! PTl:ss. 1974). t90-91. He
remark, ( 190), "'IX'hile the ArnlK ...m:!y h~"e nj:h Li and legit imale gri.,v~nces. Ih., }<:wish people
are ]X<uli .. rI~' lit<: pain<:<l voice of lit<: land :or broad1r ',he <:~flh' ) ,n the h,.lOry of hwnanily,
gn.,ved Rachd ...·eo:ping U.,r 31 , 15):
104 COHJ.lnS of OlJ T.<ttlmL>:1 Thwlogy
and that they will stand in a special rdation to God as a serving, worship ing
people.
Hopr for tJJe Future
This promissory co,·enant. based on God's ··steadfast love" (""srd). offers continu-
ity into the future. It gives [he people confidence as they move toward the fulfil! -
ment of the divine purpose. To be sure , on the 5Ubjective or human side . there are
uncertainties. anxieties. and flUstrations tha t are expressed in the stories from Old
Epic Iradition. [s God·s promise of family increase credible when there is no heir
(Gen. 15;1-6) or whco the ancestress of Israe[ is past childbNring age ( 18:1-15);
[s the promise of [a nd secure when the territory of future Israel hangs in the bal -
ance of Lot·s decision ( I 3:2- 17) or the Canaanites occupy the land ( 12:6:' Isn't the
promise of a future for the people of God nullifled by God's demand that Abraham.
in a decision of faith , lay on the altar h is only son. the one who is 10 inherit [he
promises (22: 1- I 8 )7~
These old storiC5. however, now function in the context of God's everlasting
covenant with Abraham and Sarah and their offspring. Despite the problems or
anxieties of faith, the promises of God, endorsed by God's solemn oath, are tn;st-
worthy. God's word stands flnn , even though everything else is lransient (1sa.
40,8 ). Even whe n evil designs seem 10 prevail, as in the Joseph story, Cod worb
for good, as }oscph sa}'s to his brothers in Egypt, "Even though you intended to do
hann to me, God intended it for good" (Gen. 50: 19). People may [ive in the time
o f ~the eclipse of God·· (Manin Buber's phrase), but in {he bold confidence of faith
the human story moves toward the horizon of God's fuwre for this people, Israel,
and [he na tions who will receive blessing. or ~ blessed, through th em (Gen.
18: 18; 26:4, 28: 14; d. 50:20).
TIlf Uuivmal and liJC Particular
Before we explore the place 01 ,he Abrahamic covenant in the unfolding story of
the Pentateuch, one point dese rves special attention. This covenant emphasizes an
imponant theological dimension of lsrael"s experience of the presence of the holy
God in the world . Recall Emil Fackenheim's observation that the experience 01
God's saving and commanding presence in history, when reflected upon philo ·
sophically, exhibits cenain tensions ur polaritie~. One of these "dialectical contra·
dictions~ is that the God who is creator of all tha t is and who is the Sole Power is
knOI"..n in and through the panicu la r, the historical experience of a people. In
prophetic trad ition this finds expression in t he vision of the pilgrimage of the
8. s~~ m~· ...,ay. 'Abrahlm, ,h.: Frie nd of God:· I~t 41 { t98B} 353-66, ~I>o the ,ummil.'Y 01
·Inals 01 hilh'· in U~Jmt.>cJi"9 t1.•• OLl r.,t~"'''': (4 th ed.; Engk ....·ood Cliffs. NJ , Pren'ic:c·Hall.
t9S6}, t 7J_77, abndged p.pt:rback cd. (Engkwood OirE. N.)., Prc-ntic",·Hali. 1997), t 56--60.
"Tb", Promissory Co"en~nt with Abraham 105
nat ions to Zion. from which Torah goes forth. with the result that they ~at their
swords into plowshares Osa. ] , 1-4; jI.·t ic. 4, 1_4 }.9
Christians have a good illustration of this paradox in the }oha nnine teaching
th arJesus is the W'ay, the Tru th , and the Life, and that ~no one comC5 to the Father
except through me" (John 14:6). Surely this statement. and others like il (Acts
4: 12), should nOI be Lonstrued to deny the universality of Gocl·s sway as creator
and Lord 01 humanity or that other people may have access to God. in a different
..... ay. Rather, the God who claims the community of fai th through Jesus Christ is
n
the God of all huma nkind, indeed . Christ is the "life that giv~ light 10 ~all peo-
ple·' Uoh n 1:4). The panicularity of God·, re"elalion in Jesus C hrist mus t ~ held
in le ns ion with the universa li ty of God's sovereignty manifest, perhaps in a hidden
manner, in gene ral human experience.
This paradox, th at the history 01 a panicular people d iscloses the God who is
truly God of all creation and all human beings. comes to expression in th e
Abrahamic covcnant. The theological mystery is ,h J[ of divine election, that is,
the calling of Abraham (0 be the bearer of God's promises. Abraham is called "the
frie nd of God" Osa. 41,S ); hc is "known~ by Go d in a special sense (Gen. 18: 19).
Yel Abra ham's callmg IS pan of GOlfs universal purvose. Keep in mind that one of
God's promises is that through Abraham·s people all lhe families of humankind will
be bl~sed I. ~n. 12 :3) {)f. as refonnulated in the Priestly chapler 17. that Abraham
and Sarah will be "the fath er·' and "the mother" of manv nal ions (t 7:5-6, 15-16).
Lal<::r an anonymous prophet. who reflected on the meaning of the ancestral tra-
ditions, expressed this paradox in magnificent poetry. Cod speaks to the desce n-
dants of Abraham and Sarah,
It is 101> li~<I'1 a tby 16: you ~boulJ &1 "'y >o:n',""/<
to ,,,ill wp tI'l trif.t-J t{ Jaw},
ad ro m/on Ih< ;IIIl."""" 4 limd,
I ",il[ gm. Y"" ," a Jig},t to the Y-1/:01".
Ib"t "'Y sal"~lio" ",.'y ""ch ~ ,'" mJ oJ Ih wrth
_Isi! 49:6
9 S~~ mv editorial colum" . ....\, 'U"-o rldwidc Pil ..,"mag~ to JC'usal~m:· llR S (J une 1991) 14, t 6.

13. THE TABERNACL.ING PRESENCE
Owing to the literary artistry of Pri~ tly interpreters, the Torah presents a mar-
vdous vision of a history tha t extends from creation in th e beginning to th e reve·
lation at Sinai, when Israel was established as a cuhic (ommunity. a worsh iping
people . Whe n one StopS to contemplate the overall work (Genesis through
Numbers), th e oH~ rarching theme is theologically excit ing. The Priestly To rah
annou nces that the holy God, the crea tor o t the unive rse and the sovereign of
history, has graciously condescended 10 be present in the midst of Israel , a wor·
shiping comm un ity.1
The Srwice oJ Worship
The H ebrew teTTIl lor Nwors hip" is aboJab , fro m a verb that means "'serve ." 'Worship
is the service of God, and Is rael , in th is sense, is called to be the servant of God,
Even yet we speak of worship services or "litu rgy" (from Greek Iliton '!Jia, meaning
"public service~)" The prophets of Israel insisted that the service of God, properly
understood, should extend ~yond the confines o f th e tem ple in to daily life, wh ere
God req uires people ~to do justice, love mercy, and walk hum bly wi th you r God~
(},,'Iic 6,8 )_ But non e of the great prophe ts was against the "cult" as such_ A non -
OIltic religion, one withou t fOTTIls, does not exisL Religion, when it goes beyond
individual piety or otherworldly mysticism and is a community exercise, inevitably
involves riruals, praye rs, ho ly t imes and places, leaders, and ordination- in short,
w
a ~"stem of worship_It is in t he basic se nse Dcultic. H ere, of course, wc bracket out
the popular. pejorative use of "cult" that t he dictionary defines as eX travagant , fad-
dish devo tion to a program or practice, for exa mpl e, the cult of nudism.
The whol e story th at ~gi ns with creati on , and is structured in a seq uence of
covenants (Noachic, Abrahamic, Mosaic ), is an imaginative constTUal of a world in
whic h God is present in the mimt of a worshiping people. As G erhard vo n Rad
remarks: the Pri estly theologians who have g ive n us the Pentateuch in its presen t
fOTTIl are "unerly se rious in wanting to show tha t the cult which entered h istory in
the people of Israel is the goal of the origin and de\'e!opment 01 t he world.
Creation itself was designed to lead to th is Israe1"- that is. the people gathered at
the foot of Mount Sinai J5 a worshiping "congregati on" (..Jab ) or "assembly" (q'abal l-
In the Gree k Bible (Septuagint), these tC TTIlS for thc people of God are translated
as rkklnia (church ) and ryna!Jogt {!>Ynagogue) . Early Christians, who read Israel's
Scriptures in Greek , adopted the teTTIl eI&ltlia to show that they, along with the
Jews of the sy>lago!J1, belonged to the people of God. (No tice Acts 7: 38, ~t h e
church in the wilderness.")
I. In this cr.ap'cr I d"' .... on a lectu re that I was im'i ted to gi"c On the Catholic rite of ordina-
tion in use at that time, "O.-dinal;on to the Prit<;t!y Order." W~flh;p 4} (August- September 1968)
4 3 1-41.
The T~bo:mading Presence 107
Gnd:' DWriUIlg P1.m
The keynote of Priestly theology 15 giv(:n in connection with the Sinai revelation •
the large hlock of priestly material that ha~ gravitated to Mount Sinai (Exodus
25- 32, 35--40, Leviticus 1- 17, N umbers 1- 10). Right at the ~gi nn i ng of this sec-
tio n Yahweh inSmlCtS jI.·1oses about the establishment of the cult:
Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may d .... ell among them .
- Exud. 25,8; see also 403-4_35
This note is echoed a few chapters later (Exod . 29,42--46) in a passage where it is
said that the tem of meeting is the place where Yahweh intends to mee t and speak
with the mediator of the covenant. ~'Ioo;es ,
I will meet with the ISJ<leli tes there. and it shall b~ sanClilled by my glory; I .... ill
consecrate the tem of mtttingand the altar, AaTOn also and his sons J will comie·
cra te, to serve me as priests. I will dwell among the Israeli tes, and 1 will be their
Cod. And they shall know that I am th~ LORD [ Yahw~h J thei r God, who brought
them out uf th e land of Egypt that I might dwell among them ,- I am the LORD
IYah""eh] th eir God.
- Ex(KL 29043 -46
At first glance it woul d seem tha t this announcement, that G od intends to
tabernacle in the midst 01 a people, is parall el to pagan myths about t he bUilding
of a te mpl e fo r the su preme deity_For instan ce. the Babylonian creation my th tells
how Marduk wins a great victory over llamat and her chaotic a1!ies, with the
result that the temp le 01 Esagila in Babylon is built for the high god _Also, in the
Canaani te (Ugarit ic) mYlhologicalliterarure a basic th eme is the building of a tem-
ple for Baalto celebrate his triumph over his adversaries, River and Flood.
In the Priestly vision, however, the building of a sanctuary for Yahweh--o ne
that prefigures the Jerusa lem temple- is not part o f a mythical drama. That is
d ea r from the reference to the exodus in a passage just cited (E.xod. 29:45 -46). The
making of t he sanctuary, in this view, is pa rt 01 a history/story that reaches a cli -
max in th e deliverance lrom Egypt. This ctucial evcnt has a prehistory that reaches
back through the anc estral period into the primeval history, ulti mately to crc-
ati on, the absolute ~ginning of everything. T hus we find a h istorical sequence:
creation, flood, ancestors, exodus, establish me nt of the cult at Sinai. As we have
seen, the fotmation of Israel as a cultic community is the goal of the movement o f
the whole story from the very beginning,
T1x S;g" of tb, Sabbath
The con nection between creat ion and the establishmerH of Israel as a worsh iping
commun ity is evident in the inst itut ion of th e Sabbath_ The cre ation story reaches
its climax with the announcemen! that G od "reste d-' on [he seventh day from th e
work of crealion (Gen . 2:2-3). To be sure , only t he verb (shab<lt, "rested") is found
here, not the noun (sba/.bal, "sabbath''( Nevertheless, the seventh day of rest is
implied; the Sabbath is ~hi dde n in creation." God rests, like an art ist who rejoices
 The TahemKling P~TlC~ 109

Inthe execution of his d~sign . BUI ...·hat is implicit In the creation stOI)' ~om~s mcc:ting ( okllfto{3j of Old Epic rradi tion_ According to the old tradition found in
explicit in th~ Sina i r~ela t ion . as is dear in Exod. 31: I 1 -1 7, a Priestly passage. The Exod. H:{ ·11 . 1'.'loses used to go OUt 10 !h~ t~nt, whic h was pitched ou tsid~ the
Sabbath is t h~ sign o f an "c~'Cr1asti ng covenant: camp. and there "Yahweh used to speak to Moses lace to face , as one speaks to a
friend · In Priestly perspective, ho.....ev~r. th~ ten t becomes an elaborat~ tabernacle,
It i~.a Sign for('V~ r bet"'~~n m~ and the peopk of ISf<l~llhat in six days the LORD
locat~d not outside but in the center 01 th~ ca mp. The~ the priestS-Aaron and
[Yahweh l madc hcavcn ~nd carlh, and 011 the sevent h day he rnted, and " 'JS
rdr~shcd. h is deKenda nts -mediate be t"'een God and peop le. If Cod is to be at the cemer,
-000.3 1 17 in the midst of the people. the n God's sa ncrua ry must be in the center, as in the
port rayal o ll he arra ngement of the Israeli te e ncampment (I'\um. 2: 1·2, sec fi g. 5 )_
As we have ~en previously (chaptcr IO), Pri~t ly interp rete rs vie\<,' the MosaIC
cove nant as an everlasting cov~nanl that sta nds in sequence wit h the covenant of
creation (Noachicl and th e covenant WIth the ancestors (Abrahamic). FIGURE, EncnmplImll oJ IN Tnbts of Tsrau
Thus a bridge is established from the sabbath rest of creation to the institution r\um. 1:1·31 Num.l(}ll·33
of dlC Sabbath at Sinai, linki ng the \\lhole story togcth~r at its beginning and its cli-
max (U:c/lIsio ). The Sabbath is rhe sign of a relat ionship betw~~n the holy Cod and
the people Israel, a relati onship that is stable and perperual ~ause it is grounded
in the will and purpose of the holy Cod, the Cr~.ltor. To remember the Sabbath,
and kee p it holy, is to se ns~ the myStCt)' of Cod's c reati o n a nd to celebrate " t h~
Beyond in Ollr Midst," to uo;e a ph rase of Dielrich Bonhodfer,l By sanctifying th is Naphtali Asher
segment of ti me, the seve nth day, all days are em braced " 'i thin Cod's purpose. In
Prit!'.l tl y Perspective the sharp separation of the sacred from the secular is ruled OUt;
there is no basis for a secularism in wh ich Cod is absent fro m socialbfe.
Hence th~ Sabbath o f Sinai harks back to th~ Sabb.ath "hidden in creation .~
Fun her, Israd 's communion wit h God in worship realiz~s the promise made to Judah*
Abraha m that th~ ti me would come when El Shaddai would be "their God,w Cod·
,n-rdation to th~ peo ple (Gen. 17:7). The making of a sanctuary is i nsepa rabl~

- .
from the disclosure o f the sacred name, YHWH. For .... hen Cod tums to ....·ard a
people, t hey h ave access to Cod and may call on the name of Cod in prayer-in J\ianasseh Issac har
lament. thanksg iving , and hymnic praise.
Priest ly i n te rpr~te rs affi rm that God's tuming toward th~ people is eviden t no t
only in wonderful deeds. such as the delh'erance from Egy pt ian bondage. but also
in the establishme nt of a cult in which the peopl~ a ~ gra nte d fel1o\o.·ship wi t h
Benjamin Zebulull
Cod Cod has ordained the sacriRcial cult as a means of grace so that the people
may reach out to God in prayer, and God may reach the people with divine grace
and fo rg ive ness. j

Tht Tabmwc/r God Simeon Rrubrn

In the symbolic la nguage of Priestly theo logy th e locus of God's presence in the
midst of the people is th~ -tabernacle" (mishlolllt ), thc Pric, tly vers ion of the lC'nt of

2. Diclrich Bonhoeifer. l.rtlm ~><J P"pm JI~ Prilol~. ed. Eberhard Be'hge, l1o~ Regmald Fuller
Cl al (Ne .... York, j\·\acmillan. 1967), 182. I ~m ¥laldull0 R""'erend BaninJ Kluen~m~n for ,his
reference.
1 ~ Cc:rhard ~"'IX1 Rad. DU Tt\"LlOWftI ~~. tlan.. D "'_G. Stalhr. 2 "ots. (Ne\<-· York, COP~Tight Cl 1985 by The Zonde,,"an Corpor.J.tion_ Used by permission oi Zondr",,,n
HlI"per I< Ro..... 1962-651, UH-H. Publishm@. House.
I I0 COI'/owrs 01 00 Ttl~u"nrl 17w:ofcgy
[t ma)' be that. once upon a time. lhe two ancient cultic itemr---the ark and the
lent-had different theologic31 meanings. To ancient Israel, the ark- regarded 3S
the throoe·seat of Yahweh-----was the sign of God's immediate and continuing prcs-
ence with the people in theIr wars and wanderings (see the Song o f the Ark. Num.
10:35-36). When the ark came imo the camp. the ~ople were "enthUSiastic," lit-
erally "in Cod" i Greek rn + lI".oj, "possessed of god"), ;is vividly descri~d in I S;iID.
4 :5-9_By comrast. the tent belongs 10 a tradition that is more reticent about afilnn -
ing God's immediate presence among the people. h is a re ndezvous or meeting
place between Yahwe h . the God of the coven~ m. an d l\1oses. the covenant medi -
ator. yah ...·eh does not d ....,ell in the tent. but from time to lime comes from heaven
to meet with " '\05($ and give instTll Clions through Moses to the people. ~
In an itlumin,l.ting essay, Gerhard van Rad atte mp ts to show t ha t Priestly
theologians combined these once separate trad itions-a theology of div ine pres-
ence an d a t heology of di\'i ne manifestatio n-by pulling the ark inside the tem
(see o.od. 16:31-35) or, o ddly, on tOp of th e tabernacle (36: 14). God's prese nce
was nOt a constant presence as symbolized by the 3rk; Cod d id nOt dwell
(Hebrew ymbab ) in the sanctuary, rather, from time to time God would come EO
tent (sbakal!) with the covenant mediator in the tent (m is hhm ) and be available to
the people in prayer and worship. Artempting to do justice to both Cod's tran -
scendence (te nt ) and immanence (a rk ), the two are combined symbol ically: t he
ark is PUt inside the lem.!
W'hatcvcr may be the merit of this theory, the theological issue oltranscc n-
dence and imm3nence is as pres5in8 today as it was in b iblical timcs. The hol)' Cod
.... ho is tra nscendent. beyond the human ......orld, does not dwell permanently in any
building; ye t a call to worship usually invokes God to be present in the midst of a
gathered congregation_
The Clef)'
One of the most important aspects of Priestly symbolism IS "glory: a tenn that pe r-
vades th e Old Testament and the New (Hebre ..... k"hod, e.g., rsa, 6:3; 40:5; Crcek
doxa, John 1: 14; 15:8). Hebrew kabod has various meani ngs. It b3sica!ly means
· weight" and thus applies to a person o f weight o r impona nce. \X' hen applied to
God, it refe rs to Cod's visi ble manifcsta tion. usuall y as radiance or resplendent
ligh t (later, the Sheki nah ). Only in this symbolic sense is God visible, otherwise no
human being may see God (Exod. 33:20). This scene is picked up in one o f our
church hymns:
-l Fr~nk M. C~~ m~intains Irnl PrieSlly ",rit., ,,,. in order 10 avoid Itw: nOl.io-n tha t the ~n' ­
(~ ry IS !it~,.,lly Gods d...·elling place. emplo}'ed the ~rchaizing lechnic.i l Icnn .,!,ob: ',b.orn. l
...·hich in ununite meant "to tent' ""-"10 lead the ro,..,nll' Me of the tellt d ...·c-HC1'· ,&r"",,~il( .~l);b
a..J H,&,t'~, Eprc ~Cambridge Ha. " ..ud Un,v. Press. 19731 298-300 ).
5. Gerh3rd von Rod, T1!t P",hu.. 41bt Ho:al.,..;b~"J Odlt!" E!l~Y', ""ns. E W. Tru.,man Dickcn
(N,-w York: MeG",...'- Hill, I966). I0 3-2~. idem, Thol.:.fy. 1:B -t-t 1.
The Tabemading Presence 1 11
G"" j F"I~~r cJ Glol)'. PUft Fatlm- of Lght,
n,,-~, ~~4m liJ"'1 Tht~, all IltIi'-"g ,briT S':9bl.
Ail I....J ay lI>O~iJ md". ch &ti,Jo ~, 14>'~
To, ""ly!/)( 1~I",JCf 0/ Lybr boJdh rb.r 6
[n Old Epic traditio n, God's \'isi ble manifestation is a IUm inOllS cloud. see n 3S
a bright cloud by da~, and fi re by night (Exod . 16: 10). In Priestly tradition, how-
ever. God's glory is visibly man ifest in, or abo\'e, the tabernacle. ;i protorype of tOe
later te mple (as in Isaia h's temp le visio n). Thus ",e read in Exod_ 40:34,
Then the cloud co~'" ..,d lhe lent 01 meeting, and lh" IIlor)' ot Yahwc h filled the
tabernacle.
The narrator goes o n to say tha t whenC"\'er this radiant cloud was take n up, the
15raelites moved forward in their journey, with God goi ng ahead of them. God's
~glory" co uld fill the sanctuary, shOWing the presence of God, but God's "glory" is
not co nfi ned to a holy place (lsa. 63;_ even the i!TC3[ temple o f Jerusale m. As we
shall see when deali ng wilh ,he prophecy of Ezekiel . God's "glory" could Ica..-e the
temp le and go ...·ith the people into exile (Ezek. 10:4 1. The symbolism indiC3te<;
{h~t God is mobile. o n the move.
[n Priestl}' perspective Ihis is Cod's world, for God has chosen to be present at
the center of the community- in the tabemadC-3nd in this sense to tabe rnacle
in the mIdst of the people. JUS t as the Sabbath make<> all times holy, so the [3her·
nacle sanctifies space_ T he land around th is center, th at is, the land of Israel,
becomes a ho[)' la nd because it is the s.cene of a hislOTY that reaches its climax in
the creation of a sanctuary where people have access to the holv - God who is
Creat or and Redeemer. This sacramental vie w is comparable to the view in the
.
prologue to the Gospel of John, wh ich 3nnounces that in the beginning Ihe divine
logos was made fles h and "tentcd [ tabe rnackd J among us. w e nabling peo ple of
faith to beh old God's glory in Jesus Christ Vohn I: 14, d _ 13:31 , etc.).
In connection ....,ith the ann ou ncement that God will d",'ell in the midst of the
people, it is said that Cod designates Aaron an d his sons to serve as priests in the
sanctuary. God saTlCtifies (makes holy or sets aside) t he tent of meeting o r taber·
nacle as the di vine dwelling pl ace and consecra tes th e priests dcscend"d from
Aa ron, Moses' priestly aide, 10 serve at the altar (hod. 29:43·,,6).
\X' e turn. (hen . to a consideration of t he role ot priests m the Pries tly theol-
ogy of the Torah? This is an un fam ilia r subject to m any modern Chris(ians.
except th05e in th e Cathol ic or Episcopal c hurches who speak o f their spiritual
leaders as priests. not JUSt ministers, pastors. o r preachers. It h35 also become a
6. ·Immortal. Invisi ble: by 'il:'il,eT C SmIth ( 181 ...... 1908).
7 Stt Richard D. Nel son. IWi<i~g U, .. FaitJ,f..! p""t· C"",",~.,1y ",.J ~,booJ iKBiblIC~1 TInology
( LO<Ji~" ,l l e , W'. ,nminstcr/John K no~ . 199,).

contTove~I~1 subJect ~mce: it scems to give no support to t~ ordin~lion of women
illS dergy.
It is appropn;ne 10 begin wilh Ihe role of Mo~ as covenant mediator belween
God and people:. While: inte rpreters in the Mosaic tradition viewed Moses as a
prophet, the: ~illtest of them all {see the- conclusion to the book of Deuteronomy,
]4-: 10-12), Pnesdy Imerprc:ters ponrayed him In a pric:stly role. iIIcting alongside
hIS pnesdy brother. NrOn.
Priestl}, mu:rpreters huilt on their kno .... ledge of anciem tradition that por·
myc:d MO!.CS as cove:n~nt mediator. I Yah ...·eh dc:signatc:s Moses as the onc: .... ho is
to come into the Immediate preSl"TlCe of God iIInd then return 10 speak to the peo.
pie (Exoo. 19:901; d . ]" :27). ~Ioreove r. the people. standing back in fear and tn:m ·
bling from the a ....esonle mountain, asked for a mediator,
You speak [0 lA. lnd ,,"' ( ..,lIl~(n, OO[ do nol Irt Cod speak 10 us. or ...-e .... ill die.
-l["1Ied. 20. 18·21
A major prerogative of the covenant medlat'Or is intercessory prayer, that is, rep-
~nling the people bl:fore God (Exod. 32:30-32). a task that was taken up by
prophets " ,ho slOod in the Mosaic tradition Uer. 15:1), and which may be per-
formed by an y ministe r who stands in the succession of biblica l priests and
prophets. In the biblIcal vi~·. prayc: r can make a diffc:rc:nce in God's attitude. and
cilln e~'Cn "persuade" Cod to iIIlter a course of iIIctioll. H uman beings are not caught
in ~Dlrstic necessity before a Cod who is apathetic or powerless, ~ther, Cod's
SQ\'erc:ign exercise: of po....er is Aexible and open to the future!
Funhermore. Pm:stly t~diti on emphasized Moscs' Lc:viticallincage. Accord·
ing to ancient tradition. 1\ loses was born of the tribe: of Lc:vi (Exoo. 2: I). Very early
the lc:vites were se t aside as a landless tribe: whose: Pponion" w~s Yahweh, thilt is,
they .... ere: sct apilln IS priests "'hose tils-k was to give IOrah and ofliciillte iIIt the altilr.
Recall the Story IIlJudges 17 ~oo 18 in which a Le.,·ite ...·015 d~fted to be: chaplain
to the migrating Danltes.
Thus t~ ponraits of Moses the prophet and Moses the- pncsl stand side by
side in the: Penateuch, eillch reflecting the- vie"''S of the: circle tlu.t ""ields the: brush.
In Israelite society prophecy WillS a calling, a vocation. A person was designated as
a prophet by some spttiill ellperience or manifestation of Cod's Spirit (sce Amos
7 ; 14- 15). Prophecy WillS cNraClerized by spontaneity and nee-dom, for the- Spin!
rs lIke ....ind: Wit blowe:th where it listeth [choosesL- as the KJV put it Uohn 3:8). By
conrraSl, pnesthood "'IS iln · oflke" to which a person ....as ~ordainedW or, ro use
more biblical language, for .... hich an indi~'idual was ~consecratedY (ElIod. 29:44).
There is a difference ber-..·cen -voca tion" (calling) and · professio n"' {exercise of a
public role}, though these two lend to o\'erlap in the modem undeTStillnding of
8. A helpful d,scuwun (It Old Epic U and El [radilion5 ;. found in Mo,Hrill)' Ne...·man. Th p,~:o/t
ofli'f (ormon--l A 51...1)' 4 ",. . .1j""" /110ft! 10 d,. AIor.--t,y (N"",,' Yorlo;· Ab;n~, 1962).
9. Fw an rlI«'IlC1It d'SCUUlOn of biblical pnlye-. ,"duding in!rrcrsSOT)' pnI)lrf. ~ Pallid. D
~hlln- T&q Cnd I§ tilt ~J Th ~ ad Tbtoloyy of ~ Pr.oyrr (Minnnpol", Fonrru Press.
19').1 1, mv revirw. TTcJ..)' 52 tluly (995 ) li6-81
Thr Tillbc:macling PtesclKX 11 3
ministry. Today many say ttm the ideal ministry IS o nc that combi~ both priestly
and prophetic roles
Prirsrly OrJi,:alh:in ad SIIC(osio"
Exodus 29 SCts forth the- rite for the ordmilltion of a person to the high primhood.
im
The mdi ... idual ....as "anointed" .... oil (19,7) iIIOO thus-hke a king-<ouJd be: con-
sideltd -the Lord's illnoinred. Ordination , In the Pnestly view, has thrc-c: major
iIISPC:CtS.
First. in thil; context ordmat ion implic<; pne5tly orders. that IS, a hierarchical
synem in which the h,gh priest is assisted by Levitical priem of lesscr rank..
Indeed, the ......ord "hierarchy" baSically means. as Ihe dictionary lells us, "a sys tem
of church government b)' priests orother cle rgy 10 graded ranks" or orders. Not all
pricstS have the ume rank in the administration of sacramental mes; some: play a
support,,'e role.
Sc:cond. priests ....ere indlspcnsable m worship scrvices because they officiated
at the ~ltar. They d id so me teachmg (Le" [hey ga\'e IOrah ), but primarily they
ser.'ed at th e altar where sacnfices were performed that were befie\'c:d 10 be: e ffi-
cacious in making atonement for the people and mediatIng 10 the people the for-
giving and healing grace of Cod (sce c hapter 14).
Finally, ordination provided continuity from generation to generation, as evi·
dent in the pricstly llOeage or sucCI"Ssion Indeed, the: emphasis on the con tinuity
of Cod's co~nant purpose for the commumty of filith is a fundamental note of
Priestly thcology. This contrastS wnh anCient Israelite prophecy, which strcssc:d
th e nO'lelty and drscontinuity of Cod's actIons. We think of the prophets follow-
ing one anmher in sequence, beginning with Amos. but they were re:lativdy inde-
pendem figures who arose sporadically. 1nc no tion 01 a prophetic ·succession~ is
rc:iIIlly an oX)·moron. On the: o ther moo. p~ts Stillnd for order in the: service of
Cod. JUSt as Priesrly theology enVIsions a provIdentially ordered succession of
events (creation, NOillChlc covc:nillnt , AbrahamlC covenant, Sinai revelation), so
,hiS tradition emphasizcs that the wit established ilt Sinai was based on an ordered
priestly succession.
Because of problems of succession, the hiStory of the Isradite priesthood is a
compl icated mancr. We find hints of the ISSlle of priestly succession in the Old
EpIC tradition. Those: ..... ho wc:re Invited to tne covenant meal in the- presence of the
Cod of Israel on top of l\lount Sinal (Exod. 24 1·1 , 9·11 ) ...·ere Moses, Aaron,
Nadab. Abihu, as ""ell as ,he sc\.'en[)' ciders. This may suggest ill priestly succc:ssion,
beginning wilh ~ loscs"o In any case:, thiS was the willy the mdition was inter·
preted by the Prtestly school. To Priestly Interpreters it " 'ould nOt have seemed
accidental that tho~e invited 10 the ~summit meeting" were men tioned in that
order. This is eviden t from the Pnestly HenealolD' found in Exod. 6: 15-24. which
traces a Leviticallinc of successio n from 1\<10SC1; and Aa ron through Aaron's third
son Eleaza r to Phinehills (cl. Exoo. 28 : 1 I ). Accurding 10 Priestly tradition (lev.
- ,

The Tabcmac;ling Presence 115

10: 1. 3), Nadab an d Abihu. the IWO older sons o f Aaron, were destroyed fo r mak- at the altar as ministers of the everlasting covenant. Even today the priestly bless~
ing an unautho rized offerin g, and they died ch ildless. Hence the revi~d succes- ing. entrusted to Aaron and his sons (the Zadokite Jerusalem clergy), is given to a
sion wa5: Moses , Aaron, Eleazar, and Ithamar. as in Numbe rs 3 (also O:od . 28: I). worshiping congregation:
Also included in this line was Phinchas, the son of Eleazar (hod. 6:25, cf. Num.
,\ 1oly GoJ b!rss),,,,, <;nJ ffl~ )1:>11.
25: 10-13),
Al.,y GoJ show J'''''T "i"m )"O~, ..d bt gr~,itJl" '" YCC<,
Urnkrl ying these prosaic genealogical details is the "ie...' that the order of the ,'1.1y CcJ 1>.510&0 .ltrnJ~rs! ~JlO'<)'OI'. ~I<i!lict)'Oll t><;J(t.
priesthood expre<Sscs God's covenant grace, whic h contin ues wi th [srad in ~~. -Num_ 6,14-26 (BWA}
ru ily. !ndeW. j( is said that God granted 10 the A~ ronic line of p ries ts, s~ifically
10 Phinchas, a ~covenanl of ~ace: that is, "a covenant of pe~tua l priesthood"
( Num. 25:13-14).

Who 5~ab Jor God,

From all of th is it ;s clear that the Israelite priesthood was not a charismatic office,
based on a gift of the Spi rit or ,klrislIL<I. T he priests, iH kan the best of them, d id
not want to ruk out the act i\·ily of th~ Spirit and did nor necessarily stand in oppo-
si tion to [h~ prophets. In sociological tcrms, how~v~r, the Priestly theology o f
ord~r was an ideology, that is, a justification o f th~ Jerusalem power establishment.
It is not surprising that vo ices of protest are heard, at least faintly, in the evolving
trad ition_
A murmuring of protest is heard, for instance, in a strange incident reported in
Number.; 12_ Irked about J\-1oses' manying a Cushite woman, Miriam (the sist~r of
Moses) joined Aaron the priest in challe ng ing Moses· authority: "H as Yahweh
spoken only through Moses? Has h e not spoken through us also7" { urn. 12:2).
," Ioscs' prophetic auth Ority was upheld, and the punishment fe ll only on Miriam,
in th e form of the outbreak ofa skin disease. The story is hard to unders tand, espe·
cially why Miriarn is treated so harshly while Aaron, thc co·conspiratOr, gets ofi
scot-lTce _Perhaps it reflects a power strugg le in the communi ty during the mona r_
chy, especialh' over the charismatic rol e of a wo man known to be a prophetess
(Exod. 15,20). 11 [n any c~. here an ordained priest and an unordained woman
join in r.tising the ques tion o f who speaks for God~a perennial question '
It is clear that in the O ld Testament period the office of priesthood was
reserved for me n. When studied sociologically, the Priestly view reflects a male
ordering of society_ 'X/ hen viewed theologically. howeve r, il is not SO clear that
masculinily is necessarily required for a priestly ministry_ Mediation of the grace
o f th e ~ev~r1astin8 covenant" is essentially tied up with the of}Ct of the priest. nOI
with the person who occupies it.
In any case, priestS min ister alo ng with prophets in Israel"s sef'lices of worship.
When prophecy ceased in Israel, itwas the priests who pre<;erved the words of the
prophets so thallhey mi ght be read in ser.lices of worsh ip_ The Priestly concern,
as we have seen. was to stress the orde r of Israel's service of worship, to stand for
the continuity of God's gracious presence throughout the generations, and to serve

11. ~ my roitoriil essay ' M rri am's ChaUen~: BR 10 \.Iune 1994) 16.
r
14. PRIESTLY THEOLOGY
OF SACRIFCE AND ATONEMENT
We tllnl JJOW to the priestly sacrificial ~yslem set forth in the Priestly sections of
the book of Exodus: Exodus 15-31 and 35-40 and the book of Leviticus, The ser·
vice of worship described here is paralleled, with some differences, in Ezckie1
40-48, which envisions the new temple 10 su per:>ede the onc destroyed in 587 B.C.
This part of t he Old Testament is vcry difficult for modem readers of the Bible:.
After the vivid, engaging narratives of primeval history and the ancc5u'al hislOry
and those dealing with exodus and Sinai in the first part of the book of Exodus
(Exodus 1-2 4 ), what a change1 Reading this m3H::riai i .. the modern form of wan-
dering in the wilderness_ lhc -Leviticus syndrome: as it has Ixt-n called, 1"..cakeM
and panlyzes the reader's resolve 10 go iorv:ard. Yet it is in the book of Levit icu~
that ....'e An d, like a di amond in the rough , the command ment. 'Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself" (Lev. 19, \ 11. KjV ), the commandmen t quoted by earlr rabbi s
and by Jesus as the heart of the Torah .
Ritual mId Br/ifj
To deal with this difficult material. it may be helpful to begin with a general word
about the relation between ritual and belief in a community of faith . The rituals of
priestly sacrifice, though no longer pracliced in }udaism or Christianity, say some~
thing essential about God 's relatiOn 10 the community of faith. "the people of
God .~ RilUal is belief that is acted out by the people in corporate ....·orship or by
their representatives, the ministers or prieslS. In rdigion what is dor.t in worship is
sometimes more important than what is said. Action~ may express convictions
about God and God's relat ion to the people more doquently than words or e"en
specific theological ~tatements . lOur task, then, is to find out what is expressed in
the ac t of making sacrifices to Cod al an altar as depicted especially in Leviticus.
A Book 0/ WorshiP
In early rabbinic Judaism the book of leviticu~ was called ~the priest's manuar
(foralb kobmrilll). It could be called more appropriately ~the book of ....'orship: since
it deals not only with the function of priests but also with the laws and rituals that
the laity should follow to be a holy people.l
There is a continuity between the books of Exodus and Leviticus. The Priestly
material in ExodU5 tells about the making o f the tabernacle and its furnishings.
1. See Jieob .~·\ilgrom. ·Sc.,; ng th., Ethiol W il hin the Rmul.' BR 8 (Au~t 1992) 6, s-e., ~I~o
tus major comm.,ntary. u.,ili"" 1-16. AB 3 (New Yon:.; DOllbl.,day, 1991 ).
2. In ~ddi(ion 10 jI.·\ilgrom's (Ommentuy on levitiCUS '\tt 1"'-3cl Koohl . Tht s..~(("".,. cISikr.cr-
rtot Pntstiy Tc.,,;' wo! tbr I--f",l"",. ScMl (~Hnnupolis: Fortn:s& Pn:s5. 1995 I, .. nd B.l.rueh u-.·ine. loo
p","""
lilt of tilt 1MJ (Ltiden, Brill. 1974).
P~d)" Theology of SaCrifice .. nd Atonement 117
incl uding priestly vestments. Leviticus S~\O Iells of the investitu re and induction
of the priests ahe r [he sanctuary has ~n completed.
An important detail, found at the begi nning of thi-s material. may easily escape
attention. The whole layout, we are told. i~ 10 be made according 10 the ~pattern~
or "design" (tamlilb) that God revealed to :\:\oses on the mountaintop (Exod. 25,9 ,
40). To later interp reters this suggested a typolOgical correspondence bcJWeen the
he av enly and the earthly. bc""een transcendent reality and its shado"')' replica as
in Platos philffiOphy, which contrasts eternal forms (the Good, True, and Beautiful)
and their i m~rfect temporal manifestations. The Ep istil! to the HebTt'w~ . which
quotes the detail iTom Leviticus (Le\'. 25:9, 40), interprets the earthly lemple and its
sacri ficial system as -a shadow and copy of what is in heaven" (Heb. 11:5). Christ is
the high priest who enters into the sanctuary of God's presence and makes the per-
fect sacrifice of his own blood.
One neni not make Ih is specific christological interp retation 10 sense that the
portra}'al o f the temple and its sacrificial system in Leviticus leads beyond the lit·
eral sense. Speaking out of rabbinical tradition, Jon lcv<:nson. a Jewish theologian .
observes that the temple of Zion (here prefigured in the tabernacle ) "represents the
fXlssibility of meaning above hi§tory. OUt of histot;·, through an openi ng into the
realm of the ideal. ... Tht temple and ils rites." he continues, · can be conceived
as the means for spiritual ascent from the lo\"er to the higher realms, from a posi-
tio n distant from God to one in his very prcscroce.";
Wbm Grxi Dr<lW! Nr<l'
Everyth ing in the boo k o f Leviticus is based on the fundamental Priesdy premise
tha t the holy God has chosen to tabernacle in the midst of the people. God'~
intention i~ stated in Exod. 25 :8 (d iscussed above. chapter 13) in connection with
the description of the sacrificial iyStem, "Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may
dwell in their midst."
Thu~ Cod chooses ro dra ...· near. to be present to a worshiping people. But this
raises an inescapable question: \,\!/ho is worthy to stand in God's holy presence;:
Cod's dra ....·ing near may, and usually does, evoke an overwhelming sense of un wor-
thiness, moral inadequacy. guilt. That was Isaiah's experience at the Ilmc of his can
to be a prophet (Isaiah 6). In the temp le he was oveTwhelmed with God's majestic
holine~~, an experience echoed in the well -k nown hymn, ~Holy, Holy. Holy." H is
rcspon!ie to Cod's holy presence was a feeling of unworth iness, of utter inade -
quacy:"Woe is me! 1am lost, for I am a man of unclean lips and 1live among a peo-
ple o f u nclean lips!- Then something strange ,md unexJX:cted happened in his
visio n. One o f the ministers in God's heaven ly temple, which in his imagina tion
corresponded to the earthly copy, took a coal from the altar, touched his lips. and
said: "Your guilt has departed and you r sin is bloltl!d out." The vcrb translated
'blotted out"' (ttbppnr) is an atonement verb . meamng to remove the effects of sin
3. Jon D. L:-venson, S;'-.JI; ~..J Z""". Al< E~:r:r ir.t3 tl<t Jr.",,); Biirlt iMinnnp<>hs: WinSIOn, 1985).
HI .
I I8 Cm'/OWT! of Old Tr;/",.",r TItc!ogy
and to ~store good re lations with God-in other words, to forgive. Thus Isaiah,
a lorgiven person, was enabled 10 stand in God's holy presence and offer himsel f
m service.
Isaiah's ex~rience in the temple helps us to understand the meaning of the
sacrificial system of the book of Leviticus. The prie5ts were obsessed with an inor-
dinate sense of guilt and sin in the prese nce of t he holy God. As a biblical poel
said , God's holiness is a consuming fire:
Tbr si"",,, i~ liar. ,;re afraid,
rr"" f,iing h" \,;zl<! 11,[ goJlrss,
-Wk "mOllj/ W\ ca" li~~ wdh tht devouring fir.?
Wb~ "mo,,!! Wj corn /;'" wilb "",la, ling jlamt>!"
- Isa. 31,14
That sense of human unworth iness is also expressed in the message of the priestly
prophet, Ezekie1 , who was overv.'helmed with the aweful contrasl be,ween the
ho ly God and human beings.
In the Priestly view, however, the sacrificial rituals, and preeminently the
'>3crifice o n the Da~' of Atonement, the high holy day, signify Cod's willingness to
accept, cleanse, and renew so that people may live in Cod's holy presence and
offer themselves in the service of God. In these sacrifices the shedding of blood
was held to be efficacious; for blood was regarded as the seat of the mystery of life
and as such was sacred !O Cod, the give r of life_ Echoing Old Epic I'r<!.dition (Gen.
9:4), Leviticus states the fundamenta l premise 01 sacrifice:
The li fe ot the Rcsh is in the blood., and I ha"e gi\'en it to you lor maki nB atonement
for your live-s on the aliar; for, as life, it is the blood that makts 3lUntment.
- Le".
Sacrificr
Why the sacrifice of anima ls or the offering o f foodlln !V!e50pOlamian religion,
priestly service of worship was for {he purpose of supplyi ng th e gods with what
they needed, including food offered in sacrifice. Alt hough Leviticus uses the
archaic expression "the food of Cod" (Lev. 11 :6), th e whole idea of Cod hunger-
ing for food or savoring the odar of sacrifice is repudiated. That notion is foreign
to Israel's experience of WOT<;hip (see Ps. 50:20). Rather. in Priestly t heo logy
these rituals metaphorically express Cod's readiness to establish good rdat ions.
They are ritual ways of expressing belief in Cod's power to overcom e the sin that
d istances people from Cod so that they may live in communio n or fellowship
with God _
Accordi ngly, in the Priestly view the sacrificial system is a means of grace that
God has provided_ Various sacrifices are set forth in the priestly manual in
Leviticus 1-7, and in Leviticus 16 we find the ritual for the Day of Atonement
(Yarn Kippur), the supreme holy day.
Priestly Theology of Sacrifice and Aton.rntem 119
A'laiH Ty;t>ts o} Sanijiu
Leviticus 1---6 presen!> three types of s.acrifice,4
I. The who le burnt offering ( olah). This "hol ocaust," probably the olde5t kind
of sacrifice, is the only offering to Cod that is wholly consumed by fin: on the altar.
It is fundamentally an act of praise, in recognition that Cod is th e giver of life,
health , and peace,
1. The "peace offering" (zrbllb sh.-lamim or shr/!'IrI ). or as Jacob Milgrom translate5,
"th e well.bd ng offering," is the second type .~ Part of this offering (suet) is offered
in smoke to Cod, part is rece ived by the priests, and the remainder is given to the
donor for a familr meal. This is a social occasion for celebrating the I-Thou
covenant relationsh ip, communion with Cod and fellowship with one anothe r.
3. The -sin offering" (ba!tath ) and ~guilt offering"' ( asb'lm j belong togelh er. The
purpose of this sacrifice is 10 remove contamination arising from inadvertent
violation of laws (e.g., those that specify the distinction between "dean" and
"uncle ~ n ") . The priestly manual emphasizes that Ihis is efficacious for sins com-
mined · unwittingl y" and hidden from the community_ For sins commilted "With a
high hand, " that is, in del iber<!.te arrogance, the~ is no provision in the priestly
svstem (Num. 15:30·3 1)_
The donor is to present these offerings "at the enlr<!.nce of the tent of meeting
50 as to secure ~cceptance before the lord [YahwehJ" (Le", 1:3, REB). This harks
back to the descript ion of the tabernacle in Exodus 15f1., which states that in the
tabernacle Yahweh comes to meet the peo ple through the priestly mediatOL The
role of the priest, as we have noted, includes several functions: to give torah (or
"teaching") about the tradition, 10 validate offe rings acceptable to God, to render
a decision in difficult cases, and above all to mediate God's grace and forgiveness.
17,1 t
At-OI1~-Ment with God
Because these s.acrifices art" efficacious in overcoming {he sinful distance bet\O,'een
the people and Cod, they are ·-acceptable in your behalf as atonement (lev. 1:4).
The Hebrew verb used here (kipprr) means baSically "to cover,~ and then NW make
ame nds, expiate," and so on. [t is nicely translated by our English word "atone,W
which goes back to an old word meaning »to be alone, in agreement." The s.acri-
ficial rituals, espedalIy those prescribed for the Day of Atonement, express the
w
view that God acts to "cover" or remove the effects of sin and to be "at one - in
accord-with the people; in other words, Cod seeks reconciliation_ God provide5
the means of ~at - one - ment" so that a sinful people may be accepted in the presence
of the holy God. like Isaiah in the temple, peT<;ons may experience the forgivc:ne5s
of Cod, which, like a cleansing fire from the altar, touches their live-s, empowering
them to serve the holy Cod.
4. For 3 brief discussion 01 th.- various SilcriileC';. see Susan Ranr:ay, ' \ilol"ihip,· in H<lrptrs Bibk
Dict'{rnary. e& Paul Achtemei.-r.-, al. (San Franeis-;:o, Harper >!< Row, 1985); Roland d.- Vaux pro·
vidc> ~ 'horough discussion in "~~it< in O!~ Tr5",,,,,,,r "~c"fo:r (Cardili, Uni"e5ity of Wale. Pre-s>,
19641-
j , J3<:ob "-'jil,,'fom, u.,,~ic~, ,- '6.
,
120 CC>lI<}ll~ of OIJ T!St~ .."'t n,,,,lvgy
Tbt Ivltrcy Stat
In the Priestly view, as ",'C have secn, God meets with the people in the tem -
ple (the fanner te nt of meeting) and its services. \X!ithin that sanctua!)" holiness is
espttially intense in the innennost shrine, the Holy of HoliC5. In tha t inner sanc-
tum is the ark, with guardian cherubim on either side, on , . . hich God was supposed
to ~ invisibly enth roned, as reflected in an enthronement psalm:
Th Low [Y"rn:,'(~1;, ki~g, lrt I'" propl" trmbl.,
H, lils m(hrQ~,J ~t>o" ,Ix ,k,yo,,,,; 1~ riM tJ.rlh q~dktl
- Ps. 99; I
The cover of the ark is called the kapPDrrlh (described in Exod. 25, 17·22), a
term based on the \"(~ rb for "atone" (hpptr). In the Priestly view, this is the seal of
God's holy pres~ nc~ in th~ midst of the people where God app~ars to make atone-
ment, ~spccially by the sprinkling of blood on the Day of Atonement (Lev_ 16: 14-
16 )_Traditionally, the Hebrew word for ·cover~ has be~n transla t~d ~m~ rcy s~aL"
The loRD [Yah,,·eh] said (0 MO'SN
Tel! your brother Anon not 10 come JUSt at any ti m~ into Ihe sanctuary inside the
curtain before Ihe mercy seat Ihal is upon the ark, or he will die, For I appNr in the
c100d upon the mercy sea \.
-Le". 16,]
Christian hymns have adopted and enlarged this priestly symbolism \"hen appeal-
ing to p«Iple 10 -come to the mercy seat," that is. to stand before the throne of
Christ and receive grace and forgiveness.
Propitiation or Expiation?
Does "atonement" in these Priestly passages invoke "prop i t iation~ or "expia tion"~
The difference betv.'een these 1''''0 leons is vel)' important theologically. In th~ for·
mer case, the view would be that Cod, who is angry and alienated by human sin ,
requires something to appease divine anger before showing favor 10 the sinne r.
The hindrance la reconciliation lies with God. By contrast, in Ih~ cas~ of expiation
th~ hindrance to right relationship with God lit"s in human sin and the obstacle is
overcome by the Cod-proVided means of grace.
One must recognize that the priests have retained traditional la nguage that
should not be pres~d literally. An example is the concluding rubric: "A pleasing
odor to Yahweh- (Lev. 1,9, etc). This archaic metaphor is found in the Rood SIOI)'
(Gen. 8:21), which states that Yahw~ h "smelled the pleasing odorw and vowed
never again to bring such a cataclysm. T he language recalls th e even bolder
description in the Babylonian flood story of the gods smelling tht" odor of sacrifice
and crowding around the allar lik~ Aies_ Moreover, onc can find instances where
the verb kipptr is used to express appeasement, as in the case of Jacob's offer of a gift
N
to Esau to "appease his wrath (Gen. 32:20}_
Appeasement does no t, however, accord with the Priestly theology of atone ·
ment. First, in t he Priestly view Cod is th~ one who provides the whole sacrificial
Priestly Thoology of Sacri~<;o:: and Atollemenl 12 1
5Y5t~m according to a Hpatl~rn" given on the mountain. S~cond, in some cases God
is actually the subject of the verb kip/IN: God "makes atonement fo r" (2 Chron.
30,13)_ Finally, wh~n Cod is the subj ~ct of the v~ rb, it may mean "forgive" (Ezek....
16:63; Deut. 2! :8 . Ps. 78 :38 ). This is the way the verb is us~d in a passage consid-
ered previously: th~ account of the call of Isaiah (Isaiah 6). In the temple the
prophet hears the words of assurance: "Your sin is forgiven" (kipptr, v. 7). In this case
100, God is the one who tak~s the initiative to cancel th~ consequences of sin. This
view seems to be ~x pres~d in Isaiah 53, wh ic h calls the servant's sacrifice an 'a5bam,
a sin olfering, that reslOres broken relations with Cod (lsa . 53: 10).
In shon, aton~ment involves "~ xpialion,~ not ~propitiation_~ In the Priestly
view, God takes the initiative to overcome the barrier of human sin and provides
the means of grace for restoring good relations, that is, reconciliation. It is appro-
priate, then, that in th~ Communion Service of the United Methodist Church,
which once read: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also
Ih~ sins of the whol ~ world,w the word "propitia tion" has now been chang~d to
. . "
"eXpiation.
CQllclU5io11
At the conclusion le t us rerum to the issue rai5ed at the beginning of this di5Clls-
sion: the relation between ritual and belief. These sacrificial rituals set forth in the
book of Leviticus are no longer use d in temple worship, whether Jewish or
C hristia n. Tht" loons of worship have changed, but the meaning or ''belief' that
they once expressed may live on in the community of faith. This is certainly troe
in the Christian community, which affinns, as in the Epistle 10 the Hebrews, that
C hrist's sacrifice on the cross fulfills and completes the meanin g of the priestly
sacrificial system o f the Old Testament_ His sacrifice has acted out, more com-
pellingly tha n any word that may be spoken about him, th e forgivin g love of Cod
Ihat restores broken rclations and empowers persons 10 stand confidently in Cod's
hol y prese nce, offering their very sekes as "a living sacrifice,~ as Paul pUIS it at the
beginning o f Romans 12.

15. THE LIFE OF HOLINESS
Looking back over the ground traversed thus far: we have seen that the Priestly
interpreters imaginatively construe a world in which the ho ly Cod, creator of
heaven and earth. chooses to be present in the midst of the community of Israel.
In the Priestly scheme, wc ha"'e secn, there are three movements in the story that
begins with creatkln and reaches a elimax with the Sinai revelation, First, God
creates a wo rld of order and promises that it will never lapse back into chaos, a
promise that is guaranteed by the everlasting cove nant wilh Noah. Second, G od
calls Abraham and Sarah and promises them land and increase, guaranteeing Ihis
promise with an everlasting covenant. Finally, God condescends 10 tabern acle in
Ihe midst o f Ihe worshiping congregation ((dab ) and p rovi des in the Sinai
covenant. a[so understood to be an e~'er1ast i ng covenant, the means of grace so
that the people may live in th~ presence of the holy God.
A Holy PtOpJ~
It follows that if the people are 10 live in the presence of the holy God, ooliness is
to characterize their common life. This is the theme of the so·called Holi ness
Code {Leviticus 17-26}:
y"", sl.oIJ!>e- boJy,
for 1. Ib! Lora [YahllYh] )'owr God, ~'" bar)'.
- Le ... 19:2, etL
Holiness is the quality that belongs solely to Cod. No th ing o r being is holy
intrinSically; God alone, the Supreme Being. is qadosb, 1-Ioly One," Holiness per-
tai ns to ....' hat philosophers call God's aseity-lhe unconditioned essence or being
o f God. David Blumcnlhal maintains that holi ness and personality are the two
essential attributes of God. 1 But to ascribe "personality" to God, as I noted in an
ear1i~rconnection, is problematic, for this raises the profound question as to where
onc draws the line between metap hor and reality. In any case, holiness is the fun·
damental reality of the Cod who 15 portrayed in, but transcends, me tapoorical
speech.
In a derivative or sc<:ondary sense things or CTe,lturcs may be -made holy"
(sanctifkd, consecrated) when they are drav.'n inw Cod's sphere of holiness or
when they are brought into relationship with the holy Cod. Thus the tabernacle
or temple is holy because Cod chooses it to be the place of the divine presence.
The land of Palestine (Canaan) becomes the Holy land because Cod rese rves it as
the portion for th e people of God, Israel. Sacrifices are holy, utensils are ho ly,
I. See Dilvid Blumenthll F~ci"9 ,!or ,u...,j.g C<.:i, A TtJtO!"9Y of Plllltlt (lDui ..... il!."
Wtslmi ... t~r.IJohn KnOll;, 1993), ' HoI inrss as ,I n ATrrilxu~ of God: c hp. 3 See mv diSOl<sion
lbo~, ch"pler 4 . . 3. On trn, "m<:r()' S('it" see aoo..'C. c hapltt 1i .
"The We of Holino:ss 123
priests arc holy because these are drawn inlo Ihe service of the holy God.. ScripruTe
is holy (Ihe "Holy Bible") because it contains "the oracles of God" entrusled to the
Jewish people, as Paul put it (Rom . 3 :2 ). These things are, so 10 speak, taken OUt
o f the ordinary, profane realm and drawn into the realm of the sacred, the holy.
This view of separation ITom the ordinary world is presupposed in Nwnbers
1-10. H ere the peo ple of Cod are portrayed as making an orde rl y march through
t he wilderness. 'When they camp, the tribes are arranged in order around the
tabernacle to safeguard its holiness, with the levi tes (the priestly tribe) camped
immediately around it, to protect it so that no outbreak of divine holiness (wrath )
will fall on the people (Num. 1:53; 8: 19; see above, fig. 5, p. 109). When they
brea k camp and move on, the Levites are the bearers of the movable sanctuary and
its holy things. In this manner we are given a graphic picture of God at the center
of the commun ity, of the Holy One in the midst of Israel (cf. H as. 11 :9b).
A HolyLJd
Wh~n wc turn to the Holin~s Code (Leviticus 17-26), th~ priestly sense of the
holy is eXlended beyond the tabe rnacle and its sacred area to the whole land and
the people living o n the land. This is the fundame ntal difference berwccn the
Priestly write rs (P) and the Holiness C ode (H, a separate, perhaps earlier source
incorporated intO the Priestly book of Leviticus). "The priesthood , Israel, and
mankind respectively," sa}'sJacob Milgrom, an authority on the book of leviticus,
"form three rings of decreasing holiness aboul the center. God."l
This \'iew of ·rin~ of decreasing holiness" makes sense when holiness is con·
sidered as divine powe r, not a subjective awareness of the s.acred (sce above, chap·
ter 5). [n the priestly view. holiness is most inte nse at the center-the tabernacle ,
especiall y in the most hol>' sanctum, beyond the curtain , containing the holy ark
and its most holy cover (.biPfIon'fb), regarded as God's throne~scat.J From this holy
eenter, the power of holi nos extends outward in concenlric waves. though
decreaSing in force as it reaches the periphery. Thus the whole territory of Israel,
with th e tabernacle (temple ) at the center, is a holy land. [n a la rger sense, the
whole earth is full of the glory of the holy God, as a heavenly choir sings in God's
holy tem ple (Isa. 6:3 ).
Constcfllt(d for Service
Accord ing to the H oliness Code, it is not j U!iI t he priestS who are "made holy"
(sanctified, consecrated) for the service of Cod but also the whole people of Israel.
They are cal1ed to be a holy people, separated from other nat ions by vi rtue of their
relationship to the holy God. Here the Holiness Code picks up a theme found in
O ld Epic traditio n: the people, with wh om God chooses 10 make a covenant, are
2.See Jilcob '\'1iIgrom, ·~·1ticus: in Th: Bool:s of d... Bibit, cd. B. W. AnciCl'Wn (New Y~
Scnoom;, 1989), also his comm(nlalY u,,;baIs 1-16, AB 3 (NC"'<>' York. Doubl(dioy. 1991 ).
 12 4 C~"lo~!'5 of Old Tora",",! Theo/OiIY
called to be °a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (hod. 19:6; cf. Deul. 7:6).
Building on this tradition of the holy people, New Testament writer; af~rm that
the church is a holy nation ( I Pet. 2:9), and that it is composed of "saints" o r "holy
ones" (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:2). Indeed, the: author of I Peter, quoting the Holiness
Code, says that Christian people are called to a life of holiness.
As hoe ""ho called you is holy, be holy yoor>elve<> in an ~'ourcondua; lor it i~ wril-
ten, "You shall be holy, 10f' I am holy.w
-1 Pet 1: 15
In li ne with this, Ch ristians confess in the Apostles' Creed that they believe in a
"holy, catholic [universal) church.w
If the people Israel arc to be holy, they "must abide by a more rigid code of
behavior than that practiced by the nations, just a~ the priCSt lives by more strin.
gent standards than those: applying to common Isradites :~ T hus larab in the se:nse:
of "law' is fundamental in Priestly theology. By obeying th e "statutes and ordi-
nances" of th e covenant the people show themselves to be holy. As David
Blumemhal, a modem Jewish theologian , explai ns, qdushah ( holines~) "is created
by an act of the Will," that is, of obedience to the Torah. 'Through it: he goes on
to say. "one dedicates an act to God. It is a function of mi/sva, of commandment,
and of the intention to ful~l1that commandos
Contrary to extreme interpretations o f the Christian gospd, the Christian is
not hee horn, or above, the law, but is called 10 show a holy life by performing
works of righteousness, a point made forcefully in the Epistle of James.
Ho.!illtss as St/HI ratian Fro",
Holiness of life has two aspects: one negati~ and the other positive. Negath'dy,
it means that the people of Cod arc: to be separated horn other nalions so as to live
in special relation to Cod.
Speak 10 the- people of Israel ~nd sa)' to them: I am the: loID [Yah~h J your Cod.
You shall nOt do as they do in the land of Egypt, ...hI=- yoo livffl, and)'ou d\all not
do "$ they do in (ne land of Canaan, to .... hich J am bringing you. You shall n()t 101.
low their stilNtC'S. ~'l y ordi nilncn you sh.o l1 o~. and my statute<> you shall
keep , follO"" ing them: I am the: LORD (Yam.·eh J.
-le\-·.1 8:l ·"
The H oliness Code, then, draws a boundary that separates lsrad from other
peoples. In sociological terms, a distinction is made between "us~ and wthcm: insid-
eT"> and outsiders.' At the conclusion of Leviticus 18 (vv. 24·29), the people are
4. MilgTOm. "leviliCU$." in &ola ~J rhr &1>It. 68.
5, BIllmenthat F.ri"ol tbt Abu!,~g W. 25-26. 5«: abo Abraham Joshua Ht',chd. W ,~ Su,d,
4 A-1.o~ {New York: b,teridiiln, 1951 l. part l
6, The socioloJPa,1 dimeMion of separatio n be""~n "us" and ' them" is di~scd by Simon
B. Park~r, '1'he Hebrew Biblellld Hom~xual i ly: OR 11, nO. 3 (199 1) 4--19.
The LJfe of Holin~s 125
told that ther mu~1 keep the: covenant statutes and ordinances and not commit the
wabominations" practiced by the nations. The fine is drawn so sharply that any per-
~on who commits o ne of these abominat ions is to be "cut ofr horn the people
(excommunicated) and in some instances put to death.
Take a look at the commandments comamed in the code. Thc:y an! quite a mix.
• No memocr of the Isradite community o r residen t alkn (sojoumo-) may eat
blood, a person who eats blood shall be "CU I ofr from the people ( 17: 10-16).
• Various forms 01 incest are prohibited: JNone of you shall approach anyone
near of kin to uncover nakedness" ( 18:6 - 18). Almost every society, accord-
ing to anthropologists. has taboos aga inst incest to protect the identity and
"'itality of t he social group.
• Prohibition against sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period
( 18:}9). a taboo based on revulsion at a flow of blood. for ~the blood is the
life of every creature" ( 17: 14).
• Prohibition against homosexual relations between men ( 18:22; also 20: 13).
Nothing is said <Igainst lesbianism,
• Laws, also found in the Decalogue, concerning honoring parents, observi ng
the Sabbath, prohibiting idol worship ( 19,3,4), stealing, bearing false wit-
ness ( 19:11.14 ).
• Prohibi tions against breeding different kinds of animals, sowing a fidd with
two kinds of seed, wearing a garment made of two differe nt materials
( 19: 19 ). Laws about se:lCUal rdation s with a slave woman ( 19:20), against
ruming to med iums o r spi ritualists ( 19:3 1), agains t oppressing a resident
alien l I9:34).
• Shining out wit h a special fuster is the comma ndment known in Christian
circles as the Second Great Commandment: "'You shall not take vengeance
or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neigh-
bodfellow Israelite ] as yourseJr (Lcv. 19: 18). It is .....ell known that}esus, in
the parable: of the good Samaritan (Luke 1O:27-37). broadened the meaning
of "neighbor" to rder 10 any human being, even an enemy.
This collection is a legal hodgc:podge. Surdy the same weight cannot be given
to all of these laws, whether in the Je .... ish or the Christi;,'!n community. Intended
for a particular time in thc history of God's people, not all of them are relevant
today. Ethic<l1 discrimination is needed to determine what is ccntral and what is
periphe ra l. what is transient and what is of abiding va lue. Christian imerpreter.;
must take seriously th e dialectical tens io n of co nt in uity/discontinu ity between the
o ld age and the new. as JC5US expresses it in the Sermon on the Mount?
7, J~ has nol come 10 de<irro~' 1ne TOTllh <lnd Proph ... ts, )· ... t he also says "It was S<lid to you
of old ... bul I S<ly .. -" s"e dio;cu ssion aoo.-e, chapter 2.
 126 (""tours o} 00 Tnaa ..",t Tmoi<Jgy
HOllloro(l!.Il/ i!y
Since homosexuality has become a controversial issue in our time, let us co ncen-
trate on th is law_ In the Holiness Code the prohibition is stated twice:
If .. mln lie, with a male as ""itn a woman, both of them h3~'(.' commitled an abom·
ination [ro..bab J, they shi ll be put to deilth, their blood is upon them _
-lev. 20: 13, illso 18:22
This law does not occur in any o ther legislation in the Old Testament: th e Ten
C ommandments in Exod us 20 and Deut eronomy 5, the Covenant Code (Exod _
20:23- 23:33), or Deuteronomic Law {Deuteronomy 12-1 6). Sometimes it is said
thal th e issue aplX"ars in two Old Testament narTa tives: the StOry about the wicked -
ness ofSodom in Genesis 19 , on which our word "sodomy~ is based; and the "mi r·
ror story" of the ra lX" of a Levite's concu bine in Jud ges 19. Both of these Stories,
however. dea l with gang rape and are not rel eva nt to a di scussion of homosexual·
ity as we h . O nly in the Holiness Code does the law appear in the Old Testament.
In ~aluating th is law, ethicists must consider several matters_ First, the la .... is
not grou nded in the Noachic creation covenant, ....'hich would give it a universal or
gene ral validity, but on God's "evc rl asti ng covena nt" w ith the people Israel at Sinai.
In the creation s!ories, Cod blesses heterosexuality ("male and female') so that
spec::ies, both animal and human, may reprodlXe themselves. Nothi ng is said about
homosexuality, for that is beyond the immed ia te concern for proc reation ( ~
above, cha pter Il l .
Second, the Levitical law is applicable primarily to the holy people Jivi ng in
the hol y land_ A di stinguished Jew ish scholar, }acob Milgrom, argues forcefully
tha t "the ba n on homosexuality and other illicit unions [i n Levit icus 18J app lied
solely to the residents o f the holy la nd."
What is the symoolism of trn, holy land? h i~ th~ sphere of God. like his I(:cmple in
JC1"\Isa lem. In this theology, all those ",'ha li~"C' in God's c:xtencied temple-the holy
land-4re iilccountable to a higher moral and ri tual ~tandard.'
In the case of the Egyptians, who do not live in the holy land, "thei r sexual aber.
rations are no t sins against God a nd, hence, not subject to divine sancti ons.~ This
in terpretat ion, which has stirred up a lively response, is a reminder that one must
understand the laws of holiness within the symbol ic world that the Pries tly writ -
ers have created.
Third, as we have seen , the purpose of th is and other prohibi!ions in leviticm
is to de~ne the boundaries Ix:tween this people and the nations. Dellnition o f
boundaries came to be a big issue in the early Christian community, as illust rated
by the sto ry in Ac ts about Peters vision at a time when he was dealing with
Comelius. a mi litary man and a Ge ntil e wh o was well esteemed in the Je wish
commun ity. In h is vision Peter saw the heavens olX"ned and something like a large
sheet was lowered , containing all kinds of animals, "clean and unclean" or kosher
8_ Milgrom, 'Does the Bible Prohibit HomosexlQI'IY~· BR 9 (~e mber 1993) 1 I. l\hlgrom
dra ...·s anent;on ID the f~et that th~ proph~t &ekiel. who ",'U familiar .... ith ,he holi~$ II .... s. ' not
on<;e {mentions ] the 'ie\'ffi![ viol<1ltiOf1s of lev. 18. le< alone homosexuality'
Th<: life of Holi~s 127
and nonkosheL Peter was commanded to kill and eat, but he held back, saying that
he had never eaten anyth ing regarded by Je""ish laws as profane and unclea n.
Nevenheless he heard a voice saying: "\X/hat God has made clean , you must not
call profane"
This dream gave a new interp retation 01 the boo k of Leviticus, in particular the
dietary laws that de~ne the Jewish com munity over against the nations, the
~ntiles. \Xfhen Comelius and his entourage arrived, Peter Ix:gan a discourse: 1 per·
ceivc that God shows no partiality. bu t in every nation anyone who fears him and
does what is right is acce ptable to hi m " In othe r words, th e Christ ian community is
an open community Ihat welcomes all to table hospitality. Cod shows no partiality.
This Story indicates that in Ch ri stian circles Ihe book or Levi ticus is read with
critical discrimination. N ot e\'erything is appropria ted or given the same weigh t.
If this Jiscrimro applies to dk tary 101\,,5, doesn't it also apply 10 other laws in the
book of Leviticus, including those that excl ude homosexuals from the holy com·
m u nity ~ The hermeneutical question is the di alectic of continuity/ discominuity in
the re lation ber..·een the O ld Testament and the New (see below, cha pter 36 ).
There is co nr inu ilY. for holi~s of life is to distinguish the new people of God . But
there is also discontinuity, for the se parating harri ers between ~us" and "them" are
broken do ...·n in the community that is -in Ch ris( ':see Gal. 3:28).
Separated FOT
Holiness also has a pOSitive aspen, which is e\'iden t when onc: turns from the pro·
hibitions of Leviticus 18 !O !he prescript ions of Le\'it icus 19. H oliness is no t just
separatio n jr()lII , but sepa ration J()r~for the servrce of Cod . Accord ing to the
Holiness Code, this di\'ine service is perfonned by engaging nOt JUSt in ritual acts
(such as sacrifices) but also in aCts of justice, including what the Decalogue
requires (Lev. 19: 1 1·16). The life of holiness involves a god ly life-~the imitat ion
of God" U..ilalio Dri), as Jacob ('vl ilgrom obse",'es. "H o w can human beings imitate
God;:" he asks _"The answer o f le\'iticus 19 is given in a se ries of e !hi eal and ritual
d
commands. above ",'hich soa rs the co mman d to love all persons (lev. 19: 18l-t he
great commandme nt that is part of the Shema of Judaism. 9 And love o f the neigh·
bor is manifes! in dOing justice.
If we take ou r cue from this pan: o f the Holiness C ode. holiness of life is mea-
sured by love-love of Cod and love of neighbor. the !Wo bei ng the obverse and
reverse of the <;amccoin (see 1 John ), Some groups within the church, such as the
Melhodists, believe that this is what the life of holiness is all about. Within the
community of faith. accord ing to this \'iew, persons arc «going on toward perfec-
tion"- who lehearted love of Go d a nd boundless love o f one another. In the
Sermon on the ~'Iount (Matt. S:48 ) this "perfC1:tion" is spelled out to include love
of the loveless, even one's e nemies (w_ 43-47). The RES translates appropriately:
-There roUS! be no li mit !O your goodness. as your heavenly Fathers goodness
knows no bounds."

16 . PROPHECY IN PR I ESTLY TRADITION
The message of the great, but e nigmatic, prophet Ezekiel belongs C5sential1y to
the symbolic world portrayed in prie5t1}' imagination. Tu be sure, there are major
differences berween Ezekiel's vision and that of the Priestly writers (Pl. Firs t,
Ezekiel does not present a comprehensive vi ew that begins with creation, indeed,
creation theo logy has no place in Ezekiel's mC5Sa£(~ . Ezekiel t"ICes God's purpose
back to the promi'iC of land made to Israel's anc estors (20:42 ), specific ally to
Abraham {33:24} and Jacob (37:25), and above all to rh e time of the exodus from
Egypt, when God ~chose" Israel (205-7). Also, there are major diffe rences between
the portrayal of the te mple in Ezekiel40-4S and that of the tabernacle/temple in
Exodus 25-40 an d Leviticus. literary and theological affinities are especially
strong with the so-called Holiness Code (H ) in Leviticus 17-16, which is closely
related to Priestly• tradition / P}. I Also, there arc impressive similarities to the
Priestly portrayal of rhe revelation of Yahweh's "gloryU to the people Israel at
/I.·lount Sinai (Exodus 15-40).
A Prirsliy PropiJr/
Ezekiel's theologica l task was 10 interpret the even ts leading up to and after the tall
of Jerusalem in 587 S.C, e\·ents in which he was pe rsonally invo lved. His message
stands primarily in Priestly tradition but ove rlaps with ,\\osaic covenant tradition
(to be considered later), as evident by affinitiC5 with Jeremiah's preaching. Ezekicl
is a complicated fi gure who cannot be put into a theolog ical pigeonhole ,
Moreove r, the final fonn of the book of Ezekiel , which is the basis for theological
exposition. betrays evidences of a h istory of composition.
The Glory of GQd
In Ezekie1'5 imaginative construal of God's world, the key word is ·'glory~ (i"lhQ,l).
The prophet was clearly familiar with the Priestly ponrayal o f the Sinai theophany
in which the glory was an envelope of ligl1t, associated with the pillar of cloud and
fire , that both rev~aled and veiled God's holy presence (hod _ 24:15-20). As we
have see n, the divin~ glory was associated especially wit h t he tabernacle, the suc-
cessor of the tent of me~ti ng (Exod. 40,34-38). which prd lgured the t~mp l e.
JUSt a ~ the glory settled over the tabernacle, so in Ezd, id's vision it settled over
the cherubim that Ranked Yah ...·eh's throne-scat (the ark) in the Holy of Holies,
I. In hi, commenla,-y In,jll,,,, ,- ,6 (AB 3, New York, Doubleda)', 1991 1. J ~cob r-.hlg rom main-
tain. [hat the P lradition, wh ich .t~m. from about 750 B.C . ,,"a~ Rnally shaped by Holi ness Codt
editOr<; (symbolized by HI.
Prophecy in Pri~dyTradition 129
the innenno5t cella of Ihe Jerusalem temple_~ Yahweh's glol)' ~l1ed the temple, sig-
nifyi ng God's presence in the midst of the people (804; 9:3; 10:4; 37:26.27). But
God is not bound to a sanctual)'; God is free to move on with the people and to
di~play divine ~glol)''' in unexpected and undesen,'ing ways, a point that is made in
Old Epic tradition,
Mo$Cs s.aid, "Show me YOll, glory, I pray." And he [Yah"'eh] said,"' will make all my
lloodness pass befo re yOLl, and will proclaim before you Ih" name, The loRD'
[Yah"'ehl and I will be IIracious 10 whom' will be gracious, and will show mercy
on whom I will show mercy,"
------&00. 33018-19
Just as the pillar of cloud and ~re lihecl from the tabernacle and accompanied
the people in their journey, so Yahweh's glory moved with the people into exile
(Ezekiel 8- 11); moreover, in Ezeklel's vision of the restoration, Yahweh will return
,,,ilh (hem to the land, at the (emer of which is the temple ( 3; 12, 13, 10:4-5; etc. ).
The holy Cod is free (0 move with the people and to lead them into the future_
Thus the glory of God is not conrined to a sanctuary separated from the profane
world (the tabernacle ), bu t radiates out into the profane world (cL lsa. 6:3). In this
ca'iC the glol)' is manifC5t in a foreign land 10 whi ch God has exiled the people and
from which God will bring them back. Speaking of God's return with the people
to th eir ho meland along a marvelous "highway," a later poet announ ced,
Then the HI",}, of the Lord shall be reveilled, ilnd all people shall ~ it togethe~.
- ls3. 4O:5
God; Holi!)",
The mani festation of God·s ovc rwhelming glol)' is portrayed in the vis ion of a
marve10us throne-chariot coming out of thc north-in Canaanite myth ology the
place o f thc abode of the gods (cf. Ps. 89: 12; lsa. 14: 13 - 14). In th is vision, found
at the beginning of the book of Ezekiel and recalled various times, divine holi -
ness is manifest as tremendous power, symbolized by a violent windstonn and a
cloud flashing with lightning. Thc reticent langwge, indica ted by "something
like: "as if: "as it wcre .... shows that the prophct mcs metaphors to express what
transcends human la nguage. The manifestation of d ivine holincss is something
"out of this world'·; th~ divine mystel)' is ineffable. Ezckid 's vision gavc ri'iC to
··cha riot~ (merkabab ) mystici~m in later Judaism.
True to Priestly theol ogy, rhe book of Ezekid indicates that the instinctivc
response to the b linding glory of the holy God is an overwhelming sense of mor-
tal wcakne~s and human unworthiness. Ezekiel's -glimpse of God: as Katheryn
Darr says appropriately regard ing the prophets response (Ezek. I :28b), '1iterally
:2 5«- Ka[h e'Yn pn. te",r DafT, "111" Book of E"ekiet Commen[ary and Reflection,: in Tbt
N,", /11I""",lrr< B,bk, td. lc:ander Ked: (Nash"il1e, Abi ngdon, forthcoming)' especially her treat-
ment of ·Ezekid'~ Inaugural Vision and Call to Prophc:<y' (Ezek. t , 1-3, 15).
3 Ibid.

'lays him out.'"3 Only a word rrom the holy God can overcome this panlyzing
reaction and empower a person born of dust 10 stand up and he a messenger of the
heavenly King.
[The lord) Yid to me:
o morul ["$Of! of man"l nand up on your feci Ihal I may speak to }'OU
-IE~ze, k. 2, 1 (NJPSV)
The expression ·son of man' (~ ..dD... ), ~d wme 93 ti~s in th e book of
Ezekiel, is appropriately tnnslated as "0 monar in some ITKKkm versions (NJPSV;
NRSV). It occurs in this sense one other time in the Old Te"ita~nt:
1¥lwI;S"u [enosh] !ha! y.,.. luvrb .. m.:Iflll ofb .....
!!Io.",1111ar1 [ben adam, ' WJI of "~Jl 7 IMf Yo~
""pt tab.< JloIl of hi.}
~P5. 8:4 (NJPSV. ". 5)
Otherwise, it occurs only in an apocalyptic ""riting, the book of Daniel ( i : 13,
8: 17), where it has the opposite meaning: not a man of dust (mortal ) but a man
from heaven (an angel ), who signifies the coming kingdom of Cod. Likewise in the
New Testament it is applied ro)esus, ponrayed as an eschatological Bgure who
introduces God's kingdom (e_g ., Mark 8:31 , 38).
Divi,!( Wrath al1d Mtrey
In the book of Ezekid the sense of the holy is not jusl an awareness of the mys-
tery of uhimate reality- the "God beyond the gods: so to speak. H oliness is man-
ifest as overwhelming power. God's power, however, is not impersonal force like
the energies of namrt'. The power of divine holiness is manife5t as special concern
for, and jealous claim upon, the people [srad, indeed, upon the nations too. Divine
power expresses God's energetic will (zeal) thar reacts negativdy to any behavior
that dishonors God's name or "\)cing: ·sclr (Ezei. 36:22-32. etc.):' Not only is
divine wrath poured out on Israd for their offenses againn God, but aiM) Cod
becomes jealous" for God's holy name when the nations affront God by mistreat-
ing Israel (Ezek.. 39,25· 29)_
Some would regard Ezekiel as the }onathan Edwards of the Old Testament,
preaching sermons on ·sinners in the hand of an angry God" Yet while Ezekiel
often speaks of God's wrath, he insists (like Edwards. I believe) that God is mcrc i-
ful and compassionate. Indeed, God's acts of judgment are intended to shake the
~. I find gn=al difRculty with Waiter Brue88em3nn~ ~nempI 10 t"m,lat" Ih,s exp'e5sion of
yJh ...."h"s holine5i with ourpsychologiallerm -~lf-~gard: Thto!~y of t~ Old TnL7!J''''! ' Tn!'","~)',
Dnp-.tt. Aoj"","0' (M inneapoJis: Fortress PreiS. 1997), 293- 96: "'The I"nn< "num" Yah"'eh , 'in-
gullr pTC"OCcupation with ~\f, and I"" ""1>«",lion Ihn Yah ...."h ,,·m b.:- fully hunorcd and T<:id·
ily obqed in every circummoce"l p. 293)
Prophecy in Priestly Tndition 131
people out of a false ""ay of life and bring them to a new hfe, to give them a ~new
hean_· God wills life, not death, and is puzzled about why the pc:ople stay ooggW
down in sdf-de"inuctive ways.
Ca5t a",."y from you all the tr.msglcssions [hill you have commined 3gainsl m", and
gel yOll(sd~'I!'S.n""" .....
In lnci a new SPIri t! Why .... ill you die, 0 hOllS" of 1sr.>e17
For [ have no pl"awr" in me dnth of anyone, says tne
lord GoD [Adooai
Yahwehl_ Turn, then, and live
-IE~-""k. 18:31 .31
Ezekid insists tha t the holy God does not deal with the people arbitrarily or
capriciously. Rather, the people have provoked Yahweh's holy anger or "jealous
wrath" (23 :15) b}· their own conduct: by flouting Yahweh's laws and staruces and
thereby polluting Yah ...·eh's land (38: 16}---also caned "the land of Imd"-with
violence. bloodshed, and idolatry. In the face of all this, howevn, the holy God
wills health and wholeness (salvation). "like a mother who in one instance spanks
he r child and in the next rocks it to sleep: God will perform a miracle that brings
new life to Ihem J
In the famous vision of the vall"y of dry bones {Ezek. 37:1.14), the p rophet
envisions that the dead bones-symbolic of Israel's hopeless condition in
Habylonian exile-will come together, bone connected with bone (recall the
famous folk spiritual), and will be resuscitated by life.gl\,jng breath (wind, spirit).
This is the first rderence to "resurrection" in the Bible. Here it portr.l.ys a corpo-
rate revival of a people that had lost its life and hope, not the raising up of an indi-
\'idual for life beyond the grave.'
Thaf f Alii God
KJ.OIJ)
The book of Ezekid is an excdlent example of ho .... the signiocance of covenant
cannot be estimated by t:ounting the: occurrences of the term bml. A fundamen-
tal concern o f the prophet's message is cbt ,ttarioll,bip between the holy Cod and
the people (" my people Israel: 36:S). Cod's acts of juclsment or o f mercy are per-
formed so that ' you will know that I am Yah ....eh: accordins to the recurring
refrain (7:9 , 13: 14, etc.), which ec h~ language found in the Priestly Torah
{Exod. 16: 12; 19:46; elc.).7 This is the "knowing" of personal relationship_ In the
end. when this knowledge of God becomes genuine and inward, the covenant
promise ""ill be realized: -I will be their God, and they shall be my people· (Eze k.
36:28).
ThIs knowledge of God, however, ..... ill not be confined to Israel but will be
found among the nations, for Yahweh's appearance 10 Israel's history is, in some
sense, a theophany to the nalions.
5_W.lth"r Eichrodt. &.~ili. Ira ns. Coi;sleff Quin. OTL (Philiddphil' W6ITTlinst"'. (970), 36.
6. Sce funher d,50)5,ion "f l"eSUrr«tion in chap!", 35 below.
, _This motif. which occu" some- 6S !;m"", IS C"xplo~d by Walrher Zimm"rli, I A.. y~bwtb .
I",n,. Douglas W. SWII (Atlanra: John Knox. 1982).

Tbt 11<11II1II1 JluIlI beat 1Nl i _ }'gbn,b. "'>"'
MlnlIIi Yabultb.
oMr.o ~b y~ I J~plgy _)' I...li~ lIrj.:vr
~r 1')'tS.
Ele);. J62Jb (BWA)
A Nno CoctM"t
Ezekiers afRn iljcs .... ith Jerem iah sugge« that he: th inks in terms of d'lC' MOQK
co\'Cnanl. which rec.dvcd special emphasis in the: Dniteronomislic perspccti\'e, [0
be considered in Itw: I1C'Xt section (chapters 17-22). Indeed. 1",'0 passages ( I I : 18·
10 and 36:15 -28) come very close to Jeremiah's prophecy o f the new co \'Cnanl (cf.
Jer. 31 ,29-30).
I ShaI18i\'C you a new hean and pue a new sptrit .... iehin you , 1~all rem ove ene ne<ln
of stone from your body Ind give you <I heart of flc<>h. 1shall pm my ~pi ri[ ""irhin
)'OU and m~ke you cOI'Ifonn to my S[<lIUte<Ji: you will observe my la ....·s f<lithfully
Then you wiUlive in the land I 8<1ve to your ft=fathe,,; you will be my people. and
I shall be your Cod.
- E;o:ck. 36:26· 28 ( RES)
In chapter 16. whe re Ezekiel employs the term "covenant" 10 express Yahweh 's
•• wooing, manying, and elevating a beautiful young woman to bt- queen. despite her
lust for o ther lovers, he is concerned primarily with a defect of the: human ....-il1tNt
prompted ,he people to betc.y the covenant loyalty. This problem of Ihe will ~
centc.!' In chapter 20, where the prophet traCes lu<l.c1's c1C'Ction 10 the exodus,
Ezekiel dcclan:s that there never was a time ...,hen the ~pk were failhful in their
)oyal()' to God. But in the future Ihmgs ""111 chang.. , thanks 10 God's saving action
The lasl pan of the book of Ezekid is dominncd. by the t heme of the cschalolo g -
kalllCW .. xodus the ne .... beginning fOf' the ~ople of Cod. j
Diuifft Sov(ftignty and Human Frrrdom
Ezekicl struggles wilh onc 01 the paradoxes (d ialcctical conttadictions) that aTl§c
OUI of Ih .. experience of the presence of the holy Cod in the .... orld: that of divine
sov~ign()' and h um an fl'ttdom. He seems 10 want [0 grasp both horns of Ih ..
paradox. On the onc hand, he insists that the people are not caught in iI fatalistic
situation: .....ery person is responsible for his o r her own life and is not il captlv .. of
heredity or environment, demonic forces at work in society. or any principalities
or powers. Accordingly. his t~sk is 10 place befor.. the people the options and call
them to repent ( 14:6 ·8; 33, 10· 11 ). God wills life. not death.
8. Brev.rd GIlds diSCI.KseJ the inlluence of Exodu. t.... dit'on on Ez..kie] in BWUca! ThDk1y Df
~01J ~~d Ntt.'> Tti_ IMinnc'!Xllis, FortreSS Prns 1993). 131 . 17\.
Propnecy in Prkstly T~jtion 133
Th..rdon: ] .... ,11 JO.ldge ),00, 0 house ot Isrx! , ~II of you Kcordin8 to your ~ys,
5iI)~ tne Lord Gal [Ado n.i Y<lhw .. h j. Repent ,lnd rum from iln your tr.lno;.gn:ssion,
o therwise iniquity will be your ruin.
On the OIher hand, the prophet d ..fends Cod's honor and justice by inststing
Ihat it is the peopic ....·h o ha\'e be.. n unjust in their ....·01)'5 . not God {18:15.1 9 i
33: 17-20}_ People ..... ill come to understand that i t was no t ""ithout good "'ason-
UlaI God brought disaster o n J .. ruwkm ~ 14 2 3b ). If Isr.lc1 has a fu ture, it ....ill be
bc:o.us.c of God's SO\'cn-igmy, ...·hich empo.....en h~n freedom and makes possi·
ble an ......· bt-ginning. Gods incalculabl .. Jl'lC'rcy .... 111 supersede Cod's awesome
""""'th. After Israel has experienced drvinc judgment. God ....111 show com pauion by
restoring "the fortunes of ) acob." ThIs .... ill h~ppen beau§c Yah ...,.. h is ·jealou~t for
the divine name (3 9:25).
Hope for the future , then , rests on Ihe side o rCed. no t on the side of the peo-
ple, who hav~ consistently bro k.. n the covenant. Beyo nd tragedy Yahw .. h will
ult ima tely establish an "everlast;nll covc:nan t" (boll ,,111l1li) with a people who have a
n .. w h.. an.
yc~. thus says the lord Coo [Adonll Y~h"'eh l I "'ill deill with you as you have
done. you wh" have do:spl!<Cd the oath, breaklnw the ( avenan t: yct I will temember
my covenant "'ith you In the days of your youth, <lnd I 10'.11 C'Stabr.~ ...·;t" you an
",·erbsting covenant "
Ezek. t6:59-60
Unlike Priestly theology. the: .....erlasting CO\'Cnant does no t come al dte begin-
ning. with th .. promi§c o f gra ce to Abraham or e ven th e N oachic CO\'l"nan t of cre-
ation , but at (he .. nd , beyo nd Itw: hisTOry o f lsra.. rs fa ilure_ AI Ihat lime there ....j[J
be a "new exodus." whe:n Yah ....... h bnn~ the people back to the land promi!icd. to
their ancCStOrs. Th<- -glo ry of Yah""eh" will retum and fill the lemple and Yah ...... h
will d .....ell a mong the peo ple "forev..r" (Stt .u 4-9 ). Inde .. d . the name of the city.
according 10 the \'ery laSt "'Iords of the book ..... ill be "Yilh ..... eh is thCTl"" (YHWJ-/
slow_ab)_
Funhermore, E::!l"kiel dr.lws no t o nly on the Mosaic covenant tradition but also
on the Davidic cO\-enan t (which ""e .... 111 consider 10 c hapt .. rs 23--26 ). In Ezekid 37
wc find assuran~ that a united monarchy WIll be res lo red .... ith Oa\'id. God's "§cr-
vant." as king , and Ihat Cod .... iI1tabcmacle in thetr midst and ....,111 be "their God."
Tlt.c}, shalll;"e '" tile land th,u I 8i1V" 10 m)' r.c:rv<lnt )ilCob. 10 whICh your ancestors
lived. they and Iheir c hildren and their ch ildr .. n·s chIldren ~h ill live Ihere forever;
.lnd my s(-N.lnt DJ\'id shall be their princ.. fOl'<ver. J will makl" a covenant of peace
with lnem: it shall be an ..verla§linll covenlnt with them , ilnd l .... ill ble" them and
multip ly them. dnd Wlll:1<:t my ~nC tu~1)' ~01onw: them fOI'C'·cnnore. 1\'ly dwelling
piKe shal1 be ,,·(th Ihem/ and I will be their Cud. <lnd Ihey ~hilll be my people.
_ <'.,z..k .37:25_27
As can be seen hom this passage, .h .. book of Ezek«:1 brings logether m ajor
elements of Israel's rel igious rc.ditlon: the: Priestly th~ology of God's sancruary in
r

I 34 C,*I(>II"'- of OIJ Trsl,,,,,m' n....r.,gy

the midst of ,he people, the J\·IOS<Iic tracliuon of the exodus and Sinai rcvdation,
and the royal theology of DiI\'id as Cod's anoimed ( m~siah ). Ezekiel, then, pro-
vides a point of transition from ,he "everlasting covcnan( of Priesdy theo logy to
the next sections, where we consider the conditional !I..\osaic covenant of PART 11
Deuleronomic trad ition (chapters 17-22) and the -everl asting covenant- of royal, CONTINUED
Davidic tradition (c hapters 23- 26 ).

B . THE MOSAIC COVENANT

You have SWl what 1 did to ri" EgyptiallS, mid holV

I bore YOII 011 eaglrs' willgs alld brollght YOII to
myself Now therefore, if you obey my voice tmd keep
my covenant, yOI~ shall be my treasured possessioll out
oJ all th, P,oples.
E.,'(ODUS 19.';· 5
 17. AT THE MOUNTAIN OF GOD

III the preceding section (l LA, chap ters 10- 16) we have found that in the
Pentateuch the Priestly th eo logy of the -everlasting cove nan t" presents a distinc-
tivc patte rn of symbol ization, the Creator of heaven and eanh enters imo special
relationship with the people ISTileI and condescends to tabernacle in their midst.
The holy God dwel ls in th e midst of a ho ly people al the cemer 01 a holy land _We
[Urn now to the Mosa ic covenant perspective, as set fonh prceminently in the
book of Deuteronomy_ Deutcronomic interpreters present a symbolic world in
wh ich God chooses 10 ~ present in the midst of the people, "going before them"
in their wanderings and eventually dwelling in their mid st by putting the divine
name on the centrals<lnctua ry.
The ce ntral person in this M'~'or1d of meaning" is Mosn, the rugged figure por·
tra}'ed in Michdangdo's well-known statue. In ancient tradition he was accompa -
ni ed by t\VO o t her perwnso his brother Aaro n and h j~ sister Miriam {Mic. 6;41.1

Abm/Jalllic md Mosaic COVOWllts

In the flna[ form of the Pentateuch (Torah ), the .~·losaic covenant is subordinate to
- the Abraham ic. In this canonical context the Abrahamic covenant, wh ich guaran-
tees the promise of la m:! a nd posterity, is the ol'erarching theme '''ithin which the
Mo<;aic covenant of law is embraced. This is evident from the fact that the book
of D e ute ronom y. the classical exposi tion 01 f,.·losaic covenant theo logy, is insened
into the Priestly work, just /x lore its conclusion. In th is location, the book of
D e ut eronomy provides the conclusio n [0 the Priestly Torah (Pentateuch ), which
is actually a Tetrate uch plus the conclusio n of Deuteronomy, chapter 34. At the
same time it is th e introduction to th e historical work that lol [ows, Josh ua through
2 Kings, known as the Laner Prophe ts.. or in scholarly temlS , the Deutcronomistic
history. Thus we are prese nted with a huge narrative. e xtending from creation to
the conclusion of the monarch y (Pema tellch + Former Prophetsj.
In this canonical arrangement . the Abrahamic cove nant proVides the perspec-
ti ve with in which th e exodus from Egypt and the Sinai sojourn arc viewed. In a
Priestly passage found at the beginning of the exodus story w e read that the
enslaved Israelites groaned under Egypt ian bondage and cried to God for help.

God heard their groJning. and God rem embered h,s eOl'enam with Abraham,
lsaac, and Jacob.

The cove nant later made at Sinai, as portrayed in the Old Epic tradition (Exodu5
19-24). is ~ubsumed under. or incl uded within . the Abrahamic covenant, showing

I. On th~- over,had""' ing 01 I\liriam m the prc~ent toml "I lhe ,,~dilion, ~ Ihe diSOJ5sion,
p H , and Ph,·lIisTnbie, 'Brmging \!iriam Om 0: the Sh ado,,·~: BR ; , no. 1 (1 989) t4_15, 34.

that in th~ vi~w of the final edilOrs these two covenants belong IOgether insepara-
bly- a matl~r Iha t we mml explo re as we g o along. We have already found t hat in
the meS'><lge of Eze kie lthe two covenants (as wcll as the Davidic covenant to be
consid~r~d in the ~nsuing section ILC, chapters 23- 26 ) arc brought IOgelhe r.
The re is goo d reason 10 believe, howe" er, that originally, before the canonical
combination of the two covenants. the /I.·\o'><lic covenant belonged to a separate
the ological tradition_ This tradition was especially at home in north Israel
(Ephraim), whe re prophets like Moses app ea red. especiall y Samuel , Elijah , and
Hosea. This Ephuimitic provenance wou ld expla in why the north~rn prophet,
Hosea, spe aks from the platfonn of Mosaic theo logy (exodus and Sinai covenant)
and d0e5 not rder to th e Abrahamic cov~ nant at all (see Hos. 11 :1; 12:9, 13 ).
TIJf Symbolic World of tlJe Mo,air Covrnmil
The beSt way 10 gain an enuy into the symbolic world of the Mosaic cove nant is
to read the opening chapters of Deuteronomy, which purport ro be M05es' final
sennon(s ) to the people just before his death in full sig ht of the promised land and
just before the people crossed o,'er the Jordan River to ascend whar is now called
the \'V'~St Bank.! In these chapt~rs w~ fi nd impassioned preaching 10 the people.
based on and elaborating the sacred story of exodus and Sinai tha t unfolds in the
book of Exodus, especially the Old Epic trad ition found in Exodus 1- 24 and
32- 34 .
The book of Deuteronomy presents not one sennon but three, the first in
I :6--------4:40 . the second in chaplers 5- 28: and the third in chapters 29---30. Moses i~
re presented as giving a retrospective view back 10 the "root experiences" of exodus
and Sinai for the purpose 01 warning the people of opportunities and dangers that
lie ahead in the ir further historical pi lgrimag~.
In the imaginative construal of this preaching we see a mountain that is the
mee ting place betw~~n h~aven and earth to which God descends and up which
Moses asce nds_ The imagery, of course, is taken from the Old Epic tradition about
the journey of the people, under j\·loses' leadership, to "the mountain of God"
{Smai, Horeb). where they were to "serve" \ \"orship) Yahweh, their libera ting God
{d. hod. 3: 12). The preaching conjur~s up in the people's memory the picture of
a mountain whose top tlamed with fire as the holy God came down to spea k to the
people th rough Moses, the covenant media tor. In Moses' preaching. creation---
which looms large in Priestly perspec~ive-i, reduced 10 an allusion:
For ~sk no .... about fonn",r al:t~, long before your own . n '<:T sint:C the day that God
created human being> on Ihe earth.
- Deut.4:32
2.Stili des.:rving !uention . despi t~ chafi gi fl8 emphaS("5 of biblical scholaro;hip, ;~ GeOTgC
Ern~[ W'nsht"s Introduction 10 "nd beg..,;is of th e book of Deu teronomy m lR 1:3 1 t- 537.
Amon~ more recent "'orh SC"<: PalTi( k D. Mi1!e r. D<ul"O~Q.. .y. Interpretation (louisvilk· John
c
Knox. 1990i.
AI the Mountain of God 139
Attention focuses primarily on the theophany, or man ifes tation of God's holiness,
on the mountaintop.
Ask from one end of heaw~n \ 0 th e other: has anythmg so !,'Teat a~ this e,'er hap-
pened or has its like ever been heard of~ Has any peo ple ever heard the voice of ~
god speaki ng OUl 01 a lire. as you h av~ heard . Jnd lived? Or has any god ever
anemp I~d to go and take a nat ion for hinl><:lf from the 'Oldsl of another nation bv
• •
tria l ~, by siSTlS aoo wonders. by war. by a mighty hand and an outslre!ched arm,
and by terrifying di~plays of power, as the LORO [Yahweh] your God did for you in
Egypt before your very eve~ ?
In language reminiscent of Moses' encounter wi th God at the burning bush IExod.
3: 1-6 ), the speaker says that the holy God appeared inVisibl y in, and spoke out of,
a consuming fire .
To you it w~s shown so that you would acknowledge th at th~ loRD [Yah,,'eh] is
God . there i~ no other besides him . From heaven he made you hear his voice to dis·
ci pline yoo . On eanh he sho"'ed you his gre~t fi re, while you heard h i~ wurds com-
ing out of the 1ln=.
- Deut.4.35·36
Moses' storytelling sennon urges the people to hold that image in mind as they
move into the future: the sacred mo untain, whe re the holy God met wilh Moses
the ir mediator. emere d into cove nant with th em, and called t hem to obey the
commandments that would make the m"a peo ple hol y to Yahweh" (7:6}.lsrae1 was
to remain in wonde r that at the S<lcred mountain they heard the voice o f God Nom
of ~h e fire."
You said, "Look, the loRD [Yah"'eh] our God has shown us his glory and gre~mess .
and we have hea rd his voice O[1t of the fire . ... For who is Ihe,"" 01 all He,h tha t has
heard the voice of the livin g God speaking OUt of fire, as we have. and remained
alive' ·
----Deut . 5:24·16
In compa rison with the Priestly view, \"h ich stre ssed the "isible "g lory~ of God ,
here is a theo logical vi ew that emphasizes the word (s) of God_ The emphasis falls
on heari ng, rather than seeing.3
Sillll( thl A1Q1mta'" of God
/I.·lount Sina i. loca ted in the southern Sinaitic Peninsula, is one of the famous
mountains of the world. Today t he traditional moun tai n is called Jebul l\.·lusa,
Arabic for "mountain of /I.·loses.·· Archaeologists are by no means sure that Jebul
l\'l u,a is the "mounta in of God" once visited by anci en t Israel ites in l\'loses' time.
But that does no t really matter, because the mountain has become a powerful sym-
bol in ISr<l eI's religious tradit ion, righ t 10 th~ pres~ m.
3_ On «"("ing and hearing. 5ee Samuel T~rri~n . "Tht fl",,,,, p"""",. TVI['a rJ ~ ",""" &bliml Tht,,1t;g)·
(San Franc isco, Harp~! $< Row, IFS i . chaps. 3-4, 9-tO.
140 (""lOll" of DlJ rnli'''''''! "Thtolryy
In his book. Sinai If"J lion, Jon lcvenson focuses an.:ntiOIl on the symbolism of
Mount Sinai, juxtaposing that mountain to an01her symbolic: moumain, Zion ho
which ...'e shall tum our attemion in the m"xt section, chapters 23-26)_H e proposes
that a study of these two symbolic mountains prov ides "an entry inlO the Jewi~ h
Bible.~~ Another engaging study by a Japanese theologian, Kosuke Koyama.
d~ribc:s th e crossroads of the EaSt and W/l">t in th e imagery of two mountains, Fuji
and SinaL'
The preaching in the book of Deuteronomy is, in large part, a commentary on
wh at happened at the sacred mountain according to Old Epic trad it ion found in
Exodus 19-24. There ""e are given a vivid picture of the theophany or manifc:<ita-
tion of the holy God t hat is a prelude to the making of a co\'enant bel""ccn Cod
and people.6
In this reinterpreta tion of th e old stOI)', Sinai symbo lizes the presence of God,
who is concerned for the people's d is tress and c hooses to enter into personal rela-
tionship ...'ith them-i ndeed, estab lishes community or communion with them.
"Communion," accord in8 to the dic tionary, means ' commun ity of relations." even
"intimate intercourse:."
BLIt here a dif6culry arises_ If wc take se riously the hol iness of God, how can
there be such ~commu ni on" or "solidarity"? H ow can God and human beings be
that close, that intimate? Accordin8 to aocient tra dition, "no human being can see
God and li ve" (Exod . 33,2 )_
IJxy &bdJ God. Ifnd Thry A~ ad D"",k~
To deal ....ith this paradox-the dista oce and the ne<lfTleSS of God----kt us turn to
the key passage about the mak ing of the covenam at the mountain of God: Exod_
24: I-I I , Here we read that I\·!oses and the leaders of Israel acrually "sa ...' the God
of Israc l~ and "ate and drank" before G od_ This is a vel)' ancient coven<lnt tradition.
!iDme would say the most anciem. The passage is so archa ic tha t it almost defies
interpretation.
Scholars 8enerall y a8ree that this passage co ntains two units: onc tells about a
'summit meeting" on top oi "·Iount Si nai ( 14, 1-2. 9- 11 ); and the other describes <I
covenant-m<lking ceremo ny at the base of the moumain ( 24 , 3.8) .
Thr S~m,"i l ,"'ice/ir.g_ In the first un it only "',loses and leaders are invited, the people
are told to keep away. Of the leaders, only 1\·10ses, the covenant mediator, is priv-
ileged to "come near", the chiefs and dders are to "worsh ip· from a d istance . Here
the stress falls on the sovereignty of God . who is ent hroned abo~~ some SOrt of
celestial pavement of sapphi re (\'. 10 ). Gods holy power is not lile-th reatenin g,
however . Cod did not hann the leaders, but "they saw C od and ate and drank_""'
4 _Jon D . ~-c:n..,n . S,""; ",.J Z,oc (M,nneapolis- Winston. 1985).
5. Kosuh Koyamol, ,\ 1'-: FMji "".,J ,\b"~l 5,,,,,,_A en. ",
W. (t-IuykllOll . N .Y - Qrb,s 1985).
6 On ,he manif«Uli(In or God'~ hol ll'lcss, <;cc 3bo,·." chapter 5.
7. 5f:., E. W_N icholson, "Tbcy Sa"" Cod ~nd A,c and Drank." OIl God ,,1<.:1 /{" P",pit- ( .....W... r.1 ad
~gy '" lht 011 T<.!/':".",/ (D~ ford_ Clarendon, 19S6i. L2 I -, 3. ,.. ho Iheorize~ ,hal de~pil<' Cod'~
hoiin«s . they ronlinued to ea' and dn nk normally_
At the J\loumain of God 14 1
This refers apparently to some SOrt of celebration in God's presence, perhaps a
sacred mea! (cf. Gen. 26,6-30 and 3 1:H· 50).
TIx Srrvict allM Bast of tbe Alou!llIlin. Th~ second unit is quite different . Here the
leaders are not mentioned; attentio n focuses on fI,'l oses, who conducts a covenant
service at the base o f the mountain that includes sacri~ ces. The distance of God is
overcome, God and people are brought near in covenant community. symbolized
by the power of blood dashed upon the altar and upon the assem bly.
While the first unit ends with a mystical vtsion of Cod, an ecstatic rapture per-
haps, the !iCCond emphasizes God's solidarity with the people and the people's
responsibility to obey cov~nant laws as a sign o f theIr re1alion~ h ip to God.
What is [he relationship betWccn these: two units. the banquet on top of the
mountain and the service al [he base of the mount;> Rabbin ical commentators have
stroggled with this question, onc rabbi suggesting, for instance, that the sacrilices
at the base of the mountain provided the food for the-commun ion meal at the top.!
Some scholars try to cut the Cordian knot in one b low b)' ~~'ering these units
from the present context and read ing them separately_ But th is is inadequate. To be
SLl rc. these are independ~nt traditions, some .... hat different in coment, yet in the
nnal le xtual aITangem~ m they belong together. like the crealion and paradise: 510·
ries at (he beginn ing of the Bible (Genesis 1-3). [hese: units supplcment and illu-
minate each other.
No tice t he Anal fonn 01 the tradition, the coven<lnt ceremony al the base o f
the mountain, ...·hich portrays God's solidarity with the people and the people's
co\'enant responsibility, is sand""iched within the SW!)' of the mccting at the sum-
mit, wh ic h portrays the sovereignty and h oliness of God, who is the cosmic host
at a banquet. What does [his tell us th~ologically about communion with Cod,
For one thing, this communion does not dissolve into mystical vision , as in
some religions ancien t and modern. Like Isaiah in the temple , [he leaders "sce" the
cosmk: King seated on a heave nly throne (lsa, 6,5b), yet God's sovereignty is not
overwhelming. Cod's holiness is not destnrclive but creallve; it does not negate
human freed om but calls one to partnership with Cod and 10 the exercise o f
covenant responsibility, [hat is, obedience of Cod's will as expressed in the Ten
Commandments. The blood of the covenant, dashed upo n the alta r and spread OUt
upon the congregation, sacramentally unites th e holy God with a holy people _
This te xl, in its present form. brings the reader before 1\<'0 of the great para-
doxes of Israel's experience of the presence of Cod i n history, the sovereignty of
God, whose service is · perfect freedom: as Christians say in a traditional praye r;~
and. as we sing, the Lord of all being. who is throned afar: is also near, in~.
bound in relat ionship with the people of the covenant. to
8. Ibid .. 13 t.
9 As WaheT Broegge<nann putS 11, In I~rael~ test imony there is , profound "d isjunction"
bo:rween the po"'crful sovereignty 01 Yat-'eh and ¥ah..·ch's soliwrity with t),(- people. 5« h is
di$(ussion of "The Disjuncti.-e Rendering 01 Yahwe h." in ThD!"9Y of Ibr OU T"t.ml>It (Minne.polis,
Fortress Pres~. I 997}, 268-75_
to. 5« {he hymn, "Lord 01 An Being, Throned Afa r."

18. SALVATION AND OBLIGATION
Thr symbol oJ "the moun t;3in o f Cod,~ when: God meet S with Ih!;! people in a
theophany of earthquake:. wind, and fire, and enters into covenant relation with
them, does nOI stand by itself. In the book of Dculcrooomy it belongs to a larger
pancm of symbolization that is characteristic of the Mosaic covenant.
Coo(JUlllf mid Trtaty
One o f the major advances in biblical studies in the twentieth century has been the
discovery that the l\'losai<; coven,mt is analogou~ to a l)'P<C of ancien t neat)' (or
covenant) known ilS the ·suzerainty- or overlord treaty. ixst illustrated in treaties
found by an::haco[ogisls in the ilrchi\'cs of IM H itlilc capilallocated in Asia Minor
{modem Turkey). The Hinites, who reached the height of their power about 1400
H.C., regulated relationships betwe~n th~ir state and their vassals or client states by
a treaty a rr.m~ment that has six component pans _To revi~w what has become
I"idely known:
• First comes a preamble in which the COvenant m<l:kcr identifies himsd L his
mme, titles, position of aUlhority.
• Second, there is a reviev.' of the previous history of re lations be[\<,'een the
Hittite king and the vaSSilI, stressing the O"'~,nord's bene~cent actions that
should elicit lfTatitude and fidelity.
• Third, there is a Statement about continui ng good relations, b<l:sed on
mutual faithfulness to co nd itio ns agreed upon.
• Fourth , t he treaty sets forth speCi fi c stipulations (laws ), especially the
requi rement that the \;assal is not to have an ind~pende m foreign policy_
• Filth, the gods of hea~'en and earth are invoked as witnesses, and in addition
the re is an appeal to natur.l1 phenomena such as mountains, seas, heaven,
and ~arth .
• Fin<l:l1y, the treaty concludes wi th the sanctions of blessing and curse: b less·
ing that would result from the protection of the overlord (political security.
economic well-being, ete), and curses in th e form of every conceivable dis-
<l:Sler th<l:t would resu lt from disobed ien<:e. I
,,·tany interpreters have bttn impressed with the affin ity between th e
suzerainty treaty and the Mosaic co\'enant fonn, and <l: larg~ literature has arisen
on this subjcct .~ Onc: striking ind ication of affin ity is that the stipulatio ns of the
t . An excellent example or the \.0 -called suz~nlnty treat~' is the 'Treary ~r..·«n l\luf'ii li' and
Duppi·TC"Ssub of Amurru: in A>JFT. 203-10.
1. Di,cU5~ion ",as Slimuli.ed by the .... orks 01 Georgoe E. "\~ndenh311 , e ¥ .. hi' i rtide
-eo..'eni-nt: 108 1:71 4-2 3. 5« my Obsef'\'a!KlTIS In A;>;>mo<1.r. 10 It.. BiDIt· Th BtsI of 8ii>1t Rw. ...... ..d.
Ha~ Minkoff. 2 "0110. {Wnh,ngIOl1. D.C., Biblical Archaeology Socie ty, 1991 95 ), ·.\1end~ n.
hill Di5i." .....·• Pi-Inn,ty of Goll1.'i"Id', ~bn<isl Theory: 2:11 4- 19.
SaI"3lion and Obligation 143
" '\osaic co~'enant, according to the book of Deuteronomy, are sanctioned by the
blessing and the curse:. In a homiletical prologue: to the Deuteronomic legislation
(chapters 12- 50) Moses in"okes these d ivine sanctions.
See, I am ~enin8 before ~'OU IOda)' a b l es~ing and 3 curse: the blessing, if you obey
Ihe commandments of the LORD !Yah ...... hJ your God that I am commanding you
IOO3}" and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the loRD (Yahweh J
)'()Ur God. 001 turn nom the "'ay that I am commanding you today, to folio....- other
gods that you ha"<: not known.
-DC\Jt . 11:26·18
Some have gone so lar <l:S to say that Moses became fam iliar with the interna·
tiona l treaty form when he was serving in the pharaoh's court in Egypt . Bm this is
unlikely_ Some elements o f th~ form, to be sure, are present in the Sina i story in
Exod us 19-24, 32-34, bu t one has to stretch considerably to make the treaty fonn
fit. Also, it is doubtful whether fugitives in the Sinai desert would have: been inHu-
enced by an international treaty fonn . It is possible that the tr<:aty fonn inRuenced
Israelite tradition at the time of the occupation of Canaan . ....·hen Israelite tribes
we re bound togeth er in a triba l confed~racy, for several of the elements are found
in Jos hua's covenant ceremony at Shechem (Joshua 24)_ More likely, the treaty
form was inAuentiai during the monarchy, especially in Oc:uteronomic Circles,
when other versions (Assyrian ) of the ancient treaty form were known.
Whatever its significance for understanding Israel's social life and institu tions.
the suzeraimy treaty form has <l: hettristi<: value in that it helps US to discove r a pat-
tern of symbolism that we might have missed othen.'ise_ After a long review of
scholarly discussion, E. W. Nichol!>On concludes that "covenant" is "a mrtapbor
drawn from the world oi treat ies r.lther than an institution which formed the prin-
ciple of cohesion among the twelve tribes of earliest Israel : ) It is the task of bibli-
cal theology to understand this metaphorical world_
(ot,",a,,! Blmi".9s ",.J C Il r"5(S
The major elements of the treaty form are prese nt in the book of Deuteronomy.~
The opening pari (chapters ]-4 , 5-]1 ) reviews th~ h istory o f the rela t ions
between Yahweh and Israel. stressing the bc:ne~cent deeds that God has performed
on behalf of the people, primarily the deli ve rance from Eg)'pti<l:n bondage _ The
central part of th e book (chapters 12-26) con tai ns the stipulations binding on the
v;J:Ssal or servant. Israel is not to "know: that IS, to e nter intO rela tion with, any
other god, but is to "love" wholehea n edly, [hat is, 10 ~ devoted to/ Yahweh alone.
Moreover, Israel is to conduct thei r social life according to the agreement made at
Sinai , and that means to pursu~ justi ce and to recognize th e ri ghts of every
J . E IX' Nicholwn, GcJ ~nJ H" PtCplt (Oxford. CI~r~ndon. t986:. 82 .
4. ~]os~ \X1~i n fcld b<:lkv<:$ lhat the book of DWleronoml' displays the SINctun: of {he
suu'uint}' IrcaliC"S o f the R~ mllknnium (A5S)"ri~n , ScA~ ) , <CC o..,lt1o~"",y....J Ibr J)noIm:1ro,.;(
5cNol {Oxford: O~rcndon , 19i1l, aI", hi' utide 'Cov~nam,' hcydo;....Jia}~ ~. Gt<;.ffrey
\\"fjtloder et ;01 _ ("'....... Yo rk. Macmillw, t 971 L S· I0 t9
144 CoorOllJ"l of O/J Tn"''''''C Thtolojl)'
member of the community, including the resident alie n. Finally, the last section
(chapters 27-30), beginning with the curses in chapter 27, sets fort h the sanctions
of the covenant' the blessing 01 God for fai thfu lness, and the "curses of the
covenant for betrayaL Suikingly, the climactic passa~ in chapter 30 uses lan-
guage similar to I~ anciem treaty form. The Mosaic speaker calls on kheaven and
earth" to super.' i ~ the covenant between God and people to see whether the peo-
ple are faithful , and he invokes the sanctions of the blessing and the curse.
I call hea"en and ~arth {o "'ll n05 aga inst you today thilt I have set before you life
and dealh, blC'SSinb'S.lnd CUT'§CS. Choose [ile so Ihal you and your descendants may
Ii,-." b'ing the loRD [Y.h",ch] your God, obeying him, and holding fast 10 him,
for \hal means life to you and length of da~'s, so that you may liv~ in tho:-Iand that
the LORD [Yah"'eh] swore to 8iv~ to your anc.:stors. to AbTilhim, to lSilac:, and 10
Jac:ob.
_D...,L 30, \9-10
In Deuteronomy the promises to the ancestors, repeatedly men(ionro (e.g .,
DeuL 1:8), have a diflerem ring than in the Priestly version of the covenant with
Abraham, lsaac, and Jacob.s Possession 01 the land and inc rease on it are not guar-
anteed by an "e\'crlasting CO\'en3nl ," which endows them with pel"jKtuaJ validity;
radw; r, the promises are quali Rcd by th~ conditional "if" 01 th~ ;"" \osaic co\'enant,
found classically in t~ Eagles' \'({ings passage, "If you obey my voice and keep my
co..-enanl . .. " (Exod. 19:4-6). This conditional note sounds OUt loud and ckar at the
climax of "'·t<m:S' sermons, as it did in the prologue (Deut. 11:26-18, quoted above),
If ~'ou o~}' the commandments of the LORD [Yahweh j your God . .. then you ~h~11
Iwe and become numerous, and tho:-lom [y.hweh}your Cod "'1I1 bI~s you in the
1<lOd .hat you are ~nterin¥ 10 possess. Bm if your heart !Urns .I""'ay and you do not
hear . . . \ declare to you today (hat }'OU shill perish; you shaH not live long in dlC
land tha( you a~ crossing the Jordan 10 enter and pos~s.
-Deut. 30:16·18
Th~re seems 10 be a hin t of exile horn the homdand here, a policy imroduced
b~' Assyrian conq~rors in the eighth century 8.C. In religious terms, God may
bring judgment on unfaithful people by not allOWing them to liv~ long in the
promised land. The claim on thc land is a gifl, not an irre\'ocable promise as in the
Abrahamic ~everla$ting covenant." Li fe in ,he land is conditioned by the people's
behavior. As I,ie shall sec , this conditional eovenanl is conso nant wilh Ihe preach-
ing of the eillhth-cenrury prophet Hosea, and reach~d its consummate expression
in the message of the great se\'emh.cenrury prophet, Jeremiah,
Tnt (0"''''11",1 10 LOl" GoJ
On~ theme of Deutero nomic preac h ing deser.'es special conside ration; th e love of
Cod. To ' choose !ile,~ Moses is repr~nted as saying, is to "lo\'e Yahweh ,w
M
obey· Yah.,.,eh's com mandments, to "hold fast" to Yahweh (Deut. 30,10, cited
Silvation .Ind Obligalion 145
aOO\,c ), life is not me re extension of days or e njoyment on the good land (though
[hose benefits are included), at the deepest level to livc is to lov~ God, 10 be c~n­
lered in God.
The th~me of 101'c 01 God is Slated in the form of a commandment in the so-
called Shema (after the initial verb, "hea(). ln ra bbinical opinion, this affirmation----
recited even today m Jewish homes an d synagogues is the h~art of Ihe whole
Torah.
Hear, 0 Is.-ad ~
The LORD [YHWH ) is our God, the LOID [YH\VH) alon~ . You
shall lo~ (he LORD [YHW H) your God wi lh all your hem ~nd with ,11 your soul
and wilh.lll your mtght.
-Dem. 6:4· 5 (N1P$V)
In th is translation the word "alone" (instead of Ihe familiar rende ring ·one") appro-
priately indica tes that Yahweh is to be the sole center of one's del'Olion. In the
rea lm of faith there is no place lor a divided loyallY: rather, one must love God
with the .... hole being-heart.. soul (self), vital strength.' T his is the practical or
"exjstentiar monotheism of Israel's faith , to be distinguished from theoretical or
philosophical monotheism.
But why are the pcople commanded to love Cod7 Can real love be com-
manded , In the Dccalogue children are com manded nOI 10 love their parents but
to honor and respect them (DcuI. 5: 16). It would be appropri ate to hear Ihe com -
mand to "fear" (be reverent beford the holy God, as in Ps. 46: 10, "Be still and
know that I am God: or. J would translate, "Be quiet and ack nowledge thal r am
Cod.' BUI can th~ love of God be commanded; Real love is a spontaneous, joyful
giVing of the heart to another.
The difficulty of Ihe command is lessened somewhat by several considerations.
First, some scholars understand "love" in Ihe context of ancienl treaties between an
overlord 'l.Od vassal. the so-called suzerainty treaties 01 the second and first
millennia? To take one striki ng example, Ihe Assyrian king Esarhaddon is quoted
as commanding his vassals to "love" his successor Ashurbani pal, ·You .... illlove as
yourselves Ashurbanipal."lln the context of a treaty (cove nan t) between God and
Is..,el, it is appropriate for the Q\'erlord to command the vassal (servant) 10 exhi bit
a love Ihat is manifest in loyalty and obedience (see Dcul. I I: I and elsewhere).
Second, in Deuteronomy Ihe Shema does nOt stand by itself as a stentorian
command, but belongs in the context of God's prio r love for the people. In the
very next chapler, Deuteronomy 7 . the people are reminded Ihat Yahweh did not
choose them because they were more numerous or powerful than other na tions.
Rathe r,
(; Th ... Hebrew word ~,~r...b should be tran~13ted
nOl 'sou l,' ii that implies ~ body-soul
10 dkholomy {as in Gr~d:. ph,lowphy and mueh popular thinkin¥i. b.." '~jng' (see Gen . 1:7,
NRSV, or "'lCW id. Ps. 103, I).
7 Set, for irHtan(e, '~l. L MQr.ln, "'The An<:1ent Ne..,. Eutem B.ac4,.-round of lhe love of Cod
in Deuteronomy,' CBO Jj [ 196Jj 77-87.
8. QuOted and diK~sed by Nic:hohon, G~J ~d HI! Pto~it 61 .
 146 (0"/0010 cl OU Tf'lI",.",t Tbrok>gy
It ....·u bccaU>oC lne loRDlYah .... ehJ loved you ;and kept the ooIh thill he S'oO<'ore 10 your
aocestOl"S, th;.r the lORD [Yah"'eh ) has bro\.lght you <JUI with a might), hand, and
re dwned you from the h~ of slavery. from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
- Oeut. 7.8
Behind the commandment, then, is the demonstration of th", prior love and grace
of Cod.
Know therefore that rho:- Low [YahwchJ )'our God is God. the faithfu l God who
maintains co"enam [oyalty [/xsd] ..... ith those who [on" him and keep his corn'
mandments, 10 a thousand ~neralions.
--Dcul 7:9
Finally. the commarnlment to love Cod may be understood as the beginning o f an
ever.. dec-pening relat ionship, This is the case in some mamages. The marri age
begins as a legal contract, a commandment to love and honor one anmOer, but
within the connactual relationship the partners may flnd love th,u becomes dec-per
and fuller as the years go by. So the love of God, within the covenant, may be a spi r·
itual progress or, in John Wesley's terms, love that is going on toward perfection.
Rtspoust to God's Brnejlcm/ Duds
•• \'(Ie have seen that the suzerainty treaty form begins with a recitation of the over·
lord 's beneScent deeds th at the vassal is called to remember with gratitude and
faithfulness. First come<> the story. then the obligation. At first glance, it would
seem that the preaching of Deuteronomy departs from this sequence of Story and
commandment, for it begins ..... ith the people's sojoum al Sinai .... here. through the
cove nant mediator, they received "the statutes and ordinances." By contrast, the
Old Epic tndition found in the book of Exodus begins with the exodus story
(c hapters 1-18 ) and move~ into the gh'ing of the ·la....." at Sinai {chapters 19-14,
32-34}. Yet this apparent difference between Exodus and Dellleronom}, is not
rea1. Throughout Mose<>' preaching, the "savi ng experience" {i.e" the de1i\'eranCe
from Egyptian bondage) is the presupposition of the ~commanding experience"
(the giving of the la ....·). The God who enters inlo covenant ..... ith the people and
make<> demands on them is their liberator, as stated in the preface to the Ten
Commandments (Delle 5,6 ) and echoed throughout Moses' sermons (Deut. 4 :37,
6,22 .. 23, etc.),
yah ....eh has taken you .nd brough t you OUt of the iron·'ilTldtn-. out of Egypt, to
become a ~Je of his "cry own possessioo, ~s you ar~ now.
-Dodo~ : 10 (1l\l:',\J
Moreo,'er, this act of deliverance belongs to t he previous story of the ances·
tors, as can be sccn from the so·called linle historical credo. which gi\'e5 the
substance of the Pemateuch (Torah ) in a nutshell (DeuL 6 :11 .. 14, 16:5.9).9
9. Gemard ,'on R.Jd once ma,nlainc:d Ih;1I -the linJe hiitoric.tl anio' cOll5ttlutn the thematic
Rudeu5 out of ...·hkh ,he cpic ,"dinoR ~olved; see hI< m=>Of"ilble ('l;SiY. 'The Fonn·Cnltcal
Salvation and Obligation 147
Furthermore, it belongs to the context of the story of Cod's ~going before- the
people in their ongoing joomey. when God ·carried them"-";ust as one came<> a
child, all the way that you traveled un til you reached this place" (Dcut. 1:30 .. 33).
Mose-5 exclaims,
o Lord [Yahweh) Coo. you h.v~ on I}' begun to show your $ef'o"ltnt you r greatness
and your mighl; whal !loci in heaven or on cann can perform deeds and mighty act~
. .
like "ours'
-Deut.3: 2-t
Librrnfiol: for Se",i£:(
Some interpreters find in the exodus story the basis for uliberation theology,·
'v.·hkh ha5 been influential in latin America, South Korea, the African American
com munity, and elsewhere. 10 Moses' demand before the pharaoh. ~let my people
go: is unde rstood to mean that Cod is on the side of the poor and oppressed
e"erywhere and that Cod acts to overt hrow structures or regimes that hold peo·
plc in bondagel1 Indeed. the exodus story evinces ~a preferential Option for the
poor."!l
There can bt" no dOubt that the Cod of the Bible demands justice. as evident
from the o;ummary of prophetic preaching in the book o f Micah (6: 1.. 8 ). In some
respects this passa~ resembles ~the covl.'nanl lawsui( considered previously.
• Summons to Trial (6: 1.. 1): The passage begins with a summons: Yahweh has
a "controversy" (rib ) with the people. and ~the mountains~ and "the hills" arc to hear
the case. H
• The Question before the Court (63·5 ), The aggrieved cO'l,enant parry,
Yahwch. asks who is to blame ior a breakdown of relations. in vie",' of Yahweh's
actions in libe rating the people from slavery. proViding the leaders Mose<>, Aaron,
and Miri<lm, and guiding them to the th resh old of the promised land.
• The Judgment of the Coun (6:6.8 ): Standing before the Judge. the people
ask how they are to give a filling response to "the mighty acts [literally 'righteous
deeds'] of the LORD." The illustrations l"'icalate into wild exaggeration: thousands
Problcm of thc l-ieull."Uch," in Tbt P,~~koo 4!Dt Hn;"l"""b ruJ Olk flU/p. lnons. E. W Truan;ln
o..::ken (N(""o( Yort.: McGrl ...... H,lI . 1966), 1-78. 5IJmmarizeti in his comm~mary G.ms;l. lrans_
John H. Man.., on (rc·.. ed.; Philldelphil: Weslminm1'. (971 ).
IQ For [ibenioo the(J[ogy 'I« , . S<:vertno CroaHO . E""j~ ... A H,"""""lic ~J FrrfJD., mills.
Saln,,)r A"aR~~sio (Maryknoll, K Y. Orbis, 1981 )_For Sotlth Koru in impOlUnt mO'iemenl is
AI.i~JIU'!J n..-"jog:,', or "peoplc's theololP': 5c-c: Kwong·\.On So, n. ""''''~ .~li"",,,g ;" Clm>1 (Hong
Kong· CTC-Ca, (992). For Ihe ,.1.fncan Amcrican community see J~mes Cone. c;.,J oJ t.!x
Oprr",.J (New York Seabur)'. 1975 ).
11. On" oi th" be~1 summaries and dde0SC"5 of [ibcra,ion ,h~ology is Roben "kAf..., Brown,
~)" ", " N"" '0'- R,,:-j,~~· .., Lbto,;I"", TJx,.", \Philadelphia 'lXf~itmtnstcr. 1978).
t2. A theme of La lin Amerinn theology. d'''::IK""d in n. Erw.",,!\ 3, no. 3 Uu[y-Sep,
1996) H_
11. Somc com~re thc SlIzcnnnly tr<:aty !Mm (d,<cussed .~).. in .... hich heavem. moon ..
13. ni. etc .. '1"I: im.uh'Cd_
148 Gmlo"" of Old Ti,,,,,,,,,,1 Tbwlog),
of sacrificial animals? riv~rs of oil;: the ~xtrem~ of child sacrifice? Th~ j udgm~ nt of
the court is given in languag~ t hat rdl~cts th~ pr~ ach ing of eighth.century
proph~ts (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah):
Ht I,~; 1" ld ),011 . 0 mOrlill.•,h", i, gow.!.
""d ",1>", J 0(5 tbr lord ,,~"i,c ~J Y""
but !~ do jU'!KC. ~"J t<t b" kid"<\;.
m,d,o u',,!~ bum.!,]y w,th )'OI/r GoJ~
- Mic. 68
Liberation theologians, however. have sometim~s gi\'en a one-sid~d int~rpr~·
tation, especially whcn exodus is trcated as a 5eparate themc, apan from th~ story
of the Sinai r~vdation_ It is clear from the exodus Story tha t the purpose of God's
li~rating activi£)' is to free pea plc from the bondage of state slaves so that they
may cnter a new form of service- that is. to be "vassals" {servants) of the Gr~at
King, to invoke the suzerain£)' treaty form once again. At th~ burning bush j\·loses
is sent to Pharaoh to l ib~ rat~ th~ people from Pharaoh's yok~ of sla v~ry so that
th~y may ~s~ rv~" (worship ) Cod at Mount Sinai (Exod. 3, i2 )_Their freedom is not
sd f. determination, "the absence of restraint or ncccssity: to cite a modern dictio-
nary definition. As lon Levenson remarb appropriately, "Israel's freedom li~s in
their subjugation [Iuh iug~ , 'under the yokeT - the .~·lishn ah calls this "th~ yok~ of
th~ Kingdom of H~av~n "1 4
Cod's lib~ration is not complete until a band of slaves, delive~d from oppres·
sive bondage, is formed into a covenant community that is governed by God's
tora h, the basis of peace. order, and we1far~. Fre~dom by itsdf can lead to li c~nse
and chaos, order by itsdf can ~xtinguish fr~~dom_ It is Significant, th~n , that ~xo·
dus and Sinai ~long tog~th~r, c~nainly in the final shaping of th~ tradi tion if not
from the very first . at the original source of the whole tradition . God's li berat ing
work began in rescuing slaves from the misery and suffering of imperial bondage;
it was comp1ct~d in shaping thos~ s lav~s into a community r~gulat~d by "statutes
and ordinanc~s_« lsrad's r~al fr~~dom was not fr~~dom from but fr~~dom for.
Divine Sovereign/)' alld HumaH Fmdom
Th~ '\ '\osaic covenant, as elaborated in Deuleronomic preaching, deals with the
mystery-in th~ la nguage of Emil Fack~n h~ im. "'the d ia l~ct ical contradiction"----of
divine sov~ ~ignty and human fr~~ dom , som~tim~s called "'t he paradox of gra c::~ '" j
In th~ CO\'enant rdat ionship, Cod r~ mains sov~~ign. Cod's holiness is pow~ r-,h,
power that brought the universe inlo being, the pow~r tha t holds (he stars in their
courses, th ~ pow~r that shapes history. Therdor~, th~ Sinai cov~nant. though a
b i la t~ral relationship between Cod and people, is not a pari ty covenant, b~tween
14. Jon D . U-Venson. " E"odu~ and liber~tion ." inn. Hd"..", Bib!.. I~, 01; r,,4!M'ml. ~-."J His,",,;-.,I
Crili,;,,,, (louis";]I", 'ifesl mi,m.,r/John Knm. 1993}, 148 . This "'5ay, In m}' Judgment, is a pmh.
ing----if soml'What 0""' .,id.,d--criticism 01 SOm" of th .. ",cakn.-s~ of liberati on theology.
15. On the d ialectical contradictions of Scripture. o;ee abo,·.,. chapte r 9.
S~lvation and Obligation 149
equals. Nonetheless, Cod's power as lord of the cov~nanl d~ not d~stroy human
fre~dom but addreo;seo; it. If God's commitment 10 Israd involves choic~, the sam~
is true of the people. Cod puts them in a situation of choic~, calling for activ~ par-
ticipation. A classic instance of Mosaic covenant theology is given in Joshua 24.
There we read that Joshua, having told "all the people"' the story of how Cod had
li~rated them from bondage and led them into the land, put 10 th ~m the chal-
leng~: "Choos~ today whom you will s~rve'" Uosh. 24, 15 j.
Th~ paradox of divin~ sov~r~ignty and human r~sponsi bility is beautifully por-
tray~d in th~ sc~n~ of Israd at the bas~ of Mount Sinai, ablaze with the fire that
symbolizes Cod's ap pearanc ~ in th~ human world. Th~ mountain shakes with the
pow~r of Gods holy presen c~-~~arthquak~, wind, and fir~"-and the peopl~
stand back in f~ar. You would think that th~ display of the pow~ r of th~ holy Cod
would paralyze. if not crush. any respons~ of human fr~~dom . Y~t paradoxically,
Cod's power d~s no t ov~ r..'hdm but calls to action, IQ r~sponsibility_ '6 This is
evident from the magnific~ nt Eagl~s' Wings passag~ that stands at th~ ~ginning
of the Sinai narrative in the Old Epic tradition_ "'loses, the covenant m~diator, is
addrc<;sed:
11>") you sh,,[l ~)'10 1f,~ MU~I ~J Ll(ob.
anJ tell tht I"",l:tr:;.
YOiI u,b,o) 1did.o lhe Eg)1!ti"'ll,
b.:.ll( !lfII
and MW [b~,( )'OU~" ",gid ""i"9;
,,"J brought yQ~ 1<1 mystif·
Now Ilxrrjorr, if you obry "'Y 11<"'"
"r.J krt~ lily woo,,,,rr.
)'OlIlhall'" "'y "I~>"rd po,~"O" ,''''''''g all /'(O~/r;.
far ~ll.be ",rib brlongs to "" ;
,,"d you sball br fa, rnt a h,,:/Jom DJ " .ic;I;.
""J ~ Jx,J)' ",,'ion.
TbCiC "" tbr u",rJ, Ibar)'OlI , 611 sp."k 1<1 11:. ["ad;!,,_
- hod. !9,3 -4 (HWA j
Alro, in this Eagles" Wings passage we encounler the paradox (dialectical con-
tradiction) of the universal and the panicular. All the earth belongs to Yahweh (cf.
Ps. 24: I), but Israel is to belong to Yahweh in a special sense- "my treasured pos-
s~ss i on among all the peoples. "' As God's people, Israel will be ~a kingdom of
priests~-a curious expression that seems to refer to a unique priestly rol~ that
Israd will perform in th~ world.
Moreover, Israel is to ~ "a holy nation" Holin~s5 rde~ to som~thing sepa-
rated from the profan~ world as bdonging to th~ holy Cod. H~r~ th~ usage of th~
term "nation" (goy) must r~flect a tim~ aft~r David when Israd became a territorial
state. As we have seen earlier. nationhood does nOt fully and essentially d~scribe
Israd's identity and role as a P(QP/( ( l/1l1}-ht he people of Cod.~·7
16. See the discussion of the making of the covtnJnt {Exod. 24·1-1 1) in chapter 1 1 abo"e.
17. Abov." chapt.,r 9.
150 c~~ rolE" pf OIJ Trsw",,,,t 71",10;1)"
The sequcl of th~ invitation to be the people of Cod is a cov~nant setyic~, held
at th~ bas~ of Mount Sinai, In this service, during which /I.:loses officiates as the
co\'~nant mediator. the people pledge loyalty to their liberating God: "All that the
LORD [Ya hwehl hasspok~n, we will do, and we will be obedie n( (Exod. 24:7i _Th~
cove nantal s~rvice has inRu~nced the Christian Eucharist, which echoes the theme
of Ut he blood of th~ cov~nant" {Mark 14: 14 and parallels).
COlxi;;lrn(c lVilh Go'!
The mOSt daring theological imp lication of th~ Sinai covenant, as portrayed in the
book of Exodus and echoed in the book of Deut~ronomy, is that this people,
Israel, is called into a lif~ of coexi s (~ nc e with God, or as AbrahamJoshua Heschd
put it, a life of Mpann~rship with Cod"IS The Sinai covenant is based on the ini -
tiativ~ of Cod, who invites the people into the relat ionship. Israel is nOI a sl,we but
a ~e ~ople: invited to be a partner with Cod and 10 assume full responsibilily. To
b~ sure, Ihe covenam offers the people God's protec tion and the blessings of lik.
For il rests on Ihe superior pow'er of th ~ cov~nant ma.ker, on God's !>rSld or
coven anI loya lty and strong help for th~ w~ak~ r pany. At on~ point the D~mer·
onomic pr~ach j ng se~ms to ~cho th~ passag~ in Exod. 34:6· 7 abou t Iht' proclama-
tion 0 1 th~ nam e (charaCler) of Yahweh,19
Know thet-dore rhat Yahweh your God i~ God. thl" bithful God who maintains
CQVeflant loyalty n·mJ j with those who love him and keep his commmdments, to
a thousand geflef<l.tiofls, and who repays in their own per>on tho,e who reject him.
- DeuL 7,9 (B\'I:'A )
Moreover, if the relationship is to continue, it will be primarily because of the
constancy of Cod's loyalty, fo r the people, according to a passage that sounds a
note similar to Ezekid 20, have been rebdlious aga inst Yahweh from th~ day th ey
came out of Egypt until the pres~ nl (Deut. 9:7, 24 ). Human freedom cannot
destroy the sovereignty of God, who remains free to be gracious \1010 whom Cod
wills (Exod_ 33, 19b).
A Co,d;liorwl Covrnan(
One aspect of the Mosaic covena nt seems to set it off sharply from the Abra hamic
covenant, th e fonn er is conditional, the latter unconditional. According IQ Ihe old
story in Genesis 15, as we hav~ seen earlier, Abraham was in a d~ep s!~ep wh~n the
covenant promise of land was giv~n unconditionally, he was a passive reci pient o f
the co\'enant promis~s_ According to the Priestly versio n in Genesis 17 no la",'S
were prescribed, but circumcision was given as a sign of membership in the
covenaflt community.:lO By contrast, in the Mosaic covenant the covenant rela -
18. See my essay, "Conistence with Cod, Heschd's Exposition of 8iblica l Theology: in
Aht"h~,. J~,m." H,(~rl Exploring Hi, DJ. ~"J Tb.o"9h!. ed. John C Mcrlle ( N~w York, Col1 iN
)l.1acmil1 an. 1985), 47---65_
\ 9. On the proclamation of God', name. see abo"e, chaplet 7
10. Sec the disc\w,ion above, chapler 12
Salvation and Obligation 151
tionship is contingent on the people's behavior, whether they say yes or no to God
in their da ily livi ng_ The conditional Mif" of the Eagles' Wings passage (Mlf you obey
my voice and keep my covenant,« Exod. 195), which resounds throughout Moses'
preaching (e.g. , 4,]5·16; 5:29), is underscored Ivith the sanction of blessing and
curse : the blessing if t he commandments are obeyed, and the curse if th ey are dis.
obeyed ( 11,26·28 ). Th~ ~ople are called to decide \vhether to be the peopl~ of
God by shOWing their loyally to Cod in act ion. that is, by fulfllling thos~ obliga-
tions that b~flt th e rdationship_
Freedom. th~ n, has both possibilities and dangers, and this is what the Mosaic
covenant recognizes. Fr~edom can be fu lfilling if it is freedom in faithful covenant
relationsh ip to Cod, pranicing the jus(ice and mercy that b~ flt a people whom
God has deli\'~r~d from oppr~ssion. Or freedom can be chaotic if it is the freedom
that be trays the cove nant relationship, by {org-elting the story of God's bene6cent
deeds and consequently perpetrating violence or pursuing th e idols of this world.
In shon, fr~~dom can yield blC"ising, or freedom can bring a curse. Human bein~
who stand befor~ t he hol y Cod. as at the assembly at Sinai, face Ihes~ fateful alter-
fl~ tives . j\·i osaic preaching calls them to turn from falst' loyal ties and to rerum to
covenant loyalty, th~t is, to r~~nt-a theme cl1aracteristic of proph~ts l ik~ Hosea
andJ e r~miah , as we shall see_ The preaching is an urgent appeal, " He~r, 0 Israel:
as in th~ Shenta (Dem. 604-5 ).
Th ~ pr~carious dimension of huma n freedom , express~d in the conditional
'"if." is high ligh ted in ~ climactic passage found in Moses' third far~well address
(D eUL 29: 1-30,20). Mos~s has rehearsed the StotY of Yahwe h's liberatiflg deeds,
preemin~ ntly the ~v~nt of the deliverance from Egyptian bondage; and he has
summarized the cov~nant law found in the Decalogue and the c~se law ba5ed on
it. As he looks to th~ horizon of the future, when the people enter into th~ land
and settl~ down , he ~ n"isions tvm possibilities, the blessing and th e curse.
See, I have set before you today li /e and pJ"OSperity, death and ad"'ersity. If you obey
Ihl" comrnandrnent~ of the Lo lUJ [Yahweh j ),our Cud that I am commanding you
today, by lovmg rhe Low [Yahweh J you r Cud, walking in his ..... ays, and observing
his comrnandmeflls, decrees, and ordinance<;., th en you shall live and become
numerous, and (he Lo w {Yahweh) your Cod will bless you in the land that rou are
eflteri ng 10 pOS\oCSS.
- DeUf. 30,15-16
Thus Israel can choose "life," bUI alternatively can choose "d~ath"-tenns that are
understood not in a biological sense but as healthy, wholesome relations within
the cov~nant.
Hur if your heart !lum away ;md you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down
ro other gods and $en.'e them, I declare to you roday (hat you shall perish; you shall
nOl livc long in the land that you are crossing rh l" Jord~n to enter and POSleSS. I call
heaven and earth to witnes~ again5t you today that I have let before you life and
death , b!essing~ afld CUT>eS. Choose li fe so that you ~ nd your descend~nt5 may live,
10";flg the Low [Yah"'eh] your Cod, obeying him, and ho lding fast to him ; for
152 (Dlltoun of OIJ Ttl't1,"1>' r Thtol~)'
th~t me~ns life 10 you ~nd length oi days, W Ihal you may live in the: l~nd thal Ihe
LoRD [Y,lhweh ] s'.... o~ to give to your ~n(<:SIOfS. 10 Abraham. 10 I....ac:, and to
jacob.
-[)rot. 30,17-20
Thus one can speak of the b lessing of the Torah, as in Psalm I; or one can speak
of "the curse of the law,· as does Paul in Cal . 3, 10 .
RtlatiollsbiP b(twenJ tht Abmlmmic m:d Mosaic Co~:ants
It is not sufficient 10 draw a theological contrast ~twttn the Abrahamic uncondi-
tional covenant and the Mosaic conditional co \'enant. While these n.'o covenams
m ay be juxtaposed lor the sake of comparison. they a re not murually exclusive. al
least in the perspective of Deuteronomic theology.
To understand this. we mUSt consider the importance of God's promise of land
to the people. a promise that is grounded on and gua1<lnteed by the covenam made
with Abraham (Genesis 15). Readers of Deuteronomy will be struck by the num-
~rol times th at reference is made to the ancestors o f Israel. This them e is appro-
pri ate, of course, for rhe Story line of the preaching bri ngs t he people from Horeb
(S inai), through the wilderness. to the very edge 01 the land. T he people, it is
emphaSized, are to go in and take possession of thei r inheritance, bc:ccause it is the
land th at "the God of [the] ancestors" (0=1. ]:]] ) "promised on oath"' (S: ]) or
"sw ore on oalh~ (of the covenant) 10 Israel's ancestors. God has given other peo-
ples thdr lands, for instance. Edom, JI,.·10ab, and Ammon (D=teronomy 11- but has
assigned this panicular land to Israel.
As we have seen, the Ahrahamic covenant, according to Priestly understand·
ing, guarantees the land to the people as an ~everlaSting possession" or "a hold ing
in perpetuity- (Ccn. 17:8). An everlasting covenant entails. in this view. an ever-
lasting possess ion. When \)cuteronomic theologians linked t he unconditional
Abrahamic promise to the conditional Mosaic covena nt. however. the effect was
to relativize the land promise. that is. to make the possession contingent on the
behaviorof the people on the land. If the people an~ unfaithful to the covenant , the
result will be that God will bring judgment on them, scanering them among the
na tions, ...'he re they will "Iorship worthless idols ( [kUI. 4:25-29). The meaning of
hardship is that Yahweh "disciplines~ the people. JUSt as a parent disciplines a child
(Deut . 8:5). so that. onc ...·ould hope. they will come to thei r senses, seek Yahweh
their Cod, and rerum to the covenant re lationship. T his view is summarized in an
important pas~ge that has in vkw the possibility of exile an d return,
When you have had child ren and children's chIldren, and be.:onlC complacelll 111
the land. if yoo act cOl1llplly by ma king an idot in Ihe form of anYlh ing. rhus doins
""har is evil in the sight of Ihe loRD {Yahweh J your GOO. and provoking him 10
anger. I call heaven and earth 10 w,tness againsl ~'ou lod,,}' tha t you will soon
lItr .. rty perish from the land Ihal you are cmo;sing the Jordan 10 oc<.:upy, )'OU will nOl
li ve long on il, bul will be Imerty dC$lroyed.
Sat~r.on and O bligation 153
Disas ter. however, will provide an opponunity for a change o f hean a nd fo r a new
relat ionship.
The loRD [Yah"'ehJ will ~atler you among the peoples,. only ~ few of you win be
kft among Ihe nal ions whe~ the lORD [Yahweh ] will lead you. There you will
serve other gods made by human hoinds. obJecls of,,~ and stone that neither see,
nor hear, nor eat. nor SfIl..ll. from Ihere you ....il! seck the loRD [Yahweh] your
GOO, and you will find him if }' OU search aher hIm ..·ith all your hean and §(MJ]. In
yourdislres~. when all IhC'SC Ihings have happened to you in time 10 come, you will
return to th~ Low [Yahweh ] your Cod and heed him.
--Dcut. 4:27-30
H ere we see h ow the Deu t~ro nomic interpreters st rugg le with the paradox of
grace. Cod is the Faithful One who. in the long run . does nOt go back on the w o rd
of promise. \\'hen Israel returns, like a prod iga l son, God will be ready to receive
th e people and to establish them in their land.
B("Cause the LORD [Yahweh ] your God I. a merciful God. he will neilher abandon
you nor dC$troy you, he will nOl forget the covenanl "'ith your ancestors that he
s",'or~ to th ~m.
-Delll. 4:31
H ope for the future. in this view. restS nO t in the people's m ilitary or economic
power (8: 11 - 18), fo r the}' are relatively weak, or on their righteousness (9 4-5), fo r
they have bee n rebellious as long as Yah ..... eh has known them .. rathe r, the holy
Cod acts in freedom-indeed in love-to maintain the co....enant loyalty (jrsrd)
sworn b}, oath to the ancestors (7: ]2-13). In me rcy Cod w ill "con~rm" or "estab-
lish" the everlasting covenant with Abraham--su rely a paradox, for th is covena nt
was -"established" or "made firm" in the time of the ancestors!
TIPO Covtl","IS T/J.:,f 51lppimnll o..c Ano/btr
After this discussion, the diffefence and rela tion betwcc:n the n.'o covcna nts----the
Abrahamic and the Mosaic-should be clearer. O n Ihe one h an d, the ancestral
covenant guarantees Cod's promise of land and numerical increase. Th is cO\'enant
is ~om by divine oath. that is. it is unconditionally grounded in God's holy wilL
h is mad e not w ith the people but w ith their anceslr.ll representa rives: Abraham
and Sarah. and the rest. This covenant also gives the assurance that in the future
"the God of the ancestors" will be the God of the people. being wi th th e m as their
God. Th is covenant cannot be annulled in the last analysis. because it is based on
Cod's faithfulness.
On the o t her hand, the t\'losaic covenant is made with the people as a whole.
Accord ing to the Old EpiC in hodus ]9-24, the w hole people w ere assembled at
the base o f " 'lount Sinai and t\'!oses acted as their spokesman. W hen Moses
announced the commandments of the covenant. the people a nswered unani-
mously , MAll the words that Yahweh has spoken we will do ." God and people are
partne:rs, bound to each other in covena nt solidarity.~ I Moses is the medialor of the
covenan t, the o ne who represents God to the: pe:ople: and the: pc:ople: bdorc: God.
Furthc:nnore, thl': Mosaic cove nant dc:als with the laws that are to shape Ihe
lifc:style of the pc:op le. While thc: Abraham ic cove:na nt de:al! with [and and
inCttaSe':, thl': Mosaic covc:nant deals with thl': way the peoplc: are to live on the
land. [t is a cove nant o f la w. setting forth the: cove:nant stipulations by ....·h ieh thc:y
are to Jivc:---or pc:rish----on t he land sworn by cove: nant oath t o th e ancc:stors.
Perhaps this dist incti on bc:rwc:c:n thc: pc:ople: and their ancc:stors is dra""n in a
passagc: th at sc:rvc:s 10 in troducc: thc: Dc:utc:rono mic ve:rsion of the Ten
Commandments,
The loRD [Yahweh] ou r God made a covmant ''I'lth us at Horeb_ NO! with OUT
ancc:stors did the lORD [Yah"'eh] makc: thiS cove nant. but with us. who arc all at
us here alive roday.
---Dcu!. 5,2-3
The covc:nant with th e an cestors was a diffc:rc: nt covc: nant, onc that promised la nd
and incrc:ase. The covc: nant at Sinai. however, was a covenant that called 1he
people to obc:dience to God's laws o n the: land. All generat ions of the people,
including the present livi ng one, are imagined 10 be participams in the assembly
at the base of .~1 0unt Sinai. In worship, the past be:comes prc:sent with solemn and
savmg powe r.
21 . See the diSQJs,"on of the co,·enanl·mmng cc-n.mony in Exod. 1 -4, 3 -& in ch~pt("f 17 ~bove
t 9. COVENANT AND LAW
As Wf' have sern, the: Abrahamic cove nant is a promiuory covenant, one that
gua rantees the: promise: of la nd and posteri ty, .... hereas the Mosaic cove:nant is pri-
marily a cove:nant of obligation. The giving of commandm~nts by Yahweh, who
graciously ddive:re:d the peopl~ from Egyp tian bondage and took. th~ i nitia[iv~ to
e:nt~ r into cove:nam with them. is fundamenla l to th is Iheological perspc:cti~_
Indeed. in this vie ..... co\ocnant and la .... can be: id~ntifled as onc: and the: sam~ thing.
This is clear from a p<lssag~ in ""10S1!S' sennon ( De~lI . 4 :11 - 14; cf. 1 Kgs.8: 21),
where he holds bc:for~ the: pc:opl~'s imagina tion th~ image of [h~ saCttd mountain,
"blaZing up to the: ve:ry h~ave:ns. shrouded in dark clouds." At that tim~. wh~n COO
spoke to Moses Rout of the fire w:
He declared to ~'ou hi~ covena nt, whkh he chuged you to observe, th ilt is, the ten
commandmem~
Here it is cle:ar that cove nant is inseparable from law. To keep the covenant is to
observe: God's statutes and ordinances in the land into which the people are
movmg.
Furt hennorc, this passag<: jndicat~s that the laws, preeminently th e Te:n
Commandments, are the: s.ubstance of divine Te\·e!ation . The Dc:ute:ronomic inter-
preter takes pains to e:mphasize that Cod's revdation was not viwa l but auditory:
R
-You heard the sound of words bu t sa"" no form .- there was only a voice (4: 12, 15).
Human be:ings canoot Rsee" Cod (Exoo. 33:20) but th~ are called to "hear: The
\'oice does not communicate a conc~pt i on of God or a future prom i~, but Rwords"
that specify wha t God require-s of the people. Obeying God's commandme nts is
the token of a rdationship wit h God tha t defines [srael as a separ<lte: community,
Ra people: holy t o God- (Dc:ut. 7:6). Holiness is manifest in the actions of ~vc:ryday
life: that disti nguish Israel from ot her peoples.
Tht Htmdwrililtg of God
It is significant that h<:re: th <: ~words" that Cod spo k~ are specine:& the: len "words"
(Decaloguc:) now found wi th slight modiRcations in f\o,'O recensions: Exod.. 20: 1-1 7
and DeuL 5:6·21. Law is the essen tial content of God's r~vdation. This is under-
scored with a bold anthropomorphism: "the tablets o f SIOne, written with the fin-
gerof God" (Exod. 3]:]8 ).
This poim is also made in the Old Epic traditio n of th~ sealing of the covenan t
in a cere:mony at the ba~e of th <: sacred mountain (cod. 24:3·8). We re:ad that
Moses announced to the pc:opl~ "all the words [dlbarimJ o f Yahweh: rd~rring to
the ten commilndme:nts of bad.. 20: 1- 17. "and all the ordinances- (lrIisbpatim ),
rdemng to the: case laws or -ordin a nces~ found in Exodus 21-23 (Ih e: so-called
C ovenan t C ode j. The juxtaposition of ~wo rd s" and "ordinances" mll'it bc: (h<: result
• • •
156 C""to.m of D!J Ttlld"'l'Ir Thtalogy
of editorial harmonization, for in the next act 01 the covenant ceremony the peo-
ple respond, "All the words [d/barilll] that Yahweh has spoken wc will do" (24:3}.
Moses then proceeds to write -the words (.kbtlrim l of Yahweh- in a book (24:4}.
Finally, after the blood ceremony that unites the !;W'o covenanting p;lrtners, :-"Ioscs
concludes by saying: "Sce the blood of the covenan t that Yahweh has made with
r
you in accordance with all these ...·ords [Jtbari.. The Decalogue (ten ....ords) is
clearly the basis of the !I,'\osaic covenant, the ..isb,!><ltilll (case laws) found in the
Covenant Code are supplementary.
In some churches to,hy, for example, the United ~:Iethodist, the rite 01 Ho ly
Communion includes the reading of the Decalogue and the u~ of the language
"blood of the covenant" to describe the ncw covenant made through the sacrificial
blood of Jesus Christ (Matt. 26:18; 1 Cor. 11 :15). According to the Gospel of
Matthew the new covenant (some would say "the second covenan() was modeled
after the first. for it Too was promulgated on a mountain and included the giving
of a new law (Sermon on the Mount , Matthew 5-8) by a new />.'!oses who came not
to abrogate the Torah but to fulfiU it. Christians need to get over a negative atti -
rude toward tOTah (law, teaching) that has been innuenced by Paul's interp ret ation ,
or possibly our misinterpretation of his polemical wri ting (e.g .. GalatiansJ. r
Thus the core of Israel's legal tradition is the Decalogue, around which other
interpretive laws (ordinances) have gathered in the history of the tradition. as can
be seen in Exodus 20-13. Around this co re is also gather~d priestly legislation,
found especially in Exodus 15-31 and the book of Leviticus. From an original
nucleus the la ...' expanded as th~ core law was interpret~d in \'"Ver new situations:
th~ agricultu ral situation of Canaan, the complexitil'"S of the monarchy, the pOSt-
exilic community, and so on. To take a s«ular ana logy; it is something like lif~ in
th~ United States . ...,here th~ American Constitution pro"ides a fundamenta l legal
core around which ha\'e gathered case laws , or a body of applications of Ih~ fun -
damentallaw. Ne.... situations call for the reinterpretat ion of the Cons titution ...'ith-
out changing ils fundamental character.
"I"bc An: of Ibt ( 01ll'llQ,,'
In Deuteronomic tradition the stress on th(: Decalogue is funher \'"Vid(:nced in the
statement that Moses put the tablets containing the Decalogue in the ark, "and
there they are as Yahweh commanded me" (Deul. 10:5; cr. 2 Kgs. 8:9). The vie ....
of the ark as a reposi tory for sacred objects may ....ell be \'cry ancicnt.
Another pentateuchal tradition. howevcr, vicws the ark somewhat differently:
it is the throne-seat on ...'hich Yahweh is invisibly enthroned, and it "goes before"
the people during their ....ars and wan derings. The Song of the Ark, one of the old-
est pieces of poetry in the Hebrew Bible , reAects this view. \'Vh t"n th~ ark advanced
at the head of the people, Moses exclaimed:
I. Sce Iht poonted. ind iPptOPriil~. remarks of ,he Jewish theologIan . .Ion D Levenwn. Si"-,,
.nd Zi"" (t\'linneapolis: Win51on, r98S l. 1- 2.
An«. D LORD [y"hwth). ItI YOOJ.f tntIIIit'l !It" sc"Itt>"fJ.
,,~J YOOJ.' PN jilt bt/art YOM!
- Num. 10 :35
When the ark cam~ to rest at the ~nd of th~ day's march, Moses wou ld summon
Yah .... ~h to retum to be .... ith the myriads of Israel.
R~rurn . 0 LORD I Yahw~h ) of rhe ren thousand thousands of lsra~l !
-Num. 10,36
One o f David's great accomplishments. according to the StO!)' in the books of
Sam uel, was to bring the ancient palladium into the temple, where it was en-
shrined in th e Ho l}' of Holies. This evem is memorialized in Psalm 24, wh ich
depictS Yahwch. thc King o f glory, being escorted in procession. prl'"Sumabl y
enthroned invisibly on the ark. through the gates of the city of Jerusalem.
LJI ~p yOOJ.T 10.,,11. 0 g~ltS t
"nJ b, !if/,J 3», 0 Q~( it711 Joo m
16.1 Iht Km9 of glory ",_11 com! i~.
\VIro i, IIx Ki!:, of glory'
Tbt LORD [Yah"'tb J. !lronJl ,,~J ,"1gbt)'o
tltt loRD[Yahu"h }. ,"~bl)' ir. ball!t.
- Ps. 2-1·7·8
In Psalm 132 the ancient Song of the Ark is reinterpreted in the light of God's trio
umphant march to the new "resting place" in the temple of Jerusalem.
These n.·o vie\"s----thc ark as Yahweh's throne·seat and as the repository for
th~ two tablets of stonc-are combined in the Solomonic prayer in I Kgs. 8:6- 12,
a Dcuteronomistic passage. In the Deu terono mrstic \'iew, the twO traditions are
comp;ltibl(:. for th e giving of the la ..... like the ark it~lf, is a sign 01 the presenc~ 01
Yahw~h among: the ~ople. l
Tk TtI"I Wods
At nf5 t, the Ten Commandments were probably short, c risp commands or "ten
words" (Dccalogue) tha t amounted to 1\0'0 brief Hebrew .... ord5, a5 in 10 tirtsa~. "You
shall not murdcr"; 10 lin apb. "You shall not commit adultery", 10 I(qlloh. "You shall not
steal: In som~ cases the b rief ".....ord· was expanded with interpretive comments to
provide explanation o r motivation. A good example is the commandment 10 keep
the Sabbath holy.'
In the Exodus versron (20:8 - 1 I }, on the one hand, the interpreth'e comment
says that th is commandment harks back to the Sabbath "hidden~ in God's creation
(&n. 2:1 · 3). This acco rds with the overall movement from creation to Sinai in
H
Priestly trad ition, whe re the Sabbath. observed by God al creation. is the "sign of
thc everlasting covenan!.' In the Deuteronomic version (5: 12-15). o n the other
2. On 1he me. ning 01 the uk in Prititl ~' IflIdillo n. see abov~, ch~pter 13.
3. Sec lunher in rhis chilptef.
-t. Stt abm·e. chaple, 10 .
158 (""/OVI3" O!J T",IImom/ Th~)'
hand, the commandment to observe a day of rest from work is connected with the
saving event of the exodus: "Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt"
(Deut. 5: 15). This accords with Deu teronomy's emphasis on the inseparable
relation between ~the saving experience" and "the commanding experience,"
exodus and Sinai.s Thus in each covenant perspe<tive- the Abrahamic i Priesdy)
and the Mosaic-wc find a differem explanation and motivation for k~ping the
commandments.
In this connection it is wonh noting that in Priestly legislation the prescription
for Silbb.ath rcst is extended to the Jubilee, the fihie th year that comes at the end
of ~ven sabbarical cycles (7 x 7 ). On this year the land is to lie fallow, and hu mans
and animals are to be at rest. In addition, there is to be a change in human n:l a-
tionships: slaves are to be set free. debts forgiven, and the overuse of the land COf-
rected (see Lev. 25:8- 17, 23-25, 27:16-25). Rosemal)' Radford Ruether suggests
that this ~'ision of ~pcriodic redempt ion and restoration of right relation" has
important ethical and ecological implications: "Modern re-.·olutionary thinkers
would have done berte-r if they had taken the Jubi lee. rather than the millennium
and the Kingdom of God. as their models of historical change."6
Statut~s and Ordinallcts
Looking over the -statutes and o rdinances" found in th e Dccalogue and in the
Covenant Code (Exodus 20-23, paralleled in Deuteronomy 5, 12-26), the first
thing to observe is that t his is covenant law. that is, law that applies to the people
Israel, not to the nations generally. In keeping this law. Israel becomes ~a people
holy to Yah ...'eh your God~ (Deut. 7:6 ), that is. separated from the nations and
their ways.
A major question for biblical ethics is whether, or to what degree, these cove-
nant laws apply also to the state or to other societies. Of course. if the covenant
community and the state were coextensive , the malleI' would be muc:h simpler. But
in a pluralistiC society, and especially one that draws a separation betw~n chu rch
and state, the question of applicability is often difficult.
Consider this question by examining the Deulogue more closely. The
Decalogue falls into ",'0 general pans: the 6rst having to do with relations to God,
and the sec:ond with relations to the neighbor in the community. It is appropriate
that in later IOlbbinical summary, the c:ovenant la..... was reduced to t ...·o commands:
one theological, to love God wholeheartedly ,. and the other social, to love the
neighbor just as one loves o r respects one's ~If (Mark 12;30- 31 ).
The twO parts would be relatively equal if. as in Je""ish tradition. the opening
sentence ("I am Yahweh your God who brought you Out 0/ ... the house of sla\'-
5. Sec abovt. chapler 18.
6. ~ty ~dford Ruet:her, -Ecoteminism and the Spiritual Roots oi En~imrunenlalosm .­
Harvard Divinity Schooll=ture. Oct. I, 1991, s« <llso her c;..", .. GoJ: A7I E'QJ"":~"!l T-k'§yof
urt&HMlio;I (San Franci<;c(): Harpe6anFnnc'..:o, 1992).
Covenant and Law 159
el)''') is treated as the First Commandment. rather than a theolOgical preface to the
whole. Some inlerpreters (Roman CatholiC. Lutheran) COUnt the commandment
about sole worship of Yahweh and the prohibition of graven images as one (Exoo.
20:3-6: Deut. 5:6- 10 ), and d ivide hod. 20: 17 (Oeut. 5:11 ) into twO command-
ments, thus making te n . Olhers (Angtican, Greek. Reformed ) more defenSibly
count two commandments dealing With false worship: against worship of other
gods and against image worship or idolatry. But apart from differences in number_
ing. it is clear that the Rm section (preface and first four commandments) has to
do with Israers rdation to Yahweh. the God of th e people. This is covenant law in
the su k t sense, pertaining primarily to Israel as a religious community.
Firs! Pari of rh<- Dlca/ogm
The First Commandment stipulates that members of this community mUSt have a
single rel igious loyalty: to the God, known by the cultic name Yahweh, who deliv-
ered them horn Egyptian bondage. Other gods there may be, but they have no
claim on this people. This corresponds to the exclusive (jealous) demand of the
sU2eraintr covenant, vassal s were nOt allowed 10 recognize (kn ow) any other
lord? This is a kind of "existential mono theism: as we ha\'e seen' Israelite poets
piCtured o the r gods as being members of the heavenly council, over which
Yahweh presided.!!
The Second Commandment expresses the official position of the cultic com-
munity. though there may have been exceptions in popular practice, as evidenced
by Jeroboam's installation of calves to represent the god(s) who brought the peo-
ple out of Egypt I1 Kgs. 12:26-30i---an echo o f t he: incident of the worship of the
golden calf at Sinai (Exodus 32). Israel is not to represent Yah ....eh in the fonn of a
~·isual image of anything in creation, heaven above, earth below, subterranean
realm. (This putS a restraint on visual an, lest one anempt 10 portray God.)
Deuteronomy emphasi2es this by saying that no '"form" was seen when Yahweh
spoke QUt of the fire , and that therefore no likeness. whether "male or female." or
any animal, bird, or creeping thing on earth, is permissible (Deut. 4 : I 5- 18). This
aniconic worship of Yahwch 5Ct Israel apart from other religions in which narural
powers were pe~nified or deities ....ere represented in animal or human form. For
Israel the only exception to this view. which reached its su preme exp ression in the
poems 01 Second Isaiah (e.g., lsa. 40,1 8, 25). is that human beings are made »in the
image of God.- that IS, to represent Gods rule on eanh. 1o
Also. Yahweh's name is nO! to be taken in vain or »u~d wrongly- (NRSV), that
is, it cannO! be manipulated for human purposes, as in magic (or some kinds of
prayer), or-50 the prophets would say-to endorse the pur;uits of ""ealthy and
powerful people or the politiCal interests of a nalion. The Cod whom Israel
7. On the SlJZ~nlmy neAry ( mv~n.anl) Mrm. 'It<' ~bovC'. cnapter 18.
8 5« ~bovC'. chapter 17
9 . 5« pr~vious diKUSSlon ol -Y~h""C'h and lhe Cods.- above. dupter 8.
I 0 Sce abo.'e. Crn.pICT I I.
•
160 (mdOllt1 of Old Ttsl~ ..t>lr T&rology
worships is not subject to human conlTol and cannot be managed for one's ~r·
sonal or social advantage.
Finally, one day-the Sabbat h-is separated from others as a segment of
lime belonging to God, the Creator (so in Exod. 20,11 ) and Redeemer (so Deue
5: 15). Keeping this day holy, by resting from work and usual daily activities, pre-
vents the sccularization that fills the times with only personal meaning (e.g., a
birthday) or na tional significance (Fourth of July, Veterans' DOlY), excluding the
dimension of the sacred. When the Sabbath is observed as holy, symbolized by
the lighting of a Sabbath candle in a JeWi5h home, all the days arc hallowed with
reverence for Cod.
The Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue refers, of course, to -the seventh
day" of the Jewish calendar ( Frid~y sunset to Saturday 5Un~t; cf. Gc-:n. 1:5, 8. 13 .
etc.). Christians began to celebrate the day of resurrection, which according to the
Gospels occurred · on the first day of the week, when the sabbath was o vd ' (t..'latt.
28: I .. d . Luke 24, 1), and e\'entually considered it to be the ··Sabbath." This "dis-
continuity"" with the Hebrew Bible persists to the present day, except in some cir"
cles, for example, the $eve nth Day ,""dvenlists, who consider our Saturday as a day
of ~t and gladness, based on God's "separation" of the Sabbath at crealion. 11
Whe never the da y is celebrated, it is an expression, in worship and behavior. of
God's sovereignty over the limes of our li fe and reverence of the Creator who has
created the world and all that is in it.
Secol1d Pnrt of Ibl Dtcnlogut
The remaining six la ws of the Decalogue also have to do primarily with Israel as a
co\'enant community, although ethical reReClion may show thal they are also rel-
evant to human sociery generally. Respect for parents. prohibition against murder,
against adultery, against theft, aga inst perjury in a C(Xln of law: without th est' laws
violence would reduce society [Q chaos.
Some of these laws protect the extended family, the basic inst itu lion of Isra·
elite society. Respect for pa~nlS insures family solidarity and generational conti·
nuity. and sex within marriage protects fami ly cohesion and the transmission of
inheritance and tradi tion. It is notewonhy that the law against coveting, the only
onc dealing with a motive that may lead to action, is expanded in both th e Exodus
and Deuteronomy foms of t he Decalogue, by indicating a potential invasion of
the ndghbor's propeny, his wife belong~ 10 him, along with hou~. field, slaves.
animals, and so on. Notice thal in Deuteronomy 5 the neighbor's wife is men-
tioned first, then the house, whereas in Exodus 20 it is [he neighbor's house that
comes first. In either case, th e wife is included with propeny belnnging to the
ncighbor.
These laws that reflect their own time must be read with discrimination today,
especially in the Christian commun ity. where people sense both con tinuity and
discont inuity. In my judgment, e thi ci~ t s should discuss the basic laws apan from
11 . On tl1o:: sign; RCince of Ihe S~bbath m Priestly pc .. ~{i~·e , se<: ~bo,"e. chapl er •O.
Covenant and Law 161
the expansions and should propose explanations or motivations that interpret the
meaning of co\'enant fo r our time. It is notewonhy tha t in the Sennon on th e
Mount Jesus provided a more radical interpretation of Ihe law again!Ot killing by
going behind the act to the motive (Matt. 5 :21·26), as was done in the Mosaic law
against coveting_
The command -You shall nOt kill" stands by itself in the Decalogue, withoot
any explanation or motivation. Explanations and motiva tions should be added in
discussions of biblical ethi~. In antiqu ity, the explanation would have been added
tha t life is a sacred gift hom Cod and must be treated with reverence, for human
beings are made in the image of Cod {see the Noachic covenantl,ll though excep"
tions were made as in the case of capital punishment (Gen. 9:6a) or legitimate war_
In our time. qualifkations of the commandment will have to be rcslated in the light
of the New TCStamenl and in the conteXI of our different social situation_ The ·just
war: if there be such, surely cannot allow the indiscriminate killing of civilian pop.
ulation, as in the ca~ of Hi ros hima an d Nagasaki. That the planned murder of
innoce nt victims in the Holocaust is prohibited under th is law is self-evident. To
take another illustration, some will argue that the abonion of a fe[Us in the womb
comes under the prohibitiOn of the absolute law. though exceptions may be made
under certain circumstances: rape. incest, death of the mother. To make a poten-
tially long discussion short, biblical ethics must work out new fonnula tions of
how the absolute law applies in modem ci rcumsta nces.
Absol/ltt alld Conditiol1l11LAw
Another t hing that should be noticed about Israelite law is that it falls into two
general type<>: absolU[e or apodictic la ..... and conditional or case law_ On the one:
ha nd. absolute law is set fonh unconditionally, as in the Ten Commandments; You
shall not kill. No conditions arc allowed , no mitigating c ircumstances consi!kred,
as in th e te rsely fonnulated la .....s fou nd in Exod. 22, 18· 20. The absolute l a~
(statutesl--and th is goes especially for the Ten Commandments ~t fonh the
basic policy, one might say the ~constitu t ion : of the covenant community.
The "ordinanCe<;" (",isbparilll j. on the other hand, adjudica te cases based on par-
ticu lar circumstanccs in the ligh t o f the: basic policy la ...... For instance, it is not
enough to hear the command "You shall not kill"; was the act premeditated or
un intended (hod. 21, 12-14), These "case" (casuiStic) la"''S are usually fonnul ated
in a conditional style, "If . . . then . . ." (as in the Covenant Code of Exod. 20:22-
23:32 and parallels in Deuteronomy 12-16). It is the task of judges to adjudicate
diffkult c ascs that are b rought before [hem. though wit h due hum ility before Cod
and in the recognition that in the Anal anal ysis "the judgment is God'5.~
Give (he membeT'> 01 your commUnil}' " fa ir hearinJj, and judge righ tly between
one person and another .....,hether Cllizen or resident alien. YOll mu~t not be
12. Dj~u~!iI!<i "W'e, ch~p{~r 11 .

partial in judging, hear om the small and the grea, alike; for th e judgment is
God's.
-DeuL 1016-17
WhI'C n Israelite law is compared with other legislation of the ancie m Near East
(e.g., the C ode of Hammurabi or the Assyrian law codes), one senses that a spirit
of humanitarianism breathes through it, with the result that the re is less severity in
punishment and a greater striving for justice for all classes of societ},.13 Th is is
especially evi dent in exhonations of the book of Demeronomy; '" RemembeT that
you were a sla~'e in the Ia.nd of Egypt" (DeuL 5: 15). T he God who libera ted a peo-
ple from bondage is the \'indicator of a.ll \"ho need the defense of t he law: the
orphan and Widow, the poor and oppressed, the resident alien (sojourner) who
lacks th e full status of membership in the community. The book of Psalms provides
many exampl es of oppn: ssed persons w ho. in a time of humiliation and hel pless·
ness, cry out to Yahweh for help, confident that they will have a hearing before the
Judge of Ihe whole e anh.
Notice too Ihat the casuislic inte rpretations of the basic covenant faw, fo und
in the Covenant Code and its D euteronom ic parallels, rellect an atlem pl to und er.
stand the demands of the covenant in a new social situation, the agricultural econ-
omy of the land of C anaan . Thus we read about cases of an ox goring a person, of
selling fire to a field or vineyard, of buying or selling a slave. and so on. No lo nger
were the people on the move in the Wilderness; Ihey were settled in an agricultural
society. which had its special circumstances. We can look back on th is as a time of
transition, whe n the covenant policy law was adapted to new situations. It is still
true that the task of imerpn:ters is to face anew the question of wha t God n:quires
of a people wh en they face a new situation, such as the technologica l g lobal econ-
omy of the late twentiet h century. There is truth in the poet's words:
N ...., OC,,",siOJ<I I,acb U .P duti~,
Ii..! ",,,kt, "xci",! gooJ ~x'O~ !b. 1 4
Name Theology
Onc feacure of Deuteronomic theology calls for special attention. Israel is enjoined
to worship Yahweh at the central sanctuary, the one chosen by Ya hweh (Deut.
12: 1-31 ). This divine n:qui re ment became the basis for a great religious reform in
621 D.e (2 Kings 22- 23), when (he templ e of Jerusa lem was held to be t he
diVinely chosen sanctuary for sacrificial worship rather tha n local sanctuaries that
were exposed to popular rel igion. On the eve of entrance into the land of the
promise, Moses says to (h e people;
I 3. See Paul Hanson, ·ConAict in Ancien[ l<rad and Its Resolution." i n U~J"'!d~J; ...g tb, Word,
&say5 j~ Ho~or of &r,,""ra IV: A...dtISM, ed. James T BlUler e' aI. , JSOTSup 37 (ShdneH JSOT
Pr~. 1985 ), 185- 20 5.
1-1. l ame. Russel l lowe]) ( 1819--- 1891 ), "U nder the Will ow>.·
Covenant ilnd Law J 63
You ,hall ~ek the place that the LORD [Yah"'eh] your God will choose out of all
your lri bes a~ his habita,io n 10 put his name there. You ~hall go th~, bringing
there your burnt offerings and your 5<lcrifices, your tithes and yoor donations, your
vOlive gihs. you r 1..,,,,,,;11 oiferings . and the firstli ngs of your herds ilnd flock!;. And
yo u shall eat the re in the presencI'C of the LORD [Ya hwehJ yoor God, you and your
housrhold~ together, rejoicing in all th e undenakings in which thI'C loRD [Yahw" h]
your God has blessed you.
-Deul. 12,5-7
The new thing here is the Deutero nomic theology of the divine name. God
chooses onc shrine in the land of Israel " [0 pUl his name rhn e , for his habitation"
fDeuL 12 ,5), or as stated a bit later:
The place [sarJ(;(uary] lhat Yah .... eh your God chooses to cause his nam" to dwell
ther".
-[km. 12,12 (BWA)
The verb translated ~dwel r (shakn.: ) is the same one use d in Priestly theology for
t he "dwell ing o f God"" in th e sanctuary or tab ernacl e, for example, '"Let th em make
me a sancruary that I may dwel1 in their mids t" (Exod. 25:8).IS \While Priestly the ·
ology alfinns th at God's "gloryWfills the sancruary, as evidence o f God's presence,
the Deuteronomic interprC[er says that it is God's name that dwells then:. The
name, as we have see n, Signifies the personal identity of Yahweh. 16 H ere is another
way o f dealing w ith the paradox (dialectical contradiction) of the transcendence
and immane nce of God. Cod does not dwell in a temp le built by human hands,
rathe r, God's true dwelling place is in the heavenly temple. But God's name----or
alt er ego--dwells in the temple. Jt is there that people call on the name of the Lord
and God is Nenth roned on the praises of Israel" (Ps. 22:3).17
S~lom~~:S Prayrr o} DcJic(I!icm
It is instruc tive to study the account of Solomon's ded ication of th e temple (I Kgs.
8:1-66), where these two views of Cod's presence, the Priestly and the Deuter-
onomistic, are brought together. \X1hen the ark, here regarded as a repository for
the tablets o f la\,· (v. 9). was pU! in the in nermost sanctuary. the Holy of Holies,
"t he glory of Yahwe h" fil1 ed the te mple tv. 11 ) as evide nce of God's indwelling
prese nce. This is supponed by a quotation from an o ld poem found, according [0
the Greek Bible (Septuagint ), in th e Book of }ashar(cf. Josh. 1O:13},
Tbr LORD [y"bwm) ha! ,~ iJ lbat bt "''allid dwtll [,hakan Ji~ t~id( da,*"m.
f b~:>t built Y"" a~ rx~ itrJ I.ou\-t, ,, ~lK' [ makon1/or Y"" to dw,!! i~ fo"",r
~1 Kgs.. 8,12·13
15. See above. chap ter 1 3
16 . See abo'·e. chap tn 6.
17. 5« m y stud,· guide. 0,,1oJ tbt [Hpth<- n~ p",In., S/Jt.>.k for Us To>ioy (Philadelphia Westminster,
1983. re,'. "d. forthcomi ng, 20(0 ) . especially chapler 2. ' Enthrorted on Ih" Praises of Is",e1."
164 (onkl1ir5 oJ Old Testa .."" Thro/ogy
When Solomon gives his "Deuteronomistic" prayer, however, he declares that he
built Yahweh a house (temple) so that Yahweh's name "migh t be !here~ (v. 16).
Indeed, at one po int in the praye r th e view of God "dwelling" in an earthly temple
is challenged:
But will Cod indttd dwelt [y~s],.,bl on the e anh) Eve n hea,".:-n and the highest
heaven cannot conlain you, much less this house that I have built' Regard your ser·
vant', prayer and hi' plea, 0 LORD [Yahweh] my God, Ileedmg the cry and Ih e
prayer tha t your servant prays to you today: th at }'our eye<; may be- o~n night and
day IO"'aro thiS house, the p lace of which you sa id, "My name shall be there,« that
you may heed the prayer that yourser...an! prays toward this place. Hear the plea
of your 5ervJ.nt and of your jXople 1~r.J.~ I when 1hey pr.J.}' lO",ard this place; 0 h~ar
in heaven your d",,,,] ]ing place': heed and forgi'",,_
- 1 Kg,. 8,27·30
Hallml)in9 Ibr Name
One gets th e impression that her'" a Deuteronomistic interpreter has difflculty
with the Priestly view that God ~dwells« in thl": temp le_ Certainly God does not
reside (yasbab ) in t he temple, as a human being lives in a house _ Language has to
be strained to express t he paradox of God's transce ndence and immane nce, of
God's distance and nearness (d . Je r_ 23023 -24). The Deuteronomistic interpreter
states the paradox by saying that Cod, who dwells beyond the eanhly sphere (in
heaven), chooses to place th e divine name on the temp le and, in that sense, to be
present in the midst of the worshiping people_
20. HISTORY VIEWED IN
DEUTERONOMISTlC PERSPECTIVE
Just as tlJf Priestl y pl": rspecti'·e is dominant in the fina l fonn of the Tora h, so
the canonical un it kn own as the Former Prophets is governed by the theo logy of
the I'vlosaic covenant, se t fonh prl":eminently in the book of D euteronomy.
Indeed, the book of Deuteronomy has a pivotal position in the canon. On the one
hand, it is the conclusion of the Pemateuch, where it has afflnities with parts o f
O ld Epic tradition (especially nonhem or Elohist epic); on the other hand, it pro-
vides the lheological preface to the Formn Prophels Uoshua through 2 Kings ), a
historical work that extends from the time o llsrad's occupation of Canaan to the
exile. \X/hen l h~e two works, the Pentateuch and th e Former Prophets, are linked
together, the result is a huge StolY or macrohistory that begins with CTl":ation and
traces the story of Israel to the tragedy of the fall of t he nation in 587 R_e and it5
immediate sl":queL
TiJe DeuleroJlomistic History
This historical work is often called the Deuteronomistic h istory, because it is gov-
erned by the theological perspeCllve set forth in the book of Deuteronomy_The
core of the book of Deuteronomy was probably the Torah scroll th at, according
[0 the account in]: Kings 12-23. was found in the temple in abou t 621 B_L When
validated by the prophetess Huldah, this "book of the covenant" became th e basis
o f the great reform of King Josiah re poned near the end of the books of Kings_
The Oeuteronomistic history, wit h the book of Deuteronomy as an introduc-
tion , runs into some 280 pages of Scripture (counting in the NRSV)--that is
almost one-quarter of the Old Testame nt. Proportionately. il is as extensive as the
Joha nn ine corpus in the N ew Testament_ In addit ion, one of the major prophetic
books-the book of Jeremiah-in its final form comes from the hand of Deu·
teronomistic editors. T h is quantitative analysis gives some idea of the inAuence of
the DeuteronomiSlie school o f th eology_I
In ih fi na l form the Deutero nomisti c h istory was composed in the period of
the exile_. for the last e"cnt reponed is the re lease of King }e hoiachin from impris·
Onml":nt in 56 1 R. e. ( 2 Kgs. 25 :27/1.} _ This history does not refer to the rise of
Crrus of Persia or his conq uest of Babylon i 539 8.C. ) and the re turn of Jews to
Palestine to restore their community, matte rs that are dealt with in another his-
torical work, that of the Chronicle r (Ezra, Nehemiah . 1-2 Chronicles), to which
we will turn our attention later. Some scholars maintain that this history was corn·
1_l})(, adjective ' Detne romm K" rden; (0 the boo\:. o i Deut ~K1 nomy, or bent"T Ih~ original
core of ,he book; "D euteKl nom i<lic" refers w [he "'ork of ed ito ... in nuencro by ,he
D~"Utcrunomi<: th~ological perspective_
 166 (0"1011" of Old Telallll'llr T/,(oi09Y
posed in two editions: a ""'t edition dining from Josiah's reign , beJo~ the kinl; was
killed at Megiddo in 609 B.C. while attempting to intercep t Egyptia n armies (2
Kgs. 23:28·30), and a §eCOnd updated edition after Josiah's death and the exile of
the people.1
Thf R~ aKd Faf/ of Imatl
The question thal Deuteronomislic historians raise. as they survey Israel's hiStOry
from the- occupation of Canaan 10 the cnd of the monarchy. is: Why was Israel's
covenam history a hiStory of failure? We can 3Kertain thei r answer to this exis·
tential question in two way5: ( I ) by considering how they use thei r sources (for
instance-, the Elijah narratives), that is. the way these materials function in the total
narrative contcxt; and (2) by considering their composition of key passagCi that
serve as interpretive links. Among the latter arc:
A Hlghligbua divlm addrtms
1010shua Uosh. 1, 1.9)
to Samuel ( I Sam. 8:7·9)
10 Da \'id (2 Sam. 7:5· J 7)
to Solomon ( I Kgs. 9: 1·9)
B. Oilllactic spud~j or praym UjuilJllio,f 10 ~P«rhr~
by Joshua 005h. 23 )
by Samuel ( I Sam. 11)
by David (2 Sam. 7: 18.29)
b)' Solomon ( I Kgs.8: 12.53)
C /lfftrprrfil.'f: SUIIIIIlIlrirs
epitomes of the cydes of a~tasy and rerum
in the period of the judges Uudg. 1:6-3:6)
epitome of the Nonhem Kiogdom's history
of bilu re (2 Kgs. 17:7·23)
In these passages wc find the key to the message of Demeronomistic historians
presente-d in the situation of the exile when an uprooted people sought to under·
stand their h istorical tragcdy and to rediscove r their roolS.
A His/ory o} Failllrt
H umanly speaking, this whole histo ry was a history of fa ilure_ No sooner did
Joshu a d ie (end of the l\'losaic period) than the peo ple lapsed into cycles of apos·
tasy and return, at the end of ,,,hich was the great mis take; demanding a king to
"j udge~ them "like the nations~ { I Samuel 8).
For a time the people enjoyed political solidarity under the unite d kingdom of
David (a unity that Josiah hoped could be restored). But afte r the death of
2. ~ ,he Introduction 10 Ih~ Booki of Kin~. N"" Oxj.nl AH""WtrJ B,bl, (N~ .... York: Oxford
Univ. p~. 1991 ) and comm~m 0<1 l KIfS. 23,28·30.
Hi~tory in Oeutemll(lmiSlic Pel'5pa:tiv~ 167
Solomon. a king who was lnJly "like the nations; the united monarchy broke up,
and nonh and sou th went tMir independent ways until the Assyria ns conquered
the nonhern kingdom of Ephraim and carried many people into exile_ This Cil taS·
nopM, howe~ r, did not occur because of the superior political power o f AS"Yria,
it happened because the people misused their God·given covenant fr~om . The
people forgot their God-story, tM: SlOry of how Y~hweh their God l iberat~d them
from opprC"Ssion in Egypt, and they turned from Yah ....'eh·s co~·enant to ....alk in the
customs of other nat ions. This interpretation was gi';en by preexilic prophets like
Hosea and Jeremia h. as we shall sce. and helps to explain why these historical
books arc regarde d as "Fonner Prophets.~
The Deuteronomistic history teilChes that Yahweh was "slow to anger.~ In for·
bearance Yahweh warned the people "b)' every prophet and every seer, saying,
Turn from yourevi! ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accor·
dance with all the law that I commanded your ancestors and that I sent to you by
M
my servants the prophets (2 Kgs. 17:13 ). To illustrate this divine appeal through
prophets from time 10 time, the editors insen the once independe nt tradit ions
co ncerni ng Elijah a nd Elisha ( 1 Kgs. 17-2 Kgs. 10). Here the Deut~ronomist ic
histo ria ns sound the theme of "repentancc," \o'h ieh was st,lIed in the Deu tero nomic
preface (Deu!. 4:19· 3 I). Yet the people \o'ould not listen or change. They dC"Spiscd
the covenant made with their ancesto",. they forsook all the commandments God
granted them. and the)' brought on them~l\'es the cu",es 01 the covenant: the fall
of the nation and exile Irom the land. 3 They failed in their covenant responsibil.
ity: "therdore the LORD (Yahwehl was very angry wilh Israel and removed them
OUt of his sight; none ..... as leh but the tribe- of }uclah only" (2 Kgs. 17: 18, RSV).
According 10 Ihis hiStory, the Southern Kingdom ..... as given a chance to profit
from the lesson of tMir compatriots to the nonh: but they tOO dec ided falsely. and
brought on themseNC"S the curst's of the covenant. That seems to be tM judgment
of the prophetess Huldah as summarized in 2 Kgs. 22: 16-1 7.
\Vbat would have happened had the people repented ? Surdy the historian
knew that. in terms of pragmatic politicS i RrQlf!oJilik). the Assyrians were follo..... ing
thei r own polittcal ambitions and could not have cared lC"Ss about the spiritual
hea lt h of Ephraim, or later Judah. This hiStory is wrinen in retrospect-after the
fact of the destruction ....Tought by th e Assy rian war mach ine. The Isradite histo·
rian attem pts to undersrand the events not in terms of \o'orld polities but in terms
of Israd's covenant wilh Cod . The people had failed, and the consequence fell on
them tenibly. God was ~angry \o'ith [srae t (SCe 2 King'i 17).
Tk Us,OIl o} HisfoT),
Here is a h istory that spea ks powerfully to people who have the freedom to shape-
t heir destiny, at least in some degree. \Vhy \o'ait until it is 100 late . when catastro·
phe fa lls pi ti fully an d ominousl)'? The alternatives of life and death. of blessing and
curse. arc set before a people. Why follow national policies that arc SUicida l.
, On the blessing ~nd (uN: of the covelliln! ~ ~bo\'e. ChapllT t8.
 168 COfltowJOj 00 Tor.n.nol n,."lo9y
policies Iha l will nOI bring the blessing of peace but the CU~ of violence and wa r-
fare' The question is still rei('Vant in our lime of economic imbalances and alarm
about the furu~ of Earth. Crisis is a time o f opportu nily, the furure is open. not
fatalistically predetenniocd. Therefo re, choose life, not dea lh' The message of
Deutero nomistic historians echoes in the preaching of great prophets like Hosea
and Jeremiah . as we shall see.
Moses Ilnd DlIvid
Over the Deutcronomistic history falls the long- shad ow of Moses, as ('Videncw by
the Dellleronomic p~ face (Deut. 1:6 1:40 ) and the climactic chapters of 2 Kings
22-23, where good ki ng Josiah carries out a rdonn on the basis of the " ·\osaic
torah found in [he temple. Deuteronomistic historians introduce another major
theme. howe\'er: Yahweh's "everlast ing CO\'enant" ( bm! olam ) wi lh David-a
co\'enamal perspecti ve Ihal will occtJpy our attention in the nexl seclion Ol.e.
chapters 23-26). As in a Bach fugue . these two themes are woven toget her. con,
trapuntally throughout the exposition of the history o f the monarchy.
The account of the ded ication of the temple, foun d in 1 Kings 8, provides an
excellem illUStration of the interweaving of covenantal perspeClives. The s!'«ifk
references to exile {SA6-SI ) indicate that this accoum is addressed 10 condi tions
-
o f a time much I,Her tha n Solomon's, when Assyria and Babvlonia actuallv exe-
ruted the policy of exiling captive peoples.
- In su mmary, the historian's \'iC\<.' of the time from Israel's occupation o t the land to
AI the beginning Ihe account gives primacy to [ he ~losaic covenam. The his-
torian recalls [ he bringing of the ark of the covenant to}erusalem and placing it in
"the inner sancruary of the temple, in the most holy place undemeath the wings of
the che rubim" ( I Kg'>. 8:6). The ark, we are told, signifies the covenant Ihat
Yahweh made with i\·loses at Horeb, that is, Sinai (v. 9 ). The view of the ark as a
reposi tory for the Decalogue is, as ....·e have see n, a Deuteronomi c varia tio n from
PriC'Stly tradition.
Solomon's long. winded pra}'er inuoduces the Dav id ic coven,mt perspeClive.
In the first pan (w. 12-21 }-the king's blessing of the people-the king says that
Yah ..... eh chose David as leader and also chOS!: Da\'id's citv to be the cemral sanc-
tuary. whe~ Ihe ark was located and where God's name was presem.
In Solomon's imercessory prayer (w . 22-40), the king says (ha t these promises
ha\'e already b«n fulfilled . Significantly, an "it is added, shOWing the inHuence of
(he conditionalJl,.·10saic covenant: God promises th al a Oavidic ruler will sit on the
throne 0; Jerusalem "if only your children look to their way, 10 walk before me" (v.
15 ). This conditional ~if' is picked up in a later passage Ivv. 4 1-53) reRecting the
sit uation 01 exile. wh ic h may be an expansion 01 the prayer. The ~Mosaic if" begins
with the people's freedom 10 break the covenant re la[ionship: ~lf they sin against
}'ou-for there is no one w ho does not sin : The prayer continues by saying that,
though the people will suffer the conseq uence of di\'ine judgment {captivity and
exile), Ihey have the freedom to repent and rerum.
History in Dcuteronomistic Perspective 169
Yet ,I they eome to their senses m th(' 1;lIld 10 whi<;h they hav(' ~n taken ColIplivc:,
and repc:nt, ... !>ilyi"8. "",re have sinned and hav(' done ""rong, we have acrnl.
",·;ekedly."
The prayer reaches its climax ..... ith an appeal to God's freedom. the freedom of
divine grace and forgiveness:
Then hear in heaven yourd .... elling place their prayer and Iheir plea. maimain th eir
eause and iorgwe your P<'oplc who have sinned iI.:ain,t you .. .. For you have sep-
arated them from among alllhe P<'oples of the eanh. 10 be your ))encage. just ~~
you promised through Moses. your servant. when you brought our anentors out of
EI.,}·pt, 0 Lord [Yah",'eh] Coo.
-1 Kgs.. 8046 -53
Apparently Ihe Deut~ronomistic historian senses no conflict bclween t hese
IWO covenants, for God's promises ha~·e several as!'«ts: the la nd that was given 10
Ihe ancestors, the increase of the people on the la nd if they are faithful to the
CO\'enant. and the promises of grace to David. namely, lemple and dynas ti c sue·
cession. In th is vi<:-w, the people 01 God need not only a land upon ..... hich to fulflll
thei r voc ation but a leader upon whose ~houl der restS th e authority of govern ment
(d. IS<!. 9:6-7). Thus the twO covenants belong together in the total piClUrc. 4
Th l.dtrnia'i"" of tilt Tu'O COI'f'l'al1[S
the fall of the nal ion is based on [he interrelation of Ihese covenan ts. On Ihe one
hand, [his is a history of failure. The people ....ere gi\·e n a glorious opportunity. but
they mi~d it. They ....ere not fai thful to the CO\'enant and suffered the conse-
quences; loss of t he gift of the land. The Southern Kingdom. Judah. also panici·
pated in that history of failure . After [v..o deporlations of }udeans imo exile , there
was an atlempt to restore some sorl of stable sacial life in the land. But Ihe gover-
nor, Gedal iah , " 'ho was sympathetic tOward th e prophet Jeremiah. was murdered;
and there was a runher dispersion into Egypt, which included the prophet Jere -
miah . Thus [he refonnation, which Josiah carried OUI on the basis o f the 1o.·\05aic
Torah. pro"ed w be a failure .
Yet to the Southern Kingdom of }udah something special was given: [he
promises of grace 10 David. Hence the historia n seems to hint that, wh ile lhe peo-
ple (nonhe rn and southern) had failed, God was nO( Ihrough. In spite of all polit-
ical and religious failu res, God ....·ould not go back on t he promises of grace to
Da\'id. So even though it was the worst oi times, there was a him-grou nded in
the Davidic covenant- that God may ho ld the future open in unexpected ways.
I1 is surely not acciden tal, then , that the De uteronomistic hiswry ends wilh the
announcement of the release of Jehoiachin, a David ic king , from prison. Ihough
~. Joo L~'''n,on argues forcduUy Ih~1 the l"'·O(:Q'>-.:nant. do nO\: mnd in i m:concil~leoppo­
',Iion tocach other. J.Ssomc scholars ma'ntaln. but a~ mmpatiblc th..,ologi<:ally. Sce hK Sir"';...J.
ZIO~ { ~·linncapol~ W;mton. t98!i 1. p.Jn 3. ~p«1.J1l~· ~M~.nd Da"id: 209-17.
kept under house arrest. h is a small sign, an ambiguous sign that nationalists
could easily mi5lJnder; tand. But in the pcrspe<:ti\'e of God's covenant, especi ally
the ~eve rlastin8 covenant· wi th David, the future is nO[ cJoS\"d. Human beings may
fail with amazing consistency, but Yahweh is thc faithful Cod, who shows u nex-
pected and undeserved loyalty ( ~5tJ ) 10 the people and flnally does not abandon
his "heritage:'."
21 . GOD AND WAR
Before fu ming to prophecy in the Mosaic trJdition (Hosea and Jeremiah). a
m~jor theme of the Deuteronomistic history demands attention: Cod's involve-
men t in war. T he book of Josh ua ~gins by aS5IJ ring the new leJder that Yahweh
has given the people the land of Gnaan and that, if he is obedient to -this book
of the law" (Dcutcronom)'), no onc will ~ able to stand against the invaders.
Yahweh is quoted as saying:
I here by command )'ou: I:k strong and cOl.ll'a8eous, do OOt be frig htened or dis-
mayed, lor the LORD [Yan""'eh ] your God is ""'ith you ""herever }'OU liD.
-)osh. 1,9
In p~i ous ages, God's participation in war was not as problematic as it has
come to be in our time. In the seventeenth century, for instance, Oliver Cromwdl's
soldiers wem into battle singing psalms (though Ihe same songs could have bei:n
sung on the ot her side), The problem of God and war has assumed gigantic pro·
portions in the (v"en tieth century, which has witnc<;sed twO world wars and nu mer·
ous, relatively smaller conAagr.uions_ The United StJtes entered the First "IXrorld
War with the religious passion of ~making the world safe for democracy." The
Second World War was more problematic, though theo logians like Reinhold
Niebuhr helped many people 10 see that an all-out fight aga inst the evil Nazi
regime was justi~able. As late as the Gulf "IX/a r (1992) there were 311empls to revive
the ancicm nOlion of the "juSt wa r. "
Most people hate war. especially when it is forced on them, and cannot under·
stand why in Scripture Cod is portrayed as speaking and acting in militaristic
,.,Iays. Many are tempted to ignore o r, like t-,'\arcion, to discard the Old Testament
because th e wra thful Cod of aoci(""nt Israel, in alleged contrast to the New
Testament Cod of lovt', is celebrated as "th e Lord of hosts" (or -ann ies·):
Th LORD [ Y~~b}. IIrmog m,J rr:ighty,
TM LOIW [Ya!Jw,b] , .'guty ill b~tI!,.
- Ps. 24,8
With a miXIUT("" of laughler and seriousness modern readers say, quoting the
Sunday School teacher trying 10 inteflJrer to the class the book of Joshua, "That
was beroTe God became a Christian."
The problem is hardly solved by playinjf the New Testament against the Old.
The church. in its wiser moments, h as rightly insiSled that the Old Testament is
an essent ial pan of the canon. Nevertheless, the ch urch cannot have the O ld
Testament wi thout facing the problem of its military language. In an earlier dis-
cussion, when conSIdering the scriprural use of patriarchal language and imagery,
I observed [hat Cod "condescends" to speak to us in human la nguage, wi th its
sociological limitations. If this is nue of the use of "patriarchar speech, it is also
nue in regard to "military" language. Cod speaks to us. as it were, at our huma n
 172 CClrroWrl of Old Ttsl,'IIt7' I ThNlogy
level, though this divine accommodation does not provide a theological justifica-
tion for either patriarchal society or the practice of wa L1
Th( l.Drd oJ Hosts (Armies)
TIx proper place to begin reflection on this subject is with tlx recognition that
wa r was taken for graOled in the ancicnt world. c<;pecially in Canaan, which ...·as a
land brid~ bc-rv:een Mesopotamia and Eg}'pt, across which annies marclxd again
and again. \'(/ar ..... as so much a pan of ordinary life that biblical writers take note
of exceptions. when "the land enjoyed ~st~ for a brief time (e.g_, Judg. 3: 11 ). For
prople living in the stonn ~ nter of intcrnational politics, war was IlCcessal)' for
survival. In Israel's case it was natural to assume that the people's enemies wen:: also
Yahweh's enemies Uudg . 5:31 ) and that Cod was nghting activel}' for his people.
''The Book of the Wars of Yahweh,' an early poetic collection that has not survived
(see Num. 21: 14· J 5 ), seems to have celebrated the military victoric<; of Israel dur-
ing the occupation of Canaan ,
Interestingly, the Israelite stOry, found in the prefator}' anccstral hiStOry
(Genesis 12- S0), is not tOld in mi litary terms. The narrators portray the peo ple of
Abraham. Isaac, and Jacob moving peacefully on the fringes of Canaanite society,
negotiating with the native inhabi tants on friend ly tenns. To be sure, the promises
,-
to Abraham include the assurance of possession of the land of Canaan [Gen.
15: 18-19), but in the ancc<;tral period, according to the book of GenesiS, there are
no military engagements with tlx Cana,mitc<;. The onc exception to this peaceable
picture is found in Genesis 14, a singular chapter that tells about t~ defeat of a
coalit iOn of four eastern kings by Abraham's small forccs. This story. in the judg-
ment of many scholars, was added to Ihe basic fund of ancestral narratives from a
special source. Its J\·1elchizedek theme is picked up in Ps. 110:4, which in highly
symbolic language ponrays the exalted role of the anointed one (messiah ), the
priesl·king o f Jerusalem. in God's cosmic administral i on.~
In the book of Exodus, w~re tlx story of the people has its decisive begin-
ning. military language become<; more dominant_ The people go out of the land of
Egypt "p~pared for battle" (Exo(1. 13: 18). As they approach the land of Canaan "ia
lhe King's Highway in Tra nsjorda n. they engage in battle when n<:"gOl iations for
peaceful passage fail (Numbers 10. I I, I 3, 14. 20, 21 )_The assumpt ion of the con-
tinuing story is that. as Moses said to his father-in,law Jcthro (Hobab ). "Yahweh
has promised good 10 Israel" b>' g:IVmg them -a land flowing wilh milk and honey"
(Num. 10:29-30, cf. Exod. 3: 7 -8); n<:-vcrtheles5, the}' have (0 be ready to seize the
gift by military force, if necessary.
I. s,,~ lht diSCUSSIon above , cha~ler 8.
l, s"e lht later discu~sion of royJI th<:Ology, chapter 23_
Cod and War 173
Holy War
In the exodus story, which t he DCUteronomistic historians ~capitulate, Yahweh is
portrayed as a ....arrio r. This is the casc in the ancient Song of the Sea, probably
from the twelfth ccntury B.C
y"buW i5 a ICMrWr,
y"Jnr,d,.s1n _ t,
-Exod. 15:3 ( B\l'A)
The warfare in ...'hich the Divine \'(/arrioc engages, however, contraslS with the
kind of warfare in wh;ch the nalions panicipated, with l ar~ numbers of forces or
advanced military equipment .) Indeed. in the wars of Yahweh. faith in God's power
is primary, not confidence in human slrength or ...'eaponry. In the Story of the vie ·
tory al the sca. Moses is represented as saying to the people:
Do nO! be afraid. stand firm. and s~ the dehverance th~t the lOw [Yahweh] will
accom plish for you today, for ,ne ElfYptians whom you see today you shall n<:ve r
se~ ag ain. Th~ Lolll) [Ya hw~h l will Aght for you. and)'oo have on ly 10 keep ~{iIL
_Exod. 14, I 3
Yahweh needs only a small band of devotees, as in th~ case of Cideon'~ battle
Uudg. 7: 1- 8 ). In such gue rrilla warfa~ surprise maneuve rs, scare tactics. ritual per-
lonnance. or the p ~senc~ of the ark are effective, as in the case of th~ battle for
Jericho Ooshua 6) or Ai Ooshua 8). It is noteworthy that women lOok military
action, as in the case of the prophetess Dehorah (sec [he Song of Deborah, ludges
5), to say nmhing of the subversi\'e deed of Jael Uudg. 5:24-27). But whatever con-
tributions the human warriors made. in the last ana l ~'sis viclor)' was given "not by
your s....ord or by your bow" Uosh. 24: 12)_
A Strong casc has ~n made that faith in Yah ..,;eh, who perfonns miracles of
deliverance, led Israel to reject the military policy of violence, introduced in the
time of Oavid, that relied on a modernized anny and sophisticated weapon ry such
as chariots and horsc5_ t The tension bel....een "the ....ay of the nal ions" and "the ,,'ay
of Ya hweh" is reAect~d in one strand of tradit io n in the books of Samuel. where
Samuel warns [Ix elders of Israel aga in51 inslalli ng it king "like the nations: fOf the
kmg will introduce radical social changc<;. includi ng co nscription of young men as
charioteers or infantrymen. introduction of modern implements of ....ar. appoin t-
ment of a military class of people. and so on ( I Sam. 8 : I 1-18)_ Modem "ICWS of
war nnd no support in this understanding of war
Some argue [hat the Old Testament, ",'hen interpreted theologically. indicates
that God takes part in the sinful realities of human history in ord~r to cany OUI a
~.s"e ~rh~rd von R..d. l-l~l)" War i. k'imt Imllt tral1s. M~,,'~ D~wn (Cr/llld Rapids,
Eerdmans. 199 t J, cspeci~lly the introduction by Bc:n C . O llcnburl/cr. 1_3~, al>o ,he imponan.
study by P~trick D. Miller. Thr D"."',,, \V~rricr i~ E.II/Y Is,,,d. HSM 5 {Cimbridg~, Ha".,.rd Un;"'.
Pre<;s, 1973).
-1,. s.,., Mill~rd C Und, Y.d",..b /! a Warnor (Scoltdale, Peon.: Herald. 1980).

saving purpose that embraces all na tions and will ultimately result in world peace.'
If Old Testament texts, especially in the proph~ts kg., lsa. 10:5· 19, JeL I: 11-19).
are taken seriousl), it is probably impossibl~ to avoid the atllnnation that Cod is
behind and ""ithin the warfare: o f human history, al I~ast some wars Ihat are
int~nded to o\·~rthrow pharaonic structures of power and to bri ng justice for th~
oppresSC!d. Th~ po.... ~rful do not usually surr~nd~r power without the ~x~rtion of
forr~ of some kind. as I'-'tartin luther King. Jr. onc~ r~m i nded us. [n an}' case, the
experience of the li berating action of Yah ....eh, who comes to the aid of (h~ weak
and oppmsed, belongs to all le\'els of Israelite tradition . Cod is th~ champion of
those \"ho are victimized by power and aCts to "put down the mighty and exalt
those of low degree: as affinned in " ·I':HY's Magniflcat ( luk~ 1:46·55 ).
Faith lIlId Tdt%gy
There is a problem here. ho",'ever. It is proper to say, as liberation theolOgians
emphasize , that God is concerned about and champions the poor and oppressed
e\'~r}'wherc: . At the same time. God s~em s to have a speci al concern for the
oppressed people lsnd and. as asserted in the moving passage Exod. 3,7-8. inter-
venes to give them justice: a land, a future. a place in the sun. This theological por-
traya[ we are given in the book 01 Judges: as the supreme Judge (H ebrew shcphd)
God acts to champion the justice of the people [srael when they are oppressed in
times of crisis. It is also the presupposition of many of th~ Psalms: the people cry
out to Cod in the confidence t hal God will h~ar the ir cry and act to deliver them.
The justice of God usually eludes human compre henSIOn, as in the case of
Abnham on the eve of the holocaust of Sodom and Gomorrah (Ge n. 18:12-33).
Yet it is nOI justifiable, in my ~ading of t h~ biblicallexls, to sa}' thal God's uni-
versal role as "Judge of the whole earth- (Gen. 18:15b) conAicts wilh God's actions
to obtain justice for Israel. Rolf Knkrim pushes this tension to the extreme of
rejecting the not ion of Cod's choice (election) of Isra~L The special rela tionship
ber"..een Cod and Israel, he says, -must be regarded as a witness to a particulariS'
tic view o f Cod and hislOry. which is I10t commensurate with a universaliSI view
of h iStOI)', and certainly not with a view of Cod's pr~sence in history un.\'ersally.-"6
This view. however, fails 10 do juslice to the relations hip betv.. e~n the universal and
the particular, a dialC1:tiea[ contradiction that ....-e haw found to be inherent in
Isnel's experience of the presence of God in history.'
5. See Pe!er C~igic. Tht Problttll Gf W..r in \;,. OIJ T"ku."'1 (Gra nd Ra pid., Eerdmans, 1978).
6. Rolf P. Kni "rim. n.. Task ~J DU r.n~ .. m\ n.:o!~)'. Sub,!~n" , AI,rlxrd, ~d C~l<! :Crand ~T>;ds,
Eerdman" 1995 ). 17 1-75. ~50-S2: ql.lOUllion. 173 Hc "'riICS Ihal Ihi. vi ew" "Ihe ma.t <erious
lheologized p<:T\'crsion ot the nor ion of God and, !hus. (hc m()s1 serious among all f>O'i~iblt and
acwal similarly ~ infl.ll rheoJoIl.zed idrololliC'i" (-*52 ). See the pene,ra{ing revie'" of !hi ~ ",ori:: lw
.Ion Levenson, RdSRro H , no. I ( t998) 39-42.
7. Set- Emil fackcnhe,m . Gods Pns.",r '" Huwry (:-..le", ) 0.-1<. Kew York Uni". p~~. 1970). d's·
ru.sed ~ bove . chapler 9.
God and War 175
N~,·~rtheless, on~ cannot escape that conclusion that there is an ineradicable
"ideological taim" in t~ telling of the Israelite stOI)' abou t how Cod fight5 for the
peopl~ Israel and g ives them the land of Canaan, which came to be known as Mt he
promised l and.~5 O~ aSp«"t of the Deuteronomic portrayal that is especially nou-
blesom~ in t h~ modem world is the fate of the indige nous po!'oples.'1 At the bum·
ing bush ."'·loses was assured that Cod would deliver the Israelites from bondage in
Egypt and bring them "to a good and broad land, a land flow ing with milk and
honey" (bod. 3,S}. This promise ""ould be reali zed. howe... ~r. by dispossessing the
nati\'~ peoples.: "the Canaanites, the H iltites, the Amorites. Ih~ P~rizzites, the
Hivites, and the Jebusitcs: From a sociological point of View, holy war-t he kind
of war waged before the Davidic monarchy-was an ideology in the sense that it
justified the cause of the people and legitimated their occupation of the land.
It is too easy to dismiss these na tives as anc ie nt peoples who flou rished for a
while in a remote corner of the world and disappeared from the historical sce ne,
though some of them-like the H illitcs--have been rcdisco\'ered by modem
archaeolog ists. as we have seen in thc casc of the su:zerainty trea ty. 10 T he lo t of
thes~ forgotten peoples. however. demands attcntion in our time when na tive
populations. who have lost their lands to invaders, are crying for justice.
The problem of the native peop[cs is cxacerbated in the book of Deuteronomy,
where Moses is represented as telling the people that the land is Cod's gift and that
they ar~ to tak~ it by force from the native inhabitants, "seven nations mightier and
mor~ num~rou5 than you· In strong language the Israelite invaders are told 10
"make no covenant with them and show them no mercy~1 rather, the Israelites muSt
~brc:ak down t~i r al tars. smash their pillars, hew down their sacred poles, and bum
th~ir idols with "re" (Deut. 7 :1-6).
/
To be sure, some slrong reasons for this negative attitude to""ard Canaanile
culture ar~ give n. For one thing, the Mosaic sermon warns that the Israelites mav
be "~nsnar~d~ by aspccts of native culture (Deut. 7,25 ). Also • thev •
are told th;{
God is dispossessing the native peoples nO I b«:ausc of Israd"s "righteousness- but
. to ~~
beca~ of "the .... ickedness of these nations" ( 9 :4 ). Ne\'crthe1ess, it is ~asv
how nativ~ peo ples of the Uni ted States. Canada, Aus tra lia. the Hawaiian Isfands,
or e1~wh~re. who f~eI th~ hun of loss of land and destruction of ther r culture,
would be turned off by this aspecl of Deulcronomic preaching. ~'Ioses' exhortation
could be used as a justi lk ation for taking land and destroying native culture, as has
happe ned r~peat~dly e"er since Columbus's discovcry of the New Wo rl d. Ind~d ,
,
8. 5<:e lhe earlier discussion of I~ promises 10 Abrah~m, ~p(,cifially the promi~e of land,
chaptcr 11.
9. Some of Ihi. discus.ion i. e~t~cted from my ~say "St1I ndinll on Cod's Promises; i n /lib~Cd!
. -n."og)' Prob)"", anJ Pml'K"vt'· !~ H•• ol of J Cbr"I,~.1n &k.r, ed. Sleven J. Krahchkk cl at
(NAShvilk, Ahingdon 19951. I·U-H.
10. ~eabov" . ch lplcr 18,
17 6 C~"t""ll of O/J Tn~lIl1l'! T1>t1llO)/y
we remember tOO .....dl chapters of American history in which the biblical motif of
"the promised land" was approprialed at the expense of Native Americans.
Tbt Cifl oJ Good LJltd
The title essay of a collt'Ction o f essays by Wendelllkrry dealing .....ith ecological
and a!.>Ticul tural matters, "The Gift of Good Land; may pro ..oide some hdp in fac·
ing this difficul t problem. 11 The main interest in Berry 's essay is to develop a b ib ·
lical ba si~ fo r ecological responsibi lity. H e proposes turning to the book of
Deu teronomy. rather than the story of the Garden of Eden, in which Adam and
Eve arc placed in the garden to ta ke care of it. "The gh'ing of the Prom ised und
to the Israeli tes; he wriln. "is more ser.·iceable tha n the stOI)' o f the giv ing of the
Carden of Eden. because the Promised Land is a divine gift to a fanen pcople.-
That makes the gift "more problematical" and the receivin g of the gift more con· M have been overrun by invaders, may say in retrospect that some good came of it
d itional and more difflcult:!l
In speaking of a "fallen people," Berry is using traditional Ch ristian la nguage.
What he means. I belie... e, is that any people-not jll5t ancient Israel-receives
God's g ifts in a situation where self·imerest and human pride tarnish them. In
sociological language, the lIift has an Mideological ta int" that justifies an d suppons
th e social group. The theme of Cods gift o f land 10 a people, Berry goes o n to say,
· sounds like the SOrt of rationalization that invariably accompaniccs nationalis tic
aggression and theff; and he draws attention to "the similarit iccs to the .....esrv.·a rd
mo ... ement of the Ame rican frontier." Berry argues. h o ..... e ... er. that whereas the
movement into the American frontier produced an e thic o f gr«d and violence, the
Israelite conquest of Canaan from the ...ery first was infonned by an ethic of
responsibility based on the view that rhl! land i5 Cod's undese rved gift. To quote
again- "The dtfficulty but also the wonder of the stOI)' of the Prom ised Land is that .
there. the primord!al and still CO ntinuing dark story of human rapaciousness be:gan
to be accompanied by a vein of light which . howe"'er improbably and uneenainly.
sull accompan ies uS.wlJ
5e~'eral points descr.'e anention. First, the SWI)' o f the promise to Israers
ancCCStOrS pcnains to a people of the paSl, ancien! Israel. It is "historically condi-
tioned,~ rderring to Israel at a particular time lo ng ago_ It should not be: construed
as a divine mandate fo r other f>C'Oples in other times and historical situations to
engage in territorial expansion or cu hural domina tio n at thl! expense of nat ive
populations .
" '\orco"er, the 5tOry is about an ancient people who. like e ... ery pc:aple and
nation from time immemorial. has been inescapably involved in the ~dark history"
I I . W'tnddl Ikrry. TIt Cift of GO<IJ L>~d (San F.-. n(isco: North POim, I 98 I l. 167-28 I. For an
imroounion 10 thi s come mponry ",·riter. lee "To"'ard l H ealthy C ommunity , An 1me"',,,,,, ",uh
Wcndell Ikrry: Q.rii UaK C",t"'Y I I.J. no. 28 (l 997) 911- 16_ Write, {he Intervie ..... er: "Berry hiS a
pa,{io nJle Io-·e lOT the land [of the local community! and l C01Xem th~1 people lIve ,n rCipon·
sible relacionihip ""uh the land and wich om: anachn:
12. Ibid .. 169,
t 3, Ibid .. 170
God and War 1T1
of struggle for power and for land, the strife in pa rts of the former Yugoslavia being
a recent example_ Hence the formulatIOn o f God's promise 10 ancient lsrad has an
ideolOgical coloradon. Just as the promises of grace to David provided the just ifi-
cation for [he Davidic throne (psalm 78), as we shall s~ , so the promise of land to
Abra ham and hts descendants provided a theol ogical Tiuionaie lor the conquest of
Gnaan.
In the pc:rspc:crive of the community o f falih . however, Cod works through the
suHerings. dislocations. and tragedy of human h istory (including the tTaged), of
Israel when the: nation fdl and many f>C'Ople ...:ere carried into exile) 10 achieve a
purpo'iC tha t will ult imately ~nefil all JXop les. The promise to Abraham and
Sarah also included Ihe aSSurance that in Cod's purpose: Israel's role: would bc: nefit
"all rhe fami lies of the eanh" (Ccn. 12;3; d . lsa. 49:6 ). Perhaps nali,,'e people. who
after all and that, in rhe words of Joscph, "Even though you intended to do harm
to me. Cod inte nded it for good" (Cen. 50.20). Such positi ... e sta tements are more
easily made by the oppressor th an by the oppressed, as an African American stu-
de nt onc~ observed in th is connection .
Fi nally, in la ter Jewish tradition Cod's promise of land was broadened to mean
"~arth. world' {Hebrew (f(ls can mean eit her "eanh~ or "land") under the inAue nc~
of the unive~1 implications of "all the famili es of the earth" {Cen. 12:3}. [n this
larger sense ...... hich transcends the limitations of nationa l territory or political ide -
ology, Paul declared that the promises to Israel's ancestors ha ... e been endorsed by
Cod's revela tion in Jesus Christ, including the promise that Abraham would inhent
"the world~ (Rom _4, 13). t4
Tht Mttaphor of tIJr Divillt Warrior
Given Isracfs fierce struggle for survival and for living space. it ..... as inevitable that
the f>C'Ople prayed and tlUsted that Yahweh ..... ould be on the ir side in the struggle
for possessio n of the land of Canaan. Yet faith in Yah ..... eh. the Divioc Warrior, ca n -
not be reduced W ideology, for at least two rea sons.
Fim, Yah ....·eh was not alwa ys t he supponer of the people Israd ...... hether ri gh t
or wrong, on the COntrary. Yahweh acted to discipli ne the people fo r mei r
covenant failures. The Deuteronomistic h i~torians stress this cri t ical theology of
war. According to the epitome in Judg. 2:6--3:6. which interprets the wh ole
period of the early judges (rulers) of Israel. Yahweh allowed alien nations to
oppre~s I~rae l for a t ime, in order to -test" the people_Om kno ...... whether Isrole!
woul d obey I h ~ commandments of Yahweh ....... h ic h he commanded thei r anceslors
by !I.'lo~cs~ Uudg _ 3,4 L Similar1 >', the fal! of the Northern Kingdom in 711 R_C a t
the hand of the: A,syrian Empire is int~rp re:tl!d as Ih e: di~cipline of Yahweh for Ihe ir
T~ject i on of the commandments o f the covenant (2 Kgs. 17: 18 ). This teaching is
hardly what the defenders of the: political eSlabli5hment want to hear_
I.J . See <he d..;cuss,on alxwe , ( hipter 11.

In this r~pecl , the Deuteronomi\ti<; historians arc con\iste nt ""id.. the preach-
ing of the great prophets. These: prophets-like Amos, Isaiah , Micah, Jeremiah--
oppose the popular prophets who preach a message that people want to hea r in
w
wanime, proclaiming "peace, peace , when there is no peacc. The}' perceive that
God's real enemi~ are not out there somewhere in the international sphere but are
God's own people.
Tburf..u'r s.>]'S I~ S4=<ign. thr LOfm [Y"hrrb }"j ~f. lbe Aloghry o.c of I~«r!.
Ab. 1~.;IJ~, o~l .y "'r,,:}; on ",y",""its,
~"J a-.gt ",ysdf on toy~!
/ L~'U tu", '"y b~d IIga;nsl Y\)l<,
I ~.,;!I J ..1I1 ~1I'~y y\)l< r Jr",! .1 \ ",d, /yt
"d mile"",, all YCKr ~I!cy.
- Isa. 1:) "·15
Yahweh is rais ing a "foe from the north· to bring judgment on the land of Israel
(jeremiah), the Assyrian dictator i\ '"the rod of Yahweh's anger" (lsa. 10,5·1 4). who
would perfonn the "strange work" of divine judgment on Mount Zion (lsa.18:21 ).
Second, from the very Arst the languagc about the Divine Warrior te nds to
movc away from actual hislO/)' into a world of imagination. This can be seen from
the account oi the conqu~[ of Canaan given by the D eUleronomistic h istorian in
the book of Joshua. The account is clearly glOrified. as in the case of the story of
the fall of Jericho. Indeed, the problematic evidence of archaeology leads many
scholars to wonde r whether the re ...'as a "conqu~( at an, they sce evidence of a
slow process of inAhration and occupation of the land by means of trea£}" inter-
marriag~, and negotiation. IS Perhaps that is an extreme judgment. but it i~ clear
that the presem form of the Sto/)' invi tes the reader into a symbolic world, where
the Divin~ Warrior calls for radical faith.
MOreQ\'~r, from th~ very first there is a disposition to understand Cod's activ·
ity in mythical tenns. This is evident in the Song of the Sea (Exod. 15, 1·8). Here
Yahweh's enemi~ arc Pharaoh's anni~, who arc thrown into t h~ sea, a divine
deliv~rance celebrated in th~ earl ier Song of Miriam \hod. 15:19·20). Y~t the
poem is redolent of Canaanite imagery from the myth o f Baal's triumph o~'~r his
adversaries (Sea, River) and his building of a templc in which to celebra t~ his tri-
umphant kingship .16 When the Song of the Sea is compared with later Israelite
poetry kg .• Ps. 74: 11 · 1'} 1 14, lsa . 51 :9·1 I). it is ap parent that God's enemiC'> are
not in a narrow sense f1~h and blood but po""ers of chaos that threaten to chal·
lenge th~ Creator's sovereignty or 10 eclipse order wilh disord~r.
Th~ movement from history to !>ymbolism [hat transcends the literal world of
IS. f<lr a brief !iUmmary, ~ my di.cu,sion 01 Ihe in"a~Km of Canaa n, U.dmtMJi"4 ,bt OIJ
Tm.:"",,1 14th N ..- Engle ...·ood Chlfs. N.j., Prenlice ·H~l1, (986). 137-40, abrid,aed pape.oo.ck cd.
(ER.llkwood Clilk. N J, Prt"ntice·Hall. t997 ). I to-lB.
16. ~ Frank ;\1. Cross, "The Song oi .he Sea in<! unaanitc Myth: in (""",~~ilr ,\ Iytb ".cl
Hdlmr f;i<, E,,,,)"< '" :i1f H,slcry o} IN Rti;g>..... pf [".od (CambJidgc-, Hu\'ard Umv. P=s, 19731.
t 11-4~ .
Cod and War 179
polities rcach~ its climax in apocalyptic, as we wi11 se~ in due course. There was a
time when the D ivine Warrior, perfomling a "strange work" (Isa. 28,11 ), moved
against the people Israel in judgment and in mercy; ult imately, however, God will be
triumphant over all mythical enemi~ th at victimize people, whet her in Israel or the
na tions at large. To ....·ard that eschatological viclory of the Dh'ine \'V'ani or an apoc-
alyptic writer points in a passa~ that linguistically echoes the ancient Baal myth:
On that day tne loRI> [Yahweh] wilh his c;rue! and great and Strons S'o'ord will
punish Le~iathan the fleeing serpellt, w iathan the r-.·iSling serpent. and he will
kill the dragon thal is illlhe sea.';
The New T~til.ment is in line with this apocal}'ptic vision of the cnd· time tri-
umph of the Di~·ine \,(ramor. Indeed, Jesus is ponrayed not as an o rdinary warrior
who fights " ' ith a s"'ord bul as a warrior, equipped with nonmilitary weapons. who
goes out to engage in warfare against all the hosts of evil, symbolized by Satan's
kingdom (dominion ), A hymn that Christians used to sing highlights the ancient
metaphor of the D ivine \'l!!arrior marching forth 10 claim the ultimate vielDry o\'~r
the forces of evil.
Tnt Sot: Dj GoJ !I«S jMb 10 K'~'.
"m.g!y rnnno 109"111,.
HIS t.IaoJ-rd hanllt>' J! Il'.1I11S o/tJr.
Wb" foilo'-f'< ir. H" ! r~",J
11100 /m! r,,,, Jrml. his ".J>oj a'C't.
'riuIIIJ>!",,, t 0","' /'<fi~.
l¥he ",lIim t Mllr! J11S ('rCH !>rlo,,>,
ht fDllolI'5 it Hil !r~," 18
This h}' mn onc~ appeared in practically all hymn books. but has been dropped in
rece", revisions ( e.g .. United ":iethodist, Presb},t~rj il.n, Chalice). presumab ly
because of the prominent use of a military metaphor. This qu iet censorship falls in
the catego/)' of what the poet Kathleen No rris calls "t he war on me taphor." ' 9
When one studi~ the words of the hymn carefully. however, one 1,,111 discover that
it is anything but militaristic, moreover. it is openly inclusive ("A noble anny, men
and boys, The matron and the maid"}. It would be better, in my cstima tio n, 10
retain the hymn in our hymnody, but use it with a pods appreciation of the
melaphOricallanguage.
17. ~e m~' es ... )·, "The SlaYing of ,he Fleeing, TWl$linl! 5.:rp<-nl' Isaiah 27, t in COntexl: in
U.,cQt,i"9 AIICi",t 51~""', Essays i~ ,\ 1""01)' of H, !If,,! Ri,h;;rJwn, ~d. Le ...·is;\\. Hopfe (Winonl '---'1e,
Ind ., EiRnbn"ns, 1994). 3-15
18. By Reginald Heber. 1817, QUClled from an older version of Jh. H)'''J"x,~ of Prtlbyrtr'.m< ~..J
RtJ.IlIuJ Cb..n:m (l 955 ).
t9. K:athlce-n Noms. "The \\'(ar on -'Iel.phor: in n.,. Q""w lV~rt {New York: Ri\..,thead.
1996}. 154-58. in ...,hi<:o connection ,he sp«il1ul1y discu«cs modem 1"('\"5ion of hym~. and
liturgy. I Jrn gr.ttefullO my .... ife . .\ lonlQl!e, for thiS referfilCe.
 Summary
In summary, the issue of Cod and war is a complex subjcct in the Christian Bible,
both Old and New Testamen ts.
• Military language Io'as inescapable in ancient Israel, csv:cially b«:ause of its
geographical location astride the: path of marching armies.
• The •....arS'" of Yahlo'eh were limited engagements, using guerrilla tactics, not
the warfa~ of nations employing large armies and advanced military equip-
ment.
• The Divine Warrior did no t always come to (he support of Is rael. but-
according to the prophel5--uscd a foreig n army to perform the ~strange
....ork· of divine judgment on a sinful people.
• As prophecy moved to apocalyptic, military language ....as used symboli-
cally to portray Cod·s agg~ssion against, and triumph over. the po....ers of
cvil that victimi<:e people and threaten Cod·s creation.
• The New Testament is profoundly inAuenced by the apocalyptic vista of
the srnJl!glc between the dominion of God and the dominion 0/ evil (o r
"the evil one,~ as in the Lord's Prayer, Matt. 6:13). In this symbolic world.
Jesus is the Divine \'1:Iarrior who marches to war and wins the vic tory that
liberates people from all forms of bondage and powers of darkness.
22. PROPHECY IN THE
MOSAIC TRADITION
Wr l,aVf seen previously (chapter (6) that the: Priestly view of history, with
which t he Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 17 is associated, provides the basic per_
spect ive of the Priestly prophet E<:ekiel. Now we shall sce that the ~·Iosaic
covenant is the platform of the great northern prophet. Hosea, as it is also of the
great southern p rophet, Jeremiah. Indeed, there arc: stnking affinities between
H~a and Jeremiah. Hosea, who preceded Je remiah by at least a cenwry. was
active in the Northern Kingdom of Ephraim (Israel), a few years before its fall in
n2 B.C. under the impact of Assyrian invasion; and Jeremiah was active in the
Southern Kinl!dom, just before its collapse under thc massivc miKht of Babylonian
invasion in and around the year 587 B.C. [\ ","'as the task of these prophets, in their
respective times, to interpret the meaning 01 these tragic events. They did so in
terms of the l\·losaic covenant made at Sinai as portrayed claSSically in the book of
Exodus.
Some have argued that the symbol of Israel's covenant WIth Yahweh was a "theo-
logical innovation· of eighth·cenrury prophets, who used it in their preaching to
counter the notion that God is on the side of Israel and that therefore no e\'il could
befall the Israelite state.' Eighth-century prophets certainly emphasized the
covcnant relationship. as we shall sce, but they were dependent on a received Ira-
dition of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai.
A cenwry earlier, about the middle of the ninth century, the great prophet
Elijah appeared, scen through the mists of legend. In a dramatIC ceremony on
Mount Carmd. he called on the people 10 pledge their exclusive loyalty to
Yahweh, rather than compromising theologically with the Canaan ite god of storm
and fcrtility, Baal ( 1 Kings 18). Returning to "the mountain o f Cod- (Sill<li, Horeb),
where he experienced a theophany in a cave comparable to one granted 10 Moses
(cf. Exodus 33), Elijah protC5tcd that the Israelites had "forsaken [Yahweh'sl
co\'enant"" { I Kgs. 19:10) and had left him virtually alone as a devotee of the
Mosaic faith I
Moreover. at the beginning of the monarchy, according to narra tives found in
the books of Samud, there appeared a prophet In the MosaiC tradition. Samuel,
who warned of th e dangers of monarchy and called for allegiance to Yahweh as
kinK (I Samuel 8, 12). Before the founding of the monarchy. a great covenant cer-
emony was held at Shechem, when JOihua challenged Ihe people to serve Yahlo'eh,
1. The ~·;e .... rcmini>ecm 01 tha! of }uhu5 \Xf ellhau;c,n in tne nineteemh centu')", has ~en
n~ by E. W~ N;.;hol<on . G,J "...1 Hil Projtlt ( O~jord: Clan:ndon. 1!JS6), chw 10.
2. ~ above. chapler 5.
 182 Co~tours oJ OU T..,-ram",1 Thtou,!!y Pmphc-cy in Ihe Mosai<; Tradition 183
their libera~ing God, wi[h wholeheaned and sincere 10~'a l ty; "Choose " ,horn you SlraJjast l.cw, N ()I Sacrifice
will serve( (josh. 24,15 ) _ With Hosea it is the ~ame, yet .he accent is different. like Amos (Amos 3:1), he
turns 10 the story that ponrays Yahweh's rcfationship to Israel and Isracf's rela-
rOil Ody Hllv( f Know ))' tionsh ip to Cod. The 5101)' reaches back 10 the great root experie nces that marked
In the e igh th century, Ihen. the theme o f the covenant was not new; the innova- the beginn ing of the divine-human relalionship.
tion was how the prophets gave a new £v"ist [Q the Mosaic covenant as they inter-
• I am Yahweh yo ur God from the land of Egypt ( 12:9),
preted {he h istorical experiences of Israel at a lime when Assyrian imperialism was
• By a prophet [I',..loses) Yahweh brought Israel up from Egypt ( 12, 13).
s ...·eeping over Ihe ancient world _ ~
• [have bee n Yahweh your God ever since the land of Egypt ( 13:4 ).
Amos. the firsl o f the eighth.century prophets, does not explicitly refer [Q the
• W'hen [~rael was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son
Sinai cove nant, but it is appare ntly presupposed in an orade directed "against"' the
-{ J U l.
people of [~raeL
The language of covenant-~your God,w"my peopl e~-resounds throughout
Hear thi~ word tha! the Lord [Yah"'eh] has spoken ag~i nst you. 0 people 01Israel,
agains! the whole fam ily !ha! I brought lip our of ~he land of Egypt, [he prophel's message_ It was at Sinai that Yahweh made a covenant, e ntering into
You ",,!y b~vt I ""0:'-'" speci;!1 relation~hip with Israel and expecting the people to be faithful in their
DJ ~ iI In, J",,,i/i'5 4 rh, '~rlb, obligations_ Yet at the very threshold o f the covenant land, if that is the meaning
IhrrrJol1' I !I,m ~~ o:j;h y Oll o f the allusion to th e place Adam (d_Josh , 3: 16), Israel's history of covenant fail -
Jor ,,1/ yPNf in iq~' li,,_ ure began .
- Amo> 3, 1-2
Bwl at AJ"m rhfy tr"':~r~mJ tbt cv.'t>lm:!,
The \'erb "know" is a covenant verb, as we have found earlier; it refers to the per- !bm- rh')" J mit ja'I)'!"']y ...";1), nu_
sonal knowing that involves relat ionship and commitment.' Here the surprising - Hos.6:7
twist is that God's knowing Israel (in covenant relationship ) do~ not mean support To be in covenant wilh God is to "know" God. that is, to know God rdational1y
and approval, but on th e contrary, judgment and punishment_ Amos doc~ not go like a husband and wife (d_ Gen_ 4, I). but Israel's corporate life, in the realms of
so far as to SJy that Yahweh has completely rejected [sraeL To be sure, in a play on religion and politics, displayed betrayal of G od's covenant demands, a lack of
words (qayits =usummer fru it"/qd5 ="end") , he ponrays Yahweh announcing omi- "knowledge of God_ w
nously that ~t he end has come on my people Israel" (B:2), that is, the calamitous
e nd of [srael as a kingdom (d _5: 1-3; 9 ,B). But in .".mos's view, the punishment for Set!m rr.""pft to )'PNf r;~ s-,
0", like a ""]r,,l1' :\ ()tyr tk /rou", of
breach of covenant is not a punishment unto death, but rather a terrible doom thal
W
Ib, Lo~ /) [Y~bu"").
leaves, at best , only a pitiful "remnant of grace ( 3:2: 5: 15b)_He is so interested in
h'''~5f tho' hmv brow my (ovmar.:.
administering a homiletical shock to ,hose "at ease in Zion,w who "feel sccure on "Ha Ir~nlgm~a my la"'.
l\'lount Samaria~ (6; I). that he doxs no! concern himself with what lies beyond the -Hos_ 8, 1
tragedy o f faith less IsraeL He is more concerned to emphasize that a faithful rela-
H e complains {hat Israel's covenant devot ion (~cd) i~ tra nsient, like morning dew
tionship with God is not disp layed in the performance o f pious ritua ls but in obey-
that quickly vanishes; th erefore God's Rwords" (oracles), spoken by the prophets,
ing God's commandments, preeminent[)' the call for justice in the communiJ;)-'.
have a cutting edge that huns, eve n kills _
Takt "w~y Jmrn "" IIx noif( OJ yWf 50"9S,
I a'li! "o lli;!", W Ih. ""foJy 4 )'our b~ rt>" FOf l Jr; irr ,rwaj.N lot'r [ J:!esed], no:a no! '''cri.fie.,
Bur Itr }m llr, mll dCllm liltr w.1lm, lk h o",!dgt DJ God r~l,," Ib~H hl mr aJfm"95.
~"J rigbt.w ,,,rs, !jh a" ffl.tj/<JU';ng ;1"""'_
-Ho~_ 6,6
- Amos 5:23':2-1
O n twO occasions, according 10 the Gospel of Manhew, Jesus asked his critics to
go and learn what th is text means (J\.'\att _9: 13; 12,27)_

]_ 5« I h~ accla'med (poizt-""'in ning'j ~s<a ..'l>y PhilipJ King, 'The G",al Eighth Cemury,· BR "Lom Th" r Will Not hI Go ~
5 (August 1989 i 22- 33. 44 _ [n one respect Hosea goes further than Amos; the MosaiC covenant, in his view,
{_s.,~ abov~c cha p{~r 9_ means not just punishment but also th e po~si ble rejection of Israel. God has
184 (OHI""n of 01.:1 Ttsl~m(>ll Tl:>rolo9y
entered into the covenant relationsh ip fredy and, il the people ;lre unfai th ful.
God can fredy annu l it. Tha t seems to be the ominous meanmg of the nami ng of
onc of the prophet's children.
Then I~ loRD fYahwehJ Silid: "Name him Lo·ammi [i.e .. 'n!X my prop le'1 for you
are not my people and I am nol your God:
U nlike the Abrahamic covenan t, which H osea does nOt mention, the ,\:\osaic
CO'o'ena nt holds no guarantee for Israel's fu rnre welfare. The presen t crisis iS;l time
for the people 10 shape up and change I ~ir wa}'S (repen t), lest divine judgmenl
bring about an a nnulm ent of th e rdation tx: tv:een Cod and peo ple.
Yet paradoxically the prophet holds OUl hope for the fu ture, a hope that is
based not on Israd's behavio r but on the illCredible grace of Cod, whose co~'enan t
faithful ness is greater and d~per than the slrict tenns set by th e covenant. T his is
the message of the marvelous poem (Has. \ 1: 1-9) in which the prophe t shifts from
the husband· w ife metaphor (chapters 1-3) to the parent-child image to portray
God's loving, nurruring care for the people. The prophet portrays a struggle that
goes on wi thin the heart of Cod. so to speak . Sho uld the Parem d iscipline this
people as severely as they deserve} Should the Parent give up on and reject a child
that persistS in re bellious waysl Strictly speaking, dlC covenant could be termi·
na ted by Cod's complete rejection of Israel, if the people fail in the relationship.
Bu t God's co mmitm ent is based on love, li ke that of a parent only far grea ter. love
th at finally cannot stand to let Ih e people go. In the lau analysis this ;\ what it
means for God to be wthe H oly One in your mi dst:~
HOIC' (~1I1 giey y"" w~. Epbr~, .. )
H01/I ",n I b,.,..J y"" oro-, Olmltl7
Aly h!~rt r~o;lllC>lhi~ ""e
"'Y comp,mil)!< ill'OU1S D"'r7II~,J lntkr.
/..,;U 1<01 atoll( ..y Pm dlt;jCl',
11IIi1l""1 "9"'in :itsl"" E~d"",
for [am GoJ dn:i1l<1 ",art.,1.
Ih! HDly Ck ill YOl<T.iJ,t.
a..J /1l'i1l1lO1 C<1ll' m "'Tdlll.
-Has. 11,8-9
Waiter Broeggemann describes this as "a radical recharacterizalion of holiness",
'The holiness of Yahweh is dr.l ...·n inlO the c~nant calegori<:s of Israel's faith, 50
that the Holy Onc is the rela!(~d OrlC ... . By lin king "Hol}' Onc" to the lerm ·of
I$racl,' Israel's testimony a$';em that this comple tely sc~r.lted One is th e chara~-
5. Sec Wahher Eichrodl. "'The H oly 0"" in Your /<.·1id.t', The Theology of HO\e~'
Uoyd Gaslon ). /. , I:; {1961 ) 259-73.
Prophecy in the Mosaic Tridi lion 185
terislically related One. Yah ...·ch's holiness, in this formulation, is in and .... ith and
fOf Israd.6
Because o f this holy love. beyond the lime of the broken cove nan t God will
make a new covenant. In the end time the people will respond as in the (honey-
moon ) -days of her youth , as al the time when she came out of the land of EgyptW
(Hos. 1 : [5 ). Then Cod w ill show pity on those who deserve no pity:
ad 1..~11 X'ly 10 u...ammi,
"Y"" d.C "'Y p.t(Ip/t",
~,.J lot sh~i! "'y. I'ou IIft.y GoJ.-
-Has. 2,23
Imminb, a Propbd Likt A10stS
The "/I.·losaic" the mes of covenant ma k ing , covenant breakin g, and covenan t
renewal are interpreted in Jeremiah's preaching with even grea ter power. In its
present ronn the book. of Jeremiah comes 10 us from Deuteronomistk editors who,
as we ha\'e see n, edited th e hiStory that extends from Jos h ua t hrough the monar-
chy to its final demise in the seventh centu ry, the time of Jeremi ah ;lnd Ezekid . It
is ohen difficuh, if not impossible, to separate t he words and deeds of Jeremiah
from thei r Dcuteronomistic interpretation (as in Jeremiah's temple sennon, chap-
ler 7). The prob lem is complicaled by the fael that Je remiah may have suppo rted,
at least ini tially. the relonn of King Jasiah. wh ich was based on the book of the
torah of Moses-the core of the boo k o f Deuleronomy (sec 2 Kings 22-23).
The Oeuleronomislic interpreters apparently regarded Jerem iah as a prophet
like Moses.
By " fIr~ the l.oit:D [Y"bvotb] "=<9bl hrMl MP Jnmo £gypt.
"d 1')' " propbtf br Will iI"",J.J·
--HO'S . D , I3
This theme is set fon h in a n important passage in the book of D eu teronomy
( 18: 15 ·22) ...·here J\·1 oses telis the people that Cod will guide them into their new
life on the land:
The LORD (Yah .... eh j }'our God .... ill raise liP for you a prophctlike me from among
your own people; }'OU shall heed such a propOCI.
- Deut.18:15
The passage goes on to say tnat. jusl as Moses aeted as covenant mediator between
God and people at Sinai, 50 God. wi ll raise up -a prophet like you" who will speak
for Cod to the people. Yahweh is quoted as saying: "I will put my words in the
mouth of the prophel, wh o sha ll speak to them everythi ng that [command" (v. 18).
This passage seems to mean that Moses will be followed by a se~ of prophets
like Moses: who will call the people to repent. prop hets like Samuel, Elijah, and
(trins.
186 Con/DIm of Old Tn!.a1ftcr/ Thr010gy Prophecy in Ihe Mosa ic Tradition 187

Hosea. In any case, that was the vi ew of Deuteronomistic interpreters who have 5ummo",. to Co!.!rf. The poet depicts Yahweh, the aggrieved pany, summoning the
given us the book of Je remiah: they understood Je re mia h to be one of those people 10 a tria l:
prophets in the Mosaic succession whom Cod raised up rrom time to time 10 warn liSlen 10 Ihe word of the loRD [Yahweh ], people of }acob. all you families of Israel.
the people and persuade them to rerum 10 co\'enant fidelity with Cod (d. 2 Kgs. These arc the wo rds of the loRD:
17: 13 - ! 5). It is noteworthy that in the New Tes tament this prophecy or the com- What Ja~j; did )·()II.T fCJlfo"t~ ""' fi~J i~ "'I,
ing Mosa ic prophet is applied lO)esus , whom God ~raised up" from the dead (Ac ts IhM Ihry ,,"'rn ! so fa , allMY fro", "'I,
(>l<TW;"g ",ortb!", ,JoI, ar.J brco",;~g wartblrss ]ikr th..m;
3;22·23, d. 7035-37).
th"t rh')" did 'IQ! ~sk. "WUTt i5 Iht LORD
u,ho b~hl ws up fro," Egypt
A C011t7Ia"t )\-Irdi,,/or
a ~d lId liS thrO";/b tbc wiw",...l'ls.
The view o f Jere miah as a prophet like /I.·loses was rooted in Jere miah's own mes -
Ihro""b" oaflOl and hr~6 '()II.~!I)'..
'iage. This is immediately evident in the accou nt of Je r~ miah's ca.1l at the beginning a c()II.ntry p~rcbrJ a..J forbidding_"
of the book (Jet. 1:4-10), which resembles th~ story o f Moses' call and commission - JCT. 204·6 {REBj
in th~ book of Exodus (Exodus 3 and 4). lik~ J~re miah ( I :6 ), Moses also protested
his inadequacy for the task, speCifically that h ~ was no speaker (Exod _ 3: 11: 4: 10). lmliclma:t Th~ qUC<>t ioning moves into indictment: Yahweh brough t the people
Both =ived the div ine assurance that God would be wi t h them, enabli ng them "into a pl ~ntiful land, to ~a t its fruits and its good Ihi ngsW
; but when they entered,
to meet opposition (Exod. 3: 12; Jer. 1;8). /I.·\on:-over, Cod's promise to J~ re miah , "I the y "defiled my land" wi th their false life 5tyl ~_ They were misled into this
have put my words in your mouth" (J er. 1:9) , is a c1 ~ar ec ho of what is said regard- covenant betrayal by priests, interpreters of the law. rulers, and prophets.
ing the prophet like Moses in the book of Deuteronomy ("I will put m y words in
~ P"r<ts ,w lmtg.,. a!fttJ, ·Wbm is tb. Lom
the mouth of the prophet,~ Deut. 18 ; 18). [Y"b~,.bl~H
The role of the covenant mediator, acco rding to the portrayal o f Moses given T1xr;, u,bo b~xdl"J tbl !,,'" baJ "" nal
in the Torah, was twofold; ( I) to speak Cod's words to the people; and (2) to rep - k-noddgr of "",
resent the people before God, for exampl~ , in intercessory prayer. The major !h. 1h4>"'dl of tb, p.~/>k rtb.lld ugaiusl m"
aspects of Jeremi ah 's message and ministry qualify him as a prophet in the /I.·losaic I'" />mp hru />mphnilJ i" tb, ""P'" af Baal
tradition. He is commission~d to speak Cod's words (Jer. 1:9); and, being sensi- a..J jol!o""d gods who !I'm- ",,,-,,rb ta bd/>.
tively identified with the people, h~ was qualified (like Samuel before him ) to - jeT. 2 ,8 (REB )
w
· stand bcfon:- Yahweh and plead for th e people (cf. JeT. 15; I).
T1( JUJ9li FerJie/. Finally Yahw~h places a charge before th~ court: N my people"
have done something for wh ich there is no precedent or parallel- they have
Remembering and Forgetfi1!g tbe Story excha nged thei r "glo ryH(their Cod) for no-gods. Yahweh appeals to th e members
of the heavenly court;
Sev~ r:al themes of Moses' preaching, as summarized in the book of Deuteronomy,
ring out in Jeremiah's message. First, J~r~ miah ap peals to the people's story that B, dgb~SI at ,bi,. yw b'at'Pll,
rehearses the saving d~~ds of Cod mani fest in the deliverance from Egypt, the sh.lJd" ;~ ~II" horror. "'Y' th. LoRD [Yabw.h).
guidanc~ through the wilderness . and the inheritance o f the la nd . The trouble is--- ,\1)' ~lopI. haut com",i/l,,i lu'O >i~s,

and here Jeremiah agrees with Hosea (cf. Has. 13:4-8)- that when Israelites came Ib')" baut flj'~t.d mr,
"Wllrct ~f iiv;11il ~'al(j",
into the land they forgot the Story, wh ich portrays God's liberatin g deeds and th~i r
and Ibry h.1~' """" aliI jor tb""'5I1ro ci11trn5.
respo nding commitment to Yahweh. What is mo re, they turne d to another story
cmcfttJ rn-rtrn, which bold "0 w~j....
to !lnd the meaning of life, namely, the Canaanjte story of the 10\'e, and wars of - Jer. 2,12 - \3 (REB)
Baal and his consort.
In a "cov~nant lawsuit,Nfound in Jer. 1:4-8. th~ Divine Suz~rain calls the vassal In th es~ tennsJeremiah ~ddre-sse-s the people of Cod who have a special story
or ~servantij to t ask. 7 Notice the literary fonn of the passage. to tell. To forget tha t story, or to turn to anoth~r story, is d i'iastrous, for the story
is the basis of knowledge of Cod and of th ~ community's identity.

7. Compare .he ~Ummaf)' of Ihe suzerain's beneficen t d~ed< in the suzera inty coven~nt
(treaty ) form, above, chap ler 18.
 188 CCI'IlotIrs of ()lJ Testa",",! Thtology
Stipulations of IJ1t (ovtna111
We now rum to a second thcmc of Jercmiah's preaching. Closely connected with
the basic experience, God's deliverancc from Egyp tian bondage, is thc other cru-
cial experience: the giving of th e law that signifies th e covenant relationshi p.
Exodus and Sinai, the two "root experiences: are inseparable. \X'hen Jerem iah
declares (2:8) Ihat the "interprete rs of the law- did not '1mow" Cod (the knowing
of relationship ), he stands in agreement with Hosea. That nOrthe:rn prophet also
an nounced Yahwch's covenant lawsui t , which cited the commandm ents of the
Decalogue:
Htilr dtt vor.:i of tOt lom [Ya!.:;.yb},
o prop!tDf lmx/,
J;r rbe lOlw [Yahwt"1ba! a" iKJi,III!<'I,rB
against !1..o i~b.ab;"'~r, 4 rbr "'~J.
Tlrtll i, "" ('wtn<Jxrj f,z.-rbJullltfl or loy.. ity [J:.esedJ,
"d 110 .I..owItJ;T of GoJ i~ tIx I.l,..{.
SlOtllrixg, lyi..g. iln.1 ,"~ rJlr,
.. d '1",li~ a"! "a,,11l'1)' prlok ""I,
bloodslxJ folloVl blooJslxJ
Tbrrrfo11" tIx Ia~J ",Olm.s,
<I"d all ~ liClf ;" ,I Ja....1Milh,
r~tt&tr with t/)( ,m/J m:m.,,1s
@Jl1..o hrJsoftbtair,
rot!< rbr fish of !Ix se..- all pnilbillg.
- Hos. ,,: 1- 3
H ere is a splendid example of what literary critics call "pathetic fallacy", natu re
mourns for the lost welfare of the covenant. But this is more than a poctic device.
Both H osea an d Jcremiah have a profound poetic awarcness of the intcrrelation·
ship of the people and the land on which thry Jive.9 Huma n behavior can "pollute"
Cod's land Oer. 2,7b), evcn as the wholc crcation may sha re the creative birth
pangs of a new age (see Rom. 8:22-23). The modcm split between naturc and his-
tory, which is largely responsible for the ecological crisis, is challenged in texts like
these. Human beings must Jive in responsible re lation to the land, not as masters
over it who can do as they please.
Turning Arou",J
Finally, Jeremiah-truc to Mosaic tradition calls for decision, thal is, turn ing
away from false loyalties and returning to thc AdeHty of the: covenant relat io nship.
Jcremiah Stts th e people at a turning point, where everything depends on how the
people respond. It is a c risis of lifc or death, blc<;sing or curse.
8. lhe Ht,broew term "Io, Ir.,wlle<! ",ndklmem: i$ rh~ I(nn for. kg,,1 con tTlWcrsy or IlW~ir.
9_ I lm lold by • mini~tctia l friend {David Andrt"·sj rh~( e.rI~' Purirln p",a,hen used to
preaeh that COvenant obcdi~nce affected th~ 19rirultu'" of rhe I. nd.
Prophecy in the Mosaic T",dilion 189
One of thc key vcrbs in the prophet's vocabulary is the vcrb shub, Cl verb of
turning. In a ncgative sense the verbal noun means turning away, apostasy, in Cl
positive sense thc vcrb means a turning to, a rctum-that is, repentance.
Emphasizing thc conditional "i of the r>.'losaic covc nan t, Jeremiah seems to say
that the promise 10 Abra ham, that na tions Ivould be blessed by him (Ge n. 12:1 -3),
dcpends on Ihe people's rcpentan ce.
If )'0:1 rth,,,,. 0 imln. ~ Ihr l.oJ{[} {Y;!b ....m~
if Y"" rl/!jnr /" "C,
if YOll m"ort YOlI' abonrir..1 li"", f ro", "'Y P",<'IKt,
aMJ Jo ,,01 I(',1i>t1'.
",.J if Y"" Sn";!r, "As tl...lORD [Y.1_1!rots!"
in trvrl.. in P,llic(, a"J ir. M/l'I"9&!ottI"-
Ibtn ""ne,,, sb~U be bl"o;cJ by I",",
,1"J by hm. Ihty ![,.,Il '-It.
To Jeremiah , the prcsent is a time of u rgency, a time for soul searc hing, for
measuring thc "values' (idols) that people 5CI'\'C. That is ..... hy the prophet rcminds
th e people of their rOOI nperiences: so tha l lhey may know the iden tity o f their
saving Cod a nd their identity as a people called by Cod. Also, tha l is why the
prophe t portrays an ominous fu ture whcn a "foe from the north"" will comc upon
[hem : so thalthcy may awake from th ei r dream ..... orld and "know" the God who is
at ..... ork. sccki ng justice and peacc. Jeremiah is puzzlc d- and hc suggests that Cod
i\ pun lcd-about the peo ple's misu5C of their fr« dom, thcir stubborn refusal to
5Cnse thc crisis and repent (tu rn around).
wt.m pro~ltf'lll, do rbey ~~t!/tl
wp "!(.1.->r}
If thty go al t,~y. do IIxy Mt IWflI b.. ,b
Wby Ibm M tbi, fItoPk Iwn,rJ .1lNy
;" j>rrpf(W"J b.KbliJio:g f/lJn",.~ """7 P
Thr:r """.. btU fDS! la In:tit,
IIry ,I;"VT ,rjWJ,J ro fI'I""'.
-Je-r. 8:4-'
Hc likens them 10 a horse · plunging hcadlong into battle" Ocr. 8:6). Even the birds
know the times o f thcir migration, but "my people do no t know thc ordinance of
Yahweh" (8:7).
Could the people repen t' Could a people set in it S ways change its lifestyle,
That is a relevant quest ion ~,·en today, when people are locked into an economy
that concentrates wealth at thc tOP and ,·ictimizes the increasing number at the
bottom, or a lifcstylc that pollutes the natural environm~ nt and threatens the con-
tinuation of life o n Earth. In passionat~. ha rd· hitting languagc Jere miah sought to
awaken the people to thc seriousllCSS of their predicament. But Jcrcmiah was no
NSy optimist. He sensed that the people ..... ere in bondage to their lifestyle and
could not change-li k~ a person who is addictcd to a drug. Only the most sevcre
shock treatment could shakc th em out of th cir habits and make liberation possible.

In contrast to popular prophets, who preached soothing words, his task was to
preach the judgment of God, through which God merCifully makes possible a
new beginning.
Threat of tbe Rrtrmr of Chaos
True to the j\'losaic covenant heritage, Jerem ia h rega rds it as his prophetic task to
warn the people and to spell out "the curses" of the covenant, that is, the unavoid·
able consequences of the people's behavior. At onc point he ponrays the awful
possibility that God would nO t just abrogate the covenant with hrael but would
bring a terrible judgment on the world, like that of the gn::at Aood, ,·.rhen the ear,h
was on the verge of rewrning to precreation chaos (toh" waoohu; d. Gen. 1,] ).
I ioobJ On rh. runh, n~J h it "'~s 10.151. ad fJoiJ,
nnd Iq I'" bmvflll, and Ihry 6.1 nO lighr.
r l""hJ"" rh. ""'wn~.,m,. ~..J IQ, rh')' .'trl qw~ki"g,
""J a/l rhl biils ","'I'fa to and fro.
! 1"",,".1, and 10, Ihm II'~> no 01" al ~ij,
,,"1,,11 th. birds ",j /'" ~ir h,d i.d.
JI",,"'J, aHJ!o, tb. j""Ij"I I.mJ n\~~" dNrl,
",.1 nil it. cil,,, ""'" laid in ruin,
fujorr IhI LoRD [y"hn"h}, k/ore hi, }i.m "~g"­
-Jcr. 4.23·16
Poetry like thiS, which universalizes the th reat of God's impending judgment,
anticipa,es the later style of prophecy kno",'n as apocalyptic, which sees God's
relationship wjth Israel in the context of the ominous threat of po'''ers of chaos to
God's whole creation. lO
[n the perspective of Mosaic covenanl theology, God mkes a risk in making a
covenant commitment to a people. It is human freedom that makes the present
precarious and that threatens the Israelite community, and uitima,e1y the world
as a whole, with chaos. In Luthe ran and Calvinistic terms , th e problem is the
bondage of the will.
&ycmd Tragedy
Yet even in this =vena nt~l view, which throws great weight on human respons i-
bility, God does not lose control- not compl~t~ly. The prospect of catastrophe is
God's way of alening people, through prophetic mess~ ngers , IO the true seriou~­
ncss of the crisis. The suffering5 of history are Cod's shock treatment, inte nded to
bring p~ople to thei r ..... nses. Beyond trag~dy, so Jeremiah insisted, God will mak~
a new beginning, a new covenant.
This hope burned so fiercely in Jeremiah's hean tha t, whil~ the Babylonian
army was pounding at th~ gat~s of Jerusalem, he bought a parcd of land and had
Proph"C}' in rhe MO'iaic Tradition 191
the decd legally notarized. 'What a pow" rful symbol: a man in prison, in a city
about to fa ll, who makes an investment for the future! The issue is not the future
value of real esta,e on the market but, in the worst of times, hope in the Cod who
gives people a furure.
According to the famous passage about "the new covenan( Uer. 31:31-33),
there mus, be a radical change in human nature before th" weakness of the Mosaic
covenant can be overcom e. God's law must be written on the heart. not just on law
b(){)ks; and the knowl edge of God must be so inward that no longer will it be nec~
cssary to teach onc anOlher, saying BKnow the Lord.~ As a CQvenant partner, Israd
remains fre e to respond to God's initia tive, but paradoxically God ~prnmises to
make possible the very response which he inexorably demands,wll Above aI!, God's
forgiveness "'QuId ultimately heal the wounds of th e people and inaugurate a last·
ing rel~tionship , indeed, ~n everlasting cove nanl .
Thi~ is ~h" co~'enam that I Will make w;~h rhO' house of IHaei after those days, 'Klys
rhO' LORD [Yahwchl I will pur my law within them, and I will write it on their
heans; and I will J:,., Ih"ir God, and they , hall be my prop1".
- .In. 31:33
The Christian community affirms tha t th is new beginning in history was initi-
ated through God's grace an d forgiveness in Jesus Christ , As we well know, dis·
tinctil'e Christian writings proclaiming rh al the new age had dawned we re
eventually designated according to Jeremiah's prophecy of the new covenant.
Jeremiah', Temple Senno/!
At one point in his ministT)'.. Jeremiah deliv~red a sermon that got him into trou-
ble. The "temple sermon" is summarized in Jer. 7: 1-5. and his arrest immediately
follOWing th~ sermon and the near loss of his life is n::ported in Jeremiah 16. Since
we are on the verge of turning to the royal cov~nant theology associated with
David, it is ap propriate to consider this sermon as a transition from Mosaic to
Davidic the ology, For it is a forceful anack on th~ false confidence that was gen-
erated by one asp~ct of Davidk t heology.
In this se rmon, as reponed by Deuteronomislic interpreters, 12 Jeremiah lashes
out against fal ..... confidence in the temple. The people were saying that the tem-
plc of J~rusalem guaranteed tha t Yahweh was in their midst, making them safe and
s~(ure from all alann . They were gl ibly chanting the theological cliche, "The
temple of Yahwe h, th~ l" mpl~ of Yahweh, the temple of Yahweh,wsupposing that
God's presence with them gaw ,hem freedom to live as th~y pleas~d.Jeremiah
attacks this temple theology by saying that wOfshi~rs had convened the temple
1 t. Nicholmn . GoJ ,id Hi, P""":>i,, 216.
11 AI'ho<.!gh the "","",on in 11< pr"""fli fonn ,how, Ihe heal"y infh.lence of D"ureronomi5lic
langua!je. it' substance undoublcdly goes bac\: 10 Jeremiah.
192 Cm.fOlll"! "IOU Ttst.:l..tllf Tbr<J!ogy
into "a cave o f robbers" when: thieve<> take refuge to count their Spot I-words that
were quoted by Jesus at the time of his "cleansing of the temp le" (}..'Ian. 1 1: 13).
A true Mosaic p rophet. Jeremiah adds the conditional "if" of the 1\·losaic
PART 11
covenant: 1f you truly amend your way~ ... [and th at mean~ obeying the Ten
Commandments that are cited in pan, vv. 5-61. tocn I [YJhweh ] will dwell with CONTINUED
you in this place. in the land that I ga\'e o f old to your ancestors forever and ever"
(7:5-7). As things are no ....', said the prophet, thiS house is not a holy place that will
stand forever, but will suffer the fat e of the ancient shrine of the confederacy at
Shi loh (which was destroyed during Israel's war with the Phili~tines) . No wonder C. THE DAVIDle COVENANT
that Jeremiah ,,'as arrested and charged with aposta5y' During his trial Ucrcmiah
26) he was saved from execution only because some remembered that the prophet
Micah hJd spoken ~imi l ar words about the destruction of Jerusalem a centut)' "1[Yahweh] have made a covenant with my chosen,
earlier.
So interpreted, the Mosaic covenant did not make for popular preaching. The
I have takell oath to David, my servant:
reactiollS are portrayed in various narr.a tivcs colleCted in the last part of the book 1 will es tablish YOlIY line ill perpetuity,
of Jerem iah. In one of these, we find Jeremiah in conflict " 'it h the prophet
Hananiah, who apparently preached on the platform of Davidic covc:nanttheol-
I will make YO ll' throne stable for generatiol1s
oi}', promising that the temple treasures would be relUrned and that Cod would to come. "
stand by his promise<; of grace to the Davidic king Ueremia h 28). To understand
this prophetic conflict, we turn 10 the "everlasting covenant" with David that in PSAU\-1S 8903-4 (BWA)
various ways interacted with the conditional covenam with Moses.
 23. THE PROMISES
OF GRACE TO DAVID

So Jar we IHlVf considered twO major covenant ~rspectives found in the O ld

Testament, onc associated with Abraham , and O~ wilh Mosa. On the one hand,
the Abrahamic covenant, wc have seen, is unilateral in the scn~ that it expresses
Cod's absolute commitment to a people:. unconditioned by their behaviOT_This
covenant, grounded in solagratill, assures that the people will have a land and that
they will in~asc o n the land. It is a covenant of promise.
The Mosaic covenant , on the o ther hand, is mon: bilateral, for Cod and peo-
ple arc partners, haVing made a contractual agreement with each other. A heavy
responsibility falls on the people, for they arc called on to decide to 'W:fVC theiT lib-
erating Cod and to live in accordance with covenant obligations-God's corn·
- mandments. If-and Ih~ conditional is imponant------tf th~y pf()\'~ unfaithful. decid-
ing to lh'e in a way that betrays the covenant rel ationship. they will suffer severe
consequences-indeed, the whole thi ng could be called off. While the Ab rahamic
covenant is a covenant of promise of la nd and increase , the Mosaic covenant ha..
to do with the bchavior of the people on the land. It is a covenan! of law, under
the sanctions of blessing and curse.
The contrast between these two covenants is obvious, as it was to Paul . who
draws a contrast between the Abrahamic covenant of promise and the Sinaitic
covenant of obligation. which putS people under the blessing or the curse (see Gal.
5:6-1 4).

A Roytll Coornant
\'(fe rum now to another way of symbolizing Cod's rdation co the people and to
w
the world: the royal covenant aSSOCiated wilh David and wit h Zion. "'Zion is the
ancient n<lme for the southeastern ridge of the h ill on which the city of ]eT\l5alem
was founded (mountain climbers will regard "mountain" as an extravagant transla-
W
tion ). According to 2 Sam. 5:6· 10 David's warriors took Mthe strongho ld of Zion
from the pre.lsraelite cit izens Uebusites) and David made it his capital. ·the city of
David.w The temple was later built immediately to the north of this area, and
because this shrine was regarded as God's chosen dwell ing place (ps. 132: 13). it
came to be known also as "the city of God" (Pss. 4604-5 , 87:3).1 I have previously
observed that Jon levenson. in Smai and Zioll, regards Zion as one of the two sym-
bolic mOUntains that dominate the Scriptures of ancient IsraeI.l

t ~ Kan::n ArmSlTOng. J .....",:.. , 0.. Cily. Thm FDit;" (New York: Knopf. 1996). 1000"n early
hi'llOlY 01 J~rusakm.
2.}ohn D Ltv~nson . S,~ ... .."J Zic~ (Minneapol;s: Winslon. t985). On the mountain symbol·
ism, ~" above. chapler 17.

196 C""tOl''' of Old Test,,",",! Tbcokogy
A S)'lIIbolic Visla
like the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, this one too has its own symbolic ~'ista
or imagi nati ve construal. Here the key elements in the pauern of symbolization
are monarch and temple.
~ [Wo institutio ns, so basic to the cultures of the ancient Near East, .... el"('
alien to Israel's "root experiences" 01 exodus and Sinai. Indeed, the Oavidic
covenant perspective was a ~new theology;' not I.'"asily abso~d into Isradltl.'" tTa-
d it ion . Conservatives who stood in thl.'" Mosaic tradition, li ke the prophet Samuel,
opposed the new theology. In I Samud 8 , Samud is ponrayed ilS wilrning the peo_
ple of the dilngers of hilving a king 'ike the nil lions· : th is inno~'ilt ion would entail
the loss of civil liberties enjoyed duri ng the tribal confederacy. Further, the ideol-
ogy of sacred kingship, known through out the ancient Near Eils t, would be: a
theolOgical challl.'"nge, for it threatened the rejection of Yahweh as king, th at is, the
repudiation of Israel's theocracy.
M oreover, conservatives opposed the policy of building a temple (house) for
Yahweh such as the great gods of the ancient world had. In 2 Samuel 7 the prophet
Nathan is portrayed as opposing, at least initially, David's plil n to build a house for
Yahwe h . In a dream, so the story goes, Nathan WilS to ld to Sily to Oilvid:
Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I h~ve not dwel~ in a house from
the day I broughl Ihe Israelites up out of Egypt 10 this day. 1 have be<:n mO"ing
from place to place with a lenl u my d,,·elling.
- 1 S~ m.
The task of Oavid's theologians was to adapt these two institutions that origi-
nally were alie n to Israelite experience--dynastic kin gship ilnd sacramental
temple-Io Israel's faith so th at they could become symbols for exp ressing the
reliltionship between God and people, indeed, betv.'een God and the world. Their
success is evidenced in the fact that Oavid escorted the ark. the MOSiIic symbol of
Y~hweh's presence in the midst of the people. inlo }eruSillem (see the processional
ritual in Ps. 24:7·10). In the book of PSillms, the temple is regarded as the place
where Yahweh "tabemacles" or "tents"'" in the midst o f th e people:
HOCI' low/lIS llN' J.,..!Ii"g plact [ It.ib,,,,,,drJ
o l.ORD[yahwrb j ofbasl>l
My soul ~l, ~,J irJai~rl
J« rh< ccurls of v,. LORD [YaimtbJ.
'"Y Mart a"J"" fose lil'!/ for JOY
to rht lil'i..g Go.!.
- Ps. 84:1-1
Moreover. the king was regarded as God's special agent or "messiah" ( r Sam.
24:6) , anointed for the leadersh ip of the people. ilnd in this sense the prototype of
the one wh o is to come, th e ideal ruler. Thc term "anointed one~ (Hebrew Ir.<lshillb,
Greek dJrisros) refers tojrme/;oll as God's instrument, not 10 the divine nature of the
ofhcrholder. (Notice that the Persian king eyrus is called Yahweh's '"mesSiah; or
anointed one, in lsa. 45 : I , for he is the agent of God's purpose.)
,
The Promises 01 Cr.lce 10 David 197
Thus here we ha"e a perspective that embl1lces uT"ha n symbolism (Zion, the
city) and ro)'al symbolism (the king, ~ahweh's anointed One"). Of course this
covena nt perspeClive or "trajectory" had a profound influence on t he New
Teslilment ponraya l of the t...!essiah, God's chosen agent 10 introduce God's
dominion on earth , staning at Jerusalem (Zio n l.
Urology and Faith
Before proceeding funher, we must pause to consider a major question that hilngs
e-specially over the Oilvidic covcnant. This covenantal perspective ilppeilrs to be an
ideology.~ a sociological term that refers to a body of ideas and practices intended
to justify o r Silnction a sociopolitical program. i
Some inrerpreters mainrain that the Oavidic covenant is es~ ntially ideologi-
cal. It was fonnulated to uphold and legitimate the power of the Oilvidie state,
speCifically to keep a single dynasty in of Ace and to quell revolutionary move-
ments. As such, it emphasized order at the expense of freedom. The Oavidic
covenanr, according to some scholars, ..... as a kind of '" fall from grace.' The peliod
of g race, it is said, was the time of the triba l confederacy when t he l\-1osaic
covenanl insured freedom and an egali tarian way of life. In the time of Oilvid, and
especiall y Solomon. howc\'er, the ancient political ideology. deri\'ed from pre·
Dil"idic (It-busilc) Jeru~lem and the larger Medi terranean world (Syria, Egypt,
7,5·6 (NIV) ~:Iesopotamia l, -was superimposed upon the Yahwist tradi tiOn and remilined there
forever, though radically lransfonned in the NC\<" Testament tradition."·
There ;s a large ekmem of trut h in this sociological approilc h . P~lm 78-to
tilke one witness 10 Oavidic theology-is a document that seeks to justi!)' the new
social reilli ty of the Oavidic monarchy. H e re a psalmist addresses the people, per-
haps on the occilsion of a public festival. in the manner o f a wisdom teacher who
looks back over I~d's hiStOry and traces its meaning. This bard perceives two
threilds interwoven in the story of Israel: , he bright thread o f Yah .....eh"s marvelous
deeds. and the dark th read of Israd's faithlessness (Nlsrael" in this case refef5 to
Ephraim, the Northern Kingdom ). Yahweh made a cO"enant (a reference to the
,\ :losalC covenant) and gilve the covenant commandments. Nonhern Israel,
however,
JiJ IICr hl~ GcJi (~"I,
""t rifu~J to u..... lk lI"or.iif19 10 &;II~II'
They fo rgol u'b~1 /l( &.!J Ja~t.
~..J tlot ",jracll"lllml lot };.1J !ho.m r/n....
-Ps. 78: 10· 11
3. Sce th~ id=logical dimension of th promise of land abov~, chapler 11 .
... Thi. ha~ ken empha' i l~ in th~ writongs of Ceorll"l: E. Me nden hall. ~.8., "'Th., Monarchy,~
IMf 29 ( 197~ ) 155- 70, 'llJOl31ion from p. 168 . Th ~ SOCiological view ..... as ~I.o adyocued by
W~ It~ r Brueggem~nn. 'Tn~tori<1 in Old TCSlimmlutenture and Ihe Sociology of Ancient
lmd: JBL 98 ( t979) 16 1-85.
,
198 (OII!o<1rs ofO!J Trsl..",ml ~
D ivine grace and patience abounded, but the people's sin increased more and more.
Finally Yahweh could rake it no longer. Says the psalmist , Yahwch "forsook his
dwelling [the old Icnl of ~et;n 81 among the people" and dd ive~d hi$ Mglory" (an
allusion to the ark) inlO captivily. Resoh·ed 10 make iI new bc:ginning, Yah""ch
"awoke as from sleep," and "put his advcna ries to rout" (w_ 65--66). The recita l of
the story of oonhem covenant fai lure rNc~ a climax in the new beginning that
God made in sout hern Israel. Ihal is, the kingdom of Judah.
Ht [Yai.o..?tb ] njrctcJ zb. ,"', 4 Jl."lti>h,
ht 4iJ ~at cb.x>st tbt rri/Jr 0/ EfIh,..,,'' '
h' ht ,lmc tbr Itibt nf J.Jab,
M""nl Z;O~. ",ki. Ix loo<>_
---Ps. 78,67
The rejection of northern Israel and the choice of Judah is evidenced in twO divine
actions: first . Yahweh "established his SOlnctuary on /\'Ioun t Z ion" wilh spacious
dimensions of creation: "l ike the high heavenswof the cosmos, "like the earth~ that
th e Creator established Rrmly (v. 69) , second, Yahweh deSignated David as "his
servam ,wtaking him from the sheepfolds and maki ng him the shepherd (ruler) of
the people (vv. 67-72 ). God's c ho ice of Zion. Cod's choice of David: these arc the
twi n pillars on which the Zion "ideology/theologywrests.
Psalm 78 dTCIws our atremion to a major problem in the commu nity of faith : the
temptati on to present a theological justification of a sociopolitical program. \'I:le ca n
find plenty o f illustrations of the ideological dim ension of faith in the h istory of
Christianity---or of any religion, for tha t matter_ Relig ion oc<:omes an ideology
when it is used to support and justify a na tional way of life or when God is por.
trayed as being ·on our side" in the social struggle o r eve n in wa r_"' In modern times,
religion became an ideology when the Bible was used to support sociological real -
itics, such as the inSlitution of slavery. patriarchal societ}', or ca pitalistic economy.
h must not be supposed, however. that the Da,.. idi c covenant was unique in
haVing an "ideo logical tai nr. Other construals of God's covenant ...·ith the ~ople
w ology, as we shall see latcr when turni ng 10 the prop hecy of Isaiah.
are not immune from ideolo gical coloratio n_ In the final form o f the Pennlleuc h •
the Abrahamic covenan t is closely connected with the Priestly (Zadokite) estab.
lishmen t of the Jerusalem temple. The Priestly prese nta tion justifies and legiti.
mates the aUlho rity and stand ing of the priests. particularly those wh o can triKe
their lineage back th rough Zadok to Aaron and !\-Ioses. '\'-\o rcover, the Mosa ic
cov~nant , as ~xp ressed for instanCE" in the book of Joshua. is closely connected
with warfare to possess the land of C anaan. In this ~Mosa ic~ view. Yah"'eh . the
Divine Warrior, is the champion of Israel's political cause and justiBes the ir taking
the land from the native population.
A sociological approach 10 th~ Bible raises a fundamental question fo r people
In the community of fait h to day. which treasures the Old Testament as sacred
S. DurinS the 1996 presidential electIon campaign 01>C group " In teb·i'iion commercills
enti tled "God is on OuTS,de:
The Promi5n of Grace to David 199
Scripture , T he burning issu~ is the relation between faith and ideology, or sta ted
di fferently, between the Bible as ··Word of God" and "human wo rdsw in which
G od's rC\o·elation is commun icat~d . ThIs issue should be faced squarely in any
exposition 01 b iblicalthcology.
In faci ng this theological questio n. we should not be: surprised to fin d thal
Scripture bears the imprint of the sociological si tuat ion in which the rel ationship
bel\\'een Cod and peo ple ,,'as expressed. As we hav~ seen previously, God conde ·
scends to speak in the limitations 01 human language. and that inc ludes the limi-
ta tio ns o f the sociological situation in which language functions.6 This. ho ...·ever,
is only the Slaning poin t, from wh ich the theologi an proceeds to consider the
symbolic power of b iblical language. S pecifkally, the theological task. is to con-
SIder how the " ari ous cove nants, despite thei r sociological coloration, symbolize
th e relationship be tween God and people in such a " 'ay as to transce nd and sur-
"i"e the original social situatio ns in whi ch they arose.'"
In a pathb reaking essay on th is subject. Patrick D . l\·li11c: r proposes three crite-
ria for distinguishing faith fro m ideology.s Firs t. fai th is open to the voice of sdf-
criticism. as expressed p reeminent l), in the preaching of the great prophels _The
king's position as Yahweh's anoi nted does not exempt h im from searching criti-
cism, as in the case of King David (sce 2 Sam. 12 :7: "You arc the man!"). Poli tical
power must be exercised "under God; as Americans acknowledge in the ir Pledge
of Allegiance_
Se<:ond. faith looks beyond the narrow interests of the social group to other
peoples who live beyond the political boundary and are included in God's con-
cern_ We shall see thal this ecumeni cal hori zon belongs peculiarly to Davidic
theology. which e nv isions "the city of God" as the world center to which the
nations will ul timately come to flnd peace and well-being (lsa _2:1-4; _
Third . fa ith hears a moral demand for justice that is not confined 10 Israel's
society but is worldw ide. God's just ice . bei ng roo ted and g rounded in the cosmic
order, is a universal moral demand. This tOO is a major accent o f DavididZion the·
(oslno!ogica! Symbolism
Psalm 78, quoted above. co ncludes by saying that Ya hweh "chose " ·Ieunt Z ion" as
his sancruary and that Yahweh "chose Da\'id!O be his servan t." \Y/e noticed earlier
that the Mosaic patte rn o f covenan t sy mbolism . found es~cially in the book of
DeUleronomy. is analogous 10. and probably inRuenc~d by. the suzerainty trea ty
form current outside of Israel. Also , the inte rpreters of the Davidic covenant ha\'e
6. On G<td.~ 'accommod3Ii on,'· su above, ch~pler S.
7_ This qu~tion 1 exp lo red in ~n ~<.I<.IrCii 10 the Cidwl ic Biblical A~soci ' lion. ' Uibl;nl
Theo lolfY and SoclOlog;col InteI1lKtation:' TTc';")' 4~ ( t 9BS) ~92- 306 .
~i. Punck D_ Sliller. 'h "h a nd Ideology in lhe Old Tcstamc:nl: In ,\I.1;I"~!i~ l),j, ThtAlJgbty
A.c!s of c...l- &So:l)"~" '''' Bib!. ~d An:baro~)' .., ,\IIII<~ry 4 G E""JI Wri,/ht eo_ F. M_ CrO'is cl al
:G.Jrden C,ty, NY , Doubled.o)'. 1976 ) ~6+-79
200 (""tou", ojOlJ T,,"' ... nd Tbr~y
been influ enced by. and i nd ~d borrowed from, a symbolic vista kn o ...'o outside
Israel. For in the ancienr world monarch and temple belonged to a pattern of cos-
mo)ogical symbolism. In ancient Egypt, for example, this symbolism expres~d the
integration of soc kty into the cosmic order and made possible a stable social
order that remained es~ntially unchanged through several dynasties. The pha·
raonle St ruc rure, it was believed, belonged to th e harmony of th e cosmic o rder of
creation.
In h is monumen ta l slUdy of O rd" ,md History, the political philosopher Eric
Voegclin maintains that the exodus from Egy pt was not just a political eVent but a
W
revolutio nary depaffilre from the "cosmological symbolizati on of Egyptian culture
and an ent ry Into a new symbolic dim ension in which an individual . typi~ed by
r.,'loscs. became the chan~1 of the re>.'eia lion o f the transcendent God. Like some
liberation theologians, but for different philosop hical reasons, Voegelin maimains
th at under David (and esJXcially under Solomon ), who adopted the way of think-
ing prevalent in the anci ent Near East. Israel fell back into a pharaonic 0l1l1001:..9
T he influence of th e cosmologica) symbolism o f the ancient Near East is
apparent even in the architect ure of Solomon's palaceltemple co mplex as
described in the account of SamucVKings. The whole plan. including temp le and
palace. expresses an architectu ral style that was in flu enc ed by th e culture 01
C anaan and the ancie nt Near East, like other anciem temples excavated by
a rchaeologists, it had a tnpartite structure ( I Kgs_ 6,1-6), an entrance portico
{Mlm,,' . a main hall (btlwO, il1ld an inner sa nctuary (d~bid or · Holy of Holies·
{v. 16}. IO It is significant that t he temple- ~Iace complex was constructed by a
Phoenician (Canaanitc) architect, H iram o f Tyre ( I Kg<; . 5: 1-1 1, I C hron. 14: 1-2).
The historian goes into some detail ~bout the temple and palace complex, giv-
ing measurements of height, width, and elevalion. 'When one stands back and looh
ar the wh ole Solomonic building program, several distinctive features st~nd OUt.!!
First , as elsewhere in the an de nt world, the king was a temple builder (2 Samuel
7). Only the king had the ~nancial resou rces for such an expensive projec t; and
only the king could rai~ th e labor force and skilled wo rkers. Aspiring to be a king
"like the nat ions" (cf. Saul, I Sam. 8:5), Israel's first dynastic king, Davi d, was a
temp)e builder, though the plan ...'as executed by h is son and successo r in the
dynasty.
9. Eric Voegclin. o..Jtr.n:J Histllry. vol. I: l!f~.J g,.J R....J"tKn< {Balon Rouge. lowsiana Sta.e
U n'v, Pre5S, t 956), di<;CuSset! above, ch;l pteT 2. 5« rhe previous diSCUSSIOn of l,bcr.mon Ihtolo.
gi;lns such;lS George E. fl.lendcnh,1\, Norman A. Com.,.Id. and lX'll,n- Brue81?'=mann in chap.
teT 18.
10. Stt Lh(' archilN:luJaI sk('tch in N1V, p. 481 : ~ Iso my Ud!TSI"~';'~!I Ih Old Ttllll..",t (4th ed. ,
En glewood CWs, NJ, P",ntice -H all, 1986), 238-39, abridged paperback cd. ( 1997), 214-15.
For archacologk.al pa",l lei. sec Wi iham G . l)ever, Arr),~<al<>gy and Bibli,~J RtstMrh (~utle:
Unwet<"y of Wuhingwn P=" 1(90). 11 0-17
11 . He", I im tnfluenoffi by N .. k Poulssen, K611ig ~,d T""p.I i.. Q.../.c.:,:nrg~1f Jd AI:", TI'I"'''''':'.
SBM 3 <SIUtlg>lIft: KiChofisch("5 Bibd... Cfk. 1967). ... hose "i"",· i. summari:cd in m)' "",'ic\o.', (BO
31 ( 1969) 450-52
The Promises 01 Cncc co David 101
Second. the temple, located adjacent 10 the palace, was part of a unified lay-
out. The building complex sh owed the inseparable relat ion bctw«n king and tem-
ple. monarchy and cult. Indeed. the (empk built by Solomon was actually a royal
shri ne, on royal prope rty, having royal support. The king had jurisdiction O\'er the
lemple (i t may e.... en be called "the king's sancrual)'~, cf. Amos 7: 13) and sometimes
officiated at templ e ~rviccs (cl, 1 Ki ngs 8). The relation bet.... ~n temple and king
is even clearer in the presen tation nl the Ch ronicle r, in " ' hich the historian, omit-
ti ng the whole exodus story, hastens to tell about David's plans to build a temple
( I Chronicles 13-17) and devotes S(' \'en chapters 10 its construction (2 Chronicles
1_7).1. Pilgrimages to thIS ce ntral shrine were actually expressions of national
allegiance (d _ Psalm 13l},
Finally. both temple and mona rch belonged to a symbolIC whole that included
heaven and earth, the celestial and the terrestrial. The earthly tem ple was Cod's
~palace· or "dwel ling place: ...' here God (or God's name ) "'as present ( I Kgs_ 9, l ),
corresponding symbolically to the heavenly palace where God is enthroned as
king.
T1x Ttmp1t ill COjmi( Symbolilm
In an important study en titled lioll. l.bt City of thr GI€<1! King (echoing a phra~ from
Ps. 48, I). Ben Ol1enburger prese nts a comprehe nsive and illuminating d iscussion
of Zion theology. H He sho ....s that the theme o f Yahweh as cosmic ktng was fun-
damen tal in the worsh ip services of the templ e of Jeru~lem .
Le t us consider the major features o f Zon theology. In this symbolic vista, the
ea rthly temple was regarded as a model of the heavenly temp le, on the premise of
the correspondence bet....een the mac rocosm and the mLCrOCOSm. the celestial
and the te rrestrial. In a Priestly passage in the Pentateuch ,,'e find a hint [hat the
Jerusalem sanctuary ( th e tabernacle) was coostnJcted according to a heavenly
mode! or ~pallernw shown to Moses on the mountaintop (Exod. 25:9, a theme
echoed in Heb_ 8:5), JUSt as Babylonian temples were th ought to be miniature
replicas of heave nly protOtypes. Indeed, the Ch ronicler's h is tol)' ( I e hron. 18,11·
19) claims that David des igned t he lemplc accordin g to a -mo de l" or · plan-
(tab .."b ), the same wo rd as in Exod. 25:9, which rabbis later understood 10 be a
heavenly prololyJX. 14 Funhennore, the sanauary was ima.gined to be at the Rcen_
ter" (navel ) of the earth . th e m~ti n g place of hea~·en . eart h, and unde ......'orld (see
fig. 6). cs The temp le hill was eve n likened to j\'\ount Zaphon in the far north, the
12, The Ch roniclers ... ork it I K~led wbw-q ll .... d)·. chapttr 25
13. Ben C Ollenburgcr, Zum, IhI City cf 11.,. G",~, Ki-,1· A Thto!"9.:rQ/ S)'II'boI ~ rh. Jtn= ~ CM lt
JSOTSup 41 {Shd tield, Sheffield Ac~d~mic Pre!<s. 1987)
14. Sce Samuel Tern"n . 'Presence in che Temple ' C hap ter 4, in Tl!t E/wj i"" Prnncct (San
Fu ncisco: H~rpcr" Ro .... 1978i, ;ln earli~"', basic study i, Ronald E. Ciemcnls, God a"J r""p!r, Th
fk oJ Ik rh.;", Pm"". ir. A~ci",: fj.at! (Oxford, Blad.... en. 1965l. ,
15. 5c<: Min::ea Eliade 1'he S)'mbolism nf the Cencer: in C<IS .. os ".."J HIf~ry, n. Myth "J t..e
fttn->I R<f~rr. (New Yod;, Harper and IIro!!; I 959), t 1- 17. 5« ,Iw my d iscusSion 01 "The Songs
of ZlOn: in 0., cf Ib. Dc,1bs IPh,ladelphia' ~7"'lmins'C1'. 198 3, .ev. cd. fon hcoming, 2(00).
202 CO~JDIII'J of O!J Tts!.1mrnl TJ...olcg)' The Promises of Grace to David 203
mythical Canaanite Mount Ol)'mpus where El, the high god, presided over the
hcavcnly council of go ds_
G'M! is rbe lOAD tY.1b~"tb J, .r~d . ", 1 <t'I7rtby oJ ~r"il<.
ir. Ibt cily oJ (Iq, COlI, iJi! h.:lly """'"!.li,,.
I!;~ bt,,~riJul In:1f lojfir.(Ss,
tb. JOy of Ibr wOOk W!/i
Lih Ih, ultlMr IxiJibl! oJ Z"f'1oo~ il MOl"'! lio",
t1" ,-;1)' oJ Iht grt,li Ki"B,
_ Ps. ·HU -3 (NIV)

This cosmic symbolism is implicit in the accou m of the prophct Isaiah's call
(Isaiah 6). Standing in the earthly temple of Jcrosalem. the prophet found himself
transponed imo the hea~'en[}' tem ple, whcre Yahweh is enthroned as cosmic king.
The drama that was enacted in the eanhly temple {the choral amhem, the burn-
ing incense on the alta r. the acclamatio n of Yahweh as king} also was goi ng on in
the heallen ly temple,
Owtng to the correspondence bctween the heavenly and the earthly, onc
could say in religious symbolism tha t God, who is emh roned in the cosmic tern·
pIe:, is also presem {or ~dwdls") in the eart hly temple, In this double sense the
words of Habakkuk arc often used e:ven today a~ a call to worship:

Th LOiIn [Y~bJ iJ in hI! bei)' 1(trI~lr,

It: ..JI tbr t<1rtb Ir:up sikrtct btfon &;"'1
_Hab. :2020

In this manner poets express one of the dialectical c omradictions inherent in

the c)(perie nce of Cod's htstorical presence: transcendence and immanencc, dis-
tance and nearness. The cosmic symbolism makes it pos~ible to affirm that the
eanhl y temple i~ God's dwel ling place, where the holy Cod iSlTuly present to wor-
sh ipe~, As we re ad in Psalm 46, Zion is "the holy habita tion of the I\,toSt High",
God is "in the mich;t of her" (i.e .. Zion, the cit)' of God), giving present secu rity
and ultimate peace. H ence the repeated antiphon at the end of two stanzas (pos-
si bly at the end of all three origi nally):

TN loRD [Yaln..m J4 hosts IS nth ws.

rbt CoJ of j",o>b;j ...., ftjW!/t
-~ 461. 11
( I ) Water> above and bc:10'0<' Eanh, (1) The IifTnamem, (3 ) Surface of Earth , (4)
Tbt COSIIIic S'9"ifir""[( of Ibr K"'9 ~\ounta ; n - p;lI ar> suppOrting the Finnamem, (5) lbe Founlains of the Grea t Deep (d .
JUSt as the temple was the place where God is presen t on eanh, so the ruler (king Gen, 7,ll l, {6 } The Navel {center) of the Eanh; (7 ;' Sheol (the Underwo rld ), (8) The
or queen ) was regarded as the chan nel through whom cosmic bleSSing and right- CelC'Sti al Te mple (Heavenly Zion ), (9) Earthly r>.loum Zlon, ( 10) The Earthly Temple
(minialUre repl iea of (osmic tem pie), ( I I) An! ,\'I""Ji (i mallinal)' I ine Ihrough sy mme.-
eousness fl o\<.' mto society. '6 The monarch enjoyed ex ofl1cio a unique relat ion to
ricailv amrnged pans of the ComlO'5 ).
16 O ltenbOJrgn, in Zro~ . ~r~"",s that t~ iymbo ls of D~vidic thmne ~nd JenlSilem temple
belong to sep~rue tradition'_ I, i§ tl"\l<.' that the- s)'m ool§ un be treated sepu~tdy u in roy~1 'A viC\o' like this ;s presuPlMXCd in Hebrews 8, I -7 and Rcvd~t1Or'l11 : 1-5.
ps.1 itl1'l (e g., ~Im, 18, 71 .1 or in Zion psalms ( ~Ims 46. 48); but in so"",,, psalms the t\<-'O sym·
boIs be long tog~thn- [e·IL Psalms 78, 8~ _ 1321_
204 (onrCllr> of OIJ T"I.""",, Tb",!o;Iy
God, he was regarded as the so n of God, and in some ancient t'ear Eastern texts
was described as "the image 01 God ,~ that is, the onc consecrated (0 be God's rep -
resentative on earth _ Indeed, in one biblical psalm the king is addressed as "god,"
jf we follow the received Hebrew text (ps. 4506). This psalm is an ode tor a royal
wedding, when extravaga rlt praise ~\'ou ld be expected_"
The image of the king as "son of God" is found in Psalm 2, a psalm frequently
quoted in the New Testament, Perhaps this was origi na lly a coronation poem pa r·
traying the ki ng as one insta lled as God's vice· rege nt in Zion, God's chosen sane·
tuary_ Yahweh declares, ") have set my king on Zio n, my ho ly hill: and gives him
a protocol that ce rtifies, · You arc my son, today [this da)' 01 coronation ] I have
begotten you· {Ps. 2,6, 7l- In this theolOgical perspective , Isaiah looh'd forward to
the advem of a Davidic king who would cany the throne name Immanuei , "God
with us" (lsa, 7:14 j, and would sit o n the Davidic throne to rule ....,ith justice as
God's representative (Isa. 9,2·7)_
In this way of thinking, th e institutions 0/ templ e and mOfl<lrchy are cosmo·
logical symbols that usher us into the spacious dimension of the cosmic order. The
primary axis is \'ertical, the rdation between heaven and earth. the cosmic order
in rdation to the social order, in contrast to the horizontal plane of history thaI ,
as in th e Abrahamic or Mosa ic covenants, moves lrom promise toward fulfillment ,
In adopting this pa ttern of symbolization, Israel has, 50 to speak. "entered the cos-
mos." Creation theology is a fu ndamental dimension of th is perspective, as we
shall see.
Reiflltrprdaiio1J oJ Cosn!%gical Symbolism
Du ri ng the monarchy, then, Israd adopted the symbolism of throne and temple to
express God's rel ation to the people and through them to the world of nations. In
Davidic theology this symbolism is reinterpreted by being linked with Israel's
adopti on of the institution of monarchy under David and So lomon_ Davidic the -
ologians affimled that it was in remembered historical time, not in the mythical
realm beyond history. that Yah"'eh chose and established the institutions of
monarchy and tem ple. The institution of kingsh ip did nor have a primordial ori -
gin, as in the Sumeri an Ki ng Lis t, which states that in primeval limes "kingship was
lowered from heaven",'~ rathe r, it had a historical beginning in Israel when, as
recorded in books of history (Samuel, Kings). Yahweh c hose Oa~'id 10 be th e
shephe rd of the people . Moreover, the temp le mount was not ah~'ays a sacred
place, the mythical cemer of the cosmos where creation began (as in Eg~'pt i an
texts), rath er, in a speCific h istorical time God chose Zion, and chose the shnne
that Da~'id proposed to build, as th e divine dwelling place in the midst of the
people.
I7 O n the sym bolism of bngshi p see ~"'pccially Ollenburger, Z,"". H ~ m,imain> that va,i,
ou< lexts di ffermtia,e the ,ymbofl.m of Zion from Ya hweh'~ commitment [0 ,he D~ \'id i c king.
r11. Scc AlI!fT, 165-66,
The PromiS(:s 01 Grace to David 205
The most radical change, however, was th at Israelite interpreters placed the
symbolism of throne and temple in the comexl of Gods special covenant with
David, Like the Abrahamic covenant. this one is also called an "everlasting
covenan( (/>mr QII1I71), which guarantees the u nb roken continuity of the Da \'idic
line, There is good reason to believe that this royal theology was not a ·theologi -
cal reconstruction" made in a la te period (the exi le ), whe n the Davidic monarchy
was idealized. but rather "reAects the actual history of the Davidic period. "19 In an
ancient poem, Da vid's "last words, - Davi d is quoted as say ing:
/, ~oll7ly k~~1 Jik, tb" witb G"J}
For Ix /',1, m~~'t Il'ith rnr ,1" n:t,J",I;>1'l c"I't>1"~~,
odrnJ;~ ~ll lbi~g, ilcJ ~«~r(
Will hr MI '"wit III pro<;J>fr
"Jl ..y blip ,,~J or)" J"irt)
-2 Sam, 23:5
Closely related to this (ext is the oracle of the propllet Nathan, in which
Yahweh makes a solemn oath of commitment to David and his house (2 Sam.
7;ltb-17). The story goes that David proposed to build a "house" (t empl e) for
Yahweh, only to be told that Yahweh would build him a 'hou~" (dynasty) that
would endure_ Further, e~'en though particula r kings commined offenses in office,
God would not withdraw co~'enant loyalty (/xsrd j. This un ilateral covenant is qui te
similar to the Abrahamic covena nt.- indeed, it has been suggested that David may
have become acquainted with th is southern type of covenant theology at Hebron,
where he reigned before making Jerusalem his capitaPO Be that a, it may. the
Davidic cove nant, like the Abrahamic, is based on grace alone, not on human
behavior,
Nat ha n's orade contains the n"o essemial d emems or royal covenant >ymbol.
ism: the unbroken continuity of the Davidic dynasty and of the temple as God's
dwelling place in the midst of the people. T he oracle stipulates that Yahweh will
make a "house" (dynasty ) for David_
I wil l Tili \-e up after you YOl.lr offspring, who will i~sue from your bad)'. and t wilt sta·
bilize his kingdom. He sha ll build a ' house" 10. my name, and I will ~Iahl ish his
.oyal dynasty in perpetuity la.i al"m}, (B\\":'\')
MoreO\'e r, a special relationship will exist between God and the Davidic mler.
I " 'ill be falher to him , Jnd he w;lI be son m me, \\:!hen he does wrong , I wi ll chas-
ten him with the tod (If human punishment, and ",;,h th e stripe'> of human jusrice,
bl.ll mV. lo"altv
, ..fhe\-edl
- - ! \\' ill not withdraw from him, as I did in the CiI,e of ~u l,
,
19. This i. argued b}' Antli Laa<u. · SttomJ Samud 7 and AnCient Near Easlern Royal
Ideology: eRQ 59 ( 1997) 14-t-69, on the hasiHlf the perSlStence of~im;lar promises 10 Assyrian
kings of ·,I n elernal d)'nasly."
20 , Ronal d E. Clcmcn t~, A!t"h..., .. ad D.",.:1 Cm"" , J ",J /1, ,\ Ii.,"",g for [,,~dirt Tr~Jjl;o •. SBT
] !2 (I'aperville, IILo Allenson, 1%7).

whom I n::moved before you. Iklorc me your house 'lnd your kingdom will stand
secune in pe~t\Ji(}' [ad olamhour throne will be el;tablished in perpetuity [ad
obm].
- 2 Sam. 7,1 4_16 {8\'(!AJ
Notice e<specially that, according 10 Nalhan's oracle, the Da" idic ruler would
enjoy a special relation to Cod: "son" in rela tion to "father_· In thl'; Mosaic
covenant, the people Israel is rl';garded as Cod's son (Exod. 4:22·23, Hos. 11 : 1l:
here the anointed one is t he son of Cod, as in Peter's confe<ssion at Caesarea
Phi[ippi according to the Matthean version (Mau. 16,16)_
Th DmJiaic (IIJ Mosaic (ol1tl:mlls
The Davidic covenaOl stands in theological tension with [he Mosaic co"enaOl.
Whereas the Mosaic covenan t stresses that Israel binds itself voluOlarily to
Yahweh, the suzerain, in response to bendiceOl deeds. the Davidic cove nant
stresses that Yahweh, by a solemn oath, is bound to David and his dynasty uncon·
ditionally and "foTe"er."
In Israel, as elsewhere in t he ancien t Near East, the king is fun da mentally
responsible for securing "justice and righteousness_~ This is accom p lished by the
administration of law (cf. the famous Code of Hammurabi ) and the use of royal
edicts to rele ase people from social burdens. l1 In difficult cases the 'king is the
highest court of appeal. and ideally is the channel through whom the "' igh-
teousne<ss" of the cosmic orde r flo .....s in to society (see P'><Ilm 72 ). In Israel, how.
ever, the king is not the source of la ....., bl.ll is subject to the revealed torah, as
stipu lated in the law found in Deut. 17,14-10. The king is not Mabove the law,"
as shown dramatically in Nathan's parable (2 Sam. 11: I - H ) with its pointed
indictment, -You <Ire th e man!" In Israel. political power must be exercised unde r
the judgment of Cod.
Moreover, there is a conditio nal clement in the royal covenam, perhaps under
the influence of the f..'1osaic covenant. Recall that in the DeUleronomistic history
themes of the ,\ 'Iosaic and Davidic covenantal perspectives are worked together,
with the re<;ult th<lt the language of "if" is added (Q the royal covenant (e.g., I Kgs.
8:15 ).2. If a k ing commits offenses in office, he is subject to punishment, as in the
case of Oavid's sin with Bathsheba (2 Samuel I I ). But the endurance of the
covenant, in this view, is not contingent on human freedom , which make<s fo r
social unreSt in the present and the potemial unleashing of po .....ers of chaos in soci.
ety. This covenant is the basis for social stability, which is rooted not in the author·
ity of the king but in the cosmic role of Cod mediated through the anointed one,
At thl'; end of the book of Judges a contra,t is drawn between the time of the triba l
confcderaC}', when freed om was sometimes carried to excess, an d the order of the
21. 5« M<Xhe Weinfeld. 5«;,,1 ).110::< '" Anc .... 1 llrad .....J,-~ tbr A~cirel J\'MT E~>!
F~s Pn:'lS, t99.S).
22. Sec above. chapter 18
The Promises of Grace to D"vid 207
Davidic monarchy, Din those days there ..... as no king in Israel .. all the-: people did
wha.t was right in the-:ir o,,'n eyes· (Judg. 2 1:25).
The second elemem of Davidk covenant theo logy is also implied in this ora-
de. especially ",hen read in its nalnth'e conte)(t and SlIpplememed. ..... ith s.ome of
the psalms. [n 1 Samuel 6 , [h e chapter just before Nathan's oracle, David is
described as escorting the ark into Jerusalem with great pomp _nd ceremony.
dre<;sed so scantily that his wife was incensed at his · pla)'boy· antics. The ark was
eve ntually placed in the H oly of Holies, the innermost shrine of the Jerus.alem
temple, built by David's s.on, Solomon. Rega rded as the throne stool on which
Ya h,,'ch is scated invisibly, the ark was the symbol of Cod's real presc::nce in the
temple.
Bot h of these aspectS of Davidic theo logy- the promises of grace to David,
and [he temple as God's dwelling place-are celebrcrted in Psalm 131:
Tht LORD [ Y"h~"] SiI7(Itr IQ D,wiJ ,I SUI'l' o,lIb
}ro", ,,-,hkh /,! ~"il ltQllum bo.::~.
"o"c of Ibr SO~\ c} y~r {,oJy
I ~,,!1 Sir o~ your Ihro~,
!J ye'"~ SOlll ktl~ MY,Ort",'MI
and "'y JeclT!! tb..r I lh"JIIr",h Ihtm.
t& ...·, "'M' "!SO, jom'tl"ll!ort.
<MII ,;t O~"ft"'T tbrOM( ~
--Ps. 132: 11 ·12
Here rh~ inAuence of the ~'Ios.aic covenant is apparent as evident in the condi·
tional -if": the king is subject to Gods law (cf, Deut. 17: 18-10). This psalm also
contains the second dement of the Davidic covenant: the-: choice of Z ion as Gods
d""elling place_
For tht- Loow •iY~butit •i b.J; c""~ lioc,
bt &as J~rtJ il jM &'1 b.o&.-U:IOC.
Th! is "Y rt'lt"'9 "Lx! forn-yr,
brrr f riil rt'Ii.k.}er f ba::>r JnirtJ it •
-P5 132:13· 1-1
Summary
In 5ummary, th e Davidic covenam. \"hich has affiniues with the Abrahamic
covenant , represents a distinctive pattern of ~ymboli:zin 8 the relationship between
God and Isrcrel and indeed berwe~n God and the world. It is a unilate ral co~'e nant,
grounded solely in God's s.olemn oath, unconditioned by human behavior, t he re·
fore it assures stabi lity, security, and hope for the future despi te the comingencies
of history,
/I.·lorcover, in this view the God who is ent hroned In cosmic transcendence is
~God with us: pn:sent in the midst of the ~ople through the office of the
(~tinroeapo li~:
anoimed one and dwelling in their midst in the temple. At this poim there is affin·
ity with the I'rie<stly theology of the t3hcrnading Presence.
208 C""""'rs o} Old TtSla",,..,t T/)(ciogy
Further, Davidic covenant theology, despite its ideological coloration, carries 24. THE COSMIC RUL.E
us into th e spacious realm of creation theology_King and temple symbolize Cod's
ordering of creation and Gods will that the social order rellecl the peace and
OF YAHWEH IN ZION
righ leousness 01 the cosmic order. The people learned to sing a Mnew 'iOng"-with
the new notes of the kingdom of God that is to come on earth as it is in heaven. No covet/autai persprctivr is more prominent in the Bible, both the Old
Finally. in this covenant the pri m,1ry s}'mbols are throne and temple. The
Testament and the Ne ...', than the one ,1ssociated With Da~'id . To be sure, it is not
Davidic king rules ex officio as Cod's representative. In poetic language, the
found explicitl}, in lhe Priestly Torah, though, as wc have nOted. there are affini-
monarch is described ,1S Yahwe h's anOinted, ind«d, t he ·son of Cod- (ps. 2:7)
lies between the everlasting coven,1ntS made wit h Abraham and with David.
",'ho is se,1ted "al the right h,1nd of God" (Psalm 11 0 ). Also, the temple of Zion is
FurthemlOre. the Davidic cov~nant is a subordinate theme in Deuteronomy and
the axis ",undi . the center, to which not only IST,1e1 bur,1]1 peoples must come to
t he Deutero nomistic histOJ)', which on the whole is governed by the M osaic
find o rder. well-being, and peace. The ecumenical horizon of th is covenant per·
specrive is e):pressed in the ...·ell-known poem. found in both Isai,1h (2:2-4) and covenantal perspective. In other literature. however. the theology of the Davidic
" 'Iicah (4, 1·4), that ponrays the esch;l!ological consummation when all nations covenant provides t he major perspeCt1ve, the book of Psalms. the book of Isaiah,
...·ill ma ke a pilgrimage to the center, the elevated temple mountain of Zion, in and the Chronicler's history_ Each of these units of Scriptur~ we shall consider in
order to hea r the word of God thal brings order, security, and peace. successive chapl~rs.

Psalms: A Davidic HY!1111book

We have already found that the Da\'idic coven ant is the subject of some o f the
psalms_ Psalm 89, for in~t a nce . is a poetic celebration of th e promises of grace to
David given in "'athan's oracle (2 Sam . i ,4-17. echoed in Ps. 89,28-37), flm in Ihe
major key of hymnic praise ('IV. 1-27) ,1nd then in Ihe minor key of lament (w.
28- 5 1) with its poignant question:
/.D,J iY~b"'&'l. loohm;l rOIl' sI!~Jf~jt Io~ [~l l)f ol.i.
",bel. 10y 7"~r f",tb}~iKtS! yeti ll1>Ot't 10 Dd~,J}
-Ps.. 89:49

Also we have touched on (he storytelling Psalm 78, which reaches a climax in
God's choice of David and of Zion. and Psalm 132. wh~re the Iwin themes of
DaYidic k.ing andJerusa1cm temple arc treated side by side. H aving looked at a few
trees, how\"Ver. we now must stand back and look at the forest as a whole: the
Psalms as a book_
The book of Psalms as a completed ...·hole is ,1ttri\:)llled to David. Mthe sweet
singer of Israel- (2 Sam_ 23,1 , as some tnnslale ). David is specifically associat~d
with some psalms who'ie superscriptions relate the psalm to a particular event in
David's caree r. For imtance. Psalm SI is associated with David's ' sin with
Balhsheba" (2 Samuel 11 ). The Hebrew expression It.lrrwid. found at the head of a
numl.xr of psalms, may mean "dedicated to Oavid" or "belonging to a Davidic col-
lection" (e_g. , Psalm I I). The composition . singing, and collection of 'iOme psalms
can undoubtedly be traced back to the man who was reputed to be a favorite
si nger of songs. Ho wever. the anrihution of Ihe book of Psalms to David does not
mean th at he W,:iS the author of the whole collection. Rather. O,1vidic ",1uthorship"
must he understood Iheologically. David symbolizes Ihe king who represents the
people as they come before God in ",,·orship.
210 (",,1000'S o} OM Trst.:.notnl Tbrolo;y
Also. the strucnne or arrangement of the book o f Psalms is slgni lc:ant theo.-
logically. The preface 10 the Psalter consists of two psalms, onc a psalm in praise
of Cods torah or ~instruct ion" (Psalm 1), and the other a royal psalm. dealing with
the installation of Yah ..... l"h·s "anointed" (messiah ) on thl" holy hill of Zion (psalm
2). Since both of theSt' psalms stand outside the first Da\'idic collcction, which
comprises Psalms 3--41. and unlike other ~dlms in this collection th ey have no
headin gs ascribing them 10 D.wid. we may safely assume that the)' ..... ere located
here b)' an editor for the purpose o f sounding miljor themes of wo rship: rejoicing
in t he torah and (he hope for a messianic king to role in Zion. Mixed in with
hymns. laments. ilnd thanksg iVings are a number of royal psalms that highlight the
imagery of kingship (e.g.. Psalms 45, 110. 118).'
Tbt TbtoIOgicd/ CtlIlu of tht &0.\: of PStl/ms
JUSt as the orga nizat io n of a modem hymnal mdY indicate its overall theological
tlavor, so th e canonical shape of the book of Psalms may contribute to our theo·
logical understanding o f the book as a whole. Cen.ld H. Wilson has suggested an
inu::reSling way to understand the present shape of the boo k of Psalms." He notes
that the Psalter opens with a psalm of the Davidic covenant (Psalm 2), that there
is a royal psalm at the end of book 11 (Psalm 72 1- illso that there is another royal
psalm at the end of book [[[ (PS.llm 89). though this onc, ~s wc have seen. shihs
from praise to I~me nt abou t the failure of the promises of grace to David. Looking
at books I-Ill, Wilson suggCStS that the placement of these psalms is intended to
display the failure of t he Davidic covenant and the need for a larger theolOgical
vie ..... The problem is resolved. he maintains. in book IV. which he calls "the edi-
torial center of the fina l fonn of the Hebrew Psalter: especially the psalms of
Cod's dominion clusterl"d in Psalms 93, 95-99. In these psalms, sovereignry is
lifted from the human level (IroSt in kings and princes) to the cosmic level (trust
III the Cod who is cosmic king and creator!'
This is an aurKtive. even tempting, hypothes is. It enables us to see t hat the
book of Psalms was notjllst thrown together blll was composed in ils final form to
make a theologicill statement. The hypothesis is challl"nged. however. by the
structure of the book of Psalms itsclf, for Psalm 132, which comesaher the psalms
of Yahwehs enthronement. presents a restatement of thl" tenets of the Davidic
covenant: ekctmn of the Davidic king and choice of the tl"mple of Zion. The truth
is th at Isradite intcrpretl"rs never regarded the Davidic covenant as superseded,
but held on to the promises of grace to David, though lifting th em above the le... cr
of prosaic historical real it}'. It is no tew orthy that August ine in his great \"ork, Th
City of God (book 17), devoted great attention 10 Psalm 89.
1 Sce my d~s<ii1ca.ion 0/ Ih" p.;llms III 0..1 6} It-. lMpibs (rev. .:-d., rhil~ddphi.l, Westminsl"'.
t983: r~ .... cd. forthcoming. ]000) ~JI« illly Ih~ oud ine in apP"ndix A.
1. Gerald H . Wilron. Tht fJ' L't:§ of tbt I/,buu· ~! ..r. SocielY of Bibliul ulen.rure D~wmrion
~ri" 76 (Atl.nta, SchoIJ'" Prns. 19851.
The Cosm.c Rule of Y;J.h .... eh in Zion 2 11
Tbt Cosmic Domiuiou of God
Despite its vulnerabiliry, this hypothesis has th e meri t of dra .... ing attention to a
central teaching of the PS.llms as an edited hymnbook. \X'hile the J\'losaic covenant
emphasizes the dim ension of Isracls hislOry, the Da~'idic covenant i5 deeply rooted
in mythopoetic symbolism. Davidic CO\'enant theolob'Y explodes beyond the lim ·
itations of Iqael's sacred hiStOry and Israel's co\'enant commumty by announ cing
that the God w hom Israel \,'orships is not Israel'> God in a narrow. possessive, or
exclusive sense. but the Cod who is creatOroi heaven and earth and the sovereign
of all n~tions. This is an ecumenical theological perspective.
Locatl"d at the CenteT of the Psalter, the psalms of Ya hweh's dominion sound
forth the central mCSS.lge of the whol l" book, the sovereign rule (kingdom) of
God. Today th e ....ord "kingdom· sounds foreign, especially in the United Slales.
which has had no experience with monarchy, and for some the language is too
heaVily laden with mascu line imagery. Is there another word in English that con·
veys the in terrelated meanings of (a) the power of a sovereig n (b) who rules over
a territory and (c) is ~ccorded allegiance by subjectsi "Rule" stresses the sovl"reign's
control, but lacks the spatia! dimension. "Rea lm" conveys the Spatial dimension but
lac ks the emphasis on sovereignty. "Regime" suggcsts a syStem of management but
lacks a personal dimension of loyalty. The "monarchy" or "empire" of Cod rounds
forced and is too political. For the sake of being honest with Scripture the word
"ki ngdom" should be retained, as in most modem translations (NRSV, REB, NIV,
(\.1)8). If Wl" shift terminology to soften the emphasis on div ine so~·ereignty. per-
haps the best word is "dominion of Cod .~J
In the psalms of Yahweh's domi nio n, then, the horizon expands from ,he praise
of 0ur God"- the Cod revealed in Isnel's historical experience-to an ecumeni-
8
cal vision of God's ....orldwide sove reignty. which is nOt bounded by politics or
geography.
To be sur", these psalms do not lose contact with the plane o f hiStory, even
Isnel's history. T here are occasional references 10 episodes of Isr.lel's Story, such ilS
the years of testing in the ""ildemess (Ps. 95,S · 10), the leadership o! ~'Ioses, Aaron,
and Samuel (99,6-7). or the chOOSing of a herit agl" (land) for Israel (4703-4, cf.
98 :2-3;. By and large. no""ever, the: primary axis of these psalms is the ve n ical rda -
tion of hl"avl"n and earth, not the horizontal one of the: fulfillmcnt of Cod's promiSt'
in history. "The reill Cl"nter of action. in the Covenant of David: remarks J. C
R>·laarsdam, "lies in the primordial, the: cosmic . and the prc.temporal world that
antedatcs the world of huma n contingenc}':~ These Davidic psalms, he goes on to
3. Proposed in Ttv ,\'(\," Ttsw ..,,: ~"J PI.!!"" · A. I.d.,;,,, j.'",,,,,, cd. V,Clor Gold cl a1. (N.,.,..
York, Oxford Un.\,. P~>, 1995;. a~ in I~ lord's PrJycr, 'Yoor dominion come· On,hc large.
question of how di"inc KI"~reil!my is (x!!" ciscd . S~~ 111 ..' " '........ 'The Kinildom, ,hc Power. ~nd rh"
Glory. The Sove""'lInly 01 God i!l Ihe B.ble." TTohy 53 ( , 996 ) 5- 1-I
4. J. C Rvlaa~m . -J~ ....;sh-Chm' ian R!!'larion<hip; The T..·o Co-.·(nams ilnd ,he Dikmmas
of Chri~lolog}': 1f5 9, no. 1 (19721149-70. quo!.:"ion 261 . R~printetl in G~~'I ~po" Gr~<r, E"")'!
K"',....
I. H.:.o:DT.} U.~rT 1 ro. J.mn I. Cook (C",,,d Rapnk, E~rdman<. 19751. 70-84, quocation
78. In .his n .... y Ryl .... ....um compafC5 ,he I\!os" ic and D~,·.dic covc-nanu.
 The Cosmic Rule of Yahweh in Zion 213

say, move in a mythical dimension: they Dsing about the triumph 01 Cod as Creator
by recalling his establishment of o rder (zcJ!k), by the overcoming of chaos and
anarchy in struggles that lie in that mythical past" Therdon: the social order-
especially the Davidic dominion---is securely founded.
Yah,,'eh', King,hip, and the Davidic king5hip it, well, rest~ on it seriC'S of decree,
which an: ('R'rnal and unchangeable: the world is C'Stablished, it will nOt he moved.
Yah""eh is Kin!! fon:"er, might ier th an the' bfC'itkers of the' many water, fie., the
forces of chaos). He decrees the place of the nation, in the scheme of th ings, and
by that ",-me immutable decfC'e Da\'id is his first·bom. He [David] has set hi' righ t
hand over the sea and the rivers [d. Ps. 89,251 a mke'n which coordinates his rule
with that of Yahweh himsell,
He concludes this summary by saying that Davidic theology soars above Ihe con-
lingencies and cha nges of human history.
be}'ond historical recital, found for instance in the storytelling Psalms \05 and
\06, into the imaginative' rea lm of mythical exploits of creation. Yahweh is por-
trayed as the Di vine \'I:'arrior who came, comes, and will come to overcome the
powers of chaos symbolized by the sea, the rivers, the Roods. An anciem Israelite
hymn displays strong inAuence of Canaanite poetry;
Y~b""'tb ,ils "'lbro~(J "',,- Idr j0oJ,
Y"b""b "Is mlbroneJ ~5 b";/ joril'(!'"
-Ps. 29, I 0 (BW,:.\)
The same la nguage occurs in one of the hymns of Yahweh's dominion (93;3. 4 ),
where the poet porrrays "the ~oods," "many waters." and "'the sea" lih,ng up thei r
stormy waves, as th ough seeking 10 challenge the sovereignty of Yahweh. But the
tumult is in vain;

The focus is on the Alpha 01 the bcginning.- and th e psalm5 repeatedly appeal to Akm 1IIilj~!ic 16n rlx Ibw~Jm of ""jib!)' w"lm,
this"",,! [from time 01 old], this primordial 1110 :""porl [tho;.e ancient times], as the "'Ort IlMjlsllc 16m rh ..."''''"' of Ib, sr.,.
rock of aSSoranCe amid the in~tabi l ities 01 time and history.5 ""1j~ ri, 0" high is Ibr LOlm [¥',b""b J!
- Ps. 93,4
lsrad'5 Thwlagy of DiuII!! KinjlslJip
Se\ieral th ings deserve atten ti on in this summary of Da\iidic theology. First, these E,wbli,bmml of (Dsmic OrJ"
psalms move in the spacious horizon of creation---not JUSt creation in the primor- Third, the result of these mythical Victories in the primordial past is that Yahweh
dial past (as in Genesis I ), but the whole creation that is radically dependent on the creator has established right order or "righleo usness.~ The cosmic King has
the Creator for its order and permanence. The eanh belongs to Yah\"eh who i55ued a series of eternal decrees that shape and govern the future. including the
made it, founding it securely on the waters of chaos (Ps. 29:10). Creation is not establishment of the Davidic throne and the assignme nt of lands to Israel and
just an event of the remote past but aim includes the present cosmic order that the other peoples (Pss. 935; 97;8). Therefore the dominion of Yahweh, the Creator
CrealOr sustains against continuing disruptions of the powers of chaos. In thi , cre- and cosmic King , is to be proclaimed among all nalions:
ation theology, the whole cull (eanh), not narrowly mf, yi,ml! (the la nd of Israel), .
5~y "",OHg rbt MriO/r', -n" Lo.~D [Y,,~u>(h] 15 km9.
belongs 10 the Lord (Yahweh) who made it, fou nding it on the waters of ehaos (Ps.
The U'(Ir/J isfirmly "1,,blisb,J;
24: 1). Hence worship becomes ecumenicaL Al1 peoples arc- inviled to join Israel in
;ls611 ~rotT 1n "w"d.
worshiping the Cod who is creator and king.
I'"
H, ",,/1 jwJgr p.~~!ts u',lh qui!)"."
For Ix [),;,h""b] 'POJo, ,mJ;1 "'"" 10 k - Ps. 96, t 0
L, cO"'",;JnJrJ, "nd it 5100J firm .
- Ps. 13,9 To be sure, there are Hare ·ups of disorder, when it seems tha! Cod has los t eon-
r.,·loreo,'er, the invitation to praise Cod is cXlendcd 10 the whole realm of troL Israel ite poets, however, are confident tha t Yahweh is sovereig n, even (hough
nature: heaven and eanh, Ihe sea and fields, the trees and the foreK Here we do that sovereignty may be hidden at present or seemingly threatened by po\vcrs o f
not find the dichotomy between "histOlY" and "nature" that has contributed to the chaos, evident in attacks of forcign enemies, disruprion of fertility. or social break-
present ecological crisis. Cod's dominion embraces the great who1c. 6 down. Confident that Cod is fully in comrol. poe!S looked to the future in the
expectation that Cod would come to judge (rule) Ihe earth "'ith righteousness and
Crml'-o" vtTjlll Chaos trUlh (Ps. 96: I 0 - 13). Thus God's dominion provides grhe rock of as~urance amid
Second, these psalms celebrate Yahweh's dominion by recalling divine triumphs the instabilities of timc and history" { Rylaa~dam). The I .... orship of ~rhe King, all
that occurred in the primordial era. "those ancient times." T he language moves glorioUS above," resounds in Christian worship seT\iices even today, as in our
hymn , "0, \X/orship the King."
5. Ibid.
6. See Ro""mary Radiord Ruefhe r, Gaia .. GoJ.· A" frcf"",,,is! r~~g)" of f.mb HM'm9 (Szn TlI< ,,,nb u'ilh 11, ,IOTf of ~'o~J(15 ~~I<>IJ,
Franci<;eo, Harper SanFr.mc i,co. 1993/, chap . 11 AI.,ighty. !by )'>0"''' "'lib JO"~J,J <4 old.
214 (01110'''101 OlJ Ttsla/llmt Thtology
n.!lb tslab!i,lxJ il jD!I ":r" ,b"..g.JtsS d,mr.
Q,u...".d ,t iwlb ,~st. loh tl .a.l",ir, tbr sm_
Curnnl Bartlrs Q91linSI Ibt PCwtrs III CMns
Finally, the founding of the Davidic ki ngdom is scen to be pan of the cosmic order
that God has establis hed. As the "'s on of Cod : or in some ancient " car Eastern
texts -the image of God.- the earthly ruler is God's representative through whom
the cosmic o rd er is mediated to earthly society, so [hat there may be justice and
JKa~ (psalm 72). The king's baules against his e nemies are seen in the perspective
of Cod's warfare against the powers of c haos:
1~"i11 ~ bis bmd 0" IIx ~
a"J Im right b,'I:~ ()I: rb, ncm
-Ps. 89.25
Ahh ough the Israelite king is not considered divine or an incarnation of Cod, in
some sense his task is to make the dominion of Cod a re ality in human society.
Th roogh the king, the social o rder is related hannoniously to the cosmic orde r.
In onc respect. New Testament portraya ls of the coming of God's domi nion are
Similar to this worldview. Jesus' battles against Satan's dominion. as portra),ed in
the Synoptic Cospels (especiall)' !\'!ark), are part of God's ongoing warfare against
the powers of evil in order tha t there may be a -new creation.' In apocal)'ptic
visions. which we will consider later. fa ithful people arc called 10 take part in the
struggle against evil and, as in the co nclusion to [he Lord's Prayer, to pray that Cod
will deliver persons from "the evil one."7
Tbt EntbrOlltmall of God
It is appropriate that the songs of Cod's dominion belong in a hym nbook, for it is
in worship tha t people arc invited to leave the ordinary world. with its illusory "011-
ues and misleading ways, and [0 ente r imaginatively into Cod's world, where God
1$ -enthroned o n the praises of Israel" (Ps_ 21:3 ) _8 Perhaps it i~ in imagination tha t
we discern th.:- real world that belongs 10 God and, ilS we sing in one of our hymns,
af~rm 'That though the "'TOng seems oh so strong, God is the Ruleryet."!J
The psalms o f Yah ....'eh's kingship IPsalms 4 7, 93, 94-99) reflect a cullic fesli -
val, perha ps analogous to the New Year's fes tivals celebrated in surrounding coun-
tries Such as Babylonia. On tha t occasion. a~ the great Scandinavian scholar
Sigmund Mo ....·incl.:.e l proposed, the dominion o f Yahweh was not Just expressed
hymn ically: it was celebrated in a ritual drama o f Yahwe h's ascension to the divine
7. Sce ch~ di~~sion of 'The Domi ni on of God V"I'iUS rh" Domin ion of Evi l: belo .....
ChaPI"r B
8. 5.:.. the m~18hd'u l ~Iud)' by ~'aher Bl1,legg"m~nn, AI"Ji"9 Aslm<i,!rn: .... t P",! .. ,. M.:rJ,,.,,il)'. ,Id
lb. Mab.. c{ H"k>ty (louiwill,,: W~tm inSler!John Knox. ]99]).
9. 'This 15 My flrher's World: b)' /I.·!abbie D_ Baocock (1858-- 190 1)_
n.e Cosmic Rule of Y~h....eh in Zion 215
th rone . ro The ritua l included a reenactment of David's bringing the ark to
Jerusalem (Ps. 131:6·10; cf. 2 Samuel 6 ), the triumphal procession through the
gates of t he city (Ps. 14:7- 10). and the placement of the ark in the H oly of H olies
of the temple, where Yahwe h -sits enthtOr'ICd upo n the cherubim- (99: I).
Psalm --17 is an excellent wi tness to th is view. He~ the theme of Yahweh's
ascension is announced: Cod (Yahwehl has "gone up~ (ascended) amid shouts of
acclamation and with th e sou nd of the sho/at (trumpet ):
GoJ b.~l 9Oft< ..-p ""fir Q s!Iou/,
n .. LorJ ()'a!.wdl]";lh rht UM'J of a fl'll_lJrf.
~~ ~'''im ID God. siocg praisn,
lir.g iKOli..! !ol 0•., ~, ling ~M'sn.
- l's -' 7: 5-6
Since, howeve r. the eanhly temple waS regarded as the counterpan of the heav-
enly, on the principle of the rela tionsh ip between the macrocosm and the micro-
cosm. the drama symbolized Yahweh's ascens ion to the heavenly throne_ 11 Thus
"the great king" (47:2) not onl), reigns in Zion, where anth ems of praise are sung,
but over the whole eanh .
G,;,J il h"9 0tl<T It>. Mriolts,
GoJ !lIS .", bil h<lJy throllt.
Th princtl of IIx Pfopltl9atl..r
~j rh, p.op/t of Ibr God 01 Ab,,,ha...
For u.. !b.·.lds [,.ltr1] of IW ,Qnb hrk>/IiI 10 GcJ..
Ix Jl bigbly I'XdlrtJ.
-Ps. 47,8-9
The throne asce nsion, analogous to the coronation of an ca"hly monarch, was
accom panied b}' trumpet fanfare, shou ts of acclaim, and songs of joy_ Emissaries
from foreign nations ("the princes of the peoples: 47 :9 ) were apparently included
in th is ecumenical celebration.
TIx L"J Is Kin9!
The key nO le in these psalms is the cultic exclama tio n. YHWH malak (93: I, 96:1 0;
97:1,- 99; 1), which may be translated "The LORD [YahwehJ has become king~ (so
REB ), a translation tha t refl"rs to an event that has happened. Alternatively, the
cultic cry may be rendered 'The:- LORD is king" (so NJPSV; NRSV, cf. NJB) or Mthe
LORD reigns« (NIV ), a translation that indicates Yahweh's etern al kingship _
The first·mention ed tra nsla tion, while grammatically justifiable, is question-
able if it implies regaining a kingship that has been lost. Unlike Baal in the
10. Sio:muod MO,,"inckd 's vi<"" is SCt fonh in Th PI~!"J '" 1)'~I/"' lVo·d"~. lran~_ D_ R. Ap·
lhomas. :1 ,"ok (I'~shvill~ Abins<!on. ]961 ), S1Jmmanz"d In my Oot of rh Drp/b., 'f1><, F"'tival
of Zi on: Chapter 6. The "'hol~ subj~ct is discus=! helpfully by kn C. On"nbu'lr""f. Zi.,.. Cil)'
of f~' G,,~! King. }50TSup 41 (5h~ffldd, JSOT Pf6~. t987). 33.
] I. On !h" rnacrocO'irn in n:l~lion to the microcosm. ~ ~bo,,~. Chaplet" 13_
 sa

The Cosmie Rul., of Yahweh in:lion 217

Canaanite religion, Ya hwe h is nOl involved in "th e myth of the eternal retu rn"l2-
a dying-rising god who i~ subject to the powers of death and darknes~ . Some sug-
ges t that the language is exis tentia l, referring to the co nfession that God has been
dethroned in human life and needs [Q be reenthroned; but this is r<l1her forced. In
all probability [he exclamation refers to GcxI's e ternal kingship; Yah"'eh is king
fo~"er! God .... as king "from of old" (Ps. 93 :2), God is acclaimed as king now
(47:7), and God ....ilI come as king [Q judse the eanh (98;9). All the tenses paSt,
present. and furure-must be employed to praise the God .... ho was, .... ho is, and
who is to come.
In this language the biblical poets express the fait h that human security is
grounded in the ruk of Cod who is transcendent-beyond the h iSlOrical realm
where poweT'i of chaos are at \"ork. From our human point of view. the disorder
and suffering in the world seem to challenge the sovereignty o f God. But above
the waters of chaos-so faith afllnns poetically-God sits enthroned as the eter-
nal King, holding the cosmos in being and maintaining the order of cosmic law. It
is the eternity of God. who remains God ("Vcn though the ea rth be desuoyed, that
inspires a poet to affirm in a we ll-known Zion psalm;
Th~ psalms. as we have no ti<:ed, may reflect a cultic festival that was cele-
brated in the Jerusalem temple during the period of the monarchy. If so, in the final
form of th., Psalter the poetic language bursts beyond the limi tati ons of the cult
and become5 an expression 01 praise for all times and all peoples. ImaSination por-
trays the cschatological coronation of Cod!
This imaginative ponra}'al is found in the magnificent passage, lsa. 52:5-7,
where language transcends historical reality. The poet gi ves a concrete picture,
suc h as people o f the lime probably experienced. The coun tryside beyond the
walls of Jerusalem is desolated by war,-the people are huddled in the city, anxiously
""'ondering how the bailie goes with those Aghting against hopeless odds; the sen-
t inels are on the ramparts of the city gate. ~canning the surrounding territory for
any sign of actj\'jty. Suddenly in the distance the watchmen spy a single runner, a
herald who approaches to announce that the war is ov~r, that peace is at hand, that
a new day is breaking. In Heb~w the word of the herald of good news is described
in fou r participles (translated ~who ...) ;
HOt<> 1or.. wl:f~1 W/l<'" Ibr ",()IIIIr..i~s
~fr Ihf fro 4thl ...tsstf'9tf,

GoJ il O~r .4~9t"d 11.,,;g:b. ",b" o1I:~au"[" s&"Iom,

" I1try p.tJmI !.tIp ill trowbl. ",be 1'="'i,., liJi"91 4 gOt>J.
T"bmJcrt .", ....11 1101 jw. ,hougb lhe wtb sbo.U ~b.III;1r. ",ho "Mbli~ VIC1Of)' [S<lru~tm}.
tbowgh lilt JIlC>nI"'inl dW:t in tbt &t..r1 of lilt iU;
",b" 5<lJ1/a li",,; Y01lI" Go.f "'gill !
lbowgb ill Il'!llm .oar ani ]0,> ... -Isa. 51] iBWAI
lboorgb IIx ."",,"'iIl5 I,.".bk .,,·,b illl~"wlt. Here 100 tne hcrald's exclamation may be translated, "Your God has become king"
-Ps. 46; 1-3 (REB). although more likely the poet rden; to the imminent display of God's royal
rule that is evcrlasting; past, pres~nt, and futu~. I t is noteworthy. however, that in
God's Do",i"i"" as Fut~.t Horizon this paSQge the poet envisions the triumphant return of G od to Zion (52;8). The
God's dominion has a future horizon; for God's kingdom has ><I.l1 come on earth a~ Divine Warrior has "bared his holy ann before the eyes of all the nations· (52:1 0 ),
it is in heaven. People Slil! experience the threat of chaos, the shaking of earth's with the result t hat God's people in the ruined plac~ of JeruQlem experi~nce
founda tions. the sinister po.....ers of death and darkness. In faith's imagination. hov.'- delh'eranct', and ~al1 the ends of the eanh shall see the salvation of our God·
ever, the tung, whose throne is ~re l~,. established from of old, will come. The t heological ovenones of th is language of God's dominion, specifically
Lr. IIn Sta ro~ •. ~~J "j) ~b~1 fiJls it, God's com ing to the temple of Zion with Qving power, are picked up in the New
Ibr 100,11 "MJ Ibo~ Ill,,", lil'l" i~ i,. TestamenL 13 The Go~pel of Mark begins with the an nounc~m (nt of the imminent
Ut lilt p,J, {k~ :htir h",:J\, coming of God's kingdom:
ir1lhe Inlls 'i..g ~Ib ... f'" jo)'
No",· aner John "'~s ~rresled JC""5US came to Galike. proclaiming Ihe good news of
~ftbt ~, of tiN LORD[Yalwtb}, for br is co-ir.y
God, and sayinS. "'The time is fulfilled, ~nd the kingdom 01 God has come lKar,
10 j uJjlt rbt ,«r1b.
Tepc:nl, and bd i~'( in the good IKW"s:
Ht WIll J,.,Jgc fhe IW.IJ ",ilb ri§blroMlIUSS.
-Mark 1:1 4- 15
,,"J IIx ptop/n ",irb <quiI)'.
-P5 98;7-9 ; d . 96; 10- 13

The Christmas carol, "loy to the \':rorld, the Lord Is Come; ' echoes the jubilant
notes of this psalm (see Ps. 98:4·9).

t 2. Su Mln:.,~ Eli<ld.,. Co,,"os ttttJ H i,lDry' r ... ,\tym ~f IVr £,.,.,....1Rru<"., 1N~ York: H~f\X"T ~nd
Bros.. 1959)_ 13. Su below, chapler 35

25. HISTORY VIEWED
IN DAVIDIC PERSPECTIVE
We turn flOW 10 iI. major pr~nta[ion of th~ ISIadil~ SlOry, the Chro nicler's
h istory, especially I and 2 Chronicles. This important theological writing has
unfortunatdy been out of bounds for mOSt mod~m biblical r~il.ders_ Earlier gene r-
ations, however. who read the Bible horn cover lO cover, we~ inRuem::ed by Ihis
portion of ScripruTe. We are: cold (h.tt John NC:",10n's famous song, "Amazing
Grace," was intluenced by 1 Chron. 17: 16. According IQ (his paSS3ge David "sat
befoTe Yahweh" and said: "Who am I, 0 Lord Cod, ... that you hil,\'c brought me
thus fart (lis grace that brought me safe thus far." ) Also, in some churchC's the
offertory prayer is used, "All things come from you, 0 Cod, and of your own have
we given you' ( I Chron. 29:14b).
TlJr Chroni&r's Histol)'
The Chronicler's history includes the books of 1 and 2 Chronide~ (the last tI~·o
books of the Hebrew Bible ) and, in the judgment o f many scholars. also the books
of Ezra and Nehemiah. E\'en if the twO h istorical works belong together, which is
a debatable point, there are imponant differences betW"een them. Onc obvious
theological difference is that the books of Chronicles stress the D av idic cov('nam,
with its twin instirutions of monarchy and t('mple, wh ile saying linl(' about the
.1I.10saic tradition; whereas the books o f Ezra and Nehemiah Stress the l\'Iosaic
cov('nant and min imize t he imponance of Davidic theology, There is good reason,
then, to consider the Chronicler's ",'ork as a separate theolOgical natemenl.
In conn('ction with our study of the Mmaic pattern of symbolization wc
tufJl('d to another historical work, the so·called Deuteronomistic h iStory. \'(le
found that Oeuteronomistk h istoria ns attempt ed to understand Israd's history of
failure, culminating in the fall of the nation and the exile of the pt'ople, in t he
light of the covenant perspective associated with M~_ The!ie hiSlorians also
attached great impo nan ce to the royal covenant associated with David, but that
covenant was subo rdinated to the primary !\:I()s')ic cov('nant. The Chronicler's
history reverses the priority, placing primary emphasis on Cod's promises of grace
to David, To be sure, the MosaiC Torah, her(' called "the book. of ~'Ioses" (1
Chron . 25:4, 35 : 12 ), in its ha[akic or "~lega l " sense is invoke d, as we shall see; but
the key to understanding Israel's history, according to these theologians , is
Yahweh's covenant promises of grace to David. Indeed, some have argued that
Chronicles ~was written to vindicate the dennitiveness o f Da\'id's covenant over
Sinai .W[
t. Roben: North, S J.. "'"T"hc: Chronicle-..: in ,\'"" In-o,,..t /tblOCd ) C~"'."'l&r)'. cd
Bm,,'n ~t a1. {Englo>-ood Oifk. NJ" P~ntice,H a ll, 1990). 364.
HiStory Vie .... ed in Davidic Perspeclive 219
It is striking that Chronicles was written in a time when monarchy had ceased
in I~rad and when builders of the Second Temple looked back to the g lory of the
First Temple. the onc built by Solomon, This "historicaf work, composed after the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah (probably c a, 400 to 300 H.C.), rdies primarily o n the
rourcc of Samudi Kings, although it also refers to unkn own sources. The story is
retold, however, in such a way as to gi~'e an imaginati\'e construal in the perspec·
tive of Davidic theology, The Chronicler's work soars ~yond the concrete history,
with which mod('rn hM;;torians attempt to deal, into a symbolic vitta p<:rceived by
religious imaginat ion_
A Tht(J~ir,,1 Rroision of HislDry
As in the ca~ of th(' Deuteronomistic history, \1.'e may ascertain the theolOgical
perspective of the Chronicler in two ways. First, let us examine the way sources aT('
used. Unfortunately, most of the sources referred to are no longer extant, if indeed
they ('vcr existed. It would bc a great day for archaeology if one of them should
turn up, for instance, "the records of the prophet Nathan" ( 1 Chron. 29:29) or "the
story of the prophet Iddo" (2 Chron. 13 ,22). Fortunately, one of the Chronicler's
sources is readily ava ilabl e, namely, Samuel-Kings [specifically 1 Samuel 32 to
2 Kings 25). The Chronicler's perspective is indicated by hoW" h e uses this source,
sometimes quoting verbatim. sometimes condensinij:, sometimes omitting, some-
times changing to accord with special interests,
The scope of this work extends from creation (Ad am ) to the fall of the nation
and the exile of the people. The first part, from C~atiOn to David, is spannw. by
genealogies ( 1 C hron icles 1-9, d . Matthew's genealogy, \1.'hich begins with D avi d
and leads to Jesus). Amazingly the historian skips over the period of the ancestors
{Genesis 12- 50) and the root ('xperiences of exodus and Sinai <Exodus-----Numbers),
and the period of the tribal confederacy Uoshua, Judges) and comes immediately
to t he decisive beginning in Israd's history: the covenant with David and the
building of the temple. In this regard the Chronicler is comparable to the prop het
Isaiah of Jemsalem, who lik.ewise ignores [sraers sac~d history, even exodus and
Sinai, and focuses on the Oavidic king and the temple of Zion ( ~e below, chap.
ter 26).
TI!%.!1Y Set Fortb jn Kry AdJrtS5ts
The second way to ascenain the Chronicler's perspective is to srudy key addresses
that are introduced at transitional points in the narrati~·e . lllu5lrative of these is
the account of the warfar(' bef\<o'een Abijah (sometimes spelled Abijam), son of
Rehoboam, who was Solomon's son and successor, and Jeroboa m, king of nonh-
ern Israd (2 Chronicles 13 ). Readers are ca rried back to the t ime of the breakup of
t he united kingdom (922 R.C.) and the split into Northern and Southern
Kingdom~. each claiming to ""orship Yahlo'eh, the God of Israel. The Deuter·
ooomistic h istorian says precious little about King Abijah ( 1 Kgs. 15,1-2), but the
Chronicler gives an extended accoum of his war with Jeroboam I, foun der of th e
Raymond E.
Nonhem Kingdom. Th(' account includes Abijah's speech on a mountain in the
220 Corolollrs of Old Tnt.>'"CII! TiKNogy H,story V,ewed in Davidic PCTSpcctive 221

hill country of Ephraim. as the twO armies confronted o ne another (2 ChTon. 13:3- sions ,•.re have noticed that 100rah. which means ~teaching,· has two dimensions:
12). In this dramatic setting the speech mak~ th ~ poims, story (haggadah ) and commandment (halakah ). The speCific obligations of the
covenant were set fonh within the whole Story of God's actions on be half of Israel.
• Yahweh, God of Israel, gave the kingship over Israel forever to Da~'id and
In th e Chronicler's history. ho....ever, the emphasiS falls heavily on the command-
his sons by -a covenant of salt"-a covenant that lasts. because salt is a
ments written in the Mosaic torah:
preservati\'e {v. 5).1
• You northemers suppose that you can withstand Rthe kingdom of Yahweh Accordins to all thal is " 'Tinen in I~ law of tne- lOIill [Yahwch] thathe com-
in the hands of the sons of David- because of your military might and the mlncl~dlsrael. -1 Chmn. 16:40
religious innovill[ions of Jeroboam (v. 8 ). These included selting up calf K«p Ihe law of lh" lORD [ Y~hwch l your God.... Qbscr-.·e the statUte<; and the
imag~ of Yahweh, installing a separate priesthood. and gathering the peo- ordil"klnce5 that the low (Yah ...~h l commanded Moses lOT Israel.
p le for worship at northern sanctuaries (cf. I Kings 12). - I Chron. 22:1 2·13
• But this strategy will not ",'ork. Yahweh is ~our Cod ...·hom we have not for-
According fO In.: comm<lndmcnl 01 MO'iei for thl" sabbaths. etc. -2 Chron. 8,13
saken: The evidence that we worship Cod in trut h is that we have the
proper priesthood. the proper worship. and the propn sanctuary (the Kcep tile I.. w .. ncl lhc commandment. -2 Chron. 14:4
Jerusalem temple; v. 10).
To offer burnt offerings 10 the loRt> [Ylh,,·ehJ. ~5 it i~ wTitten in thc law of MOSClO.
• So, -Cod is with us,~ leadin8 us in battle. In opposing us, you are really -2 Chron. 23: 1B
fighting against Yahwch, the Cod of our ancestors. and you cannot succt:ed
(v. 12 ). According 10 what i~ wTinen in tile law. in the book of '-loses. -2 Chmn. 2504

This is dearly not an unbiased account of a war ber..'een northern and sou th-
ern Israel (is th ere ever an unbiased military account, ), rather. it is an ideological
claim, that is, an attempt to justify the Southern Kingdom of Jud ah and the reli-
gion of the Jerusalem temple. \Xfho is on the Lord's side] The question was raised
not juS[ in a conlest ben.·ttn armi~ but in the division within the people of God
into nonh and south, Ephraim and Judah. The people o f Judah. according to this
view, were confident that God was with them and that. because of their faithful -
ness. Ihey were on the winning side.
This ideological account, of cou~. has many historical parallels: people who
are confident that Cod is on their side in a political struggk. warriors who invoke
Cod 10 help them win banles, or dergy who claim that they are properly ordained
and stand in the mJe succession. [t is even reported that during time·outs some
profeSSional football players pray t hat Cod wTll help their side to atlain victory.
H e re ....e come up against the .... hole question of faith and ideology. which as we
have noticed previously, attends all covenant theologies. l
Thr Chro~icltr5 Major Tlxological Convictions
Davidic theology, however. cannot be reduced to pure ideology. as we shilll see
when considering the message of the prophet Isaiah (chapter 26). This is e\'ident
PriesI5 and u,v,te5 "took thcir accustomed posts according 10 the law of Moses the
man of God. " -2 ChTon. 30,16
Burnt offerings .. , as il IS "'ritlcn in the law of the loRD [Yah ...ehJ."
-2Chron.31:3
Strangely, in none of these cases is there mention of the exodus or the guidance in
the wilderness. It has been observed that if we had only the Chronicl~r's history we
would never kn ow that there was an exodus out of Egypt. ~
In Chronicles the Torah, understood in ItS halakic sense, is undoubt~dly iden-
tiRed with the whole Pentateuch. not JUSl the book of Deuteronomy. as inJosiah's
reform. The Pe ntateuch. in substantially its Rnal form. was the Torah of Moses that
a ra brought back to }udah from Babylonian exile and that became the const itu-
tio nal basis of the restored community (see Nehemiah 9). The book of Psalms, as
we have seen. begins With l he announcement that those persons are b lessed
(happy) who meditate on the torah "day and night: making it the basis of their life
and thought (Psalm 1).
fabu'cbs (ovmal1t wilb Dauid
The second conviction. ""hich is much more dominant in Abijah's speech, is that
Yahweh ha~ "chosen David to be ruler and has chosen the Jerusa lem temple,
w

1T0m two major convictions expressed in the Chronicler's history. including its priC'ithood. Accordingly. the Chronicler jumps into Israel's history (as
Obli.'1~tion to) Ibt Rt!.l(a/td Law.,] God pre5ented in the Deuteronomic ·source") at the point of Daliid's rise to power (I
The first conviction is based on Mosaic tradition: the people and their leaders are Chronicles 9~15 ) . All at once we are IOld about David bringing the ark to
subje<t primarily to the law of Cod. not to human regulations. In previous discus·

2. The ·c"Cflnling c()'.'en~nt" wilh DI";d ...·e hl"c eon~idcrcd abo,'c, chapler B . 4. C J\tangan. , -2 a,,"~KI~. Ez'~. N,oo.11h. OTM 13 (W,lmlOgton. DcL Mich~d Gluier
3. 5« loo.~, ehlptCl"; 11 (promise: of land} ."d 21 (legitimalion of D.,·idie ruld. 1982). 16.
222 Cl>I<tow t'! of Old Tr;l~.-r Tho/O!Jy History Vi<:"<o'ed in Davidic Pc:n;pective 223
Jerusalem, accompanied by the singing of psalms ( I Chronicles 16). Then follo ..... s The Chronicler's hiStory provides a point of transition to our next major sub-
immc:diatdy Nathan's oracle: of dynastic pro mis,e 10 David, which ....as taken over je-cl. "Tria ls o f Faith and Horizons of Hope." This history work was composed dur-
from 2 Samuel 7 .... ith few change;; (2 Chroniclcs 17). Unsavory episodes. such as ing the period of the Second Temple, the so·called postcxilic period, when Ihe
the Bathshcba affair, are passc:d over in order 10 givc anention to Oavid's plans for complex phenomenon known as ) udalsm was emerging. It was a t ime of suffering
the constro ction o f th c lemple and Ihe organization of its liturgical and musical and dislocation, yet also a time of ~wa i ting for God" in hope of the coming of
service ( I Chron icles 22-29). Cod's dominion on earth as it is in heaven. Bd ore turning to this suhject, however,
In this connection David's ad dress in I Chronicles 22 dcserves attentio n. H ere let us pause to consider the great prophet wh o stands in the circle o f DavidiclZio n
David gives a sp~h 10 Solomon, in whic h he charge-s him with the task of build· theology: Isaiah of Jerusalem.
ing a temple and assures him o f prosperily if in his wisdom he obsc rvcs "the
stalUtCS and t he ordinances (hat the Lo rd [Yahweh ) commanded !\'Ioscs lor Israel"
(22:7. 16). In succeeding chaptcrs Dal'id organ izes the priests and ~vi les and
•
assigns them their duties (chapte r 23), as well a5 the Aaro nk priests descended
•
through Zadok (cha pter 24 ), the musicians (chapler 25 ), other functio na ries
(chapter 26). and Anally th ~ dealing with civil and military affa irs (chapter 27).
Above all, David submits to Solomon the plan (Mbhilh ) of the temple (2 8: 11 · J 2,
J 8·19 ), just as M~, in Pri~stly trad ition. constl\lCtc:d Ihe tllbernacle and its fu r-
nishin gs acco rding to ,he panem (lafrnilh J that Yahweh showed him o n the moun ·
tai ntop (&00. 25:9). Seen in the: pe rspecti ve of Oavidic cO\'enant theology. Oavid
appears as a figure even greall:r than M05~S!

Temple a/ld King

Written late in the biblical period, the Chronicler's histof)' is an i mpr~sive witness
10 the power of the: Davidic co\~nant symbolism 10 survive, despite the end of the
monarchy and the destroC lion of Solomon's Tcmple. The h "in convictions of the
Davidic covenant are st ressed in Davi d's speech to the assembled officials of
Jerusalem { I Chronicles 28 )_ H er~ David recalls that Yahw~h chose th~ temp le as
a res ting place tor the ark and "the footstool o f Yah,.,-eh's throne· (v. 2).- that
Yahweh chose him to be "king ove r ls rac:l forever" tv. 4 }; and that Solomon, com-
missioned to cany OUt Dav id's plan, would "sit upon the throne o f the ki ngdom of
the LORD [Yahweh) over Israel" (v. 5). Here the institutions of throne and temple
are brought closely together in the imaginative vista of the Chronicler_lnd~d, the
cos mic domin ion of CAld seems to be manifes t in thc eanhly kingdom of David.
This is an amazing port rayal o f David, ",·h.ich far exceeds historical real ity. In
a time when there was no kin g on the Davidic th rone. the king is pornayed as one
wh.o rules as Cod's represe ntative. indeed who sits on the earthly th rone of Gods
kingdom . The Ch ron icler's lively imagi nat ion has produced a view of h is tory that '.
has mcssianic ovcrtones. As Cerhard \'on Rad rcmart.s,i the Davidic ki ng is po r-
trayed wilh such a dcxa (glory) t ha t the reader is prompted to ask with John the
Baptist: "Are you the o ne wh o is to come . or shall wc expect ano th er?""

5. Gerhard von ~d. "'Thoe H"'loriea l 'IX'ork of the Chroruckr; in Thu!"S'J' o} :;" 00 TI!'",,...,.r.
tQns. D. M_ G. Sral ker. l..-o/s i N.....• York , Huper 11< Row, 1962-(5). 1 : 3 ~7- 54

26. PROPHECY IN
THE ZION TRADITION
Like the Abrabamic and j\·losaic cove nantal perspectives discussed previously,
the Oavidic covenant also had a profound inRuence on prophecy, as evident from
the message of the eighth-century prophet, Isaia h of Jerusalem. As pointed out ear-
lier, it is significant that each of the three major covenant perspectives has ;IS chief
prophetic spokesman: Ezekie1 speaks out of the Priestly tradition,- Jeremiah is a
"prophet like /I.'\os~<. and Isaiah of Jerusalem stands in the tradition of Oal'idic or
Zion theology,
The Seminal Mmagr of Isaiah
It is not easy 10 separate OUl the distinct"·e message 01 Isaiah from the book that
bears his name_ After a century or so of imcnsive study, many scholars agree that
the book lalls into three major pans di l'ided roughly into First Isaia h (chapteTS
1- 39), Second Isaiah (chapters 40---55 ), and Third Isaia h (chapters 56----66). This
oversimpl ifled analysis indicates that the book of Isaiah has unde rgone a lo ng and
complex history of traditions, from the time ,,·hen the eighth-century prophet
'bound up· his ~[eac h ing' in a 5Croll among his disciples (8: 16 ) 10 [he flnal shaping
of the book in ils present canonical fonn , probably in the early period of the
Second Temple (ca_ 520-515 ). Later we shall look at the book as a ,~·hole, when
considering th e movement from prophecy 10 apocalyptic (chap te r 33 )_
In order to as.ccnain the seminal message of the eighth-century prophet , Isaiah
of Jerusalem, we shall restrict our attention to the first part of the book (chapters
1- 39) and. within that compass. cspecially 10 chapters 1- 12 and 28- 33. Some of
Ihe oracles against the nations (chapters 12-23) reflect Isaiah's preaching. But
chapters 24--27, the so-called Apocalypse of Isaiah, and chapters 34- 35. the Little
Apocalypse, come from the period of Third Isaiah, whe n prophecy was becoming
apocalyptic in tone. Chapters 36---39, paralleled for the mOSt part in 2 Kgs.
18: 13-20, 19, serve as a bridge from the first part of the book. predominantly a
message of divine judgment, to th e second (beginning at lsa. 40: 1), wh ich gives a
message of hope and consolation.
7k KJ·.,g, Ik Lord of Hosts
One of the flrst things that strikes the reader who turns to so-called First Isaiah is
that this prophet, unlike Hosea and Jeremiah . does not appeal to the exodus/Sinai
root experienccs. at least not explicitly. To be sure, there is a passing reference 10
what Yahweh "did in Egypt" ( 10,26) and a poetic depiction of a highway from
Assyria analogous 10 one Israel used in the exodus from Egypt ( II , 16 ). Bm these
rderenc<!S, if they reflect the prophet's message (which some doubt ), are excep-
tions that prove the rule. The Mosaic covenant tradition has not made a significant
impact on the message of th is eighth-c~ ntury prophet.
Prophecy in the Zion T...dition 225
\X' hi1c the preaching of the prophets Hosea and Jeremiah moves primarily on
the horizontal plane of Israel's history, the message of Isaiah is orlented in the ver-
ticat axis of heaven and earth, the eternal and the temporal, macrocosm and micro-
cosm. Isaiah's message soars above Israel's sacred story (exodus, Sinai covenant,
sojourn in the wilderness, occupation of the land) into the !>}'mboliC world of
yah,. . eh's cosmic rule, which we explo red in a p~ceding chapter (chapter 24). As.
Isaiah perceived in his vision in the te mple, Yahweh is the King par excellence,
who is seate d on a celestial throne, "high and lifted up," that is, transcendently (Isa.
6,1 ). In response, the prophet exclaimed,
W'oe i~ me' I am 1051. for I am a man of ullClean lips, and r li ve among a people of
unclean lips,- yet m}' eyes havt ><:<:n the Ki ng, the LORD (Yahweh] 01 hosts.
- 1'>3_ 65
In this theolOgical perspective. Yah\.,..eh is the eternal King , bdo~ whose tran-
scendent majesty no human power can claim ultimate so\'ereignty, no social or
economic order can escape criticism. no cui rural or na tional values can boast ulti·
macy. The prophet envisages God's appearance on the horizon of the future to
judge all the proud symbols of human achievement, including economic wealth,
military fort ifications, and commerci al exploitation of the seas.
F~r tk LOII.O [Y"b"-,,b] of bom b", a Jay
"!,.,i,,,t ,,11 ,bt is l'm",J a~d loft)·.
"gai" ,!.:;1i 1),.:;1 islijuJ ~~ and b~b,
"!iai",1 allth. (d"m of l.t&aM".
lofty and lif1d *
ar.J ..gai~st ~Illbr ""k; of &,hdH,
d!iair.S! allth. bigh ,"""nu;",.
ad again,! .,l! tb, lofty h;U"
"!i"jr.SI "'try bogb [OU' tT.
ar.J ~g"i"sl "'try fo rliji',J wol1,
"!i";I151 ,,1/ 1h. ships of Tanbi;h.
arod og"inll aillhl lxadof~1 cmF
Thl """!ih1i"f'Is cf f'tl>pl( ,),';/1 Ix bu",bl,J,
"roJ I'" pnd, of "'t'l)"',"1 ,1:,,/1 bt hr~"!ihllow.
arod f'"LOfID [\'I>!;IVo'bJIll",,! wi!1 />( aalld "" 11o..t Jay.
- lsa. },12-17
In Ihis powerful pOetry Isaiah develops a theme sounded in the psalms that cele-
brate Yah\.,..eh·s enthronement as king (Psalms 47, 93 , 95- 99), The nations of the
earth and the who le rea lm of nature are summoned to praise the cosmic king,
foe hi is ,o",i~g 10 _iu,l;1 fix f,'r1h.
H, will joclgt fix tl'OrlJ With ';9),lroII5>I"'.
"nl!/" p"'~!f'I ""lh his /",tb
- p•. 96: 13
 226 (",1'1"'111 of Did Ttsla .. ~1 T'Irrology
Tht Holy GIll of In/ld
The k~y note of Isaiah's m~s~age is that Yahweh, the Holy One, wh o is enth roned
in cosmic majesty, d""'dls in the mid~t of the people, and in this sense is "Cod with
us: The 6rst lsaianic collection (c hap ters 1-12) is appropriately rounded off with
a song th at strikes this fundamental theme.
Si~ ~'lIists I" tht LOKO fY"br...ro j, fer bt !HIs d"", glmiOlUiy,
kr Ibil bt hrD..... '" "If I'" "'rth.
SJ,o.,I a/(}IIJ "J<.i si~g fo rjoy. 0 ",y~1 Zi .....
fa, Irr"t;" Y(}II' midsl i5 liot Holy a... "f lir~d.
-Iw.. 11,5·6
The sense of the holy resounds in the account of the prophets inaugu ral vision
in the temple. where a celestial chOir sings an anthem o f prai~ ,
H"ly. holy, hcly is rbr Low [Y~bwtb ] ,,/ 1tos1J;
thr robolt t~"J. il foU of hil glory
-I~. 6:3
The anthem sounds a no te of universalism, it is not just the temple of Jerusalem
{tabernacle ) tha t is filled with the glory of Cod (as in Prie<;lly tradition ), but "the
whole ea rth is full of Cod's glory: even as the heavens display the glory o f th~
Creator (cf. Ps. 19:1 ).
The prophet uses the d ivine epithet re~atedly : qaJosb yimul. "the Holy One
of Israel· ( 1:4b, 10 :20.. 11:6, etc.).1 The ep i th~t does not refer in a broad sc:'nse 10
the mystlrium tTmltndUIII, the divine mystery beyond all human e .... perience and con-
ceptuality, to recall Rudolf Ono's classical study, Tbt Um of tIN Haiy,l mher, the
term d~ignates the holy God who has tumed toward a people and who in pr.lyer
may be addressed b}, a personal name (YHWH). The formula signifies dose rela-
tionshi p between God and people-not in the possessive sense sometimes implied
in popular religion (~~'Iy God.-
-Our COO) but in the 5en~ that God is i n~cap ·
ably involved in Israel's life story as cri tic and savio r. In this double sense. "God is
with us~ (!mmanuel) -in judgment and in grace .
As expressed in Isaiah's message, the experience of th e holy evinces dialectical
contradictions or theol ogical paradoxes. One paradox, me-n!ioned above, is tha t of
the universal and Ihe panicular: the God whom ISr.lel worships is not the Hol y
One of Israel in a narrow sense but is actually Cod of the whole eanh and the
entire cosmos. Another is the par.ldox of tran'iCendence and immanence: the God
who is "high and lifted up" in cosmic splendor is inescapably present "in your
midst: · the Beyond in the ~'I ids( {Bonhoeffer}. To recall a lioc from a wonderful
poem in th e book of H osea (H os. 11: \ -9 ), Yahweh is ·Cod, not a human, the Holy
One in your midst" (\'. 9b).
t. ~ my essay, lhc Holy Onc of r§fil ~r : in ) Mllio::( ..,.,/ 11,. /-ialy: E",,")", m HDJS(Jr <Jj lV~iltr
H~ml",~ . .,d, DOUlIl.! A. Knil!ht and Pet~r J. Paris (Allanta, $cholaT"i Prcs~, 1989), 3- 19.
J Tnns. John W. H~ ....,ey p d. cd., N.,,,, Yor\;: Oxford UniY~T"ii'y P,c«. 1950), sce abo,·c.
ch~pt." 5.
Prophtty in th~ D<lyid ic Tradition 227
Co,mic O rdtT /31,1 500/11 O,jtT
In Isaiah, however, this sense of Yahweh's holy presence in the midst of the peo.
pie is expressed in a di fferen t panem of symbolism than in the case of Hosea or
ot he r prophets in the Mosaic trad ition. Isaiah's preaching is informed by the twin
imag~ of temple and kingship. [t is through these sacr.ll institutions that the cos-
mic ~righteousness~ of God is mediated to society and the holy Cod is present in
th e midst of the people.
At first glance, the symbolic vista 01 Isaiah has striking affiniti~ with the myth-
ical symbolism of t he ancient Near East . In the ancient world the cosmic kingship
of the high god was manif~t in society through the sacral institutions of temple
and kingship. In ancient Egypt, for instance, as Eric Vocgelin has shown,) ·c os-
mological symboliza tion- expressed the integration of society into the cosmic
order and made possible a static social order th,1t ~mained ~ssentia"y unchanged
through several dynasri~ . In this Egyprian view, the pharaonic social Structu~
reflected (he harmony o f cosmic order.
Some interpreters, e-spe<:ial ly those associated with Solomon's COIln, may have
held a similar view of the monarchy. Psalm n,
whose superscription associates the
poem with Solomon, speaks of th e ideal king as one who med iates cosmic · right-
eousness· (or right order) to society. with the result tha t the king is the up holder
of justic~ for the: helpless and the source of b lessing and prosperity. Indeed, the
king, revered as the son of Cod, was CTO",·ned with a kind of supematur.ll halo, as
suggested in the lofty language of Psalm 72 ,
AIll)" bt liQr wbik Ih! sUllndur(s.
ad ~s 1a"!1 as Ihe- mo..... Ih"",ghorol art g~<T"li~lIs,
,\1"y .b< bt lii<c lilt raill 161 falls Of! Ibt ..OIDII gr~~.
lih v...:, ....." INI ...... kT Ibt tardt.
-Ps. 72:5-6
Indeed, in a wedding ode. the I;ing is addressed as · god .... if we folio ....• the rece ived
Hebrew text (Ps. 4),6), and therefore is in~S led with sovereign power. In shon,
Yahweh's rule as cosmic King in the hea venly temple is manifes t sacramentally
through the reign o f t he Oavidic king CCod's "son") and in the Jerusalem temple
(Cod's ·dwel ling pl ace~ or tabernacle). Isaiah speaks in the name of "the LORD
[Yah""eh l of hoStS who dwells on ~'Iou nt Zion" (Isa. 8: 18),
ISlliab5 R(iulerprttali<m of Cosmological lmagery
While th is view is similar to the cosmo]ogica] symbolism of the anc ien! N ear East,
there is a \'ast di fference, owing 10 the holiness of Cod, which, as in Isaiah's tem-
ple experience, eStablishes a gulf between the div ine a nd the human, between
God's cosmic kingship and eanhly dominion . Before the transcenden! majesty of

th~Holy One of Israel, the \<"hole social order is "relativized .~ As E. '\if Nicholson
says in his srudy of Cod'.. covenant with I.. rac:!:
The pre!;Upposition of such a n:iari"i zing of the social orde r was a radical differen.
tiation tx-rwttn the divine and the homan world, Der-."("("n Cod and hiscrcatioo. w
th~t the homan world is nOt viewed as simply continuous "'itn the divine: the
divine·human continuum is split apan, so that tt.c human world even can be ~'iewed
.IS ~ng af 1088Cmeads with its creatOr. In shon. the rran'iCendence of God ow:r
the f1uman ,,·orld is emphasized. 4
Stat~ differently. the iJl'Stitutions of t~mple and monarchy are divested 01 the ir
divine authority and ultimacy (desacralized) and are seen in relation to a social
entity that holds power in societ}' (rt'iativized ).
In Isaiah's message the images of king and temple belong to the ·everlasting
covenant" with David. In tf1is co ntext the metaphors have a different rinw than in
the cosmological symbolism of the ancient N ear EaS1. Since Yahweh is the: Holv
One, the transcendent Ruler and Creator, what is required is not the integrati on ~f
society into a cha ngeless cosmic order but, rather, th~ change of the social order
so t hat it confonns to the will of the cosmic King. Isaiah senses a conflict between
the kingdom of Cod and the kingdoms of th is world: Ihe two are ~at loggerheads~
{Nicholsonl. The prophet looh forward 10 a t ime when the conAict will be
resolved and God's kingdom will come on eanh as it is in heaven. In this sense, th h
th~logical perspective is "soteriological: to use a Christian theological temr, that
is, it is concerned with salvalion (w holeness, welfare. ~ace).
Hence the proper response to Yahweh's utter holiness is humility and peni -
tence (the fear of the Lord). Humi liry ~fore Cod's transcendent majesty,
expressed in Isaiah's temple vision, will occur in the social world on tf1e Day of
Yahweh's appearaoce. The encounter with the holy God on that day will be dread.
ful because, in COntrast to the proud and lhe mighty on eanh, God demands and
executes justice.
P'opit an I>o.NJ JOtm1, ")(7)'0"1 's I>rO"9'&1 /<ItV.
I'"
a..J cyts of flit &.I..gbty an- "" ...bld.
BKf lbr LORD [Ya[""d,1of bMls is aa/led by jw!;1,"I.
a,.J 11" Holy God ,(,o,vs bi"'IlIJ holy Iry rig!;"'r:>«snfSs.
-1s;t.5:15·16
Gods Dn..tlnJ for Social hSliu
Yahweh'.. demand for social juslice rC'>ound.. through the prophet's preaching
found Wilhin the Rrst booklet, chaps. 1-12. In a powerful poem found in Ihe pref.
ace to thi .. collection ( I: 10-16), the prophet declares that God is not interested in
Ihe Ptople's lemple sacrifices and will not even listen to their prayers, for your
Prophecy in the Oilvidic Tradition 119
hands are full of blood" ( I :] 5 ). Those who misu~ power to oppress the weak and
ddenseless n«d more than rirual cleansing.
tVa lh y" ..""/m, """h 1,)qrsr1t>!!' ,Ita",
rc_ tht roil of1""r doing.
fro_I40't"y f)'I'S:
wtSr fo Jo roil.
IfPt>: 10.i:> goo.i,
Kt.i: jW!tlCt,
r<!'~C lb. OP~rtis<J.
Jrf...J Ibt ""ha",
~IMJ for ,'" riJew.
~ is.l. 1:16-1i
The them e of j ustice is stated pow~rfully in the "song 01 the vineyard" (lsa.
5: ]- 7), in which the pro phet pomays Gods disappointment with "my people." A
farmer planted a vineyard and lav is h~ atten tion on it, expec ting a good harvest
of grapes. But the vineya rd yidded wild grapes, prompting the owne r to plan to
tear il down. The thrcal to command the clouds to pour no ra in on the fruitless
vineyard (v. 6) indicales the me.-ming of the metaphor. Yahweh is the farmer who
had planted a vineyard (the house of Israel. Ihe people of Judah ), expecting it to
yicld a good harvest. But alas, to God's great d isappointmen t. "his pleasant plant-
ing" failed, as the poet indicates by a play on words that is ha rd to reproduce in
English lTanslation, God lookcd fo r III rshf>u1 (justice) but lound . ispab (bloodshed),
for rstJllq.1h ( ri8ht~ousness ) but heard Isttlq'lh (a cry of distrc~s) (..... 7). The parono-
masia, or play on words. may be sensed in English word pairs such as "justice/vio-
lence: "righ teousness1rotte nness."
To SlImmarize, in Isaiah's pomayals of God's coming to judge the eanh, the
once sacred ins titutions of temple and kingshi p relain their symbolic value; the
city of Je rusalem with its temple. and thc monarch who sits on the throne of
Da\'id. \Then reihlerpreted in the Davidic co~~nant. however, they are invested
with a different m~aning than in the cosmological symbolism 01 the ancierll Near
East. They give poetic expre....ion to the dominion of the holy God, who tran·
sc~nds all ~arthly institution .. and who is nevertheless presem "in the midSt of the
people" in judgmem and mercy.
Col, Srf<u!gc Wori
'When Cod "comes 10 judgc the: earth: the t\,,-O inSlitutions of Mount Zion---the
Jerusalem templ e and the Davidic monarchy-will nOt escape lhe impact of (he
divine epiphany.
6
Fi rsl. Zion, th~ city of Cod, will Sland secure, not because of military fortifI -
cations but because it is Cod's chosen dwelling place. According to Isaiah, how-
ever, Cod is about to do something surprising in the ~YC'> 01 those who suppose
that God's coming will vindicate the people's interests and support their way of
life. On Mount Zion-the place that God has chosen as the sign of God'.. dwelling
in the midst of lsracl-God will perfonn a "srrange work" (lsa. 28:21)--strange
 Prophe<;)' in rhe Davidic Tradition 231
because God seems to be abandoning the city of God and leaving it to be ot.-ith j~jl;,( a~j u."ilh righIWII!"M
destroyed by invaders_ Isaiah gives the central tenet of Davidic theology a new fro.., tb" Ilmr 01l1lmrJ ~"J Jmn''fTllw".

twist, saying that HCod is with us« means, at least in pan , that the judgment of God
is inescapable. The agency 01 divine judgment, according to Isaiah, will be the
Assyrian mo narch, he is "the rod of Yahweh's anger,W as portrayed in a powerful
poem ( 10,5-19). 01 course, the Assyrian dictator does not see th ings th is way , he
thinks that his sU(;cessful feats result From his military power and political strategy.
That is how all great military leaders Oulius Caesar, Alexander the Great ,
Napoleon , etc. ) view their conques!S. But, asks the prophet, ~shall the ax vaunt
itself over th e one who wields it," ( 10: 15}. Even the chosen military agent cannot
escape the sovereignty of God's judgment. Whe n Cod has finished the opus ll[iDJum ,
the "denee o f destruction: on l\-1ount Zion , the Assyrian agent will be cast aside
and judged for his arrogam boasting.
By means of this strange work , the city of Zion \"ill be pmiSed, as fire ~moves
dross and impurity, and it will become, as it was in the beginning, "the faithful
city," a city of righteousness (lsa_ r,] 1-16). A "remnant.~ puritled by suffering, will
turn to Cod in troubled times, trusting the overmling sovereignty of the God, who
brings down the high and mighty and elevates those of low degree la theme later
developed in Mary's psalm, the Magnilicat; Luke 1,-Hi -55 ). Beyond tragedy, Isaiah
declared, Zion will emerge in resplendent glory as the center to which all nations
would ullimately make a pilgrimage in order that they may find peace and security
by hearing God's teaching (l5a. 1:1-4).
Isaiah's theme of the vindication of Zion is a major current that runs through
the whole book of Isaiah. Zion imagery was used extensively in the apocalyptic
reinterpretation of Isaia h's message, as we shall see in due course.'
Th( On! IVb"ls to (Olllt
Isaiah also used royal imagery in h is ponrayal of the future consummation. Not
onh' will there be a New Jerusakm-a City of God purified in the !lre of divine
judgmen t- but also a righteous leader will appear to shepherd the people_
Faithless kings may sit on the throne of David in th e present age, but (he time is
coming when a faithful "son of God~ will sit on the Davidic thro ne, rul ing in jus-
tice and righteousne5s. This monarch will be th e agent of God's dom inion ,
through whom the righteous order of God's creation will be realized in the social
order. In contrast to other kings, ""hose reigns are transient, his rule will be
endless.
His du1horit)" 1h<:1I gro", ,o~t'-r.ua!!)',
a~J Iba. s1.a!! br rnJ/,.,\ P,",Cl
Jot 11:. tim"'" oJ D~!~J a~.J oi, ki~gja",
Hr "~'jl f'ilab!;'b a"J ~p["'u ;1
5. See lalcr di,cu><ion, chapter 31 _
- lsa. 9 :7
This exquisite poem (lsa. 9 , ]~7} concludes with the ringing announcement: ''The
zeal of th e LORD [Ya.hweh] of hosts will do this" (cf, 2 Kgs. 19:31 ), indicating that
th e coming of this ruler will not occur in the ordinary course of pragmatic politics
but will be accomplished in God's determination. In that day, the throne name
lmmanuel {God with us} will have a positive meaning. as indicated by the !ohy
names of the futu re Da\'idic king:
Wo"Jaf~! Cou~ltio" Mighty God.
E,,'rrlani..g Falbtr, Prin(( of p",c,_
- lsa. 9:6
The JeWish translat io n ( N}PSV. v. 5 ) gives quite a different reading; the coming
king will have a long na me, full of meaning;
TIt ,\ ligbry- GoJ ;j p1-m>:'ng grace;
TIu Ellrn,,! F~I)",r, "(>Mcc"bIc "'/11
The Ba51s of Security
Here, then. is a pattern of symbolism that grounds human security in the tran-
sce ndent, majestic sovereignty of [he holy God-not in the changes and fortunes
of human histOJy. It imposes on rulers and people the sovereign demand of justice,
with consequent divine judgme nt on the powerful who shirk their responsibility;
but it enables people to rela x in the confidence that God is creator and the ruler
of history. Indeed, acco rding to Isaiah· this is what faith means: to be firm in trust
of God, who executes righteousness, and not to be shaken, not to be moved. Such
faith is the foundation stone that G od lays in Zion, the city of Cod,
ThII! lay, 1)", Lo,J [Yahwtb 1GOD.
Sf(, J ~'" i..ymg i~ Z,-""" Jowd" ! ic~ 5Io~,.
~ I(!~J ,ton!.
~ P.,.,:iOK' CornW to~(, a ~~rr JO~Md"I'-O~,
· (hU u,ho :"'111 U'I!l ,,~t panic ,.
- 1>.1. 28:16
Those who trust . that is, who place their faith in God rat he r than in human
ach ieveme nts. will enjoy deep security, even in d ifficult times. T his theme of
"walking humbly with God" in faith (cL I\'lic. 6 ,8) is expressed exquisitely in a pas-
sage that has come to be a favorite for many.
For tbus 5aiJ th. l.oJ-J fY~bW([,] GOD, ri,( Hoiy Q,u of Im,.I,
/" m~f}li~;l' ad rf"I),,,,, !b~!1 i>< !a~rJ,
," ~U,(rr.t5> aKj i~ /rw,r ,)"dr br Jawr slr"'9' tb.
- 1>.1. 30: 15
232 C""tCllrs o} OU T61a,"nr/ Tlxorogy
The basis fo r true security, said the prophet, lics in a "rewm to Co<r-in quiet,
TC'laxed confidence in God's so"'ereignty, not in the feverish anempl 10 gain secu-
rity through military preparatton (cf. Ps. 46:8- 10)_
Excursus: Immmllul, God wjth Us
lsaiah's appeal fo r "the humble .... alk .... ith God; ho .... e~·er, is based on Cod's
promiSJeS of grace to David and Cod's choice of Zion as God's d ....elling place in ,he
midst of the people. This is evident from Is.uah'·s trea tment of the theme Immanucl
(Cod ....Ith us ). The theme deserves special trea tment in vie ....· of its imponance in
the Christian community.
The Immanucl prophe<:y IS found in a booklet (Isil_ 7: 1-8: 15) contained in ,he
first section of Isaiah . In the present arrangement of the book of Isaiah, it is con-
nc<ted immediately With the repon of 15aiah's call (chapter 6).
The passage n:l1ects a concrete hiSlOrical siruation in the life of the people, and
especi ally the royal coon. A few years after Isaiah's public minimy ~gan , encir-
cling forces of small nations-Ephraim and Syria to the nonh 1: 2 Kgs. 16:5-9) and
Edom and Philistia to the south (2 Chron. 28, 17-18)-atrempted to force the king-
dom of ]ud.1h into a military coalition for the purpose of stoppi ng Assyrian aggres·
sion into Ihe \o,'e$t. At that time. King Ahaz, a descendant of David, was on the
throne of }udah and was be.... ildered about what foreign policy he should pursue.
The dramatic account of Isaiah's encounter .... ith Ki ng Ahaz in the tense poUt.
kal crisis is ponrayed in a little passage in the prophet's memoi~ (lsa. 7: 1-17).
Holding his little son Shear·yashub ("a remnant shall return") by the hand. Isaiah
met the king as he was inspecting the water supply of the city. They met in the
vicinity of ,he Upper Pool near the Virgin's Spring (Spring of Cihon) on the east-
ern border of the city, from which a gentl}' sloping aQueduct- -the waters of
Shiloah that flow gently· {8:6)..-.<anied "'aler outside the city walls around the
curve of the hill of Ophel southward to the lO\.ier Pool. The spring supplied the
city ..... ith water. especially precious during a military siege.
~ ProPMt" WorJ
The passage falls into tv.'o parts: the prophetic word (7: 1-9) and the prophetic
sIgn (7,10-17). Christian reade~ are ap t 10 concentrale on the second part (the
sign). raising such questions as: Who is this wonder child] Who is his mother7
\X/hat is Ihe manner of the child's birth, How did the Hebrew word allllall, which
refers only 10 a )'OUnli' woman of marriageable age, come to be taken as a
prophecy of the Virli'in Birth (Matt. 1:23, cf. Luke I :27)1' These questions h.1ve
their proper place. It is important, howe ver, to conce nuate on Ihe rdalicl1sbiP
between the tv.'0 pans of the accoun t: prophetic word and prophetic sign . In the
Old Testament a fururistic sign, introduced by the formula #this shall be a sign
unto you: is given 10 conflnn a word of C od already spoken. T he word precedes
6. Th~", IS a $Jl«ial word In Hebre'" for ·~·i'gin· a..tb~~M. thoush it is nOI
Prophecy in the Davidic Tradition 233
the sign; the sign confirms the wo rd by giving it visibility and actuality-to those
who perceive in faith.
The prophetiC word was spoken inlo a situation of great political tension and
anxiety. "The heart of t he king and the people: so we read, "trembled as the trees
of the fo rest tremble in the wind- (153. 7,2). Ahaz, a weak Davidic king, was no
ma tch for the crisis. H is throne was at stake, (or the allies wanted to get rid of him
and put a non· Davidic prince, -the son of Tabed: on the throne of }udah (7:6)_
\ 'Ioreover, the crisis had a spiritual dimension: would Cod go back on the promiSJeS
of grace made to David {see the lament in Ps. 89:38- 51 )? The king, SlIffering a fail·
ure of nerve, was thinking of sending to Ass),ria for help, though at the expense of
making Judah a \'as!ia1 state of the empin:. (I n Ihe cnd, this is ,,-hat Ihe fai thless
ki ng did. according 10 2 Kings 16.)
Isaiah, however, saw the political crisis in the larger perspective of faith in the
Cod who sits enthroned as eternal King, before whom all the events of human his-
tory take place (cf. Ps. 33:13-1 7). Indeed, the prophet addres~ed the king in lan-
guage that reflects the practice of holy war. with the pTC'banle M oracle of salvation_"
As in other cases, this oracle began with Ihe admonition "fea r not" (lsa. 7:4; cf.
Exod. 14: 13,J osh. I :9) and continued with a summons to have faith in Yahwe h of
hosts. the Divine \'\!arrior. In this perspective, it was foolish 10 fea r small nations
such as Syria and Ephraim. whose political power ""as already exhausted, like a
burned·out torch. The "oracle of s.al\'ation ,~ which contains a play on words, can-
not be adequate!}- transl,lIcd into English:
i711 10 la alllitm If yoor faith is nOI ~nn,
I.:i 10 kalllmu you will not stand firm.
This may be paraphrased: "If your faith in Yahweh the King is not SlITC', your
Davidic throne will not be SCCUTC'." In other words, abandon human al/iaMt and
put your affiallu in Yahweh, for no conspiracy of nations can prevail against God,
who has chosen the Davidic king 10 be his son and Zion to be his holy hill (sce
Ps. 2:4-9). lsaiah's call for humble faith is akin to the great p!ialm concerning the
cily of Cod. which echoes wilh the refrain "Yahweh of hosts is with us; and
which reaches a climax in the oracle addTC'sscd 10 the militaristic natio ns to cease
fre nzied military action and know the God who mah-s wars to ceasc.
lr! b. tb... , U~'lI thall ... 1I c.,J,
hogb Cvtf tlv Mlio"l. bogb a;",,>t t},( t.1r1h
-p~ -1-6:10 (NEI:I)
Or as the Je wish translation (N)PSV. \'. 11 ) reads:
DtsilU Rd,I( Ih.!l JJ'" Gdr
I J~",ill'l ~ Ibt KatiDH5,
I Jomin.1l, ,bt I~tlb.
Isaiah's counsel to relax (Mlet be") and walk humbly "'ith Cod had a certain
usW he", political wisdom. At the leye! of pr.lgmatic POli lics, Ihe prophet offeTC'd the king
234 Gn:1t>11" of ()I.i T"~1"""! Tbrol"!iY
a hel pi ng hand by trying to prevent hIm from engaging in a suicid al foreign pol.
icy. He urged the king to avoid panic and 10 take a realistic view. for th e au ack ing
kings were weak incumbents who had almos t exh aus ted their resources. There: are:
times in politics, to ech o the words of an American presiden!. when "the oni}'
thing to fear is fear itse1f_~ Isaiah's word ""as not a c all to politiCal inaction but to a
coolheaded realism in the immcdi.:lIC cmergency.
Isaiah, however, wa ~ mo re than a pragmat ic poli tician, fo r h is oracle of salva·
tion was ba~d on his vision oi divine transcende nce _D espi te the ir pretensions and
anxie ties, human beings d o nOI carry the burden of the world, Atlasli ke, on thei r
frail shoulders. T he dominion belongs to God, who is free to open up unexpec t~d
possibilities even wh en people find themselves in wha! seems 10 be a no·exit situ·
ation. Faith in Gods ove rruling sovereignty. then, liberates people irom misplaced
faith in human dlom to pla n, shape:. and con trol the fu lUre.
Thus the prophet put before king and people a question that is both realistic
and radical. Wha t is the basis of ultimate trust? Do people look!O the gen tly Aow·
ing waters o f Shiloah, whic h symbolize the silt!nt and inv isible power of God's
dominion i Or do th ey turn to the mighty wate~ o f the Euphrates. which represent
the imposing pride and power of cmpire ~ Isaia h c alls for faith th at transfers co m·
mitm~nt from wha t is huma n and transient to I" hat is absolute an d eternal: the
transcenden t Cod, Ya hweh th~ cosmic King. Those who walk humbly "" it h Cod,
the prophet declares, ca n face Ihe crises of life unafra id and can live to""ard God's
future-nol in the a nxi~ ty of mi litary preparedness but
-nOI in the anxiety of milit.J.ry preparedness but "in qui~r>es6 and cQflfidence~ (Isa.
30: 1S, quo ted above). Thi§ cantO relaxed faith in God'~ ovelTUling 5O'o'ereigmy is
also ellpressed in a ....·ell-known line from Ps. -16, e'o"<!n though the nations a~ In an
uproar of ",araoo violence, "Bc 5till, and k!lO"" Ihal I am God .~ (~"i. 10: sce above,
p. 231 ). The S<ime note is echoed in onc of our hymns, >ct 10 the beauuful music of
Jean Sibilius' Fi,,!andifl :
Ht ltili. my 10,,1: Ym<f GeJ u' iiJ "ndtrlakt
To g"iJ. I'" f"I"1(. as in ~!I(S p"st
Yo~r bo/lf. YOII. ";"'#(I< ,e let II(ltbi>:9 SbDU,
Ail "O'--~ m)'!tmOI/; !""II '" h-~hr al bst
& Jlill, Ill)' SiI~t 11,.: .''"III'!~,.J .-id! JI,II.b.c,...
7Jx Gmt..oo .M/cJ tIK- .-btlrhc J .....I! briw
(words by Kathenna von Schlagd, 1752 1
The prophetic word th at Yahweh would uphold the Davidic throne was accom·
panied by a sig n: in du~ course a Davidic heir to the th rone wou ld be born and
would carry the lofty thro ne name lmma nuel. signifyin g tha t "Cod is with us ,"
The holiness of God, however, transforms the mean ing of Immanuei, so that it
does not connote the comforting assuraoce of popular religion_ In a bold rc-versal
of the view that the D ivine Warrior fights for Israel agains t its enemies, th is
prophet declares that Gods ·~nc:mies" are God's own people_
Pmphc.;y in the Oavidic: Tradition 2 35
It is not easy to live in the prC$Cnce o f the holy Cod ·",·ho dwe lls o n Mount
Zion_" For on the -holy hill" Yahweh is performing a Strange wo rk (lsa. 10: 12;
28:22),' a work of judgment tha t is intended to purify thc city of God so that it
may be "the fa ith ful city, the city of lighteousness_~ The baby lmmanud will gmw
up in a time of devastalion (7; ]5· 171. bu t judgment is not God's last word; it is o nly
the prelude to a new beginning. A purified remna nl of the people will look to the
futu re wh en lmma nud will reign on the Davidic th rone (9:2.7). God's holiness,
accordi ng 10 this prophc t. is the manifestation of divinc judgment temper~d with
divine me rcy_God's judgment is inesca pable, yet God's mercy gives hope for the
future. This is the Significance of the sign of lmmanuci, wh ich was tra nsposed into
a new key in the New Testament.s
'TIt City of tbt Gnat Kill9 ~
In summary: the preceding discussion has shown that Davidic covenantal theology
was "genera ted" by C\'C ntS in the historical experience o f Israel. Both temple and
th ro ne were involved in Israel's attemp t to fin d a place in the sun and to fi nd secu-
rity in the political st ruggles of the anc ient !\"ear Eas t. Israel adopted a king "li ke
the nations· to find security in the emb.Inled co rridor of Canaan, where peoples
were vying for control. And Israel built a temple "like t he nations" in o rde r to wor·
ship Cod in th e mOljCStfc OITchitecrural style: of thei r neighbors.
These ("..-0 realities th rone and temple-were, however, vie""ed in myth ical
perspective. They belong to a metaphorical worl d as well as the real h isto ri cal
world_ T hat symbolism continued, indeed was reasserted more: emphatically, when
the Davidic monarch)' came 10 an end and Ih e temple o f Jerusalem was destroyC'd.
Ko longer did these institutions se rve , at least in part , an ideological purpose:, but
wefe meta phors in a pattern of srmbolization.
The D avidic king became a symbol and prototype: of the onc I"ho was to
come in order to introduce a new age of peace and justIce. The Davidic symbol -
ism finds powerful exp ression in the poem in \sa. 9:2·7 and in CL Christmas caro l
that echoes Isaia h's prophecy, based on a li.fre~nt h .century German folk song and
harmonized by Michael Pr::Letorius ( 1609 );
Le, bo.rt a R~ t'" HOOIII'''!J,
from I...J" lIe- b.otb s.~I'~"'i:
Of imil liK''-I;J,c'''''i~
As.-. of"u hart I~..g_
/I r~ .. ~. ~ Jio~~',,: bnghr.
A.. iJ I;,,(old of winllr.
l\1l!t" b,'!f !pmt """ lbe "'!1hl_
7. On (h~ ~,~S ,,!im~.. see above, chapler 6_
8 5« furthcr my ~lodl' -God "" ,!h Us.-In Judj:,'mt-nt lnd to :-. krcl' The Edi(ori~1 S"uaur~
of I..,iah 5-1 0 ( 11): in Ca~~,,- TMD!CY)'. ~.u OIJ T"'I<!""'ll~ rrt.,::,~ ElSoI)'I'" Ho_ QJ BrrNrJ S.
O,'i.h. <"<I. GeIK ;\1. Tucker. D~"id l. Pcterwn. and Roben R. \'(',6on jPt\l laddphil: Fomrs.
Prrss (988 ). BO-----I 5
236 COMIOWIl oJ OM Ttsta>lO(rlt Throl0Jl7
The temple, established on ~'Iount Zion, became a symbol of Cod's presence
in the wo rld, as in the powerful poem Ps. 46:4-7. Th~ temple symbolizes Zion. the
ciry of God, wh ich representS God's dominion on the eanh. as in Augustine's great
work, Tbt City Clf GoJ. The symbolism of Z ion is also used in John Ne ...·ton"s hymn
PART III
( 1779), TRIALS OF FAITH
Giori&lll thi~gl
of tbtt ,m ,pob, AND HORIZONS OF HOPE
Zi~~, Oty of o~r Gd.
GaJ u'oo,.. "'~rJ C""Mt '" bmh...
jomro/ It Jor hIS O ~'" ~boJt.
Today Jews say prayers at the Western Wall, an archite.::tural remnant of the
ancie nt temple: and Christians \' islt the Holy City and its sacred places. These
All this has come IIPOIl liS,
people, jf they read Scripture ",-ith poetic imagination. move beyond the prose of ytt we have II0t forgotten you.
history into a metaphOrical world ""here David"s thro ne and [he Jerusalem temple
or beel! false to YOllr COVfilaJlI.
are powerful symbols of God's dominion in the cosmos and huma n history.

Brcallse oJ you we are beiHg kiIlrd al/ day 101lg.

a/ld accol/nted as s11eep Jor the siallg})ter.
PSAL\I 44:1 7. 22
,
-

27 . THE CRISIS
OF COVENANTAL THEOLOGIES

We have foulld that three covenantal perspectives govern much of the literature:
of the Old Testament; the Priestly, the MosaiC, and the royal. In major bodies of
Scripture each of these is associated 'w"ith an outstanding figure: the promisrory
covenant "'ith Abraham and Sarah! the covenant of law with /I.·loses, Miriam, and
Aaron, and the covenant of dynastic leadership with David. It is too simple to
think of these covenants as belonging exclusively to a particular period or "dis-
pensation." To be sure, in the Bible they fo!lo\,r one another in historical seque nce,
(he Abrahamic covenant was instituted in the ancestral period; the Mosaic
covenant in the time of the exodus and the Sinai sojourn ,- ,md the Davidic
covenant at the beginning of the united monarchy_ Whcncvcr and howcver each
of thcsc paaerns of symbolization arose, we should th ink of them as running
alongSide of each other during most of the biblical period, like [he trajectories of
three jet plilnes whose jet streilms pilrall cl cach other in the course of fl ight.
In the Old Testamcnt, thcn , wc find a thcologicill pluralism. The situation is
similar to the New Tcstamcnt, whcre we find diffcrcnt christological perspectives;
the apocill yptic perspective of Mark, the S<llviltion history view of Luke- Acts, the
Logos christology of the Johannine literature, or the Pauline theology of divine
grace. Just as there is chrisrological pluralism in the New Tesument, so there is
theologicill diversity in the Olcl Testament.

Tile fnt(rrdatioll.hip of the COVI'JJalltS

In the Old Testament, pluralism does not ilrise out of intelb::tual differences or
partisan strife, as is ohe n the cilse in mode rn societies; rather, it is rooted in the
fu ndilmental experience of the holy God in the midst of the people. Each of these
cove nilnl perspectives nuances t he God-human relationship in a different way,
" 'ith a distinctive symbolic vista. Hence all of them are necessary to express God's
relation to Israc:1, human beings, and the world. If one of them were lacking, the
richness of biblical theology would be diminished. Each covenant has i~ place in
the economy of God's saving purpose.
Also, these covenantill perspecti\'es-as we have seen again and again-give
W
expression to cenain polJr ities (Fackenheim; "dialeclical contraclictions that are
)

inherent in the experience of Ihe presen<::e of the Holy One in the midst o f the
people_ For instance, in the Abrahamic covenanl, we find the polarity of the uni-
versal and the particular. The C od whose sovereignty is un iversal chooses to enter
into relationship with a particular people, the clescendants of Abraham and Sarah.
The Mosaic covenan t evinces the polarity o f divine sovereignty and human free -
dom . The Cod who is the Sole Power, who is praised as God Almighty (El
Shaddai, Gen . 17: I}, calls human beings to responsible freedom. And the Oavidic

covenant deals ..... ith the pa ....dox of di"inc transcendence and divine immanence.
The Cod who is transcendent or -far off' is also immanent or "near." tha t is, sacra-
mentally present in the temple and graciously manifest in t~ rule of the Davidic
king.
Further, it is wrong to segregate the covenants from eac h other, on the suppo-
sition that the)' are independent or even antithe tical. Some theologians \o,· ant to
separate the !I.·\osaic cove nant from the Davidic cove nan t, on the supposition tha t
the: latter is a "fall from g ....ce.'· or in sociological tenns, a lapse: into ide:ology.1 It
may be difficult for 11\ to integrate thc:sc: covenants, but those who have given us
the: Scriptures in their tlnal fonn apparently pt':rceived no fundamental incompat-
ibility. The covenants are interrelated. and interact with each other, adding rich-
ness and depth to the scriptural pr~nlauon . J
COll'lblr.ation of Abmh-... ",ic wilh AIOS<I:C Cot>('l.1nl
To recall onc: eXilmple .. the Torilh in its final Priestly ve rsion emphasizes the ever-
laSting covenant made: with Abraham. but in tandem with this covenant goes the
l"'losaic covenilnt, i1S evidenced by the insertion of the book of Dc:tJteronomy inlO
Ihe Torah story just before the: death of '...·lose5. In this cilnonical COntext. the
/I.·losaic covenant is included within the Abrahamic covenant: it is, onc might say,
an extension or c:laboration of the obligations of the people who are: embraced
-- within the Abrahamic covenilnt. Before: Isr.lc:l was a people, before: they decided 10
accept the covenant obligations at Sinai, they were already embraced within Cod·s
covenant of grace. Accordingly. the Priestly narrato r says, on !he eve of ,he exo-
dus. ,ha! ~God heard their groaning. and God remembe~d his covenant ""·i ,h
Abraham. with lsaac. and Wi th Jacob" (&00. 2,14). In hod. 6 :2·8 the: Priestly
wmer inte rprets the deliverance Irom Egypt as a fulflllment of the promise of the
Abrahamic covenant. Hence this covenantal sequence shows the pre:venience of
God's grace. Cod tak es the initiative to be involved with the people even before
the people see:k God in their distress.
Combiml!ion oJ Mo~i( u,ilb D<ll1i3i( Ccvtlmll'
We have also found that two covenants are: combined in the Oeuteronomistic his-
tory. h is on the basis of the Mosaic covenant tha t the historian explains Israel's
history of failure, rewlting in the fall of !he nation in 587 8.C. Through a series of
prophets, in this 'iic:v.', God appealed to the people 10 exercise their freedom
responsibly and to be fait hful to the cove nan! obligations (l Kgs. 17: 13·14). They
refused to lislen to prophets 1ike /I..-tosc:s: however, and they suffered the conse·
quences. In this theologicill perspective, the tragedy was all their fault : the curse:s
of the covenant fell on them.
1 Sec ,,""arks by VoTE" M~nd.,nhall . Norman Gonwald, and Walt.,r 8rueg8~milnn men-
flon.,d in ch~pl.,r 18 31x»·~ .
:2 5« Jon D. ....".·~nson . "'"The Davidic (ov.,n, nt and Its :"·lod~m 1nl.,... .,.IffiO,· CBQ", 1 ( 1979)
2(15- 19
The (risi$ of Cov.,nantal Theologies 24 1
Ye t running through Ihis hislOry of tl4~dy, like a bright thread, is the: Oaviruc
co\'enant of leadership--an e\'enasting covenant thal stresses Cod's absolute com-
mitment 10 the line of Oa\'id. In his ~Oeuteronom ist ic prayer," on the occasion of
the dedica tion of the lemple, Solomon begins by in\·oking lhe Davidic cove nant:
o LORD [Yah",.,h]. Cod of Israel. there is no God like you in heaven ~bove Or on
eJrth b.,ncath . keeping covenant and ~teadlast love [!;r>tdl for YOIIr servams who
.... alk before you with all thCl r hc~rt . ... Therefore, 0 LORD [Y~ h .... eh J, God of
IHad, k«-p for your serv3nt my father D~"'id that which you promised him. say·
ing. 1nerc shall m:llcr fall you a successor before me to S;t on .he throne of Israel.
if only your childr~n look 10 .heir .... ay, to walk be/or., me as you have walked
before me:
-1 Kgs. 8:23-35
Solomon concludes the prayer (l; ke many pra),ers it was acrua lly a speech to God)
by appeilling to the Mosaic tradition:
le. your eye<> be: open to the plea of your S<'rvam, and to the plea of )·our people
hrae1. l i ~.ening to lh~m ",hellcver they call to you. For you h~"e separated them
from among al1 .h., peoples of Ihe eanh. to be }'our heritag.,. just ~s )"ou promised
through Moses. )·our sc ....·anl, .... hcn you brought OUr ance<>!ors OUt of Egypt. 0
lord IYahweh] COo.
- I Kgs.8..52·n
W'hen th is history ends. w ith a picture of a Oa~·idic king receiving hospitality in
the court of the Babylonian emperor. there is a him that. despile the fa ilure of the
people as explained by the j\·\osaic covenant. Cod will nOI finally go back on the
promises of the everlasting CO\'enant wi th Dilvid.
Co",hi",,(iOJl oJ D<lpidic wifh A'IOSlfi( Cot'tll<l"1
The in teraction of covenant perspectives is also evidenl in the case of roya l theol-
ogy. Cod's unconditional covenant with Oa\'id is qualined by the condi tional "ifW
of the t,.·1osaic co\'enant, so !hat if kings misuse the powers of their ofnce, thereby
ignoring God's "decrees: they will be punished (2 Sam. 7: 14).
If YOll' SOIlS 1or!1' "'Y cOPt><an!
d..J "'Y dtnrts 11o.>! f sr,al1lta,& cbm,
cbrir ~.J also. f"'M"..ort,
,Nil sit "" YOII. tbr"O!<t.
- Ps. 132:12
Further, we have found Ihal the Chronicler's history, which bypasses exodus and
Sinai an d comes immediately to God·s election of Oavid and of thc:Jerusalem tern ·
plc . throws great emphasis on the hala kic or statutory side of "the torah o f
("loses."'
3. s.:.:: the previous d''iCUssion. CNop.C' 15.
242 C~" IDUr5 of OU Tt,w,"",! Thtclog?
of D<lpidi<: to Abrahillllic CoV(nl/"t
Rd<lIiO-11
There are affini ti e~ and differences between the Daviclk ancl Abrahamic (Priestly)
covenants. For one thing, both are regarded as cove nants in pe rpe ruity (eve rlast-
ing cove nams) becaus.c they are grou ncled not on the charaCler or behavior or the
covenant reci piem but on th e freedom and grace o f God_ T he theological intern~­
lationship o f these covenants is evidem, for in5tance, in a passage in Ezekiel tha t
a t~rr. it ~'''' u·rJl.
combines the future "everlasting cove nant with David with the promises to th e
ancestors ancl to Cod's tabernac1 ing presence in th e midst of th e people.
They shall li"e ill Ihe land Ihat I gave to my ,ervan t Jat:oh. in which your arn:e5lOrs
lived, they and Iheir children and Iheir children's children shallli"e Ihere forever,
and my servant David shall b<: Iheir prince fore'·er. l ..... ill make a covenant 01 peace
with them, it shall b<: an evert. sting co'<enant "'ith them; and I wi ll bless Ihem and
multiply them. an d wi ll set my sanctuary among I;,em fo reverrrn:>re. My dwelling
place shan be wi th them, and I will bo: th<:ir God. an d they ,hall he my reopl <:.
- Ezek. 37:15-17, d. 16,00
A purpose of the Oaviclic covenant, ,)S can be seen from this pa55age. i5 to
establis h a line of kings. the Oa\'id,c dynasty, ,,,hile the Priestly covenant legiti-
males "an everlasting priesthood" {hod. 40: 15.- Num. 25, J 3), that is, the pri estly
succe55ion of the line of Aa ron (Exod_ 40 : J 5 ).
Suffering as a TIleo logical Problem
Thus Israel's historians in terpreted the story of the people by referring to the
covenants associated with Abraham. !I.·loses. and O,)\·id. But even when combined
or interrelated. theSt: covenantal perspectives proved to be- inadequate to under-
stand the suffering of the peopk . wh ich reached its height in the fa ll of Jerusalem
in the sixth century B.C.
An illustration of lhe problem is the case of goocl Ki ng Josiah , whose reign the
Demeron omistic historian treats favorably in 2 Kings :22- 13 . In 62 ( B.C. he cJrTied
OUl a great re ligious reform based on a "book of the law" (probabl)' the substance
of Demeronomy ) that \"a5 founcl in the temple cluring renovations_ Josiah wanted
to strengthen the nation religiously ancl perhaps res tore the Da\'iclic empire. &1I he
was the victim o f a tragic event. In 609 S.e. Pharaoh N echo, king 01 Egypt,
maKhed his army north\,'ard to support Assyrian allies. who were th rea te ned by
the rise o f Babylo nia . Jmiah tried to intercept Necho at the pass of Megiddo. bm
lost his life in the bank ( 1 Kgs. 2) ,18-30).
Thl: military accident seemed to defy explanatiO n_After all , Josiah was a great.
reformi ng Davidic ki ng . supported by the promises of grace to David. H e did
everything in his power [0 re5tore the country to the clemancls of the l\'\osaic
covenant, which was the religious purpose of the great refonn of 611 II.C The
prophet Jeremiah. who was crilical of royal mi ruse of power, hacl a good word to
say about Josiah. Mourning the dea t h of )osiah, Jeremia h saicl that th e reigning
ki ng, Jehoiakim, should have emulatecl his fat her.
The Crisis of Covenantal Theologies 2 43
AT< )"0" "king
brc"~sr y~" '''''''j">rIt i.. aJl/o
!Jid "~I )"Dur f"lh" ,,,I ,mJ Jri"k
Q"J Jo jIlsrict ~nJ rightMlSNI!:i}
7hn ;t ~'~s "" il rm!h him .
H, jU'/;I,d ro" (,,,I>, 4 rht poor ~n,i ><al)",
I, ~~r 11,;, to b,~~~ ",,'
1<1)"\ rh LORD { ~;'b'th1
- .I"T_21,15 -16
The fin al tumultuous decacles of the Southern Ki ngdom of Juda h forced on
Israd'5 interprelers the question of why bad th ings happen to goocl people, to
recall the title of a wel l-known book. 4 Goocl King Josiah was dead and the peo-
ple were in mourning. The nation was crumbling and ho pe fo r the future was
eclipsed_ T he fall of Je rusal em was not only a natio na l tragecly but a personal
tragecly for many innocent indi\'iduals, from the king to the ordinary citizen. It
was a (fisi5 for any covenant theology that affirmed that the holy God was pre s-
ent in th e miclst 0/ the people . T he sufferin gs of t he t ime not only stra ined
covenant theologies but lecl inevitably to the question of theoclic)", Nthe justice of
God: As we have seen, Ezekiel had 10 cope wil h the question 01 Cod's fairnes5
(Ezek. 18:15 -29,33 ,17-20/; and the question o f Cocl's justice. ra isecl by Abraham
on t he eve o f the holocaust o f Sodom ancl Comorrah fCcn. 113:23 -21), hovers
over th e whole scriptural tradilion.
}sGod lI'ilh US)
Thus the problem of suffe rin g- some would call il the problem of evil- precipi-
tated a crisis in covenant theology. The major co\·enantal patterns of symboliza-
tion, we have seen, give e xpression to Is rael"s sense o f the holy: ~the Holy One in
your midsl." Yet this basic testimony to Cod's presence in IsrJe1's midst was put to
a severe test in the period of inte nse suffering and social dislocation that began
wit h the fall of Jerusalem in 587 R.e. This tragic event cut inCisively into all of
Israel's covenantal perspectives, intensifying the question Ihat was ra isecl by mur-
muring people in the wilderness: "Is Yahweh present with us or noON(Exod. 17:7).
Much o f the literature of the O ld Testament. at least in its fi nal form , bears the
im press of Ih is historical tragecly. T he Priestly Torah, which streSse5 the
Ab raha mic covenant, was given it5 final fonn cluring the exile ancl, with
Deuteronomy aclded. was substantially the book of /I.· loses that became th e con-
stitutional basis of the restore d community uncler t he leadership of Ezra and
Nehemiah_ Also the Deuteronomistic history ...·as addressed to people who had
experience d the shane ring events of the destructto n of Jerusalem ancl th e exile of
important elements of the population. Prophets like Jerem iah ancl Ezekiel were
4 Rabb i Harold S_ Kushn~ r. 11'btY. &J n""g. H,,~,'''' :~ God p",~1t (Ne'>\-' York, Schocken.
198 1).
 -
244 Conlmi" of Old Trstm_enl n,wlogy The Crisis of Covenantal Theologie'5 245

10 intcrp~t
N
called these events. and even the book of Isaiah. in its hnal fann, "face (presence) of Cod is hidden or, to echo the title of a book by the great
refl~ts the suffering entaild by the loss of temple and homdand . Just as the exo- Jewish philosopher 1'\1artin Buber, the time of Nlhe edipse of Cod."
dus was the crucial event of Israd's past, so the events of the fall of Jerusalem and
the destruction of the temple of Zion were impressed deeply on the memo!)' of the
people. The Catastrophe marks a division in the Old Testament between Npree xilk" Failure of Coamall! Theology
and · postexilic" It is striking that some psalms show how a panicular covenam p~ rspective
becomes the basis for lament. Psalm 89 is a good exampl~_ Earl ier, \"hen dealing
Whrn thl F<la of God ls Hida", with Oavidic covenant theology, we noticed that the nrst part of this psalm (V\'.
The moumful poems found in (he book of Lamentation5 poignantly express [he 1-37) is a song of praise to God for the promises of grace to David 6 EchOing
50rrow over lhe destmction of the ciE)'_ The poet ra ises a dirge,
Nath;m's oracl~ to David in 2 Samuel 7, the poet decla res that Cod has made an
HaUl i""dy "I, rb( (ill absolute commitment and will not go back on it, even though particular kings in
o} p",pIt,
1h.:.1 OCC/ !l'~i full the Da\'idic line may fail in office , Confidence in Cod's fait hfulness (lxs/d) prompts
Ho", iik, ~ wiJO!l"he hill breo"" ,
the poe t to look beyond the insecurities of history to the cosmic realm ",here God
:sJ" Ib! 11'," g,,~r """""9 IHI ""tiar-\{
is enthroned as ru[~r. The social order, according to the poet, is grounded in the
Sht Ibat W,II ,1 p";"cm amor.g tt... pm~;r.e".
h,,, b,com", ""f>,,1 cosmic order, in Cod's right~ousnes~.
- lam. 1; 1 rb, ja" ~J,'r"-'r. 4 )'C'"' r[,rv~.,.;
Ri9ht(""s~r;s ,,~J i~,lia ""
The city of Zion is in shock, ltMJjalliwr ~nJ j"itbf~l"m go b.j"" )'''''.
- Ps. 89,14
Look <l~J Sf<
if tbm: i, m,y "'",,"' lil« '"Y lono.'. Th~ ~cond pan of the psalm, however, is a poignant lament, raised during some
whicb Wa; braltgbl U/XJn '"', political <::a tastTophe, that calls into question Cod's dominion manifest on eanh
",bieb tb. Lmw [Yah~bl iM)ii't,J through th~ rule of th~ Davidic king:
"" r[", Jay of h" fi.m "~9t"
- Lam. Ion

Yet in spite 01 suffering that ~em~d to eclipse the sovereignty of God. these
LarJ [Y"b~",b J ~,bcrr IS y""r ,tr"d!all I~", [ hesed] ~! olJ,
moum~rs stubbornly trusted in Cod's faithfulness. Running through the doleful
<.?htfh b)' )'0"' jaJthjw/r.rs, )'OW '~'{"I' 10 Dm~J'7
p=m5 in the book 0/ Lamentat ions is an unshakable confidence in Cod's "m~rcies« - Ps_89046. 49
or !ne;} (faithfulness )_The popular evangelical hymn, · Creat Is Thy Faithfulness:
is based on one of the laments of the book of lamentations, Also the lI,'\osaic covenant provides the basis for the powerfullamem of Psalm
44_ Th~ poet reca115 Mthe faith of our ancestors" (as wc do in a hymn by that
11, ,rwlJ.m iopr oj Ihr LORD[ i'"h"h] _:rH" C""" ,
ti!l~)-the wonderful stories that parents lold about Cod's saving acts in the past,
his ",,,,:r; ~'''.,- CO"" t~ dJ< (lld,
11,,), "Tt r.IW n'l,)' "orni~g, But JUSt look at the pr~5e nt distress of God', people' Th~ po~t complains that "you
j'mlt i, yow, J.,,'!hjul~t>s. have rejected us and abas~d us . __ you made us tum back from th~ foe. _ . you ha\'e
- Lam. 3:22 -23 made us like sh~ep for slaught~r . .. you hav~ mad~ us t h~ taunt o f our neighbors~
t-'Ior~ over,the book of Psalms, which in it<; iinal form comes from the period (vv. 9---13 ). The munnuring continu~s,
of (h~ Second T~mple (rebuilt ca. 520---515 B.C. ), reAects the historical tragedy, All lb.; h~1 c<mt( ~~on ~;,
Two-fiflhs of all the psalms are laments-poems in which persons of faith cry to )'rI "''I ba('l ~ol for9~ltrn )W,
God dr proJmdis, out of th~ depths of distress, "/I.·ly Cod, why hast thou forsaken or brrn fal" to ya~r CO}l"",1~1
me?" (P5. 22: I, KJV) o r "0 lord, how long ...·ilt thou hide thy face from me;;" (13,1 ,
KJV). ! T hese lame nts, like those of Lamenta(ions, come from the time when the &c,,"" of you "" "re b,,'~g Idl,d;>lI Jay f""g,
.,r.d ""O~"t,J '" ,her" foT tb, slawg),l". .
5. For the lheology of lamerlt . see my .rudy g uide, Out of t/" Drptb! (PhiladelphIa . We-<;lmin,ler,
1983, r~.... cd. forthcoming, ]0(1)), Chaptc r 3, "The Tria l, of Faith " 6. Sec aC1(we. ch.pt .. r 23.

Ra,,,, y",wdJ! Wby J" y"" .Ia/>. 0 uml [y~m,.tb]/
;b",kr' Do ~ot ca;1 ~, DJ! j am'!','
\'Ihy Jo y ou bid, y""r Jaw
Wh)' do y <1" jorgr! ou, 4fiictio" aca opp rm;cm'
- Ps. -UoI 7-14
Here faith in the Cod of rhe covenant is strained, almosl to the breaking point.
Experiences of suffering seem to indicate that Cod does not pay atlention, as
thoug h Cod were "asleep" and must be "awake ned - In his great book Tk P,opbrrs,
Rabbi Abraham JO'ihua Heschd quotes some of the poignant verses from Psalm 44
on the o~ning page, where he dedicatC5 h is srudy to the victims who perished in
the Holocaust?
I, Sujfrrin9 Dmrvt'J p~"j,bmmll
The theological crisis expressed in th ese laments called into question the hmda -
menta l premise of covenant theology, whether Abrahamic, I\·\osaic. or Oavirlic.
nameh', tha. suffering is deserved punishment for sin or failure. This is the dom i-
nant interpretation of suffering in the O ld Testame nL J esus was once tested on this
question, as bystanders recalled the collapse of a tow er that killed several people
(Luke 13:4 -5). Did that accident show Nthat they were worse offend ers tha n all the
others living in Jerusalem;:" Jesus re fused to be drawn into the question of why
innocent people suffer. but his an",,'er, '" I tdl you, nor" rd ut es any explanation
based on the simple dOClTine of retribution-that suffe ring is punishment for sin ,
All the prophets, whate\'e r their view of God's covenant with the people,
agreed on one poin £: the suffering;; of the prC5e nt age are traceable to a defect in
Israe1"s will . to a misuse of freedom, to cove nant infiddity. Isaiah said that Yahweh,
like a parent, had nurtured children who proved to be rebellious (lsa. I :2-31.· suf-
feri ng would be purgative, re nning Israel's character:
I u,iil turn my }"",J ~g"inll y ou,
I wiil ~,"dl away yo~, Jrllls a5 u'ilb Iy,
mw mr.",,. ~!I yo~, _,Jioy.
A~J J ~"-J! mlorr Y01l' judg/s <1l ~r th!jint
~,.J Y"'" c",,"srlor5 <is ~I rh!
b!ginniMg.
AjlmDMd )'O ~ sb" J[ ~, ",Ula Ibt city of T1gbtro~11tt51,
tlx fairbful city
-lsa. I:15-16
Jeremiah told the people tha t the impend ing judgment of God was not an inex·
ora ble fate but the consequence of the people's false lifes tyle: "Your ways and your
doings have brought t his upo n you. This is your doom; how bitter it is''' Oer.
4: 13). In this perspective. suffering was a kind of shock treatment. intend ed to
awaken ~op l c to the crisis so that they might change their li festyle (i.e .. repen t ).
Ezekid turned the people's complaint aboUl God's unfairness back on themselves:
7 . Abr-aha m J Hcscrn,l , TIx Pro~lxr; (N~,,' Yor~: Har!"" & Row, 1962 ).
The Crisi~ of Covenantal Theologies 247
it is your ways that are unjus t, he said; the responsibility is yours (Ezek. 18:25.29).
Ca~t away from }'OU all th~ tr<msgressions tha t you ha~'e committed again">£ me, and
get youT5Clvesa new heart and a n"",' spirit' W'h y will you die, 0 house of Israel}
- Ezek.18,31
T his cove nantal inte rpretation of suffering is good as far as it goes. Actions do
ha\'e consequences-a point that wisdom tea chers also were driving home, as we
shall see . The truth o f this vie\</ is sometimes evident in family life, where one may
perceive . perhaps ""ith the help of pastoral counse1ing, tha t the sins of pa rents are
visited on thei r children. This truth may also be evide nt in social life, where peo·
pie experience the backlash of naillre because of a careless materialism that ignon:-s
"the c ry of the environment,NB or re ap th e social consequencC'i of a policy that
tu rns a deaf ea r to the c ries of [he poor. The qUC5tion is , howeve r, how far can one
go \"ilh the explanation that suffering is dC5er.'ed punishment for human failure?
We will face this question later, when dea ling wi th wisdom literarure, especially
the book of Job.
How Long, 0 Lord?
This question, typical of psalms of lamen t (e.g .. Psalm 13) was raised in various
ways by interpreters who sensed that a great ava lanche was about 10 sweep over
rhe la nd and destroy the Holy City and its people. It was raised incisively by th e
prophet Habakkuk. around the time of the battle of Carchemish in 605 !I.C, when
~he Babylonians asserted their claim to world power. This prophet. a contempo·
rary of Je remiah and Ezekid, shared the theological convictions of the previous
pro phets of j udgmen t; that !srael's sufferings were deserved punishme nt for sin.
Sranding on t hat th eological platform. however. he dares 10 expostulate with God.
His dialogue with God begins wit h a Cl)" of lament (cl. Psalm 13):
o Low [Y"h"",b]. Imw la~g sIMi! I cry jo, brip.
""J )'0" will ~ol I'-,Ir>t?
O r ~T)' 10 )'<1" 'Yi,,!r>tw"
a"J )'O~ will ~ol ,m>t'
l\fby do y~" m~h "" sa wr""'iJ~i~g
m:d look ~llr""b)rl
Drsj,uctiQ" ",,J vio!"'(t "'t biforr mc,
sInJI ,,"J (Ox(f>t(ia" ""st_
- Hab. 1:2·3
It is bad enough to see "vio lc:nce~ within the community of ISldd, where those who
widd power oppress the weak. But the prop het also sees vio lence magnifled [0 a
colossal world sCille , as evident in t he Babylonian ilnnies that sweep over the
world , scofn ng at every foruess in their way and boasting of . heir military power.
In this Question.and.answer dialogue, Habakkuk learns that God is doing a
surprising thing. for- believe it or not- Cod has "ordai ned" this world power for
S. :;e., P..Ioranson and K. tlut'l!an, ed~. , Th Cry 4 (b, f~air"" .. mr aM th: Rdn<M;,-.g o} Cbrill"",
( ,,,,l ,"r. T,,,J,lian (Sama Fe· Bear and Co,. 1984 (
248 Gmlou", "f Old T,,!.Jmn:1 Tkolol/Y Th~ Cris;; (If Cov~nantal Theologies 249
judgment. That, of cours~, is what previous prophets had been saying. like Isaiah. But tJ,.",( u,bo ",~il Jo, ,'" LOilil l Y~bwtb ] .""11 ""MP rhriT llmrgtb,
who described th~ Assyrian Empire as "'the rod of Yahweh's anger" with which Cod tkKy ,kll ",o~"t wp wi/" wingllih Mglts,
was perlooning the "strange work" of judgmem on Zion. Habakkuk agr~es-in Ibl)' ;l;~1I rlln alld ~ol '" <MaT)".
rbry ,h,di 1lo,,,lk nil,! Hot f"i~l.
part. Yes. Israel is culpable, but the punishme m does not fit t he cri m~ . The situa·
- lsa.4031
tion has appa~ntly gonen OUt 01 God's control.· for the invading force is like a
chaotic flood that overAo\"s the b,mks of God's purpose and obliterates all relative In the following pag~s , we shall explore this theme of "waiting for God in two M

moral distinctions. kinds of Scripture: torah that b l~ nds with wisdom, and prophecy that moves into
apocalyptic Bmh of these literary types deal with the ~mystery" or "secref of the
YOII' 'Yts arr loo />11'( 10 JxhoM roil.
dominion of God. But each represents a different approach to th~ mystery that, if
ad y~~ '4~~~! look o~ wro~gJo;~g,
known, would enable us to perceive how things hang together and the meaning of
wby Jo you look O~ th, trr"c"",,wI.
I'"
ad ~rr ,il",/ whm ",;ckrJ 'lJdlo~'
the struggles of human history. Wisdom explores the divine myst~ry "from bdow,w
that is, ITom the angle of human experience. By contrast, apocalyptic purports to
rM' ""'" rigbt,,,,,, thm 11,0"1
-Hab. I, 13 deal with th~ matter ~from "bo\'e; that is, in the perspective of the ~revelation"
(apocalypse) given to a prophdic seer.
On his watchtower of faith Habakkuk rece ives an answer to his prayeL \Xlait'
\'V'hat God is doing now is not clear, the present is a time when God's "face" is hid-
den. But in God's good time everything will become clear. ''If[lhe vision] seems to
tarry, waj~ for i(; in the meantime "'the righteous live by faith" (Hab. l:4b}--fai th
that holds on to God even when tim~s are troubled and the lig ht of God's purpose
is eclipsed (2:3 -4 ).

Wailing jor God

Habakkuk's dialogue with God did not answer the ques~ions_ Indeed, the ans\,·er.
"wait patiently for the Lord and liberation will come in due time," only strength-
ens the force of his initial question: "How long, 0 Lord?"-a qu~stion with which
apocalyptic prophets had to deal, as we shall see . BUI Habakkuk's prophecy pro-
vides a good introduction to literature of the postexilic period. when the inade-
quacy of the covenant explanation of suff~ri ng as des~rv~d punishment for sin was
tried in the balanc~ and found wanting. In the community of faith , p~op l~ I~amed
to wait patiently for God, like watchmen who watch for the morning.
I ...."il fo,tb, LORD[Yahu"h ). "')' Will ",,,;rl,
.. ~J '" hi, IlWJ 161'<;
"'y WIll u)ail! for a,r Lod [y"hu>rh]
""0"" tb"" rhoj, "''''' ~"" tch far rhe ..arn.;ng,
"'~"" th~" Iho,( ",6 ",,,rch f~r rbr ,"orni~g
-Ps. 130,5·6

Waiting for God is faith that turns to th~ horizon of the future in t he expecta-
tion that God will conquer evil powers and introduce C od's dominion on ~anh.
In the fast pace of the human race, runners-~ven athletic youth- may fall
exhaust~d,
 PART III
CONTINUED

A . FROM TORAH TO WISDOM

The teaching DJ the LORD is perfect, ,

rfmwing life;
The decrees DJ the LORD are endurin9,
making the simple WiSE;
The precepts of tile LORD are just,
rejoicing the heart;
The iustrucfian DJ the Lord is lucid,
making the eyes light up.
The fear of the Lord is pure,
abiding forever;
The judgmfllts DJ the Lord are true,
righteofls altogfthn,
More desirable than gold,
than much fine gold,
, sweeter than honey,
that! drippings DJ the comb.
PSALM 1907-\0 (NJf>SV, "" _8· 11)
 28. REJOICING IN THE TORAH

~v/.' have jOfllld Ihal the exile, and everything associated with it, was a t ime
,,,hen f;,lith was put to the lest. In the l ime 01 the eclipse 01 God, how do the peo_
ple of Cod live? How do they re ta in a ~nse of orderly community when powers
of chaos threaten to pull them apart' How do they find a way into the future when
the purpo~ of Cod is not d ear in the presenti What hol&; this people together,
enabling them to SUTVi\"(~ and giving them a sense of idem;ly and vOGltion7 Thes<:
were existential questions for the remnant reflned in ,he clUcible of suffering.

Gods TMchillg
One answer to such questions is given in Torah ob~rvance_ In a lime of change
and um:ertainty, whe n the foundations are shaking, the people are not left to grope
in an uncharted wilderness. For in the Tora h God has given guidance on the way
that they should walk (ba/ak, ~walk , go" ( Indeed, the Hebrew "Iord lomh, as noted
previously, means MguicLmce, instruction: and is so re ndered in the NJPSV (e.g.,
in the lorah psalms I, 19:7-1 3; 119j.
H,,~~)';\ the m~" ~'ho J,,,, ~otfolla",,,,J /I"
,,,..n,t! of 1;'/ U'i,ktJ,
ar wk."![,,, P~ !t, of sj"~/r:I,
or jo""J Ib , romf'."'y oJ l/x ,~I<)ln:f;
r~lhrr. l!.r ltaCb'''!I of Ik wrJ;J hIS J.I'gbl,
"roJ Ix ,tIIJ;" frullM,bing day ,,"3 "'ghl
- Ps. I , I (N)PSV)

[n the Mosaic covenant tradition, as we have seen, torah cannot be reduced to

ff
law. Torah bears witness to the root experiences: "the saving experience and "the
commanding experie nce" (Fackenheim). In one sense, torah is story. It is narrative
or haggadah. The !X'op[e tell an old, old story, "the st01)' of our lik"' But in
another sense, torah is commandment or ha lakah. At Sinai the people '>ay, "All that
Yahweh has spoke n we will do and we will be obedie nt" (bod. 24:7). The relation
of these two, haggadah and ha[akah, is inseparably dose. like Siamese twins_
In this comprehensive sense the Torah became the basis of the people's life in
the restored communit), of Judaism under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah
(ca. 400 R.e l_ Ezra's reading of "the book of the torah of Moses: according to
N ehemiah 8, must h~\'e been based on the Pent~teuch approximately in its flnal
form. later known as '"the flve books 01 {I.·10ses or, in rabbinical terms, Mthe flve -
flfths of the Tor~h . "

I . Th;$ " choe'S Ih" ljtl ~ of a chapleT in a book by H. Ri<: hard Ni.,buhr. Th 1\1",ni"9' of R=J~Ii,,~
( Nc,,' York· ,'\'lacmillan, 194)), chap . ].

Torab Pit:ty
$everal thi ngs happened in the course of the rransmisslOn of the Torah. First , torah
.... as writte n down, it became ~Scripture : In the initial covenant ceremony
described in Exod. 24: 1-1 I, Moses "(Old the peop le the words of the Lord
[ya h ....eh T (v. 3J. and then proceeded to write them down (v. 4) in ' the book of the
coven a nt .~ "t/riting down the torah gave it greate r pennanence. especially when
the text was scrupulously guarded and mcticulously copied. Above all, a wrinen
[ext calls for creative interpretation, as can be seen from the story in N ehemia h 8,
where the reading of the Tora h was accompanied by oral interprctation for the
purpose of giving "the sense. so th at the people understood the reading" (" eh .
8:8). In the New Tes tame nt. Jesus is portrayed as reading from Jewish Scripture
(the book o f Isaiah ) a nd giving an inte rpretat ion (Lu ke 4: 16-22).
It ....as the torah of Moses in ....'ritten fonn that prompted the sreat re fonnation
of Josiah. ba\Cd on the book of lorah fou nd in the temp le (which we have con-
sidered earlier). The wriHen torah was eve nrua lly extended to include the whole
Mosaic torah. refem:d 10 as #the book of Moses" in the C hronicler's hislOry (e.g ..
1 Chron. 25:4 ). In the modem period, this gave rise to controversial discussions of
"the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch." However, th e issue is not authorship in
the modern sense but authOri ty of a traditio n e ndorsed with the name and inspi-
ration of }"·Ioses.
Second. there was a definite shi ft of emphasis to th e halakic or statutory
dimension of torah. \X/e \Ce this already in the book of Deuteronomy, where
"co\'enant" is identilled with commandments (Deut. 4 ; 1 1- 14) and where the ark of
the covenant is regarded as a box COntaining the D e<alogue. J Also we have seen
th is shih in the Chronicler's history, ..... h ich. bypaSSing t he StOry of the exodus,
em phasi zes the ha labc side of the Mosa ic torah .~
Many Christians are Nrumed off' by the sreat emphasis on "aw" or ~command ­
ment" in th e Old Testament. Perhaps they are influenced by Paul, who many thin k
took a negative altitude toward Nthe law" (see h is d iscussion in Rom. 5: 1l·2 t).~
They are probably influenced even more by the individuali'illl of modern American
culture and the middl e-class understanding of freedom as "the absence of restraint
or ne<C'S5ity." So Viewed, TOrah is a heavy burde n. a suffocating "legalism." This pop.
ular view, however, con trasts with the lO r<1h piety representcd in the book of
Psalms . ..... here people take delight in God's comma ndments and declare tha t Cod's
torah "rejoices the heart," as stated in Ps. 19:8. Onc of the festi ....als of ju<iaism is
Si",bar ba"lorab , "Rejoicing in the Torah: "
The reason for this rej oicing is that, owing to the revelation of Cod's will in [hc
Torah. people do not have 10 Ih'e in a situation o f moral relativism, mak ing e th i-
cal decisio ns only on the basis of personal taste or cultural values. According to the
torah psalms (Psal ms 1. 19, 119), Ihe divine will t hat orders hum an lifc brings
2. See abo'"e. ch~p":r 19.
3. See abo-·e. chaptn J6.
4, On Paul's tRatmem of "d~ La,,·: s« ). C Ikker, P",,/ tbr Apc<:1t (Philadelphia: FonTeS'i
Press, 1980).
Rejoicing in the Torah 255
peace. heal th, and ....:holeness. To discern God's Will, howeve r, takes diligent study,
lo ng me ditation, and patienl prayer within the community of faith , Above all, the:
written torah must be read in the light of subsequcnt tradit io n, which hel ps to
intcrprct the meaning so thal people may understand. [n the Jewish community
the l\'losaic Torah IS read through the lens of the Talmud and rabbinical commen .
tary, in the Christ ian chu rc h it is read through the lens of the New Testament and
Christian tradition .
The book of Psalms, ohen described as the hymnboo k of the Second Temple,
opens wit h two prefatory psalms that \Ct the tone of the whole work.s Psalm 1 is
a beatirude on those ..... ho study the Tora h constan tly (Mday and ni ght); and Psalm
2 portrays the coronation of the anointed one ("Cod's son") on the holy hill of
Zion. These introductory psalms refl.e<t the Mosaic and Oavidic covenant tradi-
tions, shOWing that, in the view of the compilers 01 th e hymnbook, these [Wo
covenants belong together in Israel's praise of God.
The assum ption of Psalm I is that the revel ation of Cod's will is given in the
Torah in written /onn, and [herefore can be re3d and studied. The poem draws a
distinction betwl"en persons who del ight in Cod's Torah and who seek God's guid-
ance on the one hand, and, on th e o ther. the ~wickcd" or ~ungodly· who ignore
Cod's teachi ng. su pposing that they can gel along .....ell enough on thei r own. H ere
the issue is nOl separating people into -good guys" and "bad b'UYS: Rather a dis-
tinction is d rawn bet..... een those who hum bly seek 10 live by God's fC'Valed will
and those ..... ho, like the "fool" of Psalm 14 (Psalm 53 is almOS t identical), Jive by a
prac tical athe ism t hat prompts them to th ink that the)' can live as they please and
get a ..... ay with it.
Foo151<1)' '" 11xi, kmj" l1rn is "" CoJ."
TINy g,! ro",,~!, IIxy Jo "bo",i'~1!>i( JrdJ,
Ibm 1$ ~"I" u,!,o J"" good.
Tht LoRD [Y"bvth1 L:oob .1="" f.alll br"vtn Of'
_."lid
1<1 str if Ibtrc 11" 1111)' K>bo "" wi>t,
11'110 ~ "fin GoJ_
-Ps. 1,4;1 -1
Psalm 1 may be compared with t he similar poem in Je T. 17:5·8 that is struc-
tured according to th e sanc tions of cu rse and bleSSing of the Mosaic covenant.
On thc one hand. a curse falls on those who "truSt in mere mortals." "whose
hearts rurn away from Yahweh"J on the other. blessing is on th ose who put their
trust in Y<lhweh. This poe t also invokes th e image of a Ifee planted by a Aowing
stream .
256 COII/",m of OlJ Trst","ml Tbrol<>gy Rejoicing in the Torah 257
TI>ry d"lIl '" Ht n In'( f>I.;~ ld />y 1!',11/r, nor your anccstors were acquainted. in order to make you undCl>l<lnd that one does
s""J;~g "" I il, root5 by tbe lh'W"'. not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the loRD
It ,""'11 Hot 11"r II'htn bWI CO,",!, [Yahweh J.
ad itl Impr; Ihall st.:zy g""" -Deut.8:2-3
i" fbe yttlr of JrDIIght it JS ~ot an:>.iow,_
,mJ il Jo" "al eta" 10 bmr fruit.
- Jer. 17:8 Torah as a Soura of Wisdom
Above all, [he Torah is a source of wisdom. Therefo re devout persons can gain
Elsewhere in the book of Psalms a line is drawn lxrween two types o f people,
more underHanding than their teachers (a comfo rting Ihoughl') and senior per-
variously called the ri ghteous and th e wi cked , the proud and the humb le, the wi~e
sons with long experience.
and the foolish. As we ha \"e not iced in con nection with Psalm I. the di ~tincti on is
not based on intellige nce or social standing or, in the Arst instance, on conduct, o how I 100'1 Y""r rra(bi~i/'
but rather on humble trust in and reli ance o n Cod. Lest h uman bei ngs, who are all If is my s,,~Jy all Jay long . -
too prone to judge (d. Malt. 7, I ), draw the dividing line between the righteous Y<III' ({l",,,,,,,,d"""li m~h "" lDi~ Iball my t71l1rIirs,
and the unrighteou~ on the basis of their sta ndards or prejudice s, the poe m ends tb.ry ~ iu'a)'5 'la~J by m/.
I b~ty ga;~.J '"0" illlii/hl than ~Il my /c~chm.
with the declaration that t he judgment flnally belo ngs to God, who "knows the
jor Yowr Jrcrtrs art ",y stwdy.
way of the righteous~ {Ps. I :6}.
I bnty ga ;~.J ,"Ort w~J,rsf~..Jmg !b~r. my ,[J,rs.
for I obsrro, YOIIr prrcl'/J!5.
G:>ds Discipli/!e ~Ps. 119:97·100 (NjPSV)
The Torah, then, is Cod's gift, which gives life and light; therefore the proper
This quotat ion shows the very close relation between torah and wisdom. The
respo nse is to praise God for the Torah. Psalm 119, an acrostic or alphab etical
relation between torah observance and wisdom is one of the cenrral themes of
psalm 6-the longest psalm in the Psalter-is a sustained med ita tion on the Torah
D euteronomi c preaching:
as Cod's wonderful gift . Those who have the pa tience and persistence to read this
long psalm through from beginning to end will notice that the poet gives exp res· You mu~t obse rve [t he 5tatute"5 ~nd ordin~nces] di lige ntly, for this will show your
sion to experiences of suffe ring and hostility, and rai ses the cry. typica l of laments, wisdom and di;cemmem to the peoples. who, when they hear all these starutes,
110W lo ng must your servant e ndure" ( 1 19:84). will say, "Surely th is great nation is ~ wise and di;ceming peo ple!"
--Deut. 4:6
Aly ,e~J [b""9] l...:g~i'!.r; fer y<lll' ",I""lio",
I hop< ie yewr UJOrJ Torah and wisdom were increasingly men tion ed in the same breath. They are
Aty rye; fail u'itb w~t(b;~g f o, Y"'" pfO,"i~, closely associale d in a wisdom book of the Old Testame nt, Eccl esiastes (or
I a;k-. "11"'", ",ill you co",fort ,"0" Q ohelet),7 and are Virtually identified in [he W isdom of Ben Sira (or Sirach ), a wis-
- P~. 119081 -82 dom wri ting--quite like the book of Proverbs-found in the la rg er (Greek) O ld
Testament. g At one point the sage summarizes h is discussion o f wisdom:
In general, suffe rin g is regarded as Cod's way 01 "hum bling" devou t persons so
that they ma}' be brough t back to the righ t pa th (w. 67 . 75). Suffering . when All thil ill/x 1>00.1. of!ll/ COvt'M~t o} tlx AIo5t Higb Gad.
endured in faith , is God"s discip line or teaching; therefore, one should wait in I'"I..w that ,\fus.. c<mt"""ndd u,
hope through the long midnig ht of the soul lor the fulAllment o f Cod's promise (\". as "" inb.rit.:zll<;! for Ibl C0"9"r,gation of Jarob.
-Sir. 24:23
148 ). This teaching about God's corrective discipline is in li ne with Deuteronomic
preaching . Therefore. wisdom comes from meditati ng on the Torah:
Remember the long way that the loRD {Yahweh] your God has led you th ~e forty
years irl the wi ldcme<;~, in order to humble you. t~ling you fO know what was in
your heart, whether Or nOt you would kee p his comman dmcm~. He hu mbled YOll 7. Steven Bisho,", suggests that Qohelel atlempts to link wisdom and torah in such a way that
by letting you hunger, then by feeding you ""ith manna, with wh ich nc:ither YOll torah ,upe=des wisdom.
8 In Pro tesLan! tradition this book (""rilten Ca. 180 B.C. ) belongs to the Apoayph.; in the
6. Each eight-Hnc Stanza begins with a successi"e kucr of the He brew alphabet. Sce .hc Roman Cat hol iC CanOn it is regarded as ·deut erocanonjc~l: that is, secondary in the sens<: that it
aJr.lngcmem in NIV wa, added (0 the canon laler than primary canonical books.
258 COMtcllr:! 01 OM TIS'a~t "Tbrology R~joicing in th~ Torah 259

Rtfort or. tlu 5~tul<"S of I'" w,J. That saving knowledge, according to the second part of th~ poem (vv. 7- 14),
and mcJ;~I! al ail ~'..r; Of' &;1 is given in th~ wonderful ~vd atio n of God's will to the peopl~ o f God. The poet
co,","..,..J m",/' . testifies that in the Torah God has broken through th~ silences of the cosmos so
It;, '" w&o w,1/9i... '~lj9h/ ro yo~r mir-d. that peopl~ no longer need to stumble in darkness_ Sometimes these two parts of
and yo~r dlS;.cfa. wisdom will '" gmnld, the psalm are regarded as separate pieces (Ps. 19A, w. 1-6; 19B, w _7-14), but they
- Sir. 6,3 7 belong together, certainly in the fin al form of the poem_ For the order of life
It is significant that the Psalter. wh ich begins by praising God's torah, also re~u1ting from observance of the Torah corresponds to the order of creatio n based

includes a number of psalms that are usually classified a5 wisdom psalms (37, 49. on Cod's orde ri ng o f the whole- also a teaching of Israd's sages, as we shall see.
112, etL ). Torah ob5ervance e nables onc to find the good life, which is the goal of The hymn of I~aac Watts ( 1674-1748) expre sses this corresponde nce:
wisdom. The htaW1\ dcd~rr tby Slory. Lo.J,
I>: ...Jt.ry slar thy wi,J~m sb;""s,
TIn Well-Oraertd lift Blit ",/r", <'IIr ')".s b,bo/.:J thy WorJ,
The wdl -orde~d or "centered" life, which one may achieve through meditation on W, rrad I&y Namc in l~i.tf liu,_
and olxervance of the Torah, corresponds to the cosmic o rder that the Creato r has
ordained _This is the teaching of Psalm 19, take n as a whole.
The psalm comprises rn'o distinct pieces. The first part ('V'l_ 1-6j appears to be
an old hymn in praise of El, the ancie n! Semitic name of the high God, creator of
heaven and earth_ The poet affirms that the phenomena of the heavens, especially
the sun, are constantly proclaiming the glory of the Deity in a great anthem of
praise, inaudible to human ears. This theme is picked up in the great hymn of
) oseph Addison ( 1671- 1719) based on Hayd n's TIn Crtation , a hymn that reflects-
to the dismay of some- the Enlightenment confidence in the power o f reason 10
perceive God's ways_
Wb.ll Ibo' in sol",," .tlma alt
Mo... ,,,,,Hd tbr d~,* ~trial b~liJ
What tbo' M. rral oo;[~ no. >O<I...!
Am,d loo' radiaM/ orbs k f""ndl
1n "'""SOlI' liI. th')" aU rqoiu,
a~d ~t!a fOrih a glon'o u; DDie ••
Fo,!Vn" , ;r-g;ng. a, Ibcy I&itc!.
'"Th bnnd that ",ad. u, is div;"".-9

In Psalm 19, which reflects the ~un symbolism of the ancient Near Ea~t (sce
Akhenaton's hymn to the Aton, the sun d isk ), the celestial bodies praise the ir
C reator by functioning hannoniously in an orde~d \"hole. Some kno wledge o f
God is available to human wisdom through contem plation of the wo rks of cre-
ation (cf. Rom. 1:19-20 ), though not kno ..... ledge of God's will and purpose fo r
human life.

9_ Propo::rly "r~ason's tar" sfmuld connote ""ason that is inlorm~d by faith_ It is (00 bad that,
beau,," 01 En lightenment ration~lism, this hymn is droppo::d from some hyrnnboo\;s, wh~n oth~r
hymns. rdltcling modem philosophical p""...,ppositions, are inc luded (c _go. rhe ."",ision 01 ''Sing
Pni", to Cod ",ho Ro:igns Above" to "Sing Praist to God Ollr Highest Good" in the Nw C"""'Y
Hymu;1 [Oto.·elamL Pil grim , 1995], h)·mn 116) _Th~ viewof God as OUr Supreme Valu~ is quil~ dii.
!'erent from the view of divine <r~nscendence expressed in the lln""vi,ed versi on .

29. THE WAY OF WISDOM
Much DJ the literature of the Old Testament concentrates on Israel's pecul ia r
experiences of the presence of God, centering in the exodus a nd Sinai, and in Z ion
and th e Davidic king. The k.ey tenn is »coven a nt.~ that is, God's re lationsh ip to the
~ople, and rhe ~ ople's relationship to God. summed up in the fonnula, ~I will be
your God and you will be my people. n As we have seen, the rd atio nship between
the holy God and the people Israel is nUJ-need in several major patterns of
covenant symbolization.
Prophet Priest, and Sage
The wisdom literature , such as the books of Proverbs. Ecclesiastes. and Jo b, how·
ever, scarcely ment ion the charaaeristic them es of Israel's fa it h, the choice of
Israel, the covenan t at Sinai, the coming of t he Day of Yah",'eh, the temple as the
place of the divine presence, the messian ic king to come. Old Testament theolo·
gians have had d ifficulty rel at ing Isra el's wisdom literature to the Nmainstrcam" of
Israel's theological traditions. Some have gone so far as to say that wisdom is an
alien tradition that lies outside the realm of Old Testament theology.
Part of the problem is the difficulty of defining what is t he "mainstream." We
should probably think of several streams ronning more or less parallel with one
ano ther, and at times touching each other. From at least the period of the monar·
chy, sages had an important ro le as interpre ters of the will and way of God. In one
of Je remiah"s confeSSio ns, in connection with plots against h is life, it is said tha t
Dteaching 01 the law [lorahJ by the priest will not be los t. nor will cou nsel [r/sah ]
from the wise, no r the word [dal>ar] from the prophets" (Je r. 18: 18). This oblique
reference indicates that the sage had standing in the Israelite community along
with priests and prophets. T he task of the sage was to gi\'e God's "counsel" kINlb).
just as the priest interpreted God's torah Ue r. }:8 ) a nd the prophet proclaimed
God's "word" (Jer. 1:9 ).
Moreover, we have seen that God's IOTah was the source o f wisdom. T he inte r-
preters of the lorah could claim "we are wise, for we have the to rah of Yahweh N
(jer. 8,8 ); but Jeremiah insisted that the conflict between their torah and the
prophetic word of Yahweh resulted from a "lying pen," th at is. willful misinterpre-
tation. The implication of these passages from Jeremiah is th at ideally, when th ere
was no human distortion, priestly torah, prophetic word, and the sage's wisdom
well! authoritative for the commu nity, since all proceed from God.
Wisdom in the Royal (Ollrl
Wisdom has influenced all of Israel's covenantal traditions. but it is especially com-
patible wit h royal (Davidic) covenant theology. It is signi6cam that Solomon was
regarded as the sponsor of Israel's wisdom move ment a nd, indeed. the composer of
some wisdom sayings. In 1 Kgs. 4,29· 34, the historia n claims that Solomon wrote
1n
The Way of Wisdom 261
many proverbs and songs, and tha t his wisdom surpass~d all the sag~ of the
OrienL A<;cording to one rabbinical opinion, Solomon wrote Canticles (Song of
SongsJ. with its ponrayal of erotic lo\'(~ , in his youth; Proverbs, with its stress on
practical problems, in his middle age, and Ecc1esiastes, with its melancholy pes_
simism, in his old age. Making due allowance for exaggeration and the snow-
ball ing of tradition. Ihnc is no reason (0 doubt that Solomon took an active
interest in the cultivation of wisdom in Israel. If the priest functioned in the tern.
ple, and the prophet in the vicinity of holy places, then the sages were at home
primaril}, in the royal COUTI.
That being the case, it is not surprising to ~nd in the book of Proverbs many
allusions to the role 01 kings and princes. Indeed. the social order de~n ds on the
superior wisdom of the king. just as th e cosmic order reflects inscrotab le divine
wisdom.
It;\ I)", glory o} G.-J tocO),clal rh;',g,.
loullh, glo')' of h,,£/, i) IQ ,~arcb Ibir.gs 0111.
Lk" th. bm,,,,,, for )xighl. lik. rb, ,..rib for J,~th.
so rh. .. id of 1.;"9s is u~,,~rcbbl,.
- I'ro .... }5}-3
H ence it is impe ra tive to ~fear (he LORD [YahwchJ and the king~ (Prov. 24:21 ).
Wisdom ,md Social 5t.lbiiit)'
One thing that strikes the reader of the book of Proverbs is th at its wisdom say-
ings display concern for the stability of the social order. "By justice a ki ng gives sta-
bility to the lan d" (Proy 29:4); and by defe nd ing the poo r with equity his throne
is long enduring / 29:14 ). Familial values. transmitted through the teach ing of
mot hers and fathe rs. are to be cherished (e.g. , 23:22 , 25), and this means the
proper discipline of children i23: J 3-14 ). T he ri ghteous should be concerned for
the rights 01 the poor (29:7 ), but both "rich and poor meet together,' fo r "the LORD
[Yah\veh J is the maker of them all" (22:2). One should know the proper way to act
in (he presence of roleJ"!i and other superiors {25,6-7); one should no t attempt to
get wealth hastily. realizing that it is evanescent anyway (28:20. 22). Those who
want to be successful should avoid overindlllgence (23 ;20-21 ), be fa ithful to ~the
wiFe oFyollf you th" (5,20), work hard on the land (28: 19), and shun laziness (6:6-
I I), dronken ness {23:20-21 )' or u nw ise busi ne ss ventures (6: 1-5 ). In a well-ordered
and stable society. people should act in a manner beflning their station: rulers
should display justice toward their subjects; citi zens should show proper respect
for princes; servants and masters should show the proper attitude toward one
another; chi ldre n should respect theiT parents and preser,"e the fa mily heri tage. In
all situat ions (he virtues of prodence , self·control, and modesty aTe appropriate.
The counsel give n in the ,«Iisdom of Ben Sir;a (i n t he Apocrypha). the longest of
Israel's wisdom books, rons along similar lines.
These wisdom sayings lack the cutting edge of a prophet like Isaiah, who was
critical of kings and all who exercise power, and who sensed a conAict betwee n the
261 C""rwrs o} OU Tt,Ia",,,,( ThwlotJ),
cosmic dominion of Cod and the mundane order. The book of Proverbs give5 the
impression of social conservat is m, based on a concern for law and ordeL Eve n the
beautiful conclusion of the I::xJok, which praises the virtues of ~th e good wife« who
is "a crown to her husband" (cf. 12:4). assumes the patriarchal strucrure of anciem
Israelite 50ciety (3 1,10.3 1)_
5br Dpre, 1..- mD1<lb ~,jlh uljjJ~m,
and I)". If<IChmg o} kind".!> i; 0" htr lo"g~t
5bt IDo~ [l.~11IO I;'. U'a)'5 o} h~ bows,kld,
and Jots "01 f~1 !t·. hrMJ o} iJl!"m
H..- chiIJ"" ri~ w~ ,mJ ",,!I 1xr h~N'Y'
1...- bmb""J /00, lid l.r p r~il:rs be.,
"'\1.on)' Wo"''''' b"t~ J(JI>~ D:C!lIt1ltiy,
hI yw !~r»a!llhm ,,11_"
- Prov_ 31026-29
Even yet, some argue th~t family stability requires a subordination of the wile to
the husband, although this relationship----ideally at least- presupposes mutual
respect and love (cI_Eph_ 5;21 -33).
Theological ConCfrnS of Wisdom Litcral!lrr
Yet Proverbs, and rdated wisdom Ijt er~ture , also expresses important theologica l
concerns_ ! Roland /I.'1u rp hy, who has presented one of the best treatments of the
theology 01 wisdom literature, maintains that the wisdom perspective , which turns
to the realm of daily experience, belongs in the context of IST<lel's worship of God
~s creator and redeemer. To be sure, "the coven~nt relat ionship to the Lord does
not figure directly in the wisdom experience, it is b rack eted, but not erased.N2
let us consider hrieRy some of the theological dimensions of Israel's wisdom.
Th Fm, of tbf Lord
The proper place to begin is with the fundamental premise of Israel 's sages,
expressed in the recurring proverb:
fi. J/~r o} rht LOil.[} [Y~b""b] i. tlx brg,"",'r.g oJ u,i,JDm,
,inJ I'" i",,,,,!'!,Jg, of Iht Holy Q,:, i, insight
- Prov_9 ,1 0 Id . 107; 15033 )
In a poem found at the beginning of the Wisdom of Ben Sira, the fea r of the Lord
is extolled as ~fullness of wisdom, ___ the crown of wisdom, _. _the rool of wisdom"
(Sir, 1:1 1-30).
I. See, among orhers, Ronal d E. Clements, Wild"", m nrowg)" (Grand Rap ids- Ecrd man s,
1992}, idem, Wd"", J.". d o","9i~ Wo.U, Wi,J,,,, i" OU T.",~,",,,,r ThO)wgy (lkrkdey , Sina l, 1990)_
2, Roland !>.·lmphy, Ih: T... oJ LIt, Anchor Bible Reference Library (N",,' Yurk, Dollbkd..r.
(990), IN_ See hi~ discussion of "Wisdom Lit{'r.lrure and Theology: Chapter 8.
The Way of W,5dom 263
'" Fear" may not ~ t he best translation of the Hebrew expression, for in current
usage lhe primal)' dictionary meaning of ~fear« is ~emotion~1 agit~tion in the face
of d~ngeL" \'V'hat is meant here i5 the secondary dict ion~ry meaning: "extreme rev.
nence and awe, as toward a supreme power_« Here ~gain we come to the "ground
bass· of th e hol iness of God, discussed at the beginning of this srudy (pan I).
Reverem ial awe is the attitude that a person should display before God, the Holy
One, who is beyond the grasp of unaided human wisdom. Sm;h an attitude is the
inescap~bl e response to God's )udgmellls, but it is also the appropri~te response to
Cod's grace and forgiveness.
But rh", i; }orgi"",m ",,:h ya~ [Y"h.xh}
10 Ibm)'~ ""')' h. m,yrrJ {jr"",i]
-P~ _ 130 04
In the proverh that the lear of the Lord is the heginning of Wisdom, as
G erhard von Rad observes, 3 we have in a nutsh elll sr~eI'5 e pistemology or theory
01knowledge _ Knowledge does not l e~d to faith, but faith is the prerequisite for
understanding, The opposite of wisdom is no t ig no rance but foolishness_ The
fool gropes in confusion and stumble s ~cause of failure at the starting point of
faith .
Ht },,,, <>[ tlx LORD [Y~bwrb Jil tlx b'!ljMj~g 0.1 hou,[,Jg ••
}oo!, J~i'ilt u,isJo," m;J ir.-! t""tim<.
- Proy Li
This is the criterion for distinguishing between the wise and the foolish. the right-
eous and the Wicked, the good ~nd the bad , It should be added thal this wisdom
is not regarded as a human accomplishment or a sign of superior intelligence, blll
as a gift of God that, paradoxically, must be sought _
This faith is not "belief," if Ihat means assent 10 a body of doctri ne, but is trust
in Yahweh, the Holy One, who is known in Israel's tradition and worshiped in
Israel's cult (Exod_ 6:1·9; 34:6·8)_Doubtless, the use of the tetragr~mmaton (sacred
name, YHWH ) does not ha\'e any "imrinsic importance," as Rola nd Murph)'
reminds 115 ,' In using the sacred n~me , lslde!'S sages do not atte mpt to bring wis-
dom l i teratu~ into the come:'lt of Israel's covenantal history. Here the oft·used
expression "fear o f the Lord" means revere nce of God in a wider sense, reflecting
the imt"ntion of going beyond the limitations of Israel's experience, as in th e 50 -
called Elohistic Psalter ( Ps~ l ms 4-2-B3 ), which strongly prefers to use ~God"
(Elohim) Idlher than "the Lord« (Yahweh l. In wisdom literature the ~age reflects on
e\ieryday human experience , and is not limited to meditating on the Torah "day
and night" (Psalm 1),
The s~ge s' constant emphasis on "the fear of the Lord" prevents Israel's wisdom
sayings from becom ing pragmatic "secular" advice , in the modem sense, li ke
3. See Gerhard von Rad's excellent book, W~J~ .. in /"mi, tran~_ Jam..,; D_ I'-hrtin (Na,hvi lk
Abingdon, 19(2). 65- 73 _
-I ..~Iurph y, Tm.,f lif,. 126,
264 (""bars of OIJ T~I Tholo9,.
Benjamin Franklin's aphorisms. Th~ appeal for 11\151 in God and rev~renc~ bcfor~
Cod's ho1in~ss suffuses Israel's wi5dom with a religious f~rvor.
T.~!I in !IK LORD [ Yah....;,j ll'itb all )'IW.' Ix~fl.
anJ Jo not fily co: )'<'If' o~'" ~i9ht.
/" <l0":fi'll' !(Oayl ...::1o:awlr.l§t h.....
",,J lit u,;i! "",I., ;!,a,gbl y/J~r ~Mh!
-P.ov. ~ ,5· 6
P~ople h a\'~ understandably turned to th ~ book of Prov~rbs down through th~
ages. fi nding in it the language to exp~s a fai th that sustains them in everyday life.
Livillg i" H"mol:,. with Ihr DioH;( OrJer
Again, Israel's sages sought to discovn th~ divinc order tha t is built into the very
nature of things and with wh ich human lif~ must be in harmo ny if one is to enjoy
wdl-being and success.
At first glance, thi~ vie>.oo' seems to agree ...·irh the Deuteronomic theme of the
two ways: the way of th e righteous that leads to life. and that of the wicked that
leads to death (Deut. 30, I 5-10). Also we read in Proverbs:
B~IIb. p.llh of ,Ilt rigr,!tlW.lIS H:r IIx "ght of J~w~.
u,b"b sh,nts llrighltr ~~J ImgWrT wntil fwll oL)'
n.. "'11)' of Ibr wic"IItJ is MIX Jrt$> dan...I'SS,
~ J.., ....-.I ~OIO what Wry sl~"j,k 0IlU
-Prov. -4:18 (d. 12:28)
In th e case of Deuteronomy, however, the s.aurce of wisdom is the Torah, obedi·
enee to covenant law yields p rosperity ,md success, diso~die nce brings hardship
and disaster. The Deuteronomic in l~rprcter. like th~ prophet Hosea (H as. 4 : 1-4 .
6, 6:6). is talk ing about a covenantal -lnowledge of Cod" rooted in th~ exodus and
Sinai tradition. In Israel's wisdom, howe\'er, Pthe blessing and the cu~W (ProY.
3.33 -35) are based on a broader foundat ion than Israd's sacred story. Israel's sages
s~ak about an encounter with rea lit}' in evcryday lik Cod has constituted the
world in such a way [hat those who are in harmon)' with the struCture of reality
And success and happin~ss, and those who flout the d i"in~ order experience disil-
lusionment and ultimate disas ter.
Hence Israel's sages perceive that actions ha\'e consequences: Iha! is the ....·ay
file is.
\1Ilo.:wtr Jigs ~ pil dlfall ;"10 il,
anJ ,I SlOI!r 21111 c......... wcJt 011 Ibt 0l1l .Mo
S~1rts il ror""4.
-Pmv.26:17
This action-consequence syndrome. however, is not an impersonal Nlaw" tha t
operates apart from Cod: rather, Cod is the one who has est abli sh~d the moral
ord~r and who su~n.'ises it SO tha t an individual reaps th~ fruits of anion. These
fruits are not JUS t th~ consequences o f one's ac tion but in a profound sense the
rev.'ard of Cod.
The Way of Wisdom 265
If yw' (J:(IIIit5a" b~~gry. ~iL'f: ,''''''' broIJ ID .~t,
",tJ if thq ~rr Ihmfy. gi,,, Iht'" llI~kr IIJ dn'"k,
fDr YOIlI1>i1! bt.J~ co.lls cfjir, OIl ' 00' b(~A
~,d 11>. !.oRDiYo~:'l ~u .n.-MJ yo~ .
- Prov. 25:21 -2 2 {cf. Rom. 12:101
Social OrJ(1" mid Cosmic OrdtT
In our pr~vious study wc have found that Davidic cove nant theology brok~
beyond the limitations of lsrael"s sacred history and mo\'~d into the vast context
of heaven and earth, the cosmic and the mu ndane. It is Significant that Psalm 89,
a psalm of the Da\'idic cm'enant . contains a hy mnic passage in which Yahweh is
praised in the heavenly council (see 89:5-7) for his power as creator, demon-
strated in the crushing of the powers of chaos and the establishment of the order
of creation.
o LORD [Y"lIwrh j C.oJ of 1.>.1••
LOb.:. ~ "I ",~hry O. YOII. 0 LOJI.D1Yabu>d. P
Yo." Jai(b{~!mill WTJOII"J;)'O'II'.
Yw rule ,Ilt '''fI'lY of rh. It.:L,
u,b", i(lll"1t'fS riSf, ylW. sril1lhmo.
rw uw,lod R,,&.!II j /iJ.t d C"'''d!!,
yeti K<lI:'-rrJ )"Wf rntIIi!S LPiIi. YOII( "';;bty "''''.
n...
bra''tII5aff )'<'II~. I~ '~rlb ~lso IS room,
d... worlJ anJ ,,11 I~~' ~;" 11-
yw b,,!It .{<lw"drJ,br,..
-Ps. 89,8· 113
Wisdom theology is akin to royal theology in that it too belongs in a vertical
heaven-earth d imension.6 ln a broad sense "wisdom theology is creation theology,w
as the Old Testament th~ologi a n Walth('T" Zimmcrli asse rts? Wisdom deals with
the cosmic or created o rder. on which th~ human social order is foonded. 1
This view of the correspondence betwee n the created order and the social
o rder was undoubtedly influenced by Egyptian v.. isdom. It is no teworthy that th e
exhon ations found in Pro\,. }1, 17-14:12 {book Ill). which r=mble the teaching
of Egyptian sages, are apparently modd~d after the Egyptia n wisdom writing
called "Th~ Instruction of Amen-em-ope."9 .\Ioreo\'er. in ancient Egypt mao/.
which rooghl ~' may be translated as "truth~ or "j ustice ,~ was r~garded as the cosmic
foundation on which pharaonic society was established . th ereby gua ranteeing
j IQh.b nxI i..n1lthan \,.. '"~ namo.<; of ,he myth;~al sea mo~,er. symbol of the 1'0"'= of
chaos lnd d,sorder
6. On Ihi< dHY>en<ion of Davidic tllrology. see a!x""t, Chlpt("' 1J.
7 W;dtller Zimmerli. 'The Pla~e and the limit or ~'isdo m in the Frame,,-ori;: of Ihe O ld
Tntamen, "Theology: in S~wJit! i~ kr.".,.1 [";011111( Wi<.io.. cd. }alTlC$ Cn:nsh~w I New Yo",", KTAV.
1976). 31 -1-16. 5ft p. 316.
8. ~c fun}",r chapleT 30 below.
9 ANU 421-15 5«: R. N Wh~'bray. TIIr &:.o~ ;.f P,owk. CBC (Cambndgc: Cambridg<:-
Univ. Prns. t971j, 126-41 .
266 Ce~r""rs o} Old Trsr~,""'1 Thw~ Th~ \Xfay of Wisdom 267
social stability and harnlOny_ Similarly in Psalm 89, a psalm of the Davidic behavior that accords with M the way things are" or, in theo[ogical tenns, th~ order
covenant, th~ psalmist states that God's cosmic throne is founded on "righteous. of cr~ati on. This is eVident, for instance, in the num ~rica l pro\'~rb :
ness an d justice~ (v. 14 ). Accordingly, th~ Davi dic throne, which corresponds 10
T~,a lhi,,!!' arr k)'~M' "'"
the cosmic order, is secure:
Fo~r f ""~ItOIJ"I~O'"
Fa' (>lit lhi(!J (km9] hlocg, I" rlx LORD f1'd.bwrb]. Ho", a~ rag!, ",~kti ir! ~'ay 00" Ib, '~y;
ClI' k;~g le If.. Holy Q,,, of Il''''/. H<1:I'" 5n"k, ",~J.t! its K'~y our, ~ rock;
-Ps. 89: [8 He",,, ;hip m~kt5 its u'ay t br~ug~ Id, bigb It~;,

In this ancie nt Near Eastern way of thinking, God's powe r as creator is ~vi­
denced not just by creation Nin the beginning," as in Genesis 1, but also in th ~
divin~ maim~nanc~ of "right ord~rn in the cosmic and mundan~ sph~res in the
face of th e poweJ"'i of chaos (Rahab, LeViathan, Sea), which in human soci ~ty ar~
manifest as ~ n~my invasion, infertility of the land, or social confusion . H. H .
Schmid goes so far as to sa}' tha t this ancient Near Eastern vi ~w provid~s "th~
broad horizon of biblical theology." both in th~ Old Testament and in the N ew,lo
This view has been ~ndoJ"'ied by E. \V'. Nicholson. who maintains, how~ver, that
there was an ~inner- I sraelile COmTO"eJ"'iy~ b~twe~n ancient creation theology and
the covenam faith . [n this "history of twO increasingly conili(:{ing world-views,
th~ preaching of (Israel's] proph~ts may b~ said to have ma rked the beginning of
th ~ triumph of the one over the other."ll Stated differenrly, the conflict was not
between Israel and th~ religions of th~ environment but was on~ with in th~ com -
munity of faith its~1f.
Ht My,I,/), of Gods Wisdom
Finally, th~ sag~s of Israd r~cognized that Ihe search tor wisdom "from b~low,~ that
is, from the human situation, ~v~n wh~n gro und~d in rel igious faith, leads into
myStt"ry Th~ knowl~dge of "the Holy One" (Prov_ 9: ID) l~ads to the boundary of
human thou ght and imagination wh~r~ on~ must confess in awe and wond~r that
"Cod's thoughts are not our thoughts" and that "God's ways ar~ not our ways· (d_
lsa. 55 ,8-9), Cerhard von Rad calls att~n tion to the fac t tha t wisdom sayi ngs often
break out into hymn ic praise befort" the marvdous display of the mystery and
maj~sty of God's creation_ 11
This s~ ns~ of th~ mystel}' oi divin ~ wisdom was appa~n tl y no t dominam in
[Sr.l~rS ~arly wisdom tradition_ \'\'isdom, a t least in most cirdes, was v~I}' practical.
It provid~d guidance on such matters as proper coun ~ti qu~tt~ , prodence in busi·
ness affairs. avoidanc~ of ensnaring sexual relations, and so o n. Furth~r, wisdom
Ha~' ,~ ""'" h", hi, "'~)" u,ilh" "''''.!'''.
- rrov. 30 , [8 · 19 (NjPSV)
Cenerally speaking. how~v~r, th~ sage was r~gard~d as a kind of se~r who
could see behind the panicu[aJ"'i of da ily ~xperi~nce to the ~secr~ t" of things. He or
she could s~~ in th~ behavior of creatures, like the .lnt (Prov, 6:6-11 ) or th~ hawk
(lob 39:26-30 \ wisdom l ~ ssons _ Th ~r~ was consid~rab l~ optimism, at least in the
cin:l~s r~presented by the book of Proverbs, about the quest for divin~ wisdom.
The God.f~aring sag~ has th~ capacity to search out the m~aning of C"xperienc~.
to know the tWO ways (d . Psalm t) an d to walk in the right path_
A KoIJ(r ,,,k, "'i,Jo", i" ""in,
b~1 kn~".)dgr;, t~I)'}or on, ",h<J
~nd=",~J,.
- Pro\,. 14,6
[n som ~ wisdom circles, how~v~r, th~r~ W.lS consid~rable skepticism about the
human ability to penetrate the mystery of God's plan. God's wisdom is hidd~n in
th~ creation and is inacc~ssible to human beings. As stated in the beamihrl poem
in Job 28, which se~ms EO be a separate piece in the book, min~rs can dig deep into
th~ ~arth in s~arch of precious ston~s, but they sean:h in vain for th~ wisdom that
is with God.
G",l u"JmlonJ, th, "'~y to i/,
and h.t b:()W5 ill plaCt.
- Job 28:13
Thus when a sage starts with »(h~
fear of Yahweh" or "th~ knowl~dg~ of the
Holy On~ : h~ or sh~ ~v~mually stands in th~ pr=nce of God's unfathomabl~
holiness-beyond anything we can think or imagin ~. Ajt~ r marvding at God's
pow~r as creator, ~\'id~m in th~ wond~rs of narur~ an d the victory over th~ myth-

was important in politics, We are laid that the counsel of Ahithophd. David's ical poweJ"'i of chaos (Sea, Rahab, the tleeing serpent ), Job ~xclaims:
advisor. was "'as if on ~ consult~d th~ word of God" (2 Sam. 16:23). Also. in the Thr" "" bnllhr ""Il.bff, -1 [c"Ji.l ""'),,;
p~riod of David wise women were consulted in political cris~s (2 Sam. 14:1 -21 ; a"J iN::v :;m~1l ~ whil~tr do II-"t b.M o} bi",!
20: \4 -22). Sages inv~st iga t~d both nature and human natu re to asc~rta in th~ But I'" tbwnJv- of hi, p~1DfT who U2" u"Jmt~",b
-Job 26,14

10. s.,c H H. Schmid, "CRation . Right"ou,n cs" and Sal-'ation" (Iran,_ B~mha,d W
And"rson and DJn C. Johmon), in Cn:~rJ",r. ;r. Ir., Oil Tt.",",,,,!, ed. H. W. Andcrson , IIIT 6
(Minncapoli" Fort=. Press, 1 9S ~i, 102- 17_
1 I. E. W'. N,ch olson, G"J ,,~d His P,op!<{ Oxforn : Clarcndon. 1986), l 09; cl , pp. 20+--5
12 Van Rad, lIli';"'" h' ["ad, 162,

30. WISDOM IN GOD ' S CREATION
IH tbe previous study we have seen that, in a broad sense, wisdom theology is
creation theology. The social order is secure, free from the threa ts of chaos, when
it is in hannony with God's ordering of creation. It is nO! surprising, then, to ~nd
in the book of Proverbs, among exhortations to seek Wisdom, a testi mony to God's
primordial creation:
11, LORD['r'"b'(h] by u-~Ijo," fo"nJ~J Iht (~rthi
by .~J"'t,'..-..J"':'I [,' ,~L,b1i,htJ t1.c "'''1'(115;
by hi; ""o",ldg! ,'" ]",p, brob 01'<>1,
"r.J 11.c clo.J, Jro~ JOllm fiN Jru,-
- Pray 3,19-2 0
Wisdom Tabemades iJl Israel
In the \Visdom of Ben Sira (Sirach), a wisdom "'"Ofk oUlSide the Hebrew Bible but
included in the Greek Bible (Septuagint ), sages connect cosmic wisdom with
Israe l's sacr~d story. [n th e beginning Wisdom, like everything else. was created by
God's commanding word and therefore has un iversal sway o\'er all humankind.
I",,., jol1n fro ... 1&, ",o~(h of tiN A10sl Hi;lh,
""J cOl1crd tJx Mr1" H,,,
",isl.
I au,d: '" Ibr hig""t br""",>,
~,J '"Y lbw", ~O"';~ ~ ~;ILr of do~J
A!.J", I co,.pama tb, "".It of h.:""",
",,] tm"""tJ tb, JIj>lk of dOl "by%.
o,,'e1 u'a~j of (h. ;.... c.>t, ,,/i (iN mrih,
,;,"1 ~""r n'!ry (>ro~!r ,,,:d ~~t;on J b,,('( lot!J s"'~y
-Sir. 14:3·6
God searched among all people for a "resting place" where \X/isdom might taber-
nacle ("make her ten!", cf. Joh n 1:14 ) and found it in Israel , which has the Torah,
and panicularly in the temple of Zion _
In tiN holy Irnt I nr,,,;,ttml brforr i",",
"nJ ~ I 1/1"; ril~Hi!bd in l ion.
Thu; i>: (lit I>!Iot-'(J (11)' ht gaPI m, a resting plaiX.
~r.J i>: J"",., !"" U',1S my do'r"';~,
f took root in "H j,,,,,o,i"J (lrap!e,
m tiN port,on of lb, Lod, hi, h"'t~g,.
-Sir. 24,10-12
By contrast, the book of Proverbs mak~s no refer~nc~ to Israel's sacred stOI)':
the anceSlOrs of Israel . the exodus from Egypt, God's covenants with (he people,
and so fonh . The perspecti\'~ is un i\'ersal, ecumenical , and cosmic. l ik~ that of the
creation psalm, 104, which also lacks any reference to Israel's covenamal history
Wisdom in God'5 Creation 269
and , indeed, displaY5 affinities with the Egyptian MHymn to the Alon" In the man-
ner of ancient sages, the Israelite psalmist catalogues the vario us ~atures of God's
crealion and at th e climax exclaims:
o LWIll, hou' ""mif,·/J '''' ya~T Ilwb.'
1" wido," YOII NUl ,."d, fhtm ~II,
Ib, ",rtb ,. full of yo.r ut"t" "'_
-Ps. 104,}4
In this psalm creation is not just a mythical event of the paH when God brOllght
order out of chaos (104:5 -9 ), rather, it is a continui ng creation in which God main·
tains the regularities on which all life, ani mal and human, depends ( 104;27-30).
The Pmollijicatiol! of Wisdom
Since the creation displays divine wisdom. s.ages began to rdlect on the place of
wisdom in God's creation . In their \'iew, wisdom is not just a h uman capacity or
human achievement; rather, Mthe play of wisdom" repre>;ents God's pres~nce in [he
world.' The quesl ion is: what is the relation b~tween God and Wisdom? Is
Wisdom an agent of God? an aspect or qLlality of God? identical with God7 This
huge ~metaphysical" question r~app~ar~d in diffe~ nt tenns in Christian theologi-
cal deba tes about whether the Son of God i~ "of like hei ng~ or "of the s.ame being W
in relation to God.
'\j'le may begin to tackle this question by rt"cognizing that in Israel's wisdom
tradition Wisdom is som~times personifi~d, that is, ponray~d as haVing "personal -
ity" In other ""ords, \Visdom is not an abstraction but is a person , indt"t"d a femi-
nine person ("she W
) .
Wis,1Qm "5 <l Proplxlt>5
In som~ passages Wisdom is ponrayed a5 a woman who performs the role of a
prophetess, or spokesp~rson for God. She slands in the marketplace or at the city
gate, appeali ng to people to heed her instruction and amend [heir ways ( Pro\'_
1:20-33,8: 1-21 ). Not only does the prophetess plead for repentance. or change of
lifestyl~. but also she announces judgme nt-[h~ i n evi!ahl~ consequence of the ir
"tumi ng al<.'ay ~
B=,,!~ tbry h.11,J h10wldgr
<l~J JiJ ~ol ,boos, tb. fmr of tbe LORD[Y"h'(h],
"",,,jJ h,,,,, r.o~, aJ my c"u~"'),
,,~J Jrl~isrJ ~i! ",y '~~""'£
(bmjoll' d:ry <b~1I cat tiN fnlit 4 :/:t,r ~''')'
,,~J bll~(/J with I~ir c'tmt dtviw
L S~mud Tc-rri~n, 'Th" Pia), of \i:t;.do m,T Ch~pler 4, In r", E!"~l!'r p,t;nu:, (San F!"/IOC i:ico .
Harper &: Ro,,"', 1978). npeciall l' 351---6 1
2 70 C~n lou" of O!J Tr;!a,"",j TbroIC;;y W isdom in God'5 C.-.:"tion 271
For ""1)"'''''.1"", kili, tb, ;;m>k A9'~ dgO l "'~; Il! ~~.
,;~j t~ {"",~lam,,}' ojJ",,!, J<"!r~ys tb"", ", tb, ji,-,-!. kJore :b, "'9-'''Hin9 ()f !Ix Mrtb.
0..1 tj,,,,, ",ha li;!", !o ,.te .:.;// b-e \f~ur,
,Id ",~il !'''t~ ! t"S', ~,,!ho~, J"",j ~f di;~;t,r. In the next lines (S,24-26) the preexistence of \Xfisdom is elaborated in a series of
- Pro\,. [,]9-33 negations introduced by Bno t yet" or "he fore''',

Opposed w Wo m"n W'isdom is Lady Folly (sometimes translated ~Slranger Br/ore lix lfto,ml.1 i"s hd bmt 'b~p,J,
\\;roma n; "Foolish \Voman"} who , like a harlot, seduces peopk to follow her fo ol· br/o" th, bills. I u,';1! 9itm' birTb,l
b-eforr b, ...,d,!h. mrlb :l-~Ib it, fidJ"
is h ways (Pro\', 2: 16-19, 9: 13- 1SI. Individuals fi nd themselves having to choose
or tb, firsl of Ih. J~'1 of !h. L"Orhl.
between th ese twO women, one th e embodiment of wisdom, the other of foolish·
(BWA)
ness. Divine blessi ng is bestowed o n those v,ho decide for \V'oman Wisdom;
divine judgment, in th e fonn of consequences of decision, comes on those who The poem the n moves to a seri es of positive assen io ns, introduced by "when",
yield to the all urements of Lady Folly. Unfortunately, the pomayal of women at
Wh"., hr rlkihl'-')uJ t1.t h",,,t7[j. J "'~> rhtrr,
this poim is based on old stereotypes of the relation between males and females. U'h", bt Jrru, a ri,cif On tbt fa,r 4 th. JrlP.
As K~ t hleen O 'Connor wisely remarks: :l-.hfx f:.t "",1, fi"" 1[', ski<'S " ),"'' ',
Both 'Wisdom Woman and Srranger Woman are mal e cre<lfio ns rhat projeCi Onto ",bm b, "~1b1'-Sh.J I~' fQ~xrams "f IIx J,,~,
~,bf>l be ~,sig"d IQ thr,w ill li,",I,
women alllh ar i, good and bad in human nature. As stereotypes rh.:-y harm wome n
by failing to .-.:prcsent rhem <IS human beings, and rh.:-y also misre pn:-st:nt men by ,~tb"r!h. .'atm m;ght ~Ol r"~n;9rr;s hi! command,

ponrayi ng them a~ helpl.:-s> \'ie ti rn, of preying females. l ~,"'" j" IMrkd Q~ I Ih. fou~J"tiQy" of Ib, 'Mth,

Lady Folly disappears aher the first n ine chapters of the book of Proverbs.
lVj;Jom~ Rolt in Crwtio"
The personification of \V'isdom in th e context o f C od's creation occurs in three
major passages. { I ) Outside the Hebrew Bible (Apocrypha) in the magnifice nt
poem in praise of W isdom, Sirach 24 (ca. 180 R.e ), considered above. (2 ) Also
outside the Hebrew Bibl e, in the Wisdom of Solomon (chapters 7- 9 ), produced in
the c ircle 0/ Hellenistic Judaism, probably in the latter pan of the first Century R,e.
( 3) In the H eb re w Bible itself rhe personification of Wisdom is portrayed in the
wonderful poem found in Prov. 8,22 -3 I-
The last poem is one of the mOSt im portant passages theologically in the Bible.
In the chapter as ~ whole (Proverbs 8), \V'isdom is presented as a prophetess who
appea ls to people to follow he r ways and find health and wholeness. Enclosed
wi thin this poem is a re markable passage (w . 22- 31 ) in wh ich \'(ii~dom's ro le is
traced back 10 rhe time whe n Cod created heaven and earth. 'V'lisdom \,'as with
Cod in the beginning, assisting God in creation.
T his passage has its own liteT<lry integrity. It begi ns (8,22 -23 } with a th ematic
an nou ncemen t of Wisdom's p rimordia l status:
Th LORD[r~hwrb] crM I(J 11" a l tlx 1.tgi""i"9 of hil ,:,,,rk.
rb, jI",-,-r ajhl< am of lon9 ago .
2. Kathleen M. QCConnor. "\)?isdom l'ler~turt" and Expe riC'F1Cc of the Divine," in Bibli,,~j
Throw!iY, Probl"", anJ Pm~"I:"", ed, S J K... hchick et aL (Nash"ille, Abingdon, 1995}, 183- 95 ;
qt1matio n, p. 188
T he poem reaches its climax and conclusion with the assertion that \'(!isclom was
present and, in some sense , took part in God's creative work (8:30-31 ). The "then"
of v. 30 introduces the conclusion (apodosis ) of th e negat i\"e and positive
assertions.
tbtt. f ",as &.si1, him, !ikt ~ ",as!" "'(Irk..-.
anJ I ",'01! Jail)' his Jdjgbl.
rtjoi,i"9 bt/()re bill dlu'a~,
rcj";6,,g rn bi, ;"h..bitrJ worM,
~nd J(ii;Jbl'''!1 ,to Ibr bmM" "'U.
In each of these parts of the poem, the personificarion of ~'isdom is stressed
in a sequence o f verbs: "I was set up [established): "I was brought fonh ,~ "I W;lS
there,~ "I was beside him.wInterestingly. in the latter part of '". 25 a ma te rnal verb
describes Cod as "giving binh~ to Wisdom: 'before rhe hi lls, I was gi ven birth" h',
2.5b , NIV).
Wisdom's role in Cod's creation wo uld be d earer if we knew for sure what the
rare Hebrew word amO)1 means in v, 30. Does it mean ~da rl ing child" (cf. RfH)7
"cl<lftsman at his side" (NIV), · with Him as a confidant" (NJPSV )7 "'like a master
worker" (NRSV), Depending on which transla[ion one lollows, one is given a pic ·
ture of \V'isdo m playing before the Creator like a linle ch ild, an ;lrtisan o r
cl<litsperson who collaborates with Cod, or a "confida nt" who shares with Cod the
secret of creat io n. The Creek Old Testament [:Sepruagint) lends some weight to
the figure of an anisan. In any case, Wisdom is superior to anyt h ing else in Cod's
). This matern.1 " ~rh is t ... ns l w~d ' bro"ght rort h" in NRSV, in NIV "was given birth ."

CTt'uion, sinc~ sh~ was pr~xist~m. present with Cod in tlx ~inning , Ihe Rrst of
God's crealiv~ work~.~
ne Re/lftioll of Wisdom 10 God
The big theological questions in this passag~ hav~ to do with the relation of
Wisdom to Cod First. k~eping in mind that the passage is part of a larger dis-
course in which \'(/isdom is portrayed as a proph~tess (proverbs 8), one may ask
whether this language g~ beyond poetic personificati on . Here Wisdom is asso-
ciated ""ith the Creator, sepa~te from Cod, present with God in the beginning.
and a participant in the work of creation. Roland t.-1urphy th inks that something
more than personification is invol\'ed,
Wi~dom is wmehow Identified with the lord, she is the reo..."lation of God. not
merely ttx sdf·rcvdatKHl of CTt'ition She 1$ I~ divine summons issued in aod
th rOOl\'h crealion. sounding through the Va.S I realm of the c:;Tt'ated world. ~nd ~~rd
on the level of human experience.S
Kath leen O'Connor goes funher. proposing that Wisdom is virtually identical
wi th God. 'She is a separate being that partakes of th~ reality that she symbolizes,
so th~1 ultimately she is indistinguishable from th~ Creator."6
This pcrsoniOCation of Wisdom, highly poetic and imagi nat i"e, suggests a very
close association wit h God, nearl y amounting to iden tification. But it is difficult to
escape the inll:rpreration that Wisdom is. in some sense, subordinate to God 7
Ho ....ever onc resolves this problem, the ponrayal o f Wisdom in close. inti·
mate associa tio n with God is a step in the direction of late r christologieal th ink·
ing. The prologue to the Gospel of John affirms th at in the beginning the Word
(Logos) was "With God" and was the agent through whom all things ...·ere made
Uohn 1:1-3; cr. Col. 1:15·20). The one big differenc~ is tha t the poem in
Proverb!> 8 does not state that Wisdom was · Cod" (divine), as in John 1: lb.
Rather. she was giv~n birth by Cod and was the nrSt of God's creative .... orks.
Wisdom as Fnnininr
The second Question has to do with the feminine id~ntity of Wisdom. This can·
nOt be dismiss~d on th~ linguistiC grounds that in H ebrew the ",'ord for wisdom
(~b) is feminine. as it is ~[so in Greek (sopbia ); for, rem~mber, the context of
rhis passage: is th~ ponrayal of Wisdom ~s a .... oman. a pmphetess.
4. 5<:<: furtr.er l .. a C. Perdue, lV,uo,," ,,~J (>("""" , Tbr n..,,!~y of Wi!.:Io," L"1",,1~1l (Nas hvi1l~:
Abin~don, 1994)_
S. Rol~nd {\.\urpr.y, n" Tt" cJ Lift, Anchor Bible Rd.."'nce lib",IY (Ne,,"' York. Doubleday,
1?901. 138.
6 . neonna, "W'.dom l,le",lu",: 188
7 . O'ConOQr l ibtd., t9l ) admits fhat l',overbs 8, which "apP<'i l'i 10 ... bord"'~le [~'isdom l
Cod: is "the chid' problnn" for her pro~1.
"
Wisdom in God's Cn:atioo 273
If Wisdom is female. and if Wiwom is associated with Cod, this has tTem~n­
dous thco logkal implications. Some: years ago a · Re·imagining Co n fer~nce· was
held in Minnesota, at ""hich some interpreters held up Sophia (Greek ) as a god.
dess, that r... the representative ot Ihe f~minin~ dimension of deity. To speak of
Wisdom as "goddess· goes tOO far, for it isslaled that Wisdom was with God in the
beginning and \"a5 God's agent. but Wisdom is nev~r explicitly identified as "Cod.-
As we have seen earlier, Israelite interpreters rejected the god-goddess relationship
in a pamheon. H Theologically speaking. the holy Cod is beyond sexu~lity_
The port~yal of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, however. rtpresentS a major break
with th~ dominamly masculine metaphors of Israel's covenantal trad itio ns. This
shift is consistent with, if not demand~d by. ueation theology in the Old
Testament. 1/ humanity, male and female, is made in the image of God. th~n both
masculine and f~minine metaphors are ncressary to -i ma~~ (i magine ) God.9
r..-Ioreover, wisdom literature attempts to deal ...·ith one 01 the major paradoxes
(dialec:;t ic:;al com~dictions) inhere nt in the C"xperience of the holy God in the
world, Cod's transcendence and God's immanence. As creator, Cod is not only
prior to and be~'ond the creation but also active within it, upholding and main-
taining it. \X1e ha\'e found that this paradox is dealt with in various ways in Israel's
covenam traditions, notably in the Oavidic theology of ImmanueL "God with
U5: IO In H e ll~nistic Circles, OUt of ",'hich the Wisdom of Solomon cam~, God's
immanenc:;e in the universe is portra)'ed as female wisdom:
For .,,;sJ""" ,..art -tilt rLn ,ury ... olio~,
t..c"U$t of Nr P"'_IS sbr /,trodts ad j>tntr,,,lr5 ,,11 tbo'''I1
For SN /Sa brc;,tbof!be /Nn' r{ God.
"nl if ~tC """,r.~!1(»I DJ IlK glo')" of!t.. AI"'gbry.-
Ibmfof( tfolbin9 J,jkJ g~;II~ ",tmKr, ;1110 1xr
For slK /S ~ rtjlrclioll DJ '1m,~lligh
" 1/>OIJm rIlirror DJ IIN IlIOrh~g of GoJ,
",,J all imag' oJ bis !iooJ~m
Altboug& silt islnrt OM. sbr Ca" Jo,t/J Ih'-~gl,
""d whil, _a,,,,"9 ill htmJf, W rmnl-'S all th'''911
'" n>rry j(I:"Jh,,,. slit pasm ",t.1 b"ly o;()1jl.
""d oroIm 11- JrWnJs "f Gad, ,,~J Jm:,t>bm.
- Wis. 7:24·27
In this view, Wisdom. as the "emanation of the g lory of Ihe Almighty," per·
\'ades Ih ~ whole cosmos. Thetl! can be no sharp ~paration between th e celestial
and terr~strial. the cosmic and the: mundan~, Cod and the world, for Cod as cre-
ator is pr~sent and a([ive in the whole Di\'ine revelation. then. is nOt confined to
8. Sc,e abm'~ , dl~pl'" 8.
9. Set Eli::::~belh Johnwtl. SI>r It'bo Ii- Th A!yIltry DJ GoJ '" F..,";ll TlN<>lDgiul OiS«/flI'Sl (NC'oo'
to York: Cr""..-oad, 199~ ). c;.haps. 2, 5.
10. Sec alxwc chapt~"T 26.
274 Cor.l""f'l' 0} Old Tn.....,,' Th"logy
God's speaki ng to the peo ple, IST<ld; T<I ther, God-the '><Ime Cod kno,,'n and "'or·
shiped in IST<ld-ma~' be encountered in the ordinary world, as one is over·
,,' hdmed with awe at the my~tery and mar.'d of hum'In life or the beauty that
flames in flower or star. I I
T his cosmic \'iew of Wisdom, which goes beyond the perspe<:lives of IST<ld"s
covenants. is being explored anew in our time of ecological crisis. Accord ing to
Rosemary Radford Ruelher, the "'><Icramental tradit ion,· which percei,,'C'S God's
imma nence in the unh'e~, ·provides the basis for an ' I, Thou' relation to natun:,
an experience of being dose to God in the majesty and beauty of the creation.·
"This sacramental view," she points OUt, "complements the covenan lal tra dition,n
which demands social justice. H ere is a perspective, cosmic and universal in scope.
that calls for TC'Sponsible care of the natur.ll environment. 11
t I . s"e K<>lhlccn O'C01lnoi~ excel knt discussion 01 ""So"", Tho:ololjical Current< of tilt
Wisdom lm:rarurt: n:omdy. AR",,-dalion in Otdmiry life: '"Opcnnc5i to Humanity: and"'Th.~
Ung~spabl .. Deil}'- (-Wisdom l"erarurt: 185--87).
IJ. Rosemiry" Radford RlKth .. r. G...... GoJ. A. E~"j.n.i~I': I1wID,;Iy of E~"b H."ziK§ (San
F~tISC~ I-tnl"'f.ilnrnocisco, 1993).
31. THE JUSTICE OF GOD
Israel's sages display ed [Wo altirudes toward the quest for wisdom . Accord ing
to some, "'isdom--,,'hen based on the fear (awe ) of Yahweh--is no t limiled to
instructio n on rhe right cou~ of action; it can also provide some understanding
of the divine order of things. Even though a great gulf is nxed between the: holy
God and the: human 'torld, the chasm is bridged by God, who gives fai thful per_
sons the power of discernment. Other sages, ho we\'er, insisted th al Wisdom (cap-
italized) eludes human grasp completdy. \'('isdom is the supreme prerogative of
the Holy One, the Crcalor, wh ose ways are impe netra ble. Divine Wisdom is
be>'ond the human ken.
Sktpticism mId Faith
In some wisdom circles the inaccessibility of Cod's wisdom led to skepticism about
the power of human re ason, This is evident in a passage that comes from an appen·
dix to the book of Proverbs, which may be regard ed as a sage's dispute within him-
self,l or with someone else, about the search for wisdom. NOle (he movement of
the poe m (prov. 30:2-9, NJPSv).
Fai/urr of HUIIUlH WrsJ"m ( JO:l-l ). The '><Ige feels wea ry, even drained of hum an
resources, after a search that has led nowhere.
I ~m bruti5b, Ir;, tb>~" ,"IIn,
llad. cc,"""'" 'msr.
I NIIt ~(Ii ~~meJ lI'iJJOIII_
K(W Jo I pol~, bt,,~Jgt of tbt Holy Otr.
The ElUsiVf God (10:4). A series of ironic questions call for the allSwer "God: but (he
Creator is inaccessible and eludes human knowledge.
11'1.0 bn; IIlCtr<Jd hr~1ltr1 mid ,OIIIt JOll""
W'bo PdS gathmJ"~ tht lIlinJ in th. bolIowof b" [".mJ~
Wb!> bas Il'ra~~d lb! u.\llm j~ his Ji~rmtcl1
\Vile ba! tstllbJjJ,.J dll Ib. al.""inn of Ih, ~" ...h7
IVb.>1 is h,s ....,"'" er his SO" i M.f, if )'01' bw:v ,11
G<!d's Rmrllltion ( 30:5-6). D isco rdantly another voice inte rrupts, '><lying th at it is
unnecessary, indeed wrong, to engage in a struggle 10 know Cod ralion ally, for
God has reveal ed divi ne wisdom, presumably in th e Torah Cevel)' word of God is
pure~), an d sh ields those who have fai(h (cf, Ecc!. 12:9- 14 ).
I, Comp<lrt" Ih(" ~rKitm Egyptian ....Ie of Ih.. dispo,n .. " ' jlh one'~ souJ htlf} O\~ <Uici!k in
A,lfT, 405---7.
27 6 (",do"" of OIJ Tts!.l,"t>tl ThtoI09Y The: Juslice of God 2 / 7

Eotry' """,.I of GcJ if pw./,
A dI.'rlJ to lbw ..bo t.lkr nfwp '" H,,"
Do II\1l "JJ 10 HiJ trorJs.
&:;, Hr ,..diet yow >l~J yo~ i'f ~n>!,,,J .. lin •.
Acetp,jug tb{ Umital'O~1 "f H~lTlIIll Wisdom i 30:1-9J. At this point the sage seem~ to be
in agreemen t with the Anal editors of the book of Ecciesiastes: "The sum of the
W
matter, when all is said and done: Revere God and observe H is commandments
(Ecc!. 12: 13, NJPSV). Cod has given enough light by which to live, so one should
Ih'e modestly-free from illusions and with sufricient income to enjoy a good life.
T_ :1.;"9> /,1 11, of )"OW, do cQl aa.y Ibm; to> ."btjOrt 1Jir'
KItP iit> """ f,,{;( 1'Cf.iJ fl>/ 1,0" "'1' ,
Gil" lOt ..arhtr /'OOtrty ~O' rocbt.,
B~t pr",,,dr lOt l>ill> "'y J.. ,1y br/d,
Ust. Dt;"!1 I<II(J, I trt<OWlK"r, So»""9,
"\Vbo;5 IM LO~l))·
As Ihe image of Cod, human being is said (0 be -consubstanliar (of Ihe 5ilme
nalUre) wilh God, thal is divine, and Ihc:rdore is capable of grasping the -mind of
Cod."l Israers refk<:tivc sage5, however, set forth anothc: r approach to theodky In
their "iew God is not 'the highest Being but the Cre;!tOr-lhe Cod who is tran -
scendent to, ou tside, and beyond the whole order of being. Cod's thoughts are not
our thoughts, nor are Cod's ",'ays our \.'ays; therefore th e problem o f theodicy
reaches beyo nd the capacity of human reason.
DjSSOItanct'ill lilt Book of Job
The qUC5tion of theodicy is sharpened by the lit~r.ITY composilion of the book of
Job. It is structured so as to cr~ate a dissonance between the narrative sections,
found at the beginning (prologue) and end (epilogue), and the poetr), that has
been i n~rred between. The old Job nanative, which th e aUlhor has appropriated,
SCtS fonh the simplistic view thal fa ithfulnc<is to God is n',,'arded with health, hap-
pincss, and prosperity,. the cenlral poetic sections . how('\'eT, debate the validity of
this doctrine and And it to be woefully inadequate.

(n so me respects Ih is wisdom discourse displays affin ities with thl! dia!ot,'ue of Prose Prologue (1 . 1- 2. 13}
the book of Job, though in the latter case the dialogue mo\'es c\'cnwally from a Poetry
umen l (chal'. 1)
conversalion on the human levd, between friends, to a word from God.
Dialogue ..... ith friends {chaps. 4- 27)
\V'i>m' 11'<11 yo~ w&r.. /1o;J Iht wtb;, fown.lc.ri<m, ' Poem on \X'isdom (ch~p. 28 )
Spr.;~.J)'iI~ ha"," ~..Jm(D..J,"9. Job's Final [kk~ (chaps_19-31 )
Do yo~ Jmo.,.>loo p rJ ils &""o:Iio'" Voice from tne \\?hirl ...·irxP
Or 1..4r> """S<llI"J ,I ""Ill " li"11 First speech (chaps. 38-39)
0..10 .rt..~t Wf1I" ill b~;(s s~~1v ilod Joh's suhmission (.fO, [.:5 )
iVbo set;15 ''''''nsl<>JU Xcond spc«h (4/}.6--41-34 )
\\1),." /1-" ",0,,",,"9' Itll"S 1"'''')1 tDg/lhtr ilnd Job'~ repentance (4), '·6;
And ,d! lb. Jil"1'I k"9; SbowlrJ je, joy, P~ Epilogue (42c7-17j
-Job 38:-1·7 (NWSV)
When one considers the book as a whole, as a literary unity, the discordance of
This qucstioning echoes that of the ~keptical sage dist:Ussed above (cf, Prov. these two views sounds out loud and clear.
30:4), ""ith this major difference: in Job's case, il is God who puIS the qucstions Israel's 5ilges recognized that, just as wise parents discipline their !;,'Towing chil-
that rebuke the presumplions of human ""isdom. dren, so God disciplines persons for thei r welfare.
My cbiiJ, do ....,1 dtspist' ti'f LoRD5 IY~h..t>. JJiJ(,pl;l'I.
Job and till IsslIr of TIllod,-cy Of i'f IDMry of lns r!i>r(>."l/.

Jot IlK Low [Y~J"OO, J'tiW.n'ts It.. "'" br lop/!,

Unl ike the dispute of the sage found in the append ix [0 [he book of Pro\'crbs, the
reader of the book of Job is told plainly why Cod is a problem . It is because of
undeserved human suffering. W"hy do the righteous suffer in a world created and
ruled by the God of justice "nd mcrcy? Here we run straig ht into the problem of
rheodicy, the justice of Cod.
[n the history of Western philosoph>' many discussions of [heodicy attempt to
understand the justice of God within the rational categories of th e human world.
In philosophical ontology (philosophy of being ), Cod is the Supreme Being, the
summil of an ascending ordcr that reachcs from animal, to human, to divine being.
~s I> faru.- d." SOt< jl! ",bom ht Jrligb!5.
- Pro\·.3.1 1·12
2 In [""d ~r.J R~riCtr (discussed "oo\'C, chaptCl' 2), Enc VIX'j;l ~li n advocates this consub·
snru iali,}" or continuity bero.'un t\l<: hUm.1IT1 and th~ divin~ (e.g .. PI'. 467, 5 1; )' but this lofty
view 01 roman being Can hardly be juiliAed b}' Old Te~tameru InIS . including the ;""'110 D" of
Gm 1:26.)8.
3. This ~dine omits chapters 3J throogh 37, t~ spu<:h.-s 01 E[ihu Since E!iro is noltisto:-d
among Joos CO<\\'Cf"5iI.tionll,sls ( 3 . I t · t3 ). it is gCnn<l!1}' as<;lJmo:-ci. t hat dlls s«tion ...·as addcd by
the 6nal o:-ditorolthc bool:..

278 (<m/O"/! oJ OU T~!amOlI Thtology
This teaching, picked up in th~ Epistl~ to th~ H~b rews IHeb. 12:7), is found
repeat~dly in Scriptur~. Th ~ proph~ t Isaia h pr~ ac h~d Ihis irHcrpretation: suffering
rdln~ ilnd purifi~ , strengtht:ning mt:tal by r~moving dro~s Usa. 1;15).
For Job, however, the diffi culty with this tt:ach ing was tha" in his case , the
punishmcnt ~xc~eded any wrong tha t h~ may havt: done. Though not a paragon
of human perf~ction, Jo b was "blamdt:ss,w Ihat is, a man of moral reCTitude, ont:
who was in rig ht relation with God and with humans (d , Abra ham, Gt: n. 17, \·2 ).
\);1i l11 incrt:asing passion, he stood on the ground of h is own in t~gri ly, des pite Ihe
anempts o f h is friends to explain his suffering in (cons o f human wisdom. Indeed,
the aqpJment with the friends prov~d to be a dispute wit h God about th~ appar·
t:nt injusti ce of God's ways. Ht: da red to con front God with tht: absu rdi~' of h i~ ~ it·
uation: a God.fearing, i nnoc~nt man who is pu nished by G od in a mann~r (hat
~ xct:t:ds anr m~aningful disciplinc.
God as tb~ Prob/rm
For Jo b , God was nOI an intellectual problem, as for man y modern p~op1e who
are tempted by at hdsm . Rathe r, Job was obsessed with God who , like Francis
Thompson's "Hound o f Ht:aven," was pursuing him in~scapably. At onc point,
Job echoes th~ words of a psalmist who is amaz~d tha t th~ Creator is concerned
about small, transi~nt human beings (ps. 8: 3· 4 ), but Job's wo rds have a diffe rent
ring:
\Vh,,~ i, ",a~, Ib.o~ yo~ ",~kr
",weh oJhint,
Th~r YOW fix Yo~ r ~ttmli<m ~po~ hint>
~"w iH~/>t,1 mm M-'O)' ", o",i~g,
Ex""i,,! hi'" '1'11')' ",i"w~, .
• ! V,ll )'(>11 ~ol look "~"'Y front '"' f or" whi/t.
Lt ml bt. 11i! r,,"-alia,,", '"Y ,~ittlt?
- Job T 17· 19 (NJPSV}
Job's prob l ~m was with God- not with som~ ~vil pow~rs at work in the world.
God's creation is fundamen tally good, desp i t~ th~ human ex perience 01 po\'~ny,
ill ness, strif~, vioknc~, "Hc does nOt loo k for th~ discordant note in the world;
Gt:rhard von Rad remarks, "it is wi th God that som ~ thing is wrong."4 So he pur·
':ill~d h is qu~S[ for God with gre at passion, finding no help at all in the "wisdom" of
his friends , who knew the right th ings 10 say but ~spous~d a theology tha t did not
help a person who was in dcep 1T0uble, At Ofl~ point Job, lik~ Jcremiah, summon~d
God to a coun trial in which h is case could be argut:d fairly b<:fore God.
0, rh"r I h ew w&cr, I ",,;:bl find hj""
Ih,,! I m,§"I comt (/)'(I' to hil dwtlii~g!
I u'{)w/d j"y my w;e hfore bi""
"M' ]illllr)' ",o"r" w,lb ';'£1"",,,,11.
4, vrnard vOn Rad, lV~jo .. in I"d, Ir"".lames D, Manin (Na,h"ille Ahingdnn, 1972l. 305 .
•
Th~JlISlic~ofGod 279
1,""",jd Iran: ",1",1 br ll'<JuIJ m:su"r "'r,
,,,a~"Jr«;t.1~J wb"t '" "",~!a "'Y to lOt,
W.,..IJ he <o~I!r.J wjth '"' ir. th, gr",/tl", of hil powrn
j\o.!o, b~1 he would gip, btd 10 "',.
n.,. :lM ~pright 1'<<<;"" W"IJ rr""'~ witb hi.. ,
,mJ I 5h.JD1J k ",q~;tld fe rn"" by "'Y jwJgt.
- Job 23:3-7
Ulldeservrd Suffering
In our study of th~ cov~ nantal perspcctives of thc Old Testament we havt: found a
remarkable agreem~m about t h~ mt:aning o f suff~ri n g : suffering is God's judgment
on the peo ple for thd r fai lurt: in covenant responsibi lity. To be sure , ther~ are dif-
ferences in th~ological accent. Sufierings in various foons repreSent th ~ "curses" of
,he cove nant for disobedienct: (Deutcronomy), O r suffering is the crucible in
which God rdin ~s out tht: dr055, 50 that th~ faithful remnant may b~ spart:d
(Isaiah ). Or suff~ri ng is th ~ just punis hment for offenses against the holy God
(Ezekiel) . O r suff~ring is God's di~cip l ine , God's (eaching, so that a rebellioll5
child may matu re I Hos~a, J~r~miah ). In non~ of the covenantal perspectiv~ is suf·
fering, whether through a historical t:vt:nt or a natural occurrence, explained as an
accident, a blow of fat~, or an attack of d~monic po'Wers. The people are culpabl ~.
In the time o f th~ fall of th~ natio n, however, when the foundat ions 0/ the loaaelite
community w~re shake n by s~ismic intt:mational t:\'ents, this theological consen·
sus ",,'as questioned. T he usual prophetic intt:rprt:ta[jon of suffering was challenged
forcefully in Habakkuk's dialogu~ wilh God (Hab. \ , \- 2,5),5 In the face of injus·
tices on both the national and int~rnal ional sc~ ne, he rais~d the cry #H ow long?"
heard in psalms of lament (e.g., Psalm \3):
o Lom [Yabllltb], how !o~g sh~i1/ cry Jo r br//>,
,,~a )'o~ WI ll 1:01 1" mo
O r cry 10 yw "VioIOlw"
"roa you will ~OI I"l'O
- Hab. 1,2
Walking in tht: valley of d~ath's d~~ p shadow fPs, 23:4 ), peopl~ cri ~d out-as they
do {oday~to God for justice.
Th~ iSSll~ of t ht:o dicy, or Ihe juslic~ of Cod, had a peculiar poignancy and
irH~ns ity for Isra~l's int~rpr~ l~ rs. 6 For ont: thi ng, Israelite monotheism, which
r~ ach~d its full Aow~ring in th e poems of so-called Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40--55 ),
peoniu~d no ~xplanation that co uld shift th ~ problem to an offense against some
deity other tha n Yahw~h or!O an un known god, Theodicy was tht: supreme price
chaprer t7.
5. D i5CUSsed above,
6. ~e J~mes L C","sh."" ed., n.:,dicy i~ I)" 011 r"t>m", I, IRT ~ .:Philaddphia, Fa! "~,, Pr~"
1983 ).

280 Cmcrm... .:f OIJ frsla_nll Tbrv!~
that had to Ix paid for a zealous belief in one God who, somehow. is in charge of
a1\ events, whether for good or ill (d. lsa. 45,7). Moreover, Israelite monotheism
did not al10w for the view, expressed in some ancient myths, that evil is intrinsiC
to the creation and has to be overcome again and again if the divine order is 10 Ix
maintained. 7 Israelite poets borrowed the mythical language of the Divine
Warrior's baule aga ins t the powers of chaos (Sea, Floods. Rahab. Leviathan) but
used it, especially in cultic contexts, to celebrate Yahweh's cosmtc dominion over
the gods and all histOrical powel'>. Acco rding 10 tho:': creation StOry of Go:":nesis ],
the creation is essentially good_ Rvery good: It is creaturely freedom, manifest
especially in human beings. that poses a threalto God's cro:':ation. Given the essen-
tial goodness of CoO's creation. why then do bad things happen to righteous peo-
ple, likeJobi
Expo5tu/aliolf witb God
Job represents those persons of faith in the Old Testament period-some known,
many nameless-who dared 10 expostulate with God. According to the dictio-
nary, expostulation means to reason with a person earnestly. objecting to his/her
N
actions or intentions." In a vivid passage in Israel's ancestral traditions we are
given a picture of Abraham expostulating with Cod on the eve of the holocaust
of Sodom and Gomorrah and diplomatically pressing the question of ,headicy,
"will not th e Judge of the whole eanh do justice," (Go:":n. 18,22-33 [ BWAn . Moses.
the great mediator of the covenant. dared to argue with Cod about the wisdom
of judging a rebelli01JS people 100 5t:verely, reminding God of the promises of the
covenant (Exod. 32, ]]·14). In one of his "confeSSions." written as the testimo ny
of a suffering prophet, Jeremiah dared to ini tiate a lawsuit agains t God and
charged:
Yo>u baR' i>rrr. tu IU" /iJu a lP~ that ja(lS.
/.i1.r =Im Iba: (~ ~1IOi ~ nlirJ on_
-Jer. 15,18 ( KJPSV)
Further, as ..·.re have seen, Habakkuk. appalled by the terrible avalanche of
Babylonian military power that was sv.·eeping over the world, entered imo a dis·
pute with God, raising the question of how long God would allow injustice to run
rampant.
People with this kind of faith do not endure absurd ity subm issively and
patiently, th~ protest, they wrestle. they express an "agonistic· faith (from G reek
ago"istn:, sports terminology referring to wrestling). It is instn.lctive to compare bib-
lical heroes of the faith with G n:ek tragic heroes, for instance, Job I3gom','r> and
7. loo l.evenson . in C7t~I;"" ~d n.. Pm'!lt><ct of f,'~, n...
J..~,b Ift~..w of Di,":.. o..M'/-'01cIa (S~n
mnci'ICo, Harp<'r a. Ro",. 1988t ma;nt<lir>S t~l ~1 c rntion God did not O\"~n.::o me (ho< (om·
pletely but gained master)' o~er it .",d will I10t be mumpnan, until the conwmm.nion. ~ my
respo~ in "T}", Kin8dom , the P.,..,..,r, and I~ Glory, The Sovereitlnty of Cod in the BIble:
TToJq H , no. I {l996} S-H. ~iall.,. "Codi Sovere,gnty as CKalOr: 6-9
•
The JU$tke of God 281
Oedipus ag"",.Irs. I In both Creek tragedy and the book of Job, persons have to
cope ..... ith a given situation. But the Greek tragic heroes wn:stle with the ambigu-
ities of the ir fat e without argument, they accept their lot grimly, as many people
do today. By contrast, the people of Israel speak up and rai~ questions vehe-
mently. that is, they expostulate with the Divine.')
These two ~tylcs of wrestling refleCt n..'o entirely different worldviews. In
G reek culture. fate (IIICirl3 ) was the dominating power-greater than humans or
gods. A tragic hero, like Oedipus, C01Jld assen himself in hubris (heroic pride, pre-
sum ption) againSt Fate but could not escape nt>!<rsis ( r~nibution ), which levels all
things to th6r proper place. In the worldv;ew of the Old Testament, however,
there is no notion of people being in the power of impersonal, implacable fate,
such as we find in the lines of the poet William Ernt.';st Henley (Nlnvictus'1,
I" ,1ft ft/I dMUb of ~i":'I,.>t.lI'CI.
I ha", 1101 "';!'.uJ or crirJ .110:..1,
MJ '",De), Ibt W.. Jgto1<i!'.gi of FaIt.
1ft"! /,(~J ;,- blooJy bu, ~nbo.otJ.
A completely differenl attitude IOward life is found in ancient Israel. In the
Bible. both evil and good are somehow embraced ..... ithin the Creator's purpose,
even though human wisdom cannO! perceive how or ...·hy. Moreover, the God
known and worsh iped in Israel is not a ca prici01Js mi!iChief maker or an arbitrary
tyrant, but the Cod of ~StJ, of failhfulness . lo In the conviction that Cod is faith-
ful and trusn..·onh)', far beyond anything we can think. or imagine, people may
boldly proto:':St, wrestle, expostulate.
The Vokt from tbe WbirllOil,d
Job did receive an ans","'er from God, who spoke out 01 an awesome whirlwind.
Job's ques tions we re ig nored, however, he was only rt.';minded that God, not Job,
putS the questions.
,
IVbo IS d,;\ that datb<5 cou>t/ by U10r.11 wi,I"",r! 1o.1><Il1t~>
Gid up "!0Il' Join! J,J.r ~....re.
I u>iil qwrs/i"" YOII , ~nd)"OII 1b.>1I leel.", la m,.
-Job 38,2·3
Wha t follows is a 5t:ries of questions, in which Job was told that he does not have
the wisdom la grasp the secret o f God's creat io n.
The inattention to lob's existential queStions may imply tha t it is foolish to
suppose ,hat Cod is concerned about our huma n problems; Cod has bigger busi-
8 See ,he illum inating comp~ ri-ron of ,he 1"'0 f}'pe~ 01 piety by U. Milo K...ufmann,
"Expostulation .... ith the D1\Iinll:, A Note on Contrnting AUitudes in CKek and Heb,."... Piety:
J~, t8 ( t96-1) t71_R2
9. Se", Leo G. Perdue, 1I'kJ",. ill R"""I· ,\ Itr.>,bo&.~I T"/Irolon '" Ibt &oi of.kh, JSOTSup 111
(Shdlidd, Almond Press. t990.
to. Su di<cu"ion of {he ch".ctrnution of Yahwch, chIp. 7.
282 Conl<>"" of Old Tts!a,"",! Thrology
ness to attend to_ [I.·lore likely, the reader should understand tha t a great gulf is
fixed between human wisdom and God's wisdom, and therefore God does not
th ink as we think, or act as we do. In any case, Job finally stands before the llIy,-
!(rium trrrnndurn, the sheer holiness of God, and repents for his prl"'>Umption in try-
ing to judgl" God by human standards. SUikingly, he seems to move beyond the
limitations of human words into an ecstatic vision of Cnd.
I had bw,d of yo~ by rbt "'aring of tb. rar,
!>ul now "'Y Q" s,t!; yow.
- Job 42,5
The poetry e nds with a sacramental view of the creation, in which the works of the
Creator display Cod's ineffable glory.
Since the prose folktale (prologue and epilogue) constitutes th e lite rary frame
of the poetic sections, and the book is to be read and interpreted as one composi-
tion, it is significant that in the end God commends Job for h is "agonistic" fa ith
that boldly seeks undemanding_ The friends, who proved to ~ poor "pastoral
counsdors" in a situation of suffering, were rebuked because they "have not spo-
ken of me what is right, as my servant Job has" (42:7-8). Like Ab ra ham, Job had
survivl"d the test and had demonstrated the "fea{ or reverence of God (cf, Gen.
22,12) that is the beginning of wisdom_
Tht Hiddn111f55 af Ga,l
The book of Ecdesiastes (called Qohelet in Hebrew ) 11 takes the skeptical side of
the dialogue about th e quest for \"isdom. There is only enough human wisdom 10
live prudently ~tween the unalterable boundaries of lile and death and eve n to
Ilnd same joy in the midst of suffering. The writer advocate<; re\'ere nce before God
(5:7,7,18 ), but God's wisdom is inaccessible and God is hidden from human
pe rcep tion.
Like Job, Ecclesiastes stands squarely in the midSt of the proble m of human
suffering. With prophetic bold ness, Qohelet spea ks out against the wickedness
perpetrated in th~ seats of justice and the anguished cries of the oppressed in soci-
ety (Ecd. 3,16---4: 3). H e is appalled by the long delays that occur before God
metes OUt punishment to the wicked and by the numerous case<; where there is no
difference betwe~n th e lot of the righteous and of the e\'ildoers ( 8: 10--9,3j, He
s~ns~s that the la ment in the face o f violence and oppr~ssion, "How long, 0 Lord,N
goes unanswered, at least within the lifetim~ of th~ people who cry out for a divine
answer to the probl~m of injustice.
H e nce Ecclesiastes is in radica l disagreement with sages who support the vie ....'
expressed in a \",isdom psalm: °1have ~en young and now am old, yet I have not
11 . M"nin wtncr tl<lnslatro Qohdet as "the Preacher; but thi~ discourse is more Iih a ram.
bling lecture than a sermon. The RSV appropria,eiy translates as "l11e T~ac h~r."
The Justice of God 283
seen the righteous forsaken, or their children ~gging bread" (Ps. 37:15). This
fac ile assurance is also voiced in the Wisdom of Ben Sira;
C,,~siJ" tb. 9""",lio"1 oJ dJ ~cd Set,
b~5
a"yOl" 1"'\ld in In. u,rJ a~J km Ji"'P/XJj~I"h
Or hM mryo~, 1'",,,,,,,,1 m I~ f,~r of Ib, Lord m,d bft>: Jors~Jm,)
Or),,,, ~r.)·on' ,~llrJ W/XJI< billl ~"J bWl n<gltdl:J}
For lhe u,rJ i; ,~,.p"'ji()!1"" ,,"J ,"rrejfwt
hi forg;vCi ,ir.,~"J \"Vts ir. tilll' of Ji51,(';S,
-Sir. 1 , 10-1 1
Aga inst such unrealistic optimism the Teacher {Qohe1et) protests veheme ntly.
His mantra. stated at th ~ ~ginning and reverbe rating to thl" end, is "Vanity of van-
ities, all is vanity,NThe use of the superlativ~ idio m, "vanity of \'aniti~s," emphasiZes
Ihe uner futility of human life. Early Skeptical Greek philosophy probably influ·
enced this wisdom writing. 11
Qohelet's discourse is a challenge to those who think that human w isdom can
perce iv~ th~ purpose of God in this world. From God's standpoint, ~erything may
belong to a meaningful whole, but hu mans are den ied this angle of vision. The nat·
uTal world, from our point of view, is governed by a changeless cycle, in which the
four el~ments of the universe- the ~arth, the '>Un, the wind, and the sea----end-
lessly repeat their move ments. Caught in the monOlOnous cycle and the tran-
sience of the natural world, the melancholy sage has the courage to realize that
human life is brief and powerless (Ecd. ! :2 - \ t) and that, as Bemand Russdl pu~
it in powerful modern prose, Nthe slow, sure doom falls pitiless and dark.«ll
m Tlm(l of Our UVl'l ~
In the famous chapter on the "'l1mes of Our lives" ( 3: 1.15), the sage obselVcs that
the times come one ahe r another, each with its particul ar meaning, but no dis·
cernible purpose runs through them. Experie nce of time, or bette r, times (plural),
is characteristic of human ~ings, but th~y cannot perceive how the tim~s ~Iong
together in an ultimately meaningful whole.
[God ) has made everything sui tab le lor its tim~, moreover, he has put a ~ense of
pa~t and future imo their minds, yet they cannot find Out what God has done from
th e hellinning to the end.
----Eec!. 3:11
Viewing the world of human experil" nce Sill> Sp«:i(lldernitali, God can make sense of
the whol e, but from the standpoint of limited human wisdom everything is tran -
sit-nt and adds ultimately up to "vanity.NHuman beings are like animals in that th~y
must di~ , but are unlike animals in that th ey know that they must die. "\Who knows
12. See the (";~y by Steven ai<hop, "Is Qohel~h ~ PyrrhonisO' pm;~ mro to the Society of
Biblical Ute r~ture (November t 996}, in ",·hich he tr ~ces the iniluenc~ of Gre~k Pyn-honism.
t 3. Bem-and Russell, "A Free Man's Worship." in Why J Alii Nor" Cbri'ti.>~ (New York: Simon
&5<: huster, 1957). 10+-16.
284 (1PrIl00l1'5 o} QIJ Ttsta"""r Th~l The JUStice of God 285

whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animak 8OC'S downward to Tbt IjI..1I< r:!a~r lift;1 s=nry F<lI'!.
the earth1' (3,2 t )_ or, j}'('tr: d:or sfmIj}ili. cg!!:r )"101",
In the same pessimi~ t ic some would sa)' realistic-vein, the Teacher is criti· bod tbt btsI oj lA- ..n h'Ollb!r .n:J ~.
cal of work or creative skill because it reflects th e competit ive desire to OUTstrip fel·
Thc:r 1"'» by lPtfJily, a..J .... "rt IJI J",*,,"I.
_ Ps_ 90,9· 10 (N]PSVI
low human bei n~ (4:4), the passionate lust for wealth that brings no satisfaction
(5,10--6,9), and the weak character of most people , who arc easily overcome by Here human morta!ity is \'iewed not just as biological weakness but in s.ome sense
temptatio ns of the moment. The sage concedes that, desp ite human weaknesses, as the conseque nce of human sin (cf. Rom _6,13 ). Life is lived toward death, which
it is good 10 have companions and to enjoy marital bliss. Finally. in a famous pas· comes all tOO qUickly, and toward the Anal judgment of Cod, from whose pene-
sage on old age (1 1:7- 11:8), he advises young people to remember their Creator trating scrutiny Ihere is no escape. The poet prays th ilt awarencss of the common
in the days of their youth , to celebrate life and to rn-el in God ·given happiness, huma n co nd ition may lead us (the community of faith ) to the wisdom based on the
before the shadows lengthen and old at;e begins to take it s toll. fe ar (revcrcnce) of the Lord.
Tt"'" lIS III ("""..! DI.,4a15 ,.;gbd)".
T<lbll§ DJ, Strimnly tb.!llIlt' -.tIy ab!.ti~ <I R"~ 1....-11_
Today many people live by Qohelet's philosophy, n-en though they may ne,'er - Ps_ 9(}, I 2 (NWSV,
have read h is book _Yet th is sage di d not advocate being like the fool in the Psalms
This psalm does OOt advocate "happiness: if that means a trouble· free life, but
(Ps. 14: I, 53, I) who says in his heart (mind) that there is no Cod and therefore
rathe r th e ·contentmen t" th at comes from the knowledge that all of o ur days,
you sho uld live as you please. On the contrary, the Teacher took Cod more seri·
despite their brevi ty and sorrow, are embraced with in the faithfulness and corn·
ously than many of the pious or orthodox. He believed that human beings, Cod·s
noblest creatures, arc capable of wisdom. th ough not the ki nd of "'isdom dut ean passion of God_ -
grasp the secret or mystery of Cod's creation (Eccl_ 6: 10- t 31. Cods purpose is hid· 5.l11l/y ws at d.!y/;rtak ",iU, Yo~r ~1l..JJall lOOT [J:.cscd]
den from our view; the holy Cod transcends our world_ The sage maintained, tbnt IOr IIIaJ II~ Jar jo)" ,,/i D\lrJl1yS_
however, that God wi lls th at human beings experience joy during their allotted life G..... wl joy}er allor~ Q<; y"" ba"" afjL'cI<d NI,
span and that they take life seriously. ~ !~ yt.l" ... lr..".. w.1J=J ';J}mIUlll.
_ Ps_ 90: t4· 15 (NJPSVJ

ObfailliIJ9 a Wist Hmrt

It is instmctive to compare wisdom literature like Job and Ecclesiastes, written
from a standpoint of ske pticism, with the great Psalm 90, written from the positio n
of faith in Cod. In this consummate expression of trust in God the Creator, some
of the notes of Israel's wisdom literarure are heard_ The pox! is o"ef'\oo'helmed by
the eternity o f God, 'our help in ages past, OU T hope for years to come: to borrow
the la nguage of a church hymn.
o LorJ [Yab:vth]. Yow j",.,.. ben: 0Kf rrJ~r
iJl rrxry gnwTalioJl .
&fen Ibr ..",,~l;Ii"f ca ..r ... 10 bti"#,
btfart y"" btwgb! }Of1b fbt ranb a~J Ib. ~""rlJ,
jf'Jfll rlmril)' ro 11",,11)' Yo" arc' Q.J_
-Ps. 9(}, 1· 2 (NJPSV)

The awareness of Cod, who transcends Ihe limes from beginning to end , over·
whelms the poet with a melancholy awareness of the brevity and trcms ience of
human life, which is lived under Ihe judgment (wTll.th) of God.
All awrJ..y. PgSS glO~)" '" YaSJ' :vralb,
wr \PC.J ".or)'llln I;~ a l.gb_
•

PART III
CONTINUED

B . FROM PROPHE CY TO ApOCALYPTIC

For I [Yahweh] am about fa create new /Jcavens

aJld a new earth.

the fanner tbillgs shall110t be relllemberrd

or come to mind_
lSAL"<H 65017
 32 . PROPHECY IN A NEW IDIOM

Wt' have Sf'rll that lsrad's !ia8~ sought 10 discover the divine ~{ of creation
only 10 realize finally that it is inaccessible 10 human wisdom. Another approach
10 lhe cosmic: secret was set forth in prophecy. especially the new idio m of
prophecy known as apocalyptic (from C~k QP~rypsis , meaning "revelation·)_ln
literarure of this type, Cod reveals the divine s«rcl , especially the secret of the
coming of Gods kingdom, to a ~er or prophet who divulges it to the circle of the
faithful. The mo~'ement is ·from abovc"-from God to human bcings----not "from
below"- fTOm the human world 10 Cod.

Gods Plan Jor 11x FutZlrt

The view that God reveals the divine secret to a seer is deeply rooted in the his-
toT)' of prophecy. The classical prophets, bcginning especially with Amos, did not
wam to be regarded as clairvoyantS in the popular sense (Amos 7, 12~ 16; d. Jer.
23:15.32), like Samuel of old ( 1 Sam. 9:9). Despite such disclaimers. however, they
were seers in a sophisticated sense who discerned God's plan for the future. The
prophet Amos declared that the storm cloud taking shape on the international
horizon signified [he judgment of God on the social injustices of Israel's society.
Surrly r« Lord Con [A.1ms.1i Yabwrh} .Iou MOIb.·~g
",;lb01<1 rtlltJIi..g J:.:j llntl
la IIrs Jt1'I'a~~ Ih.. ~wpbtls
n..li"" b.:u rNrrJ,
wlw wIn 1<01 j(40
n.. LorJ GoD {AJar.m Yo2Mlt] h~l sP<'~""
Il'Iw cm: bwl PtoplJrSy1
-Amos 3:7-8

Some of Israel's prophets used the metaphor of the heavenly council to express
the conviction that they wc~ commissioned to deda~ God's plan for the fu~
(stt 1 Kgs. 22;19·2 3). In lsaiah's inaugural visio n ((sa. 6: \·7) the microcosmic
earth ly temple was transformed into the macrocosmic heavenly [emple, where
Ihe prophet stood in the: presence of the cosmic King. who was enthroned "high
and lifted up: and heard the divine decree th at would shape the ruru«:. Jeremiah
insisted that th e ([oublc with the popular prophets, who preached what the peo·
pie wanted 10 hear, was tha t they lacked the proper credentials.
Fot","" ~"'Qng Ibm w! stood iM r[.r ,oM~d! of
lb. lO.~D { Y,!b~'th]
!aiK"';"" .1r.J 10 brM h~ ~'o,J,
or !.o.b.> h..! JiJI'tr' htrJ 10 bil IOOrJ~,J lisl",,,11
-}er. H: 1S (R5V)
 290 CC~rClm of OIJ Tll~,,,,,,,r Tbd"fl)'
The great prophets of Israel, in various and diver<;e ways. an noun ced the mys -
tery or secret of the coming of God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven_ Their
message of social justice was se t withi n this eschalo[ogical context.
Apocalyptic Visio"arirs
The theme of the d ivine secret wa~ taken up in the new STyle of prophecy called
apocalyptic, which flourished in the postexi[ic period_ These interpreters sought to
under<;tand the problem of evil, which , as ",'e have seen previously, delled explana.
tion in terms of Israd's covenant failure (sin). [n their view, evil was evident in power<;
of chaos at work in human history and indeed in the whole creation. A\,'are that the
spread of evil and violence was a threat to the sovereignty of God, and conse -
quently to the meani ng of human history, a seer announced a God -given anS\'''er to
the lament, "How [ong?" A5 in the passage from Jeremiah cited above (Je r_1 3: 18),
sometimes an apocalyptic seer used the metaphor of the heavenly council. The seer
Daniel, for instance, envisioned h imself standing in the heavenly council, in the
presence of the cosmic Judge, and hearing in code d language a disclosure of the
neamess of the ti me of God's triumph over the forces of evil (Dan _7 , 13 - 18)_
Cerhard von Rad drew attention to the close relation between apocalyptic
-k nowl edge" «jIlDSi,) and the wisdom of Israel's sages. I There are, admittedl},. sig-
nificant affinities betwee n the [V,,'o_ Both share a universal perspective that reaches
beyond the particular history of Israel into the cosmic panorama of creation .
Moreover, the seer is a kind of sage. Daniel is portrayed as a sage whose knowl -
edge, based on divine revelation, was superior to that of Babylonian diviners (Oan.
1:3ff. , 2:48). But the wisdom of the apocalyptic visionary has an entirely different
basis than the wisdom we have studied _It is not th e wisdom of a sage who re llects
on daily experience; rather. it is knowledge of the mystery 0/ the future that is
revea led to a seer and communicated to an esoteric community_ Jesus stood in line
w ith this apocalyptic view whe n he said to his disciples, according ro the Gospel
of Mark,
To you has been given the secrel [C reek nr)'!lmaxJ o( Ihe kingdom o( Cod, bu t for
those outside. everything come-; in parables_
From Classical Propb~C)' 10 Apocalyptic
The movement from classical prophecy to apocalyptic can be traced within th e
book of Isaiah, from its inception in the message of the eighth-century prophet to
its final composition during [he period of the Second Temple (rebu ilt 520-
515 B_C.). In the past there has becn a general consensus that Ihe book faHs in to
1_(,(,rhard von Rad_O!J T""'",,,,I n ..dogy. Iran, D. M. G. Slalker, 2 "01,. (N"", York. Harper
" Row. 1962-65'), 2- 30 1- 7. He lal~r qualified his t:arlier "iew Ihal the Origi n of ~poca I)'plle COl1ld
be lract:<! 10 wi$dom rather than prophecy, ""e Wi,JQ," i~ ]"",1. lram_ lam es D_ Martin ( Na~hvill~,
Ahingdon, t9n), 177.
Prophecy in a New Idiom 29 1
three major parts: the message of I~a iah of Jerusalem (found within the compass of
chapte~ 1- 39), the message of so-called Second Isaiah during the exile ( chapte~
4(1.....55 ), and th e later writings found at the conclusion of the book, so-called Third
Isaiah (chapters 55-66)_ \,(·'11at is the relat ion of these three pans to the book as a
whole~
Thr Book of li.1illb Ill.:l l-tfbolr
Lately some scholars have proposed moving beyond the "three lsaiahs,~ a tripartite
N
d ivision that was supposedly an "assured gain of so-called historical criticism, to
a consideration of the book as a whole _1 To use language introduced in another
connection,' the proposed approach is synchronic rather than diachron ic. Or as
Edgar Conrad puts it: "It is possible to conceive of the book as a composite created
from dive~e materials at a particular point in time rather th an a document evolv-
ing through time_"4
There is much to be said for this holistic approach _ The book of Isaiah was
read as a whole in the Essenelike community at Q umran (founded in the second
century rI.c.) or in the early Christian comm unity_ Neverth eless, there are ,kologj-
wl advantages that accOle from studying stages in the composi tion of the book_
For instance, our appreciation of the message of so-called Second Isaiah (chapters
4(1.....55) is enhanced by understanding the concrete historical situation out of
which the poems came and to which they were addressed_ s The t ext itself
demands this; for instance, the poet hails Cyrus of Pe~ia as Yahweh's NmessiahM
(anointed o nc), chosen to liberate peoples from bondage and oppression (lsa.
44:18 ; 45: 1J. l\loreover, when t his anonymous prophecy is interpreted in its his-
torical context, (he poet-prophet appear<; as a paslOral theolOgian, who addresses
the sufferings and anxieti es of a people shattered and dislocated by war and long-
ing for a new beginning in their homela nd. 6
Viewed as a whole, the book of Isaiah bears witness to the tra nsformation of
prophecy into apoca ly ptic. 7 In his commentary on the Ilrst part of the book of
1 Sce Edgar w_Conrad R«.Jlx91,~iab (~linneal"'l i<, Fortress Pre<;" 199 I); Kathc-ryn Pfi,terer
c
Darr, /",jab; V'Slon Gcd Ih. Fa",;!y o} GcJ (LOllisvilk Weslm inSler!}ohn Knox , 19941-
3_~ tht: comparison of Ihe approaches of Eichrodt and '.. on Rad aboy~ . chapler 3_
-t_ Edgard W Com-ad. 'R~ading ISiliah and Ih" T.... elve as ProphetiC Booh: in Writi~g dM.:i
Rraai¥.g rh. Scro!lajl,,""f, $1.4its of a~ Jnr...prrtiVf T'aailioc, ed. C",ig C Broy!es and Craig A E,."n,
(Le iden, Brill . (997), 103-18 (quotation, p_ 4). See also idem, "The End of Prophecy and the
Appo::aranee ot Angel,/Messengers in the Book of Ihe T,,'d"e: ]SOT 73 {t997} 65- 79_
:5. Jamt:s MUlknburg's illumi nali ng Introd uClion 10 and Ex~ ge'iis of I!;aiah 40-66, in lB
5,3S5- 773, slin claims attention_
6_ It is nOl""'o rthy Ihal Wahe, Brueggemann, who 'br;acke" out" question, of 'historicity" as
be~'ond .he pale of Old Testament theology iThol"!1)' oJ rbr OJ~ T"w","'! IMinnc:apoli" Fon:ress
Pr.,.;" 1997]. t I 8- 19), is ne...enhele" concerned 10 unci<:"l'ltand "'Ihe laiC' Isaiah"' {and other {ex"l
in the COnieAt of the exile _'"The hislorical rootage of Ih"", {exl'S in exile is of enormous impO'-
laoee for Iht: project of Old Tt:,ramem theology' (278--79).
7. See Paul Hanson, Th D""", aj Aj>«alypli, _ Th Hi'l~ricaI and Sociologi,,,1 Roo t, o} ],wj,b
Ap.xdyp!i~ E"b,.,lo!"i/)' (rev. cd.; Philadelphia, Fome" Press, 1979)_
 292 C..1Doi1'1 of O/J Trsl,,,,,,,,r TI.voloj'y
Isaiah (Isaiah 1-39), Ronald E. Clements obseTves that "this d~elopmem from
prophecy to ilpocatyptic foom onc of the most miking features In the literary
growth of the book of Isaiah ,'" To appreciate the [~Iogical signiRcance of this
shi ft, it is appropriate to turn to the messa~ of Sc-cond I~iah . which IS a "halfw;!}"
house: as it has been called, In the rnnsition horn prophecy {Fim Isaiah) to apoc·
al yptic (Third Isaiah ).
S«o~d Isaiah's Mtssagt
~oOO Isaiah's message (Isaiah .fO-S5 ) is grounded in the seminal message of the
eighth·century prophet, lsai.lh of jeruwlem, the major prophetic Inlcrprtter of
royal coven.Jm theology. We h.lve Sttn that Isaiah's procl.lm.ltion of the dominion
of God, the c0'5mic King, anters in two symbolic institutions.: the temple of Z ion
and the D.lvidic monarchy.' The poc!t·prophet. Second Isaiah, transposes this
message into a new key in t he tIme of Israel's exile in Babylonia. Like a pastor~l
theo logian, he speaks to .l dislocated. suffering people whose lalth In God had
been strained to the breaking poim,
Wby J') y(nl Hry, 0 j(fcoIo,
IZ..J 5/'(1111. 0 11n"1.
"My way iJ InJ.k" fnm Jhf Lo«n fY...br.""t&~
",,<I ..y jMstrrr 'o if Jlsrtg~rJd fry- ..y God}-
--I~ 40:17
Agilin ,,"'e heilr the question about Cod's justice. voiced this t ime: in the eXIstential
terms of a people uprooted from Iheir homeland.
The author knO'\O'n as First is<l.iah recei\"Cd his commission in the temple, ""here
he W,JS UlSnSporred in a visio n to the heavenly council and heard Cod's decree for
dw: future (IS<1.i.lh 6). Signiocamly. Second Isaiah eC~5 rh is council metaphor in
t~ nrst of h is poems (lsa. 40: 1· 11 ). Addressi ng members of the ~.l"enly council.
Yahweh, the cosmic King, commands thit a message of com fo rt be sent from
~aven to earth.
Co..forI. 0 n.fort .y pto;.1t.
Ja)"! YfJ"r GoJ
Spt.d: tocJmy 10.Ju..s..-/n,..
......01 fTJ'to M
Ih,,! she NI sm'td},(. knI,
Ib.rr fxt pmalry il /W'.{
8. Ronald E C leme nt.$ , /"'fa~ I-JP, Ne ..' CenlUry Rible Commen!~ry (C r~rW Rapid$
Eerdmans. t98 l), 22 Sec also my ~y. "'The Aponlyptic Rendering of the Ig .ah Trad;l1o n." ;n
n. Sod..I W~r1J of F~,...,1w'r Cbn!IIiIIIIfy.ElI )...J,,,',. EI~.rs '" Tnbulr to Ho .....rJ C Kit , ed. lxob
Neu$ntr er 1.1. (Phrladelphia· Fon~ Prm. 1988}, t7_38
9. On 1"0)'11 cO'o·e .... nr lheoIogy. KC above chaplet" H .
to. NRSV O"and,lIes hoere "",hi", lho: Hc~ ..-ord .~:could beun- be. Itlosbl<:d 'JlM'Ct "
Prophecy in I New Idiom 193
lJ.allhc I»s rKtlwdfroo. I.bd.ORDj(Y"l¥do;] 1-J
doMIt jGr/ll1 M llNl
- Iw.. 40: 1· 2
The metapho r of the divrne councllrs evident in that its members are addressed in
plura l Hebrew ,,·ems ("comfort: · speak: "cry.~ ·proclaim'") imd t hey respond in
antiphonal voices (v. 1, cf. v. 6). listening in on the deliberations of the heavenly
council, the prophet feels that he is among those addressed: "Then I said, What
shall I proclaimt'" {v. 6 ).
The substance of the "good news· that is 10 be carried horn heaven 10 earth is
that the time of the coming of Cod's dom inion is near. For Israel, the people of
God, th is means t}w.t the sentence of punishment for their sins k over illf1d that .l
new day is at hand. Comfortingly the people arc told that God's covenant
promises made of old arc Still valid. H uman existence is trarn; ient, like the fio,,"'ers
of the field, but God's word of promise is PCilli.lncnt!y valid.
Th.gftlfl II-,thm, tM y.ol"tfT f...kJ ,
bu r lilt ~,orJ Qf our GoJ lOll! sI<lnJ !om'!•.
-I ~ . 40:8
Despite Israel's lament (Isa. 40 ,27), God has not forgotten t heir ~jus t ice .·
AialThi"iI /OZi')"
Consider how this poet treats the various covenant tr.lditiorn; discussed in OUI'
study. First. il is note....o rthy that Second Isaiah does not refer to dlt conditional
~1osaic covenant, and in Ihis respect agTCCS with his rm-n tor, Isaiah of JC1U§alem,
who al50 failed to do 50. 11 In terms of the Mosaic covenant, the people of l5ldel
have suffered their penalty, mort than tnough ,·twofold-) for their sins (40:.1 ).
Some other covtnant language must be used to express the uncondi tional pardon
and gJaCe that God now offen.
Although Sc-cond Igiah does not refer 10 the Sinaitic covenant, he do.",-
unlike Isaiah of lerusalem--cmploy t he imagery of Israel's S<l.crtd history.1J In glo.
rious colo~ t he poet portrays the people marching to Zion; dlC exodus or "going
out"" o f captivity, the victory at the sea where Cod conquered the power.; of cha0'5
(mythically symboliztd as Rahab, the ch.lOS monster, S 1,9 · 11 )• .lOO the march on
""le highway of God" through tilt wilderness (40:3) to the tempk of I CIUSillcm,
""here God is acclaimed King (40:9- 11). Zion, the city of God, hear.; a herald
announcing good ti dings
How lII'~I'ifKr.po..!If _~I::I:>tS
~IT Jhf fltl Qj tlx ..mn<gtT who ~IIII<III/lCt.I /'(~(f,
11. Scc rt\(, d~~ on ollsa.ahi prophecy above" eNp, H .
11. On thi ' pan'i ~ o f h'~lorical .maliCf)'. mionly ,he Uodui, KC my esny. ' Exodui
Tnoology in 5«ond ka,a}, " In ISt...r, p~ Hrn:o;r &~ IM H_,,, J,r.rs bwinoJ"'tg, ed. B. W.
AndeTson ..nd Waiter Harrdwn (No:w YoB . Huper " Row, (962), t77-95.
 •

Prophecy in a New IdIom 29 5

294 C""lQtIfS of OU Trst> .... / ~y

d>O bn~9' JooJ 1IlWS. anointed (messiah) becaU5e he will be the agent who ,•• ill accomplish Cod's pur-
who ",,~,," n(" saillaliOM, pose (45:1 -7).
who S<>Y$ 10 liM, /,,,,,. W.riS"$. • In Ihe message of Second Isaiah, the promises of grace to David are nOl
-Is.. 52] neglec ted. S trikingly. the Davidic covenanl is reaffinned by shifting the promises
of this -e\'erlasting co\'enant" from the Davidic dynasl"y 10 the peo ple. To the corn·
This heraldic announcement ech~ the exciting proclamat ion heard in p~lms
that celebrate God's enthronement; l'ahweh is kin8!~ 1l munil"yls God sayS:
The ne .... exodus, Second Isaiah announces, will be li ke the fann er exodus Jndi~r y"'" (at, II"J '''Ill! ro lie.
from Egyptian bonda ge: lis!lr1. sa:hat yCtl...-y li.,..
I .,ill .....I:r ";11. you fl'!wr<ll] "" "",.L'II"'1 C"Pt>I;lI,I,
TIN! s,,;J Ib!-l.oI1D fY~J ,"y sldf<l5l, ~r(!.,,1It [ hesed}f~ f>m.tJ.
\V'IIO.a.lt d'....J /btOll)lb Ibt $I'd _lsa.55:3
A><J d fIo>th Ibt""'9"b .i§bty ~"'Im,
\'Ib.l Jmr'l))"J rb~ IlDt); ",,4 ho.~ The poet goes on to say that Israel, the people o t Cod, wi ll be instrume ntal in
A,.J aa/lit .. igb/y bost- including other nations in the saving purp05e of Cod, as promised in the
Tbty "'y Jo"'" t.:I ri$l' "" ""'rr. AbTCIhamic cove nant {cf. Gen. 12: 1·2j.
Tbty ..... rt mjr.;w,,b,J, q<It1'!("brJ li~
11 Rrl $no. I .ade t.=. [D.!,,;JJ .. ll'ilt:t55 to tbc ~tc,lrs,
<I k.,J" ",..1 ,,,.. ...anJtrJor lb. p,*s.
- 15<1. 43 16· 17 (NJPSV)
Sri'. y.". ,ball c<llInatioK! 1"'" ) 'OU do 1:01 brOIl>,
But God is about to do a "new th ing: wh ich will be so ",'onderful that t he forme r u.J ""ti<m' lW' do 1:01 itr.wo y ou ,h,1J1 .~" 10 Y"".
thin gs pale in significance: brt"<l1Ut' of tb. l.~ fY"lnvrb j y ..... Cd. Ib! Holy CA" ..j Is'ad,
tbt fo,.,,. th"'91.
[)" lIOI ftllltlO,,"
f« "" rus g!.mjtJ >"'"
_lsa. 55: 4_5
Q1" 'O"~Jtr Ibr Ibi"95 of oU.

t gm ~oo"r 10 40"""'" Ibmg,

nOlI> ill~ri~s forth, Jo y"" "01 pur,i." it7 Tnt SuJ}ni"g S(>l1<11:1

-lsa. 43,18-1 9.1.
Here is faith th.lt dOC'S not turn to the archaic past, longing for the good o ld
days, but stands on ti ptoe, facing the new age that Cod is about to introduce. Even
now those ne ....' th ings, those acts of new creation, are eVident, if one has the eyes
o f faith to perceive them.
Tbr P'0111isn o} Gmcr to DalliJ
Turn now to the D.1.vid ic covenant, w hich ....' 015 fundamental in the prophetic mes·
sa.ge of Isaiah of Jerusalem . 14 This covenant, wi th its promises of the securil"y of
Z lon and the unbroke n continuity of the Davidic dyn as ty, had foundered on the
rocks o f tragic historical real ity, as evi dent from the poignant lament al th e con-
dU~ion of Psalm 89 (w 38-51 ). In the time of Second Isaiah there was no longe r
a kmg on the throne of Jerusalem, and the city ofZio n was in ruins. In accord ....·ith
Zio n theo logy, Second Isaiah announces a mar-'e!ous social transformation:
Je rusa lem and its temple will be rebuilt (44:26-28 ). U nlike the fanner Isa iah, how-
ever, he does not an nounce the comi ng of an anointed onc (messiah) 10 sit on the
th rone of Jerusalem. Indeed, he calls a foreign rule r, Cyrus of Per.;ia, Cod's
13. ~ the d,scussion of Ps.alms 47, 93----99 .. b.;wc , ch;tp!~ H .
14. ~ aoo..~ . ch"p<er 23 .
According 1O Second Isa iah. Israel has a special ro le in the sa ... ing purpose of C od
Ihat embraces all na lions. In Ihis spacious theological context appear.; the theme
of Ihe suffering servant, .... hich is completely absent in the prophecy of Isaiah of
Jerusalem. This is nOI the placc to enter at leng th inlO the muc h -discussed ques-
tion of the idenlil"y of the serv ant, a questro n raised, according 10 a Ne'" Tes tament
SlOT)', by an Et hiopian eu nuch (Acts 8:26-39 ).'° Suf~ce il to say that in the four
servilnt poems we are given an interpretation o f suffering that goes beyond any·
thing found in Israel's covenant traditions.
Here suffering is nOI regarded as punh;hment for Israel's covenant fai lure (sin),
rather the servant's suffering is vicariously borne for other J.l't!"oples. The nations
confess tha t "he was wou nded for our tra nsgressions, he was b ruised fo r our in iq-
uities" {lsa. 53,5; RSV). The servant's suffering is, in rome sense, substirutionary, for
~Ihe Lord [Yahweh 1 has laid on him the iniquity of us all~ (53,6). There is no sug-
15 All the Hebrew ve~ are in ,h~ plul1l1 , ~ho""ing Ihal God addresses this promise of gn(~
10 the peoplc. Sec Edgar (onrad. 'The Community as King in ~,ond Is.oiah: in Udml",dittg tM
Wed. E!l<ly> '" 11M« of IIrrr.ba,j IV A.J,fSD'I , cd .lames T. Butler Cl aL. JSQTSup 37 (Sheffield.
)SOT I)ms. 1985). 99- 112.
16. T"\'I(" fou. servant poc!"" are 1~. 42, I ·4, 49, 1·6, 50'4.9, 52: t l-53, 12. See my discussion
In U~JtrlIm:J'-~ lM OlJ T"ra",,,,! (4th «I., Engl.,."<lOd O,ff", NJ.: Prentice-Hlll. t986) 48S-S0,
(ibndgcd paperback ~d 'l Engle»'ood a.fis, NJ .• Prentice·Hall, 1997), 436--40.
296 (""IOIII'S of 0lJ Tcslamtt:1 ~y Prophecy in a New Idiom 297

gestion, however, that the servant suHeTS in order to satisfy divine wrath. From the !<) ![.,.i!.y r:>Q,J Irf t;""t gilt! <rot J""" ",y _Ib,
~rst the poems of xmnd Isaiah assert that God's comfort ing word for Israel is it sJ;.,1i 1001 ,,!unt 10 "'" I:B;'ty.
based on divine grace and forgiveness . b.tl ir $hali <IC,o"'l'li,b Ib~ 1 rinrb I fNtJIOlt.
Alone point, [he servant is compared 10 "a lamb led 10 the slaughter: which ol..J slICmJ i" 11,. rbir~ fer ,.-bieb I JtHl it
-lsa. 55,10·1 1
echoes language that the prophet }ert:miah used in one of his confessions (Isa_
53 :71 cf. }er. 11: 19j. Yet there is a profound difference. The servant suffers pas- Second, reference 10 the Noachic co"enant is appropriate because it is a covenant
sively in silence: '" he opened not his mOlllh~ (Isa. 53: 7; RSV), wh ilderemiah-like of crea tion, embracing hu mans, animals, and .he eanh itself. Second Isaiah brings
Joi>---<'xpostul ated with God . The servant's suffering, however, is nOI JUSt a histor. out dearly the creOl ti on theology implici t in the royal covenan t theology of Isaiah
ical fate that falls brutally on an innocent one, fo r it occurs in the .... ilI of God ("It
of Jerusalem _
was lhe Will 01 the LORD [Yahweh l to bruise him; v_ 10) and within [he mystery In these poems, creation ap~ars in several senses. For one thing, Yahweh is
of Cod's redempt ive purpose. Accordingly, the suffe ring and humtliation of the praised as the crea tor of the people, the one who formed them in the ....omb Usa.
servanl are embraced ....·ithin CoOs ultimate vindica tion and exaltation, the notes "", 1·2, 2,,). Also, creation may refer to the ne-v.' historical events tha t God brings
on wh ich the poem begim (51:13- ]5) and ends (53: 10-12 ). about, the -new thing" that God does (4 3: 18·19). However. the poet's emphasis
falls especially on cosmic crcation.
Th~ EII~rlnstiJ1g (OVt'll/lIl! with NoaJ, LifT MP ywr ryrs 011 h;g}, ad !",
Since Ihe jI.·10saic and Davidic covenants are th~ologically inadequate, ~cond Wbo m ,mJ !ht.v
Isaia h turns 10 th e "e,'erlasting covenant" with Noah after the flood to express the
Ht li>ho It,;,,;! owl Ibri, bo~1 ,,,,d "",.. !>r/$ rhPoo.
,,,,Il,xg IIrf", "j] hy M"",
unconditional grace of God a nd the new begin ning (or new creation) that is al
bt'~w!t 1111$ g't~' i" Hr,.,glh,
hand . l ~
1I.ghry IX pou'rr.
This iJ 1.1ot r1.r J..), of N()Qb IQ IIr, "or O><l iJ ""fUJ!;l.
JIlS! <l'll 1""'1< tb~llht "'~Im of NOiIb - Isa. 40:26
""",IJ n<P!T O;~IJ< iI'J ONT tbr tilr'.b,
In t he message of Second Isaiah, Ihe doctrine of cfea tion undergi rds every--
so 1""111' """"., fb"t 1 IQ,II xci Irf ~ry IPiIb yQII.
th ing that is proclaimed. Because Yah ....eh, the Holy One, tS the crealOr of Pthe
" .....1 ~.,;!/ r.cI rtboil:t ym.
Fo' rb( "",.."Io>;II5..,y .kfJ"'rt ends of the earth r and of thc starry expa nse, Yahweh is powerful to save Israel and
"d I.... biil! '" (m(l{OfJ, rt:deem the world. No othcr deity can demonstrate the PD",'er to crt:ate [he heaven
b~r '"y l1,,,Jf~st low [J:!esedJ!w!l ~o, j'f>;1r! f",,. y""'. an d the e<lrth and even to bring about a new crea tion.
and "'y CO"",,,,,, 1 of /lMU ,h"i] t\iI! ht ",,"o,,(J.
n~J SlI)'S Ibt LorJ [y',,,",",,hJ.
"')'l ,I" LORD[YaI,~'tbJ u,bo ,,",'s (O",~~l5io" 0" )'QII.
,br Crro!ot of 10. ["''''''''5.
- IS<!. 54:9- 10
[". ~"'" IS God.
The e"erlasting covena.nt wi th Noah is theolog ically appropriate because-, lim, ~ mal, tilt wrib o»>J J"slnor.d it
it was a coveOant of grace, granted in spite of the fact that lhe inclination of thc "od by hi"'JdJj:rd I!ft...ly,
human heart continued to be cvil {Gen. 8:2 I). Likewise, a.ccording to Second v>bo ,rrald I! I>O! as" fc".bs ""Ilit
i>w! as .. ~. ~ br I",d ;,.:
Isaiah, Yahwehs forgiveness is free and unconditioned by the behavior 01 the- peo .
I ". Ibr LcrJ 1Yal:c-tb ]. ",,J Ibm ;s .",.,. othtr.
plc. Cod's wo rd of prom ise does not go forth in vain bur accomplishcs God's sav·
- I..... 45: 1B (RES )
io!! purpose- .

Ft!< M lb. r,,," ,1r.J lb.t S"Il"' '(mIr J"rmc fmrn "'~vn:.
,,10.1' Jo 1101 ,,1~'1II"'rt ~nrij airy r,~t't lI'Iallr.J Ih. Mrtb,
"",~;" g ir j"'"9 fCr1" ",,,J IPIt'III.
givi"!/l.d 10 lilt SCII't' ~"J I",,,,J 10 u,., ",Irr;
17. On ,he f',:o.tchic co~en~nt stt alxwe . (hlpCcr 11_
SlJift in TlJroiogicll1 EmpJmsis
So far.standing in the "halfway house~ 01 Second Isaiah, we have looked back to
the seminal message of Isaiah of Jerusalem in th e atlempt 10 understand what
theological shifts took place in the- movement of prophecy toward apocal}'ptic.
Now, from the same van lage poim, let os look forward 10 the last chapters of the

book and to the !lnal apocalyptic reread ing of the Isaiah tT<lditio n in the canonical
book of Isaiah.
Th~ next section of the book of Isaiah, so-called Th ird Isaiah (Isaiah 56-Q6),
is not apocalyptic in the full -blown senseJ it is sometimes deSignated as prow -
apocalyptic , that is, prophecy that is beginning to turn into apocalyptic. He re we
stand at the ~dawn of apocalyptic," to cite the title of Paul Hanson's study of Third
Isaia h. l ~ In the Anal edition of the book of Isaiah, materials of more defin itive
apocalyptic characte r were added. These include "the little apocalypse of Isaiah
H
14- 27 and the t\" in chapters 34 and 35, which no\,' serve as a transition to Second
Isaiah.
It lie<; beyond our present purpose to trace the h iStory of the composition of
the book of Isaiah; rather, we an~ concerned with (he theological shifts in empha-
sis as prophecy changed into apocalyptic or. one might say. as Second Isaia h led
on to Third Isaiah.
ANew Cm,tion
First, in this transition there was a shift in em phasis from the history of the people
Israd to the cosmic dime nsion, wh ich includes heaven and earth a nd the whole
course of human history from cro:ation to consummation. O n the one hand.
Mosaic prophets like Hosea and Jeremiah concentrate primarily on the polities
and economics of the mundane realm; and they perceive that world in the light of
the sacred story that centers in exodus and Sinai. On the other hand. Isaiah of
Jerusalem ushers us into the symbolic world of Zion, th~ city of Cod, which will
endure eternally, despite all historical vicissitudes, because i[ is Cod's earthly
dwdling place (\ee Psalms 46 and 48 (
In apocaly ptic im ag ination lhe concrete realities of history are transfigured
with a transcend~ nt meaning_ Nations like Assyria or Babylonia are no longer
agents of Cod fo r chastening the people Israel blll arc symbols of sinister powers
at work in history, threatening the city of Cod and the divine pla n for Israel and
the nations. Cod's victory over these forc~ will be not on Iv a \'indication of Z ion
and therefo re of all the poor and helpless o f the earth. bu~ also a new creat ion i~
which there will be no more suffering and violence. This apocalyptic no te sounds
Oll! in a beautiful poem ;n Third Isaiah,
For 1 ~'" ~kl le Crt,,/, /Il"!1' "'~!""'5
an.!" "I~' Mrth,
lb. ja"",r Ilri~g; sb~1I "o! be ""'''''~'rd
or mm, ID "'in1.
Bu' b. gbJ ""J rqoic< }~rtrJ"lr
i~ u,bat 1 "'" nmri..g,
}Q/ I a," "hou! le cr("lr j,,,,s"{',,, ~s " JO)'.
anJ ill pN~!r<!j a Jd'!lh
Prophecy in a N~ Idiom 299
I u,o'II rcj~i<t it> }(m",["".
and Jrli!ihl i~ "'Y (>ro p!.,
~o m~'( ,ball rbr 5",,~J o} o:.,y!ping lot hwd ;~ it.
~r tbrcry q Jijl,..",.
Comfort for tht AfJktrl
In the tra nsition from prophecy to apocalyptic another shift in emphasis took
place; from a call 10 repentance 10 a message of consolation. It is noteworthy Ihat
the poetry of Second Isaiah, which stands at the turning point of the book of
Isaiah, begins with a word 0/ corn /on announced in the heave nly council by the
cosmic King, noCom/on, 0 corn/on m}' people: sa~'s your Cod" Usa. 40:1 l_
In one of his srudies of apocalyptic, Paul Hanson suggests tha t the diFfe ~nce
between prophecy and apocalyptic may be expressed in terms of the metaphor of
the heavenly council. PProphelic eschatology is transformed inlO apocalyptic at
the point where the task of transla tin g the cosmic vision into the Categories of
mundane reality is abdica ted ."r9 In his temple vision, as we have seen . Isaiah of
Jerusalem was called to carry a heavenly message to the people of Israel. He was
commissioned to nans la te a vision of cosmic righteousness a nd order into human
society. thal is, to preach fo r social change so that the mundane rea lm might con-
form to the will of the cosmic King, \"h05e heave nly throne is "founded on right-
eousness and justice" (Ps. 89: 14 ).
Apocalrptic visionaries. ho""e~'er, did not consider "translation o f the cosmic
visionff to be their primal)' task, They received from the heavenly throne a message
of comfon that had to do with the coming of Cod's kingdom on earth and the
beginning of a new age. In answer to the lament, '" How 10ngJff they heard the
answer, "not long." To be sure, they could sound the call 10 repentance in their own
way. According to the CO\pe1 of 1\-lark, Jesus' preach ing began with the call
"repent, for the kingdom uf Cod is at hand" ( 1,15 1. But apocalyptic visionaries
placed the primary emphasis on offering a message of comfon to the afAicted in
limes of trial.
The re ason for this "abdication" of the prophetic task of translating the heav-
",nly vision into the realities of social life is to be fou nd in a dee per and more rad-
ical perception of the problem of evil. As we ha ve seen. in classical prophecy the
sufferings of the times were explained by the people's fai lure or sin. The great
prophets d id not say that the people were viclimized by demonic powers external
10 Israel's life. Rather, the problem- in their perception-lay within the people:
their false way of life, their service of alie n gods, [heir refusal to bring \ociety into
conformity with the righteousness of Cod's cosmic order. Apocalyptic writers,
however, found this explanation of evil to be inadequate_ It was not enough to call
for re~ntance and to blame the people for their failure of responsibility. They per-
ceived that Israel. and all peoples, were caught in the grip of monstrous historical
19. Pal1! HJ",on, "Old Te" .mc nt Apocalypfic Rccxamined," l~! 1S (t971) 454--79.
300 Co"t~~" of Old Tt5ramtl't Thwk.jy Prophecy iJl a NI!\'>' Idiom 301

forces that ch ~ ll e nged the sovereignty o f Cod. Evil. in thei r view. is loca ted not
JUSt "in here; in the heart. but out then:'. in colossal empires. oppressi~'c stl1.lcturcs
of power, evil that sweeps like an a"alanche over innocent people.
Overcoming ffJe Powm oJ Cfmos
Accordingly. apocalyp tic writers revived the a ncient myth of the battle of the
Divine \'(farrior against th e powers of chaos and the decisive vinor), tha t demon -
snated Cod's power as King. This ancient myth influenced th e pattern ollhe Song
of the Sea (&od. 15, 1- 18 ), { I ) Yahweh's battle againSl adversaries, {2 ) Yahweh's
triumph at the sea, and (3} Yahweh's ent hron ement as triumphant King in the
sannuary.lCl At o ne point Second 15ai~h invok<:~d the myth to porrray Yahweh's
power to create a people and give the m a future. In this poetic view, the Divine
\'\?arrior's victory at the Reed Se a was not just a victory over flesh and blood (the
anny of Pharaoh) but a victory over the uncanny powers of eVil, symbolized by
the monste r of chaos, Rahab. The poet addresses the Marm" of t he Divine \'farrio r
to achieve a similar viclOry in the future:
AlI'akf. a~'Qkt. ~UI ~~ ,!r"'9tb.
o a"'" o} IJx Low [Y~bU'tb]!
Awakf, a, '" J"y; of elJ.
thr §I"lW"ti;n" 410"01 "9<>!
W~S ir IWr yw [ fin: """""1 w)'" (u! R"b,,!>;~ ~i"'''.
~,bop,m;d I'" Jr"g~n?
W~, il /rof ywwho JrilJ tJ~ Ih! I(d ,
tJx w~rm of fht 9'(1:1 dft/>.
wbo "",d,' tJx J.-prm of Ibt I(,~" "'.,y
JOT Ibr rdtmttd!o cross <>t'tO
- lsa. 51 ,9·10
cm age, who feel helpless in the face of massive social forces or colossal eVil, have
come to a new appreciatioJl 01the apocalyp tic myth.
The UhilMft (om/rmt of Evil
In the Isaiah Apocal}'pse flsaiah 24---27) a passage portra}'~ the Ilnal trium ph of the
Divine \'(fartior over the monster of ~vil. known as Tiamat in Babylonian tradition
and Rahabll otan (Levialhan) in Canaanite mythology T he language is redol~ nt of
the Canaanite myth of Baars conquest of h is adversary. Loran Ihe Mflceing serpent":
0,. tb.11 ,wy tIK LO~D [¥"j,lC'tb J ...,,/h hi, ",,,I ,,,,,,rJ.
bi! mighty ,,,,J I~o~""rful <w<prJ. !I',1f p ~r.ilb
hlJJ'l!b~1I Ikll!m5lir~ 5lQ mpnrr,
tb"t wri/hi"!i srrprl:l Ln,i"tha,, ; •
!or w,1I ,I"y Ibr m~~,t,r<Pf 'ix ,1"1>
- ISJ.. 17,1 ( RE S)
Cod will ultimately ~exorc ise~ history, vanqu ishing the powers of chaos tha t have
lingered eve r since creation.] 1
A line can easily be drawn from rhis apocalyptic passage to the ponrayal of the
consummation found in th e Apocalypse of John ( Revelation ). Acco rding to [hat
Christia n visionary, at rhe t ime of rhe fi nal triumph of the D iv me \'I!farrior, the
powers of eVil-symbolized mythically by "the greal d ragon , . ... tha t ancient ser-
pent, who is called the Devil and Satan" (Rev_ 1:2 ,9}--will he overcome . t\-tor~ov~r,
"the sea"-the locus of {he powers o f chaos- will be no more (Rev, 21:1 ).

This imaginative poelry should not be consHued to mean that Cod actually
sleeps through times of suffering a nd tragedy and ha~ to be "awakened" to actio n_
Here the poet is dra"'ing a correspondence bct,,"'een the event at the 5ea in the
past and the new event of the "passing over" of libera(ed peo ple into (he promised
land of Ih e fu ture.
In apocalypt ic imagination the D iv;ne \\;tarrior's victory is no t res tricred to
Israel's hislOry but he longs 10 a universal drama, in which the kingdom of Cod
opposes the powers o! evil that afAi ct and cl1.lsh people. These visionaries portray
a New Jerusalem, a new age, indeed, a new creation. In this perspective, t he com-
ing of God's kingdom on eanh wi ll he the time of God's triumph-not onl}' over
human sin and failure but also over all th e powe rs of evil that ha~'e £yrannize d peo-
ple and conupted human h istory from time immemorial. Many people of the mod·

2 t . See further my ~s""Y, "The Conque<;t of the Flee ing, T"'i<t;ng SefP"nt, Isaiah 27, 1 in
n
Cont exl." in U.coorn''''.I Ana",! 5!ar-<lo E""Y' ir. Alimo')' ~f "'d Rich.:!rJIOK, ~-d. L"wi, M. Hopfe
}O Sec abMe, chapter 18. (\\;'inona L..h . Ind., Ei""nbrauns, 1 99~ 1. 3----1' .

33. THE DOMINION OF GOD VERSUS
THE DOMINION OF EVIL
~Ve have fOlllld that the justice of Cod is a burning issue in the Old Testament,
especially in the literature refkcling the homd~sn~s and s t ruggl~ experienced in
the aftermat h of the faH of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. Some ha~'e even suggested tha(
Job ~s}'mbolized exiled an d resto red Israel ,~ 1 though Ihis is probably an overin!er-
pretatio n. In any case, the question o f thcodi<:y did not arise Olll of a reAective
monotheism that attempled 10 uphold th e sole SO\'ereignty of Cod; it arose ou[ of
th(" experie nce of !>Uffering in a ....·orld where. in the pC"f"ipect ive of faith, God is
present and active.
Other religions and philosophies are not necessarily tantaliz("d by th is prob.
lem. In mainlin e Buddhism the problem does not arise since this religion d oes not
alArm belief in God o r God's creation. Buddhism shows a way, attractive to many
people, to transcend suffering and turmoil, bur it d0C'5 not deal wi lh theodicy.
Another major world religion, Islam, emphasizes surrend("r 10 the 'iQ\'e reign will of
Cod as sct forth in the Koran and promises tha t the injustices of this life Ivill be
l"ClipSed in a glorious postmortem existence, a prospect that allegedly mak~ eve n
suicide bombing, in the service of Allah, justiAable. One could go on . Fo r th e
Judeo -Chrislian faith, however, theodicy is a poignant and inescapable issue
because of the conviction that God, the Creator, is pr~ent and active in the world .
This faith is summed up pregnantly in one prophetic word: Immanuel, Gacl with
us. Christianity recei\'ed and int ensi fied Israel's witness. exp ressed in various
cov("nantal tracliti ons, to the real presence of Cod in the world .
FrOll1 Prophttic Word to Apocalyptic Vision
In our previous slucly we haY(" seen that classical prophecy, in the fa ce of the
colossal violence and monstrous e\'il manifes t in human history, moved into a ne .....
type of prop hecy known as apocalyptic The boo k of I~iah in its final form dis -
plays an apocaly ptic rendering of the I~iah traditio n 2
In the transition from prophecy to apocal yptic several things happened. First,
the prophetic m~sage mo\·ed from the plane: of o rdina ry mundane affairs into a
suprahistorical realm, where God's dominion cl ashes with the powers of e\'jl. A
see r announces the ' sccret" or "mystery" of Cods kingdom, which is hidden from
peop le invol\'ed in o rd inary political o r economic reality. Second, in dea li ng wi th
t. K3lh leen O'Con nor suggests Ihis pOssib ility In ''W',~dom li tera rure and Ex perience o f ,he
Divine ." in Bib!i<"~r ThtoIC;;y. p,.o&r., ~"J P~b·rn. cd. StC'o·en) . Kr..ftch ick {N ..sll\~Ik: Abingdon,
1995), 185.
2. As <ho>.·n in my essay -n", Apocilyptic Rendmng of the l5ltiah Tradihon: In Th Soc;"I
Wor!J aJ FQ_u,,,, Gri, t",~,1)' "' ....i ).J..:,,,, &!~)"! ;~ Trihlr k> ~a"j C. K... ed J;teob Neusncr el aL
(Philadelp hi a: Fortr~.s PTe$S, 1988}. 17-38.
The Dominion 01 God "el"'lUs the Domi nion of Ev il 303
the execution of Gods plan th e see r resortS to highly !»,mbolic languago:: that has
to be decoded. .M ythicallanguage, such as the Di vine: W arrior's vk:lOry over th e
monster of chaos, is used to ex press the meaning of the historical drama. Finally,
the perspec tive bc:COf1le'i un;,'ersal, inclucling not just the history of Israel but abo
the whole sweep of the t imes from creation to co nsummation. To be !>Ure, Z ion-
the city ..... here Cod is sacramenrally presen t (Ps. 46A.5)_ Kmains ce ntral in the
new scenario. Z JOn is to ~jOKC , for God .....ill vi ndicate her and bring back her sons
and daughters to their homeland. But Zion is the center of the world, the meeting
place of heaven and eanh, and hence all peoples ancl nati ons w ill make a pilgrim-
age to Zion, the holy city. to And ultimate peac e and security by listening to God's
wrah or teaching (lsa. 2:2-4). Poets e rwisi on a Kew Jerusalem, in which there will
be: no mo~ vio lence o r suffering (Isa. 65: 1i.25 ). The vision of "the new Jerusalem,
coming down out of heaven from Cod: is a\!iO found in the Apocalypse
(Revela tion ) of John, the last book of the Kew Testament (Re\'elat ion 2--4).
Gene ral iza tions an: risky, but o ne ..... ay to explain the diffe rence bet ..... een the
ty,'o styl~ of pro phecy is to say that in classical prophecy the role of t he prophet
is to proclaim the lI-'1lrd of God so that people may repen t; in apocalyp tic, the role
of the seer is to pOrtray a V;S;Ol' of Cod's future so that people may And co mfort
and hope. True, classical prophets speak about vi5ions, usually for the purpose of
selling forth thei r c redentials to speak. t he wo rd 0/ God (Amos 7:7-9; 8: 1-3, Jer.
1, 1-12, 13 · 19). In apocalyp tiC, however, there is a shift to dreams and visions
that, when expla ined by an interpre ter, disclose God's plan lor the future. 3 The
ANit part of the book of Zechariah , for instance, contains eigh t mysterious visions;
the book of Da niel also contains cryptic visions whose meaning IS tantalizingly
elusive.
Th OilY of J~dgtllrnt
At the e ncl of the Old T~lament, according to the arrangement of the Christian
Bible, are fou nd thineen small ProPhetic w ri t ings tha t. in general, treat the th("me
of the coming of God's day of judgment. T his arrangement, which includes the
book of Daniel, marks one of the im portan t differences bel"'een the Christian
Bible (O ld Tcs tamem) and t he H eb~w Bible, as noted earlkr.~ On t he one hand,
in the Heb~w Bible the Book of the T",'elve is placed before the Writings
(Kethubim ), ..... hich includ~ the book of Daniel . On the other hand, in the
Chris tian Bible, whi ch is inRuencecl by the Creek transla tion (Septuagint), these
small p rop hetic books, along with the book of Daniel, are placecl at the end of the
Old Tcstamem, JUSt before th e Ne." .. Testa mem . Appropriately, the lib retto of
Hanclel's Mtssiab . after citing passages from the comfort ing m~sa8e of Second
Isaiah r Comfon Ye," lsa. 40: 1·3, -Every Valley Shall Be Exalted," 40:4; "And the
Gloty of the Lord," 405), di ps into this prophetic collection:
3, Se.: Susan Niditch, n,.. S)"III!>olIC V,,_ '" BJ,J",,! T,,.},::,,,. HS:'1 30 (Adan.a: Scholars Press,
1983 ), ...·ho no'~ a ~hifl in the pattern of ,he ,",sion '" the t,..""moon from prophecy to apoca-
lyptiC
4.5« abo,'." <:haplcr I.
-

)"t ""Cl a lit!!, u,bil., 4nJ f lI'illlb~l::t
,lot htawr:s a>:J tbt u>1fh
- H ag. 2:6 ·7
&t who ""'Y "b,d. Ib. Dr.y cf hIS «"'''''91
- Mal. U
A,.J})(!ha1l ~n'.fy tbt SOft; 0/ u..;_
- M.d. 3:3 ( KJV)
\X' h;Jt binds th~s~ proph~tic books together theologically is that they all d~a l ~ith
the coming Dils 'r<lt, ~the da)' of wrath: when God ~.il1 judge the sins of the peo-
ple of Cod and Ihe evil that tyrannizes the ....orld.
At first glance, the prophetic legend of }ona.h seems to be an exception. But
thiS short Story also deals with the message of divine judgment that lonah was
commissioned to preach to Nine~'eh, th~ capital of the hated Assyrian Empire that
had oppre<ised the IsraelIte people. (Set- the biner enm ity toward Assyria expressed
in the book of Nahum .) What disturbed }onah was the possibility that if the
N inevit<:s r<:pen ted in response to his preaching, God would relent in his judg.
ment. for ~there's a wideness in God's mercy," to Quote the words of a hymn by
Frederick W. Fabc:r ( 1854). Citing the ancient tradition about the proclamation of
Yahweh's "name" (Exod. 34:5-7). }onah explains his anger and depression in a
prayer:
o LORD [Yah...·ch). ls not this ...·hat [said ",·hile I w~sstill in my O"'n coumry, That
i§ .... hy 1 flt'd to Ta~hish at tht' bt"sinning; for I Imew that you ~re a sracious Cod
and merciful. slo.... to anser. and abounding in steadfast love [bot-JJ. .nd ready 10
relenl from punishin8. And I1(IW 0 loRD [Y~h"'eh], pl= !;Ike my [ife- from me.
for it is bener for me 10 die Ih.n 10 live.
-Jonah 4:2 ·3
To pray for God's m~rcy on Nineveh was as unthinkable as jt was for many
Americans during the Gulf \'(/ar to express Cod's concern for Iraq. the modem
occupant of Assyrian tenitof)'.
APOC.l/yflti( VitwS o} God, Futurt AClio):
TheSt' prophetic writings, then, are eschatological in th,u they point 10 God's
future action to ,'indicatc Zion and. wilh her, all the poor and help less of the earth.
Some of this literature, ho ....'e\'er, moves beyond the prophetic c<;chatology, found
for ins tance in Amos and Hosea, into dt'Rnitely apocalyptic eschatology. This is
true of the fi~t of Ihe group, the book of Daniel, which portrays in high ly sym·
bolic terms the coming of God's kingdom , In the arrangemem of the Christian
Bible, Daniel appropriatcl), follows the book of Ezekiel, which specializes in cryp·
tic symbolism. as e" idem especially in the apocalyptic desc ription of the mysteri·
ous foe from the nonh : Cog from the la nd of l\·lagog (Ezek_ 38:1-39:29). Ezekid
aptly has been called "the father of apocalyptic."
The Domimon of God ,'ersus the l:>.:Jminioo of Evil 305
Other books in this group of prop he tic writings are alw apocalyptic in tone.
For instance, the book of lod portrays th~ coming of God's day of judgment in the
strange symbolism of an army of locusts that ravished t he land. The book of
Zechariah also belongs in the cal~gory of apocalyptic eschatology. Most scholars
divide the book into [Wo parts, ProlO·Zt'Chariah '(chapte~ 1-8) and Deutero-
Zechariah (chapters 9---14}. Despite disconlinuiti~s between the two pans, ho ....-
e\'~r. there are alw important continuities, such as the centrality of Zion. the divine
puriRcation of the community, and the universal scope of Cod's rule on earth.s
The second part of the book of Zechariah i Deutero·Zechariah l, which is
closely related to the ensuing prophecy of Malachi. ends with a ponrayal of the
final battle o f hislOry and the advent of God's kingdom. In imaginative language the
visionary portrays the coming of the Divine Wanior to fight for Zion ( f4: f-5 ),
ca{ady~mic upheavals of nature (w. 6-7). Zion as the source of vitality (V\I. 8- 9),
and the elevation of Zion as the rest of the earth is depressed 10 the level of the
Arabah, the area south of the Dead Sea (w. 10-11 ). Here we stand on the ground
of rnll·blown apocalyptic.
These examples of O ld Testament apocalyptic are only the tip of the iceberg,
as it were _ In t he period fmm approximately 200 B.C . to A.D. 200 a \' J st ~pocalyp.
lic literature appeared. such as 2 Esdras in the Apocrypha or the writings of the
Qumran communiry on the shores of the Dead Sea. In this period of greal histor·
ical insecurity and cultural change. Christianiry eru pted OUt of the h~art of Judaism
and was strongly influenced by apocalyptiC p rophecy, as ",'e shall see.
Tht%gical Tbtmts of Apccalyptic
While apocalyptic literature is vaSt and diverse, and therelort' not easily summa·
rized. several theological themes art' characteristic of the apcxalyptic way o f
Ihinking. 6
\fia/mu ill th.. hlrlb
Apocalyptic seers perceive that people-and the eanh itself-are victims of vio·
lence. In the previous chapter ~.~ noticed that apcxalyp tic in terpreters wreslle
with [he problem of e~'il al a different level-perhaps we should say at a more pm·
foun d level- than prophets who bclie\'~d that social chanSe would come through
repentance. The notion that evil is ....·rongdoing for which the people are respon·
sible was ....eighed in the b alance of suffering and found wanting. P~ople are often
not only the perpctralOrs of cvil but also Ihe victims of it. Evil manifests itself as
an insidious, perhaps we should say "demonic: power in history, prompting
5 Sc~ Rcx A. Mason, "Th: Rclnion of z"...::h 9_1 410 PrOlo·Zechuiah." ZAW SS ( 1976)
227_19
6 Sec further Kl"", Koch, n. R,J,""o>--ny of Ai'oc~l)'~ic l.~ns. Margarel Kohl (london, SC,'-'I.
19n\ whn discu,~ eight mOlif. generali}' found m apoCJlyplic 1i{t''''ruT"('.
306 C~n IOurs of Q1J TDlm"",1 TbrolP41
The Dominion of God versus the Dominion of Evil 307
"people oi th e lie" 10 masquerade as good and twining good into ~\'iL7lt mani f~sts p~op[e live. In the apocalyptic view libera tion ""ill come not by education. social
itself ty pically as a colossal military po\,·er- an Assyria or a Haby lon ia-that planning, or revolutionary activit)-', but by an impending ciltastrophe in which the
sweeps inexo rably over small peoples. It lurks in stn.IClures of power that crush th~ earth will be reduced to a '''ilsteland.
poor and hel pless in society. In shoTt . evil manilests itself as "violcnce··- the theme This view is expressed powerfully in a poem found in the link Apocalypse o f
of H ahakkuh lame nt (Hab. 1:2) and the motive fo r the great /lood (Gen. 6; 11 ). Isaiah:
As we have seen. the question with which apocal y ptic interpreters deal is not
&I,;,IJ,
how th e human heart can be changed {the question of repe ntance] but rather ho,,,
Tb. LORD [Yah""['J ~":l1 ,lril> 1/;, ,,;rib bn.
essemi,dly evil structures can be changed so that soci~ty may be healthy. In their
Al<J L,y ir """11",
estimation , history needs to be ewrcised 01 the evil that holds t~ rribl e sway and
AnJr",;,1 JI> ;,uj"';'c
even threatens the sovereignty of Cod. s For instance. in ilpocalyptic symbolism
A1<d Kalllr it; ,"IMbit.ml5
Babylon is not juSt the e~·il empire know n to historia ns (see Isa ia h 13) but is a cod~
word for the sin ister and oppressive power of evill hat \'ictimizes people, as in the The poe t goes on to say that the catamophe will1cvel all social differences:
ilpocalypse of Daniel (chapter 4) or the apocalypse of John (Revelation 18). uy,""n m,J pfi/~I ; h.,~ fart "iiN.
SlaPf ad ",,"Ir>:
DIIi1!;;m of tk rIM Agf) H~.,j",a id ~n./ .. iSI1t!~
Apocalyptic interpreters are dualistic in their view of history. Th~y p~rce ive twO /lilY'" ,mJ' ,,!b.
dominions (kingdom s) struggling for ascendancy; the dominion of Cod and th~ &"J,r IInd ""'1l>I<',r.
dominion of evil. This is not a metaphysi cal dualism, rooted in ultimate reality or C",J':~r ,,,,J d,atar.

the depths of the Divine, for God's original creation was good, indeed P very good" 7k with ,;'1111 b, ba". h"",
(Cen. 1:31 ). Rather, this is a postcreation dualism rooted in crearure1y rebellion It ,ball b. ~l,,"dud, p,l"ndcuJ,.
For ir 15 rl!t Lo.~D [Yai:wrhJ u,ito ,pDkt Ibi, U'DrJ
ag ainst God-re bellion that is evidem nOI only in human sin but also in cosmic
-Isa. 24:1-3 (NJ PSV )
revolt by cel~stial beings. The conflict between the God forces and the evil forces
WilS evenrually expressed in tenm of the myth of Satan, a heaven ly being who In the follOWing verses, the poet declares , hat this catastrophe will be the
revolted agilinst God and se t up a rival kingdom into which hum an beings are result of the people's lifestyle: they have broken the "everlasting covenant"- the
seduc~d . Noachic covenant (Cenesis 6-9), which rests on God's la",' of reverence for life.
These two dominions-the kingdom of Cod and the kingdom of ev il animal life and especially hu man lif~ , which is made in the image of Cod ( s~e Gen.
(Satan )-may also be described as tWO "ages'· or "worlds," that is, times of history. 9:1 - 17).
The prese nt "age.« in the apocalyptic view, is under the dom inion of evi l (or. as in 11>1{",;iI il "'JlbrrrJ. ~'.1C.
the Lord's Pra}'er, o f "the evil one··). and it will be succeeded by the "·new age ," Tb, u'orlJ 6n;Jui,h". J! i, ,,,,r,
when evil is overcome and all th ings are made new. Apocalyptic imerpreters speak Bcll> 'iy ,,~.! ,,,,r/;9 )., o;;u:~b
of "t his age" (ba 0/<1110 h<lzub ) and "the age to come" Omobrn iI<lbh<l 1. F~r Ib, ...rtb "'''' ,j,f.l,J
,I,
UnJ" ir.h •.,hil<mt"
GuJ i 1"[C"fUOII;OI' £«:.>1'" lhoy tr""'9't';,rJ I", ,,hi,,g~,
To people vict im ized by the powers of evil, apocill~'ptic visionaries announced Ihat Vi,,/a:rJ IIIQ,!"
God is about to shake the evil empire to its foundations and liberate its VICtims. Brakt rh ~n"irnr [r.>rrl~,ti~g ] """'ffl<"'I.
Th~1 i, ~)by" om, ,~~,""'(! rh! (;! r!h.
That is the only way that a new age of ~ ace and justice can come: God must
AnJ its mbuhi~nrl ~"Y 1[.( ~,~""lty,
destroy the w hole evil system. As said preViously, sociill change will come not by
Thai i; ",by ,,,rrb:S Jw,iI.,., bm'< JWmdi(J,
changing the human hean but by changing rh ~ oppressive snucrures under w hi ch
A,,j b!f'~" I'"'' ",.. lrft.
- Isa. 2·J.o.l.·6 (I'JPSVj

7. s"e M. Scan Peck. Propi, 0.1 ~.'. Li,. Tb. n,i" Jo, HdJ"9 HIIIM" Evii ( K~", York: Simon " \\;lle ther this v ision will be realized in an "ecological backlash" because of the vio-
Schusln. Touchswne Book, 1983;. lent lifestyle and atmospheric pollution of human beings remains to be seen.
s. S~e fun:h~ r my essay. "'The Slar ing oi {h~ Fle~ ing . T"'isring S erp~n!: Isa iah 17:t In

Come,,!; in Fr~'" (""I,,,,, la ,\' ....:> C",,,ru,x, OBT {~linneapol is, Fortr~ss Press. t 99~) . 9. Alt~ma{e reading.
308 Co"t01'~ aJ OLl T~t.;'"et:t T"htolcgy
How /(11191 Nollc"g!
Again, apocalyptic visionaries announce that the time is near when God will come
with power, shaking the foundat ions of the ean h and making a new beginning, a
new creation. [n answer to the cry of lament, "0 Lord. how long1" the answer is
give n; Not long' (Reca[ 1 Martin LlIIher King, Jr.·s powerful preaching!) Oppressed
people do not have to wait indefinitely. past the limit of endurance. for the king-
dom of God is coming with powe r. it is "at hand" (cf, )I.'lark 1; 15).
The "mystery" or "secre( that apocalyptic visionaries announce to th e fa ithful
is the immine nce of God's triumph,- indeed some of them boldly announce God's
timetable. This is the theme of the well·known story of Nebuchadnezzar's dream
(Daniel2 j. According to the story. Nebuc hadnezzar, king of Eabylonia, had a ter-
rib[e dream that shook h im up_ He called his magiC ians. enchanters. and sorcen:rs
an d demanded an explanation. though making their task impossible by saying
that they not only had to interpret the dream but tel l him the dream too , other-
wise "off with thei r heads· Da niel , however, had superior Wisdom, for he prayed
to the God of heaven and Nthe mysteryr. (Aramaic mz) I~'as revea led to him in a
night vision (Dan. 2: 17-23).
The imerpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, announced by D aniel to the
king, communicated the divine secret in symbolic language (Oan , 2,31 -35 ), T he
king saw an image composed of materials in descending order 01 value (gold, sil -
ver, bronze, iron , day mixed with iron ), symboliz ing four oppressive empires,
each qualitativel y inferior to the previous one, A stone, supernaturally quarried
W
("not by human hands struck the composite image , symboliZing the catas trophic
} ,
power of God that des troys the old regimes_ The sto ne became a gre at mountain
that filled the who le eart h, symbolizing the spread o f the dominion of God from
its base in Z ion to include the I,'hole world .
Th~ t,,(Vi/ability DJ Gods Ifi(lory
Finally, in the apoca lyptic perspective God's decisive triumph over all th e powers
of evil is cenain . Sometimes this is expressed in te rms o f a sequence of kingdoms
characterized by decreaSing quality (Daniel 2) or by increasing evil (Da niel 7}. So
viewed, there is no ~progress,~ to use a wo rd in currency since the Enlightenment
of the eightee nth century, rather, things will get worse and worse unt il the e nd
time comes and God's dominion supervenes. The periodization of histo ry as a suc -
cession of kingdoms demonstrates the inexorable moveme nt of hist ory toward the
dominion of God, which will introduce a radical new hcginning.
In ,he apocalyptic view, there is an inevitability about the triumph of GOlfs
kingdom. as though the outcome of the ,,,hole drama were known and determined
in advance , This deterministic language should not be construed 10 mean that peo-
ple need only fold the ir arms and \vai t, because everything is "CuI and dried" in
advance. Apoca lyptic does not suppon a failu re of nerve, or a pessimistic view o f
history, although this is hard to und ers tand for those who suppose that h istory is
under the control of human plan ning, science, or wisdom. On the contrary, the
apocalyptic message urges people to stand firmly in faith . even when the odds are
The Dominion of God V"J'SUS the Dominion oi Evi l 309
overv,:helmingly aga inst them and wh en they are called on to endure perseculion
an d martyrdom. Apocalyptic literature calls people to "an ethic of fidelity." tO It
summons the fai t hful to strive actively toward the kingdom of Cod in the confi -
de nce that God is in control and will soon triumph o\'er powers of evil, darkness,
and death.
Tht Apocalypse o} Danid
This spirit 0/ confidence is reRected in the apocalypse of Daniel, which was writ -
ten at the time of the M accabean revolution k a_ 168 II.C ) as a tract for revolu-
tionari es_ The conviction that history moves inevitably. and by prearranged plan,
toward the coming of God's kingdom on eart h fi re d the zea l o f a small band of the
fait hful, enabling them to act in hope when, humanly speaking, e verything was
against them. 'The people who are loyal to the ir God shall stand firm and take
action~ (Dan. 11 :32). If God was for them , who could be against them (cf. Rom.
831·39).
A \,'isioll ill thr Nigbt
The \'ision in Da ni el 7 dese rves special attention. This chapter has been a happy
hunti ng ground for modem interpreters who attempt 10 calculate the end of the
world by reRecting on the identity of the fourth beast. Despi te modern fantasies,
the account of Da niel's vision is indeed very important . if for no other reason th an
that its apocalyptic imagery had a great influence on the New Testament vision of
the coming o f the Son of Man (e.g_. Mark 13 :24-27; 14-06 1-62).
The chapter opens with a night vision. The fou r winds (not e the un iversallan-
guage} wefe stirring up the great sea. the abyss of chaos, in a manll er remini scen t
of the ponrayal in the ~nesis creation story (Cen. 1;2 ), where the Spirit or "wind"
of God churned up t he waters of chaos. Out of the sea arose fou r beasts, symbol-
izi ng the four world empires (probabl y Babylonia, /\-'ledia. Persia. G reece). Each
beast was more terrible than its predecessor. showing the de terioration of history,
and the last beast was horrible beyond imagi ni ng: "tcrriiying a nd dreadful and
exceedingly strong" lOan_ 7:7}. T his beast was differe nt from its predecessors. It
had »ten horns" and one of them had SOmething like human eyes and "a mouth
speaki ng arrogamh'" (7:7-8). iA \'eiled allusion to a line of Syrian ru le rs following
Alexander the Greal [332 R.e ] and culminating in Antiochus IV, who arrogantly
boasted divin ity. )
Then the >cene shifts from eanh to heaven. The heaven ly council is in session,
the cosmic King is presiding. The NRSV arranges t he descrip tio n in poetic fonn :
As r u'a~rbd.
l&ro~rs WHt l,t j~ p!~{l',
anJ~" ,\x,;ml Ont ll I.'ok billhr-ont.
to. Sibley Town"r, D,,~,d , Inlerpn:,alion (Rich mond, John K no~, 1984).
11 . Aramaic. "Anci"m of Day,"
;

3 10 (,mlaur> of Old T"ra",rt'! Tbrol"!!J The Dominiun of God versus Ih~ Dominion of Evil 311

~if d"rbir.g W~; ",hil. as 5"""', the human -like tlgure comes with the clouds of h~av~n_ Finally, to this figure is
~n.:i ri", !uti, of bi, ht"j 1,'" ~~rr :1,,,,,,1, gi\'~ n an ~~r1 ast ing dominion, in contrast to the earthly empir~ that rose and fell.
~r'i! throu "'''' fi"Y jI",,,,,. The interpretive angel explains that those who arc faithful to the end (th~ s.aints
~nj il5 ",Ix,I, .om wrnitJ9 firr-
of the Most High ) will rece iv~ a kingdom Ihat ca nnot be destroyed, precisely
A srr'f"" 4 fir, i,!~,J because they are bearers of the dominion of God _
~d flowd ~~r fro", bi! Pr'I'ltl:C'.
A roo"sani rn"u\.1d, "".yJ bim.
ad rrn 11>o1l"",J li,." If>! tbo..~mJ srood .,rt!7din;l hi,.,
The Domi"ion BcIOl1gs 10 God
TI" CO:lrl sui jc _i~J!1",(p:I. All o f th is means, in apocalyptic terms , that if th ~r~ is hope for th~ future, it must
~nJ rb, .Mok, "= ~I~",d_ be grounded in th e mystery or secret of God's kingdom. Liberation must come
- Dan.7:9·10 from beyond thi~ world, from above, not from below_ In other words, the victory
ov~r tyrannical ~il cannot com ~ from any sourc~ within the historical proc~s, for

(me Likr "SO" Cl[ Man the world has been corrupted by vio lence. The \'ictory will not come by repen·
In th e 5eer's vision, God pronounces judgment on the evil empi res, especially Ihe tanc~ (change of lifestyle), by d~votion to th~ Torah, or, we may add, by ~duca­
13sl , Then the seer beholds anoth~r figure, "one like a human being,"' l who tion. technology, social planning, or social revolution, The kingdom belongs to
approaches the heavenly throne to hear the King's decree. To him is given ~n ever· God., the cosmic King_
lasting kingdom, in contrast to the earthly kingdoms that rule for a time and pass Here we can see a major difference bel\..cen prophecy and apocalyptic. A
away. prophet like Jeremiah, who announced th~ immin~nt judgm~nt of God, perc~ived
As I watchtJ in Ibt nighl n'-s;"",. some continuity between the present an d the future , Eve n when the Babylonian
I So:lW om Ijb: ~ hu"''''' "'iroil armies were pounding at the gates of Jerusalem. and all was lost, he bought a field,
w""i"'l wilh lix cloud, o} b,:"t't1L ~lieving that there would ~ some continuity into the future Ueremiah 32). But
Ad'" ca..,.!o !br Ar.mr.t Clnt, in apocalyptic thinking, the present age is rotten to the core, the whole structure
~r.J lOas ~m"'lrJ btlol'1 hi"'_ of 50ci~ty is inf~cted with cancerous ~viL H ence th e whol e "system" must be
To bi", """ 9;"'" Jom,n,,,,, destroyed. There will be rad ical diKo ntinuity between '"this evil age" and "the age
"r.J glory ""J b"gl["P'
to come,~ !>ymboliz~d by a stone, not quarri ed by human hand, that struck the
I/",! ,,/I pro,~lt"$, ~"",!i""s. ""J km9""9'"'
human kingdoms destructively and enlarged into Ihe worldwide dominion of God
IMUrJ lrrvt bi",.
Hi, domiNioN i, iln ""rl"'1i~9 Ja,";N'o~ (Dan_ 2,31 -35}_ In a later chaple r we shall se~ how Ihis apocal ypt ic view influ-
lhot ,ball r.ol p,,~s "u'ay, enced, and was transformed by. Christia niry,u
aHJ bil ki",/!hi/>;\ "'"
lhot ,ba!! r.nlt"r ~ JrslroytJ
- Dan_7013-14

In the vision , Daniel was puzzled about all of Ihis. and turned to a court aH~ndalll
standing nearby, asking for th~ m~aning _ The illl~ fllre( ive angel (7: 16 ) explained
that the tyranny repres~nted by the succession of ferocious ~asts will come to an
end and that Nthe holy ones of th~ h·lost High~ will be given an everlasting
dominion.
Seve ral things should ~ no tic~d _ First, in this vision the figurc- "one like a
human being~--does not come from the abyss below, the locu~ of the pow~rs of
chaos, but comes from above, Iranscend~ n dy. with the clouds of heaven. Also, this
figure does not have a ~asdy visage (symbolizing fi~rce violence) bul a fri~ ndly
face. None like a hum an h~ing_" Probably the meaning is no t "the human onc" (as
in th ~ lnd"sivr LlI<glUlge Lt"I:,hon"ryi but "the angelic one" or "h~avenly ~ing.~ since

12 . Aram~ic "" ",,,,,b, lil ~ral1}' ·son of a man." Here "son" rc-fen; to ~ member of a group, in tni.
case, human beingl'i comp'''' "',ons of rn. proph~Ts,' m~mber5 of Iht· prophctic orCCL 13. Sce fig_8 describing {h~ apocalyptIC worldv",w, chapter 35_

34. LIFE , DEATH ,
AND RESURRECTION
Wt' have S(rll that in the apocalyp tic vision human history moves IQ""'lIrd the
inn-itable triumph of the dominion of Cod over all the forces o f evil . Discussion
of the grand fi nale would be incomplete without consideri ng onc of the majoreon-
mOOtions of apocalyptic litcTilture 10 biblical thrology: the hope for the r~~c·
tion of the dead. This theme. of course, dominates the whole New Testament,
Indeed, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is proclaimed to ~ t he sign of God's apoc-
alYPltc triumph over the powers of sin. darkness, and death. as we shall see later.
Apocalyptic interpreters announced that in t he justice of God a place will be
prepared for the martyrs who die before Cods final triumph. They ha\'c not died
in \'3io , for at the consummation Cod will T<lise them up in transformed bodily
fann to lake part in a new community.
Making OlllS Gmvf in Sheol
This apocalyptic hope was a deviation ITom the tradi t ional vie\,· in ancient Israel
that the re is no real lile after death. except in the minimal sen!>C o f a shadow}' exis-
tence in Sheol. the land of the dead. According to the anciem pictorial view of the
universe. Sheo( is located beneath the earth in the subte rranean waters 01 chaos.'
In Sheol there is no sense of community, no memory. no activity. and hence 00
prai!>C of God (Ps. 115: 17)--al1 that investS life with meani ng. In a lament. where
fait h sinKS inlo despair, a suppliant asks God :
\140 S"""'iJ tilt Jt~'; "ltbr,,'"
Y01I' lIIiradn1 ~ WJ0'IVS1 nIt
I<l p.aiJI YIlII}
Do!lmr;" lilt G.~,,, Id! o}
Your lci...bt.sJ1 !J Yo .. 1D<Jt jmxlailfld
i~ RwilI}
An yll1lr UXIIIdm ';.da ..1;" Dam.!";)}
11 y.,... jw1rict """"""II,d;,, tilt L",J
ofForgm
-Ps. 8~UO- 12 (t"IIlS. StC'o,.,n Bishop )
A psalm found in the book 01 Jo nah (chap. 1 ) pictures the experience 01
approach ing de ath as a pt::rson sinking imo the deep wate rs o f Sheol (w. 3-6).
I. Sce the ske,ch of ,he indent pictorial vie ... of the univef'ie by Joan Anderwn in my
UY.ilrn!tfr.Jixg tilt 0/;/ Tts"',."" (~bndiJed p~perN.ck cd., Engl~'ood. Clilis. N.J" I'rcntkc-H~I! .
1997), 408, and the a<Up{ation of that sktlch here. ng. 6 in chapter 23.
2. NR5V. N}PSV. and othel"$ translates "sh~~." A sh~de ii ~ disembodied 'Piri! or r,:hO'lI_
.hado.... of ones former ~If.
life, Death, and Iksun«tion 3 13
when '"life was ebbing away"; and other psalms describe deliverance from death as
being rescued from the -mighty waters" {Ps. 18: 16) and being restored to "I~ land
of the living" (ps. 27, 13, 116:9 ). Psalm 18 ( ",2 Samuel }2), a royal tha nksgiving,
portrays delivera nce from the threat of dealh in this powerful, m)' th o~tic la n-
gua~ { \lV. 4--18 ).
Among Israer~ neighbors was a cult of the dead, including the practice of
IlCctumancy---communication wi th t~ spiritS of th e dead (0=1. 18, 11). In the
land o f Israel necromancy was officially scorned , and was emphatically negated in
the book uf Ecdesiastes (9 ;)·6 ). There were, h ~·ever. exceptions at the lc-.·d o f
popular religion, as ill ustrated by the Story of SauJ"s consulting th e medium of
Endor, \"ho brought up the shade (ghost) o f Samuel to forec ast the Outcome of the
battle of Gilboa ( I Samuel 28). The descri ption of Saul's visit as clandestine, by
night. implks that such occult practices were banned ( I Sam. 28,3 ). Faith in
Yahwe h, the Lord of life, ",'as characterized by a health}" this- worldliness. Death,
espt"cially at a ripe old age, \,'as regatded as an aspecl o f the goodness of God's
c reation.
The DYHamic Vi(\l} DJ Lift ad D(.1I1,
Some 01 Israel",; psalms indicate that dea th is something mo rc than a biological
evem that occurs when the heart sto ps beating and consciousness is ext inguished.
life is constamly a struggle with t~ power of death. which threatens an individ-
ual and reduces the vi tality of the IIrpbtsh ("selr-not ~soul" in the Greek ~nse )
almost to the vanish ing point. Most people today think 01 death as an event th at
occurs at the end of life; but in the view oi Israel's psalmists, death's power is at
work in us now. dU ri ng our historical existence. Death's power is felt in the midst
o f life to the degree that one experiences any weakening of personal "italily
through illness, bodi ly handicap. imprisonment, attack from enemies, or adva nc-
ing old age. Any threat to a person's welfare (Hebrew wakHII). that is, one's freedom
to be and to participate in the co\'enanl community. is understood as an inva!iio n
o f Death, regarded as a mYThical Power, into ~t he land 01 the living.w
In some 01the psalms lespeciall)' individual psalms of thanksgiving). onc can Stt
how the experience of salvation from the power of dea th movcs IOward the experi-
ence 01 8~rrection ." that is, being restored from ocath to life. ~In rescuing people
from affl ictio n. healing !>Crious SicKOCSS, or saving From enemies: writes Christoph
Barth. an Old Testament theologian, '"God trul y T~i~d them from the dead . }
W
One psalmist, lor instance , portrays a ~sickn ess untO de ath ."
TIx \ ~."'s of ,lw,b ttto:<1mp.lfltJ "It,
rhi P<l"9' cJ Sbrol wi.1 held <1" /)It ,
I ~~1fIrtJ diurm md 'l~gujsh
3 C hristoph Banh, Cd ..,i,b Lr, A Tho!"!iIK~II"rroJw,roo~ C~ riot OU Tn-L11M1c (Gr3nd Rapi<k
E~ rdm ~ns. 1991i, 277. On ~lm ;; of thankssi\",ns. see my Q"c of ,Ix D.pl&' (Ph ilacldphi3,
'>'hlminSler, 19iB. R\'. ~d. fonhcoming, 2(00 ). chap. 4, ... he", deliverance from death is di,-
cu5~d nlt -J7;.
---
3 I 4 COOOW"fS of O!sl Ttslllll.ent Thtology
1"kn I C41W "" rllt ...... of Iht Loiw [Yab.orb}
O IOR D{Yabwtb2 (pr4)'. ~ my /if.!"
M there" (v. 8b), but here the psalmiSt is dealing wi th the the me of the inescapabil-
--Ps. 11~3 -4
The: prayer was answered, and rhe poet exclaims:
For 'jCfI Ju,l't' o1r1iCIMJ .., _I [nephesh 1fr.:!• .kArh,
MY tytJ fro- lliJfS.
/11}' JmJro.lho.W;"g.
f ....Ik b40rr1bt L02D [y"J"M,1
if! lilt lid of tbr I~.
-Ps. 116:8-9
In siruations descri bed in psalms of thanhg;ving, "the bd ie\'er was almost dead,
and the' libcntion thus amoun ted almost to a [nurr«:tion.M4
LiJr afttr DMlh
Now and then in the Old Testament there were anempts to ri~ "bove awareness
of the limi ta tions of mortal li fe:. but they arc: kw and far between. Rec::alling a beau-
tiful solo in Hanclc l's Mt5!lIIb, some would think of a famous passage in which}ob
affirms that he knows that his Vindicator (Redeemed livc:s. According to the
Jewish translat ion, the: He brew lext, which is very problematic, n.· ads,
B~I I.\:roOlO tJ..arzry l'inJi,,,rQf iim,
/,.!ht ",J Hr ~~'ii rrstijy "" ~rtb--
TM. afla _Y l"n ",,11 &"Pf t-. pttitJ off-
B~I I ",,,,,IJ iorbo/.J GoJ wbilr stil1 ;.. lily jitsb.
IIIIptlj, 1101 allOtber, .rot<!J bd:vIJ Hu.,
W",,/.J SIT am _Y 010II tytS-,
My &un ,iIIn ..,;1&01: ....
-Job 19,15-17 (NJPSV )
Here Job expr~scs the conAcknce Ihat after his death a redeemer will rise up to
defend his cause. That would secure some justice for him, for it was Ihe duty of Ihe
1,lood redeeme ..... 10 avenge the deceased and g<lin vindication for him after h is
death. Here, however, Job is not concemc:d wilh a postmortem solution 10 his
problem, though he is confident that he will ultimatdy be vindica tt"d. H e wants to
see God now and have h is case adjudicated fairly_ This passage expresst"s the cha r.
acteristic th is· worldliness of the Old Tes tament.
Various psalms set"m t o exprt"Ss confidence that a person's life extends indcA.
nildy in tO th e fulUre, such as Psalm 23, which concludes, according \0 the famil .
iar translation: "[ shall dwell in the hOl.15t" of the LORD [Yahwt"h] forever." But a
close readi ng of the text indicates that the psalmists confldence is limited to this
lift", · for many 10nlS years~ (NJPSV) or "my whole life long" (NRSV ).
life, Duth, and Resurrection 3 15
[n the beautiful Psalm 139 the poet says, "if I make my bed in Sheol, you are
ity of God_ There is no hid ing place, above or below, o r in any extremity of the
earth o r heaven, where one can escape t he God who knows a perwn intimately
(sec vv_ 1-6)_
Infi1KJ2!iOll~ aj a Fsdun Uj!
There are. howe'i~ r, thr~e psalms, all of them .... isdo m psalms (37, 49, and 73).
that may paim bory-ond Ihe horizons of monality. Twice tht"re is mention of per.
sons' <I~ritb , wh ich m~ans their Mend"" (7 3:17, NRSV) in th t" sense: of "tha t which
com~ a fter"- variously translated ilS one's "future (37,37-38. NJPSV), · posterity"
M
(3737-38, r-..IRSV). "dest iny" (73:17, REB ), · fat~· (49:14, NJPSV)_ Confronted
with the injustict" that sometimes the wicked prosper and the righ t~ous !iUffer, the
sage counse:ls us to look beyo nd the presen t to th e future, whe n the outcome of
a person's way of lif~ will be manifest. Th is language may intimate vindication
beyond de ath ,~ though this is dou btful. As in Job, the problem of suffering is
h~JNY to bear precisely because a postmonem solut io n is not acceptable _
In Psalm 49 Ih!': horizon of life b~yond death seems to be in view. The sage
strikes one of the main themes of wisdo m lileralUre: it is foolish to boast of great
wealth or glory in worldl y success, because death comes int"vitably, and "you can-
IlOt take it with you."
SM{b;\ t« f~" Q f b 11-00 g rt Slif-c""fiJt7!/,
ttv,..J Qf tJmr plr"ltJ a>o"tb t!,ri, ~"'" IoIlk.
Sbaplil.: tbry head jo, Sbrol,
""t& o."lb ar Ibri, slH;pbtroi
-Ps, 49: I ~ · t S ( t>.'1PSV)
Notice that in this translation ~ath (pcrsonifled) is nOt JUSt a biological event bul
a power that "shephCTds· people toward th~ i r ·~nd· o r "fatt": 6 Not so, ho .....evCT, in
the case of the ~upright :
Blit GcJ ".-11 r!4mlt ...y Ii.Jc frc- lbe c1"td,," IIf Sbcol.
fQ' H. will t.>i:t lilt.
-Ps. ~9: 16 (NJPSv)
In the judgment of Gcrhard von Rad. the verb in the second line, variously trans·
latt"d as "tak~: "receive: or "snatc h away,· expresses "a life of communion with
God which will outlaSI death."?
The matt~r is even clearer in the magnificen t Psalm 73. Attempting to under-
stand the perplexing injustices of th~ world, a poet goes to a worship servic~,
5 50 Gerhard ~..,n R...d, W'-.<:i'o .. i~ 1"".1. Ir~ni. James D. ./I.·llnin ( N.shvm~ : Abingdon, 19n ).
103-4_
6. Reading Ih~ H~br<'W "'om ~""riru. dIscussed lbove, thOUllh the Hd",::w I~xl is obscure at
this pOlnt_
i . Van Rad, 1I'i<Jma;" Il,~tl. 1Q.4.
316 Gmt"",,!" 4 OU ufta",,,,t nrology
where things are seen in a new light. Th ~ po ~t's lestimony begins with
"nevenheless.w
.,"-'r:.·/f1h<-!m. 1"m co"ti"w,,!!y with y~u,
you }"'Jd "'y right b~~.1.
y~~ gmd( lilt with yo~r CO~H!t?
,mJ 4ltrw~ rJ yo" will "ni,,, "" will} hmw,
W},.,,,, M"t f,~ h<-",'f]1 "'~t YOI"
AxJ tbrrr i! ~"Ihil<g or. ",rrh IMt I Jt!irr o:hl' tb" you
AiY,Otsh ~d "'Y br"rt m"y J~il.
hi GoJ i, tb. ,t,,,,!!t), 4 my hwt~,J my P<>rrw"J~("'rr.
- Ps. 73,23 -26
Unfortunately the m~anin8 of the lasl part of v. 24 (50m~times translated, "after·
ward you will rec~ iv~ m~ to glory~) is obscur~ in the H~br~w text. But the poet's
sense of an unbrok~n fellowship with God s~~ ms £0 provide an intimation of future
life. Other psalms may contain this hint too (P55. ]6,9 · 11 ; 17; 15; 27: ] 3).
Death Swallowed Up ill Victory
What w~ have fou nd so far ar~ hint5 or intimations of life ~yond death. As no td
pr~viously, it Ivas in t h~ apocalyptic literature of t he O ld T~Slilment tha t a clear
breakthrough into a hop~ for future life occllTT~d . With the coming of God's king.
dom, no t only will th~ force<> of evil be conqu~ r~d but also the power of Dea th will
be overcome.
This is the th~me in a portrayal of "th~ ~schalOlogical banquet in a s~ction of
the Isaiah Apocalyps~ (Isa. 24;2] ·23 . 25:6-8). The con~ummation of ~the last days"
involves this sc~na rio ;
• After the cosmic catastrop he that shak~s the earth , Yahw~ h will be
enthroned in Zion- both the h~",v~nly Zion and its ~arthly counter-
part.
• The d ispersed of Israel will be gath~red to Zio n with singing and rejoic-
ing, and other nations will join them in the pilgrimag~.
• On Mount Zion Yahw~ h will spread out a banq uet, and inv it~ all peo-
ples 10 the celebration of divine triumph over evil and th~ dawn of
peace.
• Th~ peoples will join in a great hallelujah c horus to th~ King.
• The celebration "on this mountain"' (25:9) will be joyful because, Ilrst.
Yahw~h will r~mov~ th~ v~il that hides God's gloI}' so that "all flesh" '""ill
behold th ~ spl ~n dor of Yahweh. the Holy One of Is rael, second, on
/I.·Jount Zion "Yahw~h will swallow up d~ath lorevn."
What is involved in this ~s\V<lllowing up" of death, a motif tha t is echoed in I
Cor. 1554-55 ;> In H05. 13 ,14 the la nguag~ is rhe torical. Speaking of Ephraim.
God's question is: "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol, shall I red~~m
life, D~ath, and ReslJTTection 3t7
th~ great them from death?" In oth~ r words. should God save the peopl~ from the destruc-
tion that they deserve as a cons~qu~nc~ of their sins? In lsai<lh 25, howev~r, the
apocalyptic writer i5 5peaking of something far great~r than the deliv~rance of the
Israelite people from hi storical destruction. The poet'S unusual language dearly hil'S
mythical ov~non ~s, for in Ugaritic ( Canaanit~) mythology, Baal- the lord of life
and fertil i ty-i~ opposed by Mot ( D~ a th ), th~ god of darkness and d~ath. What i5
at stake in this passag~ is God's victoI}' over Death, " th~ last ~n~my" ( I Cor. ]5:26),
and thnefore the complete transformation of th~ human condition. In the day of
God's victory celebration, th~r~ will be no more death, and- like a tende r par-
~ nt-God will wipe away all tears from human fac~s and will r~ move the
»reproach" of his people, Isra~L
71, Allmbil<9
In an ~nsuing chapt~r this th~m~ , the triumph over death , is picked up in an ~apoc ­
alyptic psalm· (lsa. 26:7 -2 1). The last lin~ of the p5alrn is crucial for interpr~t<ltion,
bur, alas .. in the Hebrew th~ passage is difficult. AJewish translation reads:
Oh. l/t }'o~r iGoJ'i] J",J m.~'vr_,
Ut carp", "risn
Au,~kt ""d sbc>ul Jo, joy.
YQ~ who J,,,rii;,, lb. lw,r l " -
For Y""r JIU>;5 [ih the Jr~' on Jmh !!ro'l'!),'
'l'"1 .."kr th. [,,~d of lb. <b~.i/'j co"'" 10 lif"
-[sa. 26: 19 (NJPSV)
This is a cryptic pa~s3ge . Some int~rpr~t it to ~ a flgurative expression of the hope
for a r~suTTection of th~ Dody" Israel from the gloom of defeat and d~spair. as in
Ezekid's vision of the valley of dry bone<> ( Ez~kiel 37), where the people complain:
"Our bones a~ dri~d up, and our hope is gone~ iv. 1I). In answer 10 the question,
"Can these bone5 live?" the prophet envisions a r~!illTT~tion of corporate Israel,
"bone to ilS bon~"-as pictur~d in the famous spiritual----and a "breath~ or spirit
(wind) blows into them new lile or reanimates th~m .
There is a ~ns~ in which the ,",i~w of corporate resurre<;tion is true to this
apocalyptic psalm in Isaiah. The poet is not sp~aking only about th~ ~5urrection
of ~ach individual a ft~ r d~ath but of the raising up of all the faithful dead in the
~ nd. But more is invoked than corporat~ r~surr~ction_ Wh~n r~ad in th~ previous
context of th~ apocalyptic banquet and the announcement that d~ath is swal-
l ow~ d up in divine victory, th~ passage contains an intimation of personal life
beyond d~ath . Early scri~s must have viewed it this way, for the n:c~ ived text in
w
H~brew reads; "your dead will com ~ 10 lil~, my body will arise. In any case, Paul
quot~d th~ passag~ about th~ "swallowing up of death" in I Cor_ ]5:54-55 to sup-
pon the view of the continuation of p~rsonal lif~ ~yond death. (~~ the discus-
~ i on of] Corinthians]5 below. )
8. Thar i<, ;n Sileot. th (" land of ,he deJ d.
 3 18 (DIll"'.... of 00 Ttslll"!7I1 Thml"!lJ'
\VbtH SIrrpm Awal:t
If then~ is any doubt about the c:schatological significance of the paS!><ige from the
Apocalypse of Isaiah, tht:rc is none in rega rd to a climactic passage in th e book of
ff
Da niel. The re:ader is told that "'a time of anguish will come, such as has nc:ver
before been ex~rienced in the history of the nations_
RIlt at Ihal lime your peOple ~h~lI be del1\'ered, everyon~ ....ho is found ...'Tillt'n in
the book. -"lany oi those who sleep in the dUSt of Iht' t'arth ~ hall a...·ake. some to
e--·erLu llng life. and some 10 5hame and everlasting conlt'mpl. Those who art' wiSt'
~hall shillt' like the bri8h!nes~ of the sky, and lho!;~ who I~a d many 10 righteous-
ness. lik~ the Stmi fOre'>·t'r and ever.
_ Dan.l101 _4
Here: the writer is spea king not about a genel7l1 ~surr~ t ion, but only of the "awak-
ing" of those membe~ of tM community 01 faith w~ names are enrolled in · tM
book of life" (cf. Exo d. 32:32· 33, Ps. 69:28). apparently an official register of memo
bers of the comm unity of iaith. -Many- ....,iII be brollght back to life. and · wme" of
these will "live forever; shining li ke the stars of heavens_ This paS!><ige is the clea r·
est expression of future life-indeed, it contains the only mention of "everlasting
life"-i n th e Hebrew Bible.
-
•
R(Sumctio,! o} tbr Body UtrsU5 Immortalily of IIx Soul
[n this apocalypt ic ..... ay of thi nking, the indh'idual is ra~ d to ne ..... life in the corn·
munily tha t cc:1ebrates God's victory over the po .....er; of evil, darkne$s, and death.
This event occur; not aher the immediate de ath of a person but at the end o f h is·
tory, the t ime when God'~ kingdom comes on earth as it is in heaven. People
"skep" Ilnt il the Rnal consummation, wMn they wi ll be »awakened" to celebrate
God's dominion with those who are alive.
The apoca lyptic view of resurrection from the dead came to be a conuoversial
issue among Jewish interpreter;. One Jewish part}', the Sadductt'>, denied the doc·
trine because it ....'as not found in the To rah , while the Pharisees, more liberal in
their imerpretation, accepted it. On onc occasion, according to the Cospds (M ark
12: 18·23). some Sadducees questioned]esus on t he po int, and Jesus gave an inte r·
pretation that sided \.-ith the Pharisees. In Paul's defense of the doctrine, he proved
himself 10 be "a Pharisee. t he IDn of a Phari~ee~ (Acts 23:6.8).
The Pharisaic resurr«:tion view is alien to many modem people too, who pre·
fer to think in t... rms of th ... immortality of the soul, if they believe in furure life at
all. Toda}' the word "immortality" is o ften used loosel}' to refer to hope for a fumr..-
life. Strictly. however. the term expresses a sharp dualism of a deathless soul and
morta l body. Death is no t real; at th e end of life the deathless soul is merely freed
from the corrup tible body (priwn) of tlesh.
In the New Tes tament Jesus' triumph over dea th is. of cours..-, expresSt'd in
terms of resurrect ion. Significantly, the earliest Christi an co nfession of fait h, the
, n."..glot, eel. Krister Slencbhl (New York.: I'. bcmllbn, 1965).
Apostles' Creed, does nOt affinn belief in the immorta lity o f the soul but !><iYs: "I
liie, Death, and ResufTf:t"tion 319
bel~ in tM resurrecti On of the body and the life everlasting." The N icene Creed,
recited in many churches today, affi rms belief in "the resurrection of the dead." In
a famous sermon on "The Fullll1ment of life," Reinhold Niebuh r observed that the
creedal affi rmat ion. "t believe in the resurreCtion of the bo dy.~ expresses preg-
nantly "the wh ole genius" of the bi blical and Christian faith.9
Socr/31tS a.,J Jrsus
In his cekbrated Ingersol Lecture at H arvard University, the dist i n~..u tshed New
Testament scholar Oscar Cullmann presen ted an imprcssl~'e dtscussion of these
cv.'o views by comparing Socrates dri nking thc hemlock. as ~t forth in Platos
Phado, to Jesus struggling wi th his impending fate in the G arden 01 Cethsemane,
as portrayed in the Gospels of the New Testament. l {}
In the face o f death, Socratcs ts calm, for dea th is nOI a significant event. In the
Greek view. the soul is essentially deathlesS. It enters t he body from a higher realm,
the abode of eternal realities, and for a while suffe~ imprisonment. Death liberates
the soul "om the body, which has hindered it from performing {r..-ely. and it rerurns
to eternity-------bcyond the boundarics of lime and space_ A5 Cullmann putS it, "the
destruc tion of the body cannot mean the destruction of the sool any mon: th an a
1I
musical compo'Sition can be destroyed when the instrument is dest ro)'ed: Thus
Socrates downs the poison calmly, knowing that death does not touch the soul but
onlv libentes it to retum to its true home. the realm of the Real and Ihe Eternal.
•By cont rast, Jesus is confident that his life ts enfolded in Cod's fai thfulness and
love. but death is a rea l experience_ It mea ns to be forsaken by God ("I\-'\y God,
why ha\'e you forsaken me7") and to be taken away from the covena nt community,
at least tempol7lrily. T he Ilnality of death is expressed in the terse language of the
Aposdes' Creed: ·crucilled, dead, and buried: [f there is a future . beyond the hor·
rOT of death, it will result from Gods act of gr.l.ce. a new ac t of creation.
This language, derived ul timately from an apocalyp tic worJdviev.', is a 5)?11boJic
expression of fai th. It would be wrong to Iry to cramp the apocalyptic imagery in to
the exact li mitations of liteT<lI prose. Moreover, both immo rta lity and resurrecti o n
are symbolic modes 01 expression, neither of which can be proved beyond a
shadow of doubt. But the apocalypt ic symbolism has some advantages O\'Cf the
Creek doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
9. Rc;nhold NiebYhr, Br)"OtlJ T,oyr.1)' ( N~ ,," York, Scribnds Sans. 1937), 41-51. s.,~ also
Gabrie\ Fadu-e. "1 Believe in the Resurr~C1ion of the: Bod)·." /M1 46 ( 992 ) 41-51.
10. QK;or Cullmann, "Immonality of the Soul or Resurre<;tion of the Deadl The 'IX'itness of
the New T~tamrm\. - in I•• ~rul:ry..d Rts..mrt:"". fX:,tb ad R....rrrct:O>I · T"", (","",.-<1,"9 (~ ...... Is oJ
1I. lbid., 12.
 320 C~~tc« rs of OM Trsta",mt Thrology
P~)'(bosom<lti( U,,'-Iy Qj Ihr Pmo"
First , resurrection implies a different M anthropolo8Y," or view of human nature,
than the one to which we are accustomed . Human nilture is not a dichotomy-a
body of mortal flesh and a deathless soul, as in some philosophies, but rilther a
unity of body ilnd spirit , iln animated body-Icrr.t .. n'nwla (animated soul), as
Augustine put it. This view is expressed classically in the creation story fCHlnd in
Cene~is 2, ilccording 10 which the Lord Cod infused "spirit" (life force) into a lump
of clay and i! "became a living !l~pmlh" (Cen. 2:7, NRSV: "a living beingW )y The
Hebrew word should not be transla[ed "soul," if that means an immortal essence ,
but rilther "person" or Mse1f.~ The sd f is a un ity of body and spiril, iI psychosomatic
unity. That hum;!ns are "'embodied be ings." not a duality of body and soul, is
shown by recent fese~rch in genetics. l ~
In this vi ew. death must be taken seriously. As a sage advises us, wc should
"'count our day~" IPsalm 90 ) and live life to the full while we are given time, a
teaching of the book of Eccle~iastes . H \'1Ih en death comes, as it does to all form~
of life Iha! Cod has created, Ihe self collapses, it die~. Death is a total event-
there is no pan of human nilture. such as an immortal soul, that is untouched . The
"(phrsh d issolves to Ihe vani5hing point. le the n, there i5 a continuation beyond
this terminal point it will be a d ivine mirade_15 The self must be given a new bad·
ily form and the di\'i ne spirit or life force must be bre athe d into it (Cen. 2:7, cr
Ezek. 37: 1-11 )_ Future [ife, like the life we now ex~rience. will be a gift from
G od . a new creation, not something t hat is ours by nature.
11>1 EmboJi(,l S~~
Second . resurrect ion imagery uses body language to depict the particularity and
ide nt ity of the individual who has certain personal characteristics. Notice that
~resurrection of the flesh" is not intended in this symbolism. The body is the fonn
of our individuality, that which makes a person Msomebody.w Interestingly, wh en
the med ium of Endor, according to the biblical sto!)' ( ] Samud 18}, 'brought upw
Samuel from Sheol , he appeared as "an old man wrap~d in a robe" so thal Saul
recogniz(-d him. This. of cour;c, reAects supersti tion that Isr<ld's interpreter; tried
to prohibit, but it shows how h ard it is for us to thi nk of one's person<ll identity
12. Not~ tha! tht ""m~ ~xp='ion tr.",&",b h~n'~h) is u,~d of !h~ an imals in Gen. ] , ]9.
13 The science of genetics, according to one ,rudy, indicate, that "human personhood .::an-
not be r~duced to a pur"!y imm.,eri al or spirit ual nntinn, as sometimes occurs ... ben p«>pl~ iden-
lIfy thcm,eI"es with S<l<Ii5. \1::',- arc essentially and fundamtma Ily ",mbodied beings, with a geneti.::
h",ri,age from oor parent., rbeir parents, and '0 on. Thi' ge1l(:ti<: benlage affects all parts of us·
~ Brun R. Re ich~nba,h and V Elding Anderwn. ()., &b~1( oJ GoJ·A Chn',:idn EthicJ.TBiolog)· [Grand
Rapid~: E,-rdman" 19951 293· 'luO!«i in a paper pr""ented <0 the .A.merican 1n.:ological Soci~ty
[ 1998 l 'Th",ologzcal Reflcctions on G.:n"'lic, and Hllman Nature" by Alldrey R. Chapman,
Dlrecror rrogram 01 D,aloMUe Belween Science and Religion. American As<odation lor th",
Advanc", mem of Science).
1-4. 5« ~bcN"', chapter 3 1.
15 ]n lbe Old Teslament thi, m".. c1e i, a lsoe~p=sed in ,,,,rm, of (fanslation lrom ~arth ID
hea"",n, as III !he cases of Enoch (G:-n 5,24) or Elijah (1 Kgs. 1,11).
li fe . Dea!h. and Re~urrection 321
apan from bodily form , even that of a spiritual body. · Spirit," without bodily m<ln-
ifes!ation, is va!::ue and indetenninate. By contrast. body--especially a healthy
body- images a conCTCte person, who belongs to a community, who has identifi-
able traits of personality, and who moves to\<,'ard future fulilllment. The physical
body makes possible dea ling with others and thus expresses interpersonal (I .Thou )
relationships_
A biblical view of the body (sell) challenge5 the modern scientific worldv ie"W
that rests on the subject/object or mindlmaner dua lism of the philosopher Rene
Descartes ( 1596--1650 )_ This rationalism , portrayed in the famous statu~ of "The
Thinker" by Auguste Rodin ( 1840---1917), u nderlies the modern scientific world·
\'iew. By virtue of reason, human beings are able to control the material world
through scientific know-how and t~chno !ogy. nle great symbol is the computer,
a creation of the human mind, wh ich "thinks" logically and ~I times e\'en seems to
have a mind of its own' Medical scienc~ of the past has been too domin<lted by the
view that the body is a complicated mach ine, ntled temporarily by a phYSical
brai n_ But thi5 reductionist view of personhood i~ inadequa te, philosophically and
theologi cally. The question NWho am 17" cannot be fully answered by Ihe well·
k nown Canesian "cogilo ergo slim" (I think, therefore I am ).
The biblical view of the person as lem! mrimal.. has implications for the care of
the body and for medical treatm ent, to say nothing of issues of social welfare.
Accord ing to Stephen Sapp it even has impli cat ions for Alzheimer's d isease, "the
disease of the century.~ In an incisive essay based on a biblical view of human
nalllre , he argues that even when ra tiona l faculties fail or there is a tragic loss of
memory, the "I," or the person who was made in the image of Cod. continues to
exist. 16 The ~rson's identi ty, expressed in his or her body, is remembered-and
cared for- in the community and is ~remembered" by G od.
1\·1ore t han thai, the person will be resurrected in a new bodily fonn to exist in
eternal relationship with Cod and 10 tak~ pan in the redeemed community. If
there is real future life for a ~rson , beyond the morta l limitations of this life, there
will be personal identity, personal recognit ion. and personal reunion . Thus body
language has symbolic dimensions Ihat are di fficult to express in [enns of a discar·
nate. immortal soul.
lif( i " dx R(dumd Co",mlllliry-
Also , Ihe languag e of resurrection is based on the premise rhat life is give n in corn·
mun ity. as indicated above . Indeed, human life in iso lation is not life in the full
sense : NEin Mensch ist kein Mensch," as Ihe German proverb s.aY5. 17 That is why
solitary confinement in prison, or the anonymity of the homeless, is so dehuman-
izing. ~ II is not good for the hum an being to be al one ,~ 5ayS Cod in a biblical ere·
alion 51O!)' (Gen. 2, 18), so God ove rcomes this loneliness by providing <l Npartner;
on~ who stands o\'er again5t"vis-a· vis, in an "1·Thou" relalionship. Human life is
16. Sl<:phtn SaPP. ' li.',"!! "'ith Alzhe;mer's, Body Sou13nd the R~membcrinfl Commlln;!}':
CtJ",!:"r. C,,:r~r)' 11 5. nO . ] (1998) 54----60_

gi\'~nin the con text of intcllXrsonal rda tion~htp, If "~surrection' during one'~ life-
time meanS r~storation to th e comm unlly, so that one may "'walk before the Lord
[YahwehJ in the land of the living (Ps. 116:9 ), then the flnallibercllion &-om death
is appropriately portrayro as bei ng ra ised to life so that one may take part in the
redeemed community_ It will mean ex--rending the horizon of Psalm 23 beyond Ihis
eanhly life and being invited to sit at the Lord's Tabl~ with oth~rs and to be a guest
in Cod's hoose ~for~'er,' e\'en beyond Ihe limi tat ions of monallife.
Thus resurrection imagery em phasizes life in community. in contrast to the
individualistic doctrine of the immonality of the soul. Indeed, these tv.'o ways of
thinking yield imponant differences in ethics. "If Lm Things a~ ponrayed as the
destiny of isola ted persons.~ ""rites theologian Cabriel Fackre, "an individualistic
ethic is predictable . In contrast, the resurrection of the bedr carries with it the
mandate to care here and now for the hungry, homeless, and abused."'3 Moreover,
when resurrection is seen in its apocalyptic context of a new creation, which
includes the transfonnation of society and of nature. it has imponant ecological
implic.l1ions. As Paul said In a chapter that is indebted to the apocalyptiC per-
spective. "the whole creation has been groaning in labOT pains until now,~ w.aiting
with human beings for the final consummation, namely. "the redemption of ou r
bodies" (Rom , 8:22-23 ).
Thr Ed aJ H isklry
Finally, resurrection image!)', when appearing in .an apocalyptic comext, implies
mov~menr toward the goa l of hislO!)'. Just as the life of the individual is a "pilgnm's
progress," so the history of the world, from creation on, i\ understood 10 be a tde -
ological movement toward the final e\'ent of the coming of the dominion of God
on earth as it is in hea" en. If the doctriroc of immonality is un historical, promising
to redeem individuals from the lransience o f time and the e-vil of history, the res-
urrection hope endorses the ultimate meaning of our historical life. In this view,
there can be no divine justice jf faithful indi vid uals, who predecease the end, are
denied access to the Bnal consummation.
There arc, of course, problems with this apocalyptic image!)'_ Questions
ine-vitably arise: \'<'hat happens to faithful individuals in the in terim between their
de.a th and the Anal co nsumma tio n] 'W'hat conti nuity is the~ beT\Oieen the fleshly
body that decays and the transformed spiritual body that is incorruptible( [s final
salvation intended only for the righteous, the wicked being cast into darkness, or
does it include all human beings universally l In facing these and other questions,
interpreters must be on guard against turning the poetry of faith into the literalism
of exact prose. The important th ing is that the image!)' of resurrection at the end
em phasizes and endorses teleological mo\'ement, not only the destiny of individ·
uallife but the whole sweep of historical time. In apoca lyptic imagina tion. at the
great finale all faithful persons, li"ing and dead, will take part in the cschatologi.
cal victory banquet.
17. 'One humin oong is nOl i hum~n "",nl! ~t il l.'
t 8. Fad.~ , "I B( I i~'~ In (h~ RCS\lrr\"<.:tion: .\ 5-46
•
lifc, ~ath . and ResulTCCtion 323
TI)r Mrll11l1orpiJosis
The beSt discussion of resurrection hope in the Bible is found in one of Paul's let-
ters to the church at Corinth ( I Corinthians 15 ). The discussion is based on an
apocalypt ic perspective.
Here Paul divulges the apoc.alypti c "secret" or Nmyste!)'" ( I Cor. 15:51): the
end is ncar, so near that nOt all a!i\'e will "sleep," that is, suffer death. FollOWing the
JeWish apocalyptic scenario, he declares that the end will be sig naled by the
sounding of a trumpet (sce Joel 2: I; uph . I: 16). Then the dead will be raised to
take pan in the mming of God's kingdom. Their personal lives will be fulfilled in
the ultimate goa l of all history and creat ion.
[ n two respects, h owe\'~ r, Paul depans from Old Testament apocalyptic. First,
he insists that there ....,ill be a metamOrphosis in which the physical body is trans·
fonned into a spiritual body, for "flesh and blood c.annot inh~rit the kinlj:dom of
Cod" ( I Cor. 15:50). Notice, he does not speak of the release of the immortal soul
from its badi!}' prison, but rather says th.a t the monal bod)' must "put o n immor·
tality~ as somethinlj: ,ha! is added (v. 53 ). \'(lhen thi s occurs, as an act of God's new
creation, then the promise of the Isaiah Apocalypse (lsa. 25:8) will be ful~lIed,
"Death has been s..... allowed up in viClory:"t~
Paul devotes considerable attention to the body of the resurrection ( I Cor_
15:35.49). Using va rious illustrations, he argues thal there are different kinds of
bodies, .and th.at a spiritual body is one kind among these . His afgu~n( is that this
phy§ical body, which is no ....· the form 01 a person's earthly existence, \"iII be
changed into a spIritual body or, as he says elsc:where. ~a glori~ed body" (Phi!'
3:21 ) suitable for the new conditions of life in Ihe new age. the everlasting k.ing.
dom of God_
USlcn, I w,lIlell yOtl a ffi)' Slery: We will nOI all di~ , but ....'e will all be ch~nged, in
a mom~n(. in the (....'i nkling of an ty<:, al the lasl trumpet. For the tru mpet will
sound. <lnci (he dead .... ill be ra ised impel'1shable, and "cc will be <;h~ng~d
- J Cor. 15:51-52
To use a modem anal og)', the metamorphosis is like that of the caterpillar thal
changes fonn and wrns into a butterfly. This image has the ~d vantage of portray-
ing continuity and discontinuity: a differem form, yelthe sa me being.
Tbt Dmvni"9 of GoJs Dell!inioll
In the seco nd place. Paul depans fro m trad itional apocalyptic by making the bold
announcement that the t ime of God's kingdom has already dawned. That is the
meaning of Christ's resurrec tion, he sa.ys as he begins his discussion of the ""hole
subj«:t ( 1 Cor. 15:20·29). The resurrection of Christ is the "nm fruits" of the har·
vCSt, showi ng tha t the full harvest is coming. namely, the general resurrection
from the dead (v. 20). In the meantime. Christ is proclaimed the viCtorious king.
who will continue his redempti\'e wo rk until all po",'ers hostile to God's purpose
are O\'erCOme_
19 5«' the previous discussion in this chapter.
 Notice tha t in this apocalyptic scenario, the "laH enemy" to be on~ rcome is
Death (v_ 16), In the present evil age Dea th is still an aggressive power, invading
the land of the living and seizi ng its victims, as evidenced by viol e nce. oppression,
CONCLUSION
untimely death, and so on. But, according to Paul's proclam ation, Death'~ power
ha~ been broken by God's raising]es.us from the dead. Th is divine victory is a fore -
taste of the final triumph ove r all powers that threaten to separate people fmm the
love 01 God (Rom, 8,18- 19) , This event inte nsifies Chris ti an hope lor what is to
FROM THE OLD T E STA MENT T O THE NEW
come , "the liberation fmm monality" {Rom _8:13, REB} or better, "the rede mption
of our bodies.~

W~ know lhatlhe whole creation h"s been groaning in labor pams un tIl no ..... , and The scripturr5 writtfil long ngo
not only the cr~ation, bu t we o ur;eh'cs, ,dlO ha,"" the first frui t~ a l the Spirit, groa n
inwardly, while we wait tor ado ption, the redemption of our bodies. For in hope we were nl/ wrjttfIJ Jor our jllslrllctiol1,
were saved. i l l order that tlJrollgh the encollragemfIJl
- Rom , 8·22 ·14a
Pan of the apocalypt ic scena rio is [hat in God 's plan Jesu s Christ will reign as
they give us we may maintaill
king until the time of the final vinory, at which time he will hand over the domin - ollr hope wjll) per,everallCf.
ion to Cod, who will be "all in all" {V\'. 27-18 ). After the conllin is over, and D eath
is destroyed. the dominion of God will come in its full glory. RO~1ANS 15 :4 (REB )

Bc $tMdfaslr
As in t he case of other apoca ly ptic literature, such as the book of Daniel, the pri -
mal)' purpose of [h is discussion is not to speculate about God's iu tllre timetable but
to enmurage people to be faithful in the struggles of daily life_ Victory is on the
way, and indeed we see its flrst signs already in Christ's resurrection. Accordingly,
Paul ends the discussion of futu r~ resurrection w it h an exhortation to people
caught in the midst of the historical slnJggic to hold on and act:
Therefore, my beloved. be steadfast, ,mll1o~' abk, always ~xcel1ing in {he work of
the lord, because ),011 know tha t in the Lord your labOT i~ not in vain.
- I Cor. 1558

W'e have scen already, in the case of the book o f Daniel , w h ich was writlen for
a revolution , that apocalyptic hope is not a "cop out" or a failure of nerve, bill a
motivation to stand finn against tremendous odds,~(1 As Pa ul exclaims-to rurn
aga in to the magnificent eighth chap,er of Romans:
If Cod is on OUr sidt:. who i~ aga inst liS;

- Rom . 8 :31 ( REBj

10_See (he aisc,-,ssion of (he apocalypse 01 Daniel. above chapter 33.

 35. THE ApOCALYPTIC TRIUMPH
OF JESUS CHRIST

IH the Christian Bible, as we observed earlier, the Old Testament has a rdative
independence. justifyin g works on "Old Testament theology~ or mon: properly,
biblical t heology of t he Old Tcstamen1. 1 This point has been made forcdully by
Br~ard C hild, in hi s BihliC <l1 Tho ro.!!)' of tll( 0 11 md Nw, ustllmen!s." In the Christian
Bible, he re minds us, Old and New Testaments have been linked as a uni~ed com-
position; but rh is linkage "d{X"S not mean tha t the inte grity of each individual t CS-
tament has been desrroyed _" It is nor jusTifiable to construct a biblical theology by
co nsidering how the New Testament interprets the O ld; nor is it right to reduce
the theolo gical task to following c e Hain lines of trad ition fro m th e Old Testament
to t h~ir culmimnion in the New. ~Both (C'itamenIS ma ke a discrete witness to J~sus
Christ which must b~ h~ard, both separa tely and in concen.« j
An expositio n of N~w Te-;tam~nt th~ology lie-; beyond the purview of th is
srudy. Any consideration of the transit ion from the Old Testament to the New
mUSt, however, take full account o t th e fact that C hristianity e rupted out of the
heart of Judaism . Contrary to earlier views, (here was no such thing as a '"'norma-
tiv~ Juda ism.« The Judaism of the lime was very diverse; di\'ided by parties (e.g ..
Pharisees, Sadduce~s ), split by s~ctarian mo\'ements, and reactl\'C to philoso phies
a nd religions of the H ellenistic world.
From the Old TC'itament s~veral paths s~em to le ad to th e New, at least from
a Christian point of vie\". Two of these wc have considered in the pr~vious ~ctions
(111 .A-B ), ( I ) ITom lorah to wisdom, and ( 2) from prophecy to apocalyp tic.

The PmistrlK( of the Wisaom Traditio/!

The wisdom movement continued vigorously into the opening of the Common
Era , as evidenced by the presence of wisdom writings in th~ Gre~k Bibl ~
(Septuagint). writings consiclered dculcTocanonical by Catholics and apocryphal
by Protestants (sec (he books c ontain~d betw·een the Old and New Testaments in
som~ editions of the NRSV, REB, NJB, etc. ). Since early C hristians read Jewish
Scriptures in th~ G r~ek translation (Septuagint), they w~ re i nA uenc~d by these
extra wisdom writings (Wisdom of Ben Sira, \'fisdom of Solomon) and others of
the type . The cosmic dimension of wisclom. as found especially in Proverbs S and
Wisdom of Solomon S. was eventually emphasized in the Logos (\Vord) theology
found in the prologue to th~ Gospd of Jo hn lIohn I , I - IS /_

L Stt abo~·~. chapr~r 2.

2. Hrcvard S. Chi lds. Biblical Thalogy of rt>. O!J ~"d Nrw T""' .. er.K n".oi~j(a/ Rrflrctio" Q~ rt>.
Cbr;<lia~ IM,I, (j.,.·li nnrapoi iso Fomcss Press . 19911. ... pKi.lly Tl- 79 .
3. Ibid .. 78.
 328 Ccm'mlrl of 00 TtI"la""'''' n,(~y
A strong case could be made that a major road from the Old to the New
Testaments was via rorah and wisdom. Indeed, 'iOme scholar<i, panicipants in the
§()·called Jesus Seminar, maintain that »the hislOri<:al Jesus' was originally a wan-
dning Jewish sage whose image has been almost com plNdy effaced by superim'
posed messianic interpretations. An analogy wou ld be a palim psest, a vellum or
parchment document whose surface was used more than once. often leaving visi _
ble impertecliy erased wri ting. Some lost works of class ical antiquity have been
rr{:overed by probing beneath th e surface writing and recovering the earliest writ-
ing. Similarly, it is ar",.ued.""' critical hislOrical methodology enables scholar<i to
recover the original sayings of a peasant sage, Jesus of Nazareth . who spoke in wis-
dom forms of speech. such as the parable of the shrewd manager (Luke 16:1-8a)
or of the lost coin (Luke 15:8-9); or aphorisms. like the beatilUde (congratulation)
lor the poor (}.·!alt. 5:3 and parallds) or the ix-atitude for th e hungry l Matt. 5:6
and parallels).
The view of Jesus as a ,,"'isdom teacher is. these scholars admit. a NreconSINc_
tion,'" accomplished by reading critically between the lines of the Gospels and by
consulting other sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas, a collection of sayings
discovered in 1945 in the ancient library o f N ag Hammadi, Egypt.
In the judgment of many New Testament scholars, however, th is bold recon-
struction, which has attracted considerable public attention. rests on a question-
able: me:thodology.cI It draws tOO sharp a c:omrast betw~n ordinary '"hiStOry" and
the ·story" of faith ? It ignores the resUITcrted Jesus. the foundation of the
Christian gospel, in fa\'or of a so-called pTC"-Easter Jesus. It sets up arbitrary (~sci'
entinc) rules to de tennine what evidence is ac:ceptable: ..J In shon, this is a -reduc,
tionism» that amounts to Pthe dismantling of Chrislianit),," as Cordon Harland, a
Canadian theological friend, has appropria ldy put il.
For the theology of the New Testament it is more imponant to gi\'e attention
10 tha t kind of wisdom, considere:d earlier (chapter 28), th,1I comes from reflect ion
on the texts of the Torah. Leaders of Judaism scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees-
who engaged in disputations with Jesus about interpretation of the Torah (e .g. ,
... xc lhc book by Roben: \117. Funk. founder of th<- )esus s.:m,n~r. H""", '" Jrswl (s;,n
h'ncisco: Ha~rSanFrlnc;sco, 1996} A caulogue of the sayings, regorded ., ;Rnhenlie by
majority "Ole of memben of the Seminar. is given In the app-c:ndix of his book, pp. 326-3.5.
5. Sce John Dominic Crvs~n, .. nothcr leading member of the )C"SU'i Sem,n;... r", HJ5 rcTlC~)
)"~I' 1")", !.if! '" a AItJiltrr~/It~" iMilh Pl~!~.r (San Franc~o HarperSanFr;lncisco, 199 1t C"Sp-c:ci~1J)"
hi. conc!udin(l remarks. pp. "24--16.
6. Sec Luke limmhy Joh nson. n.. Rr..1J,!.< , Th AliJgy ,~(J O~rs1 Jod/" Hi,!i>1i(~1 J"U! ~,:J rh.- T"'11,
4 tb. T'aJiti~",,1 ~r~rls (San Frandsco: HarpcrSanFr.:I"cisco. I996J, ~I"" N. T. W',ight. Jl! ~' ~~J rh!
I!,cl<lry of Q,d (1-tin neapohs, Fort re-ss I'n.:-s~. 1996.1. 19-35.
7. On thi ~ ,~suc in the Old Tem.mem. see abo,·e. chap,er I.
8. See ,he exchange on "Eneoun'ering Jesus" bet,,'...,n W'illlam H. ~iillimon n .lockrn
Dis'B(tions) and .\hrcU\ Sorg (, POSt modern Revi$ionon8 -l. Orr""'n C""~ry 11 4. nO. 3 1 ( 1997)
1009-13.
The Apocalyptic Triumph of Jews Christ 329
Mark 12:13. 18 . 28), repr~nted the ""'isdom of Torah study that was perpetuated
in later rabbinic Judaism. 9
Prtachilrg tiN Kingdom of God
In his classic study, Tbr OII'1I}or ,!It Histon·c.rl )rsus ( 1906), one of the great book!.
of ,he twentieth century, Alben Schweitzer ""as on flnner ground when he main-
,ained that Jesus ",'.15 an eschatOlogical preacher who proclaimed the imminent
coming of the fina l kingdom of God. The vi e,,"' that Jesus was an apocalyptic
preacher has been strengthened by the disco"ery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at the
headquaners of an Essendike se<t at Qumran, on the shore of the Dead Sea, not
far from Jeric ho. There are striking affinities between th is Jewish sectarian group
and the early Christian communi ty. 80th ",'ere apocalyptic communities that
awaited the dawn of the new age. Bo th regarded themselves as people of the new
covenant- "the children of IiSh," in contlict with "the children of darkness" (cf.
Luke 16:8, Joh n 12:36; I Thess. 5:5 ). 80th shared messianic e:xpectations. The
Qumran community, howe .... er, aw aited three figures: Ma prophet like Moses,ff a
Davidic king of Israel, and a priestly messiah of Aaron.'o In the New Testament
these three images- prophet , priest, and king-are combined in one messianic
figure, as we shall see.
John the Baptist. who preached and b aptized in the: Dead Sea area (Mark 1:4-
11), seems to havc been an apocalyptic preacher. He preached that already the axe
was laid to the root of the tree, that God was about to destroy the: old orde r and
make a new beginning. and that it was time to repent {Man. 3: 1·12 1. }e<illi. who
was baptized by Jo hn the Baptist in the Jo rdan Ri\·er. mus, have been infl ue nced by
John'" apocalyptic message when he announced the imminent coming of God's
kingdom;
"The time IS fulfilled, .. nd tne kingdom of Cod has come near: repen t. ilnd bc-liC"'e
in the good. 1lt.'\o>"S..
_ /Iibrk I: 15
A1ar.l::\; ApocalyplK- Pr$tillf:
In any case, if we stan with thc Ne"" Testament Gospels in thei r canonj.cal form .
rather than going behind the text to recover a "h istorical JC"SU5.~ ;t is apparent that
t he Gospc"1 writers pc"Keived Jesus' message and career through an apocalyptic
lens, as shown dramatic:ally in the PBS television documentary. From lC51l1 !o Chris!
(April 1998). That Jesus was an "apocalyptic prophet," has bee n demonstrate:d
9. See t-lichad Fisnb;!no:-. ' From Scrihalism fORabb,nism, Perspec .. vC"S on tho:- Emergence 01
C1as~calJl.Idai, m; in Th 5"gr i~ 1",,,/ ~~J ,h! AJ"i(t,r Nr,I' Em. cd Leo G. Pen:lue ~nd John C .
Cammic (~f;nona l.lke, Ind .. E,~ nb<iun~. 1990i, "39-:56.
r0 See the altide 1», Joseph A. F',zm)·er. 'The [)';-ad Se, Scrolls;: in Har/l<1i Biblt D;rn......ry.
~. Paul Achtemeicr et al. (s..n francisco : Hirpcr & RO'<.', (985). 981-88.
330 Ccntowrs of OLl Tt5Ia",mt Thr%gy
effectively by a leading New Testament scholar, N. T. Wright, in Jesus and rh.-
Victory of God. 11
This apocalyptic perspecti\'e is evident from the earliest Gospel, the Gospel of
Mark, I. on which the other Gospe[s depe nd in some degree. In a book on Mark ,
Comlftlmity of Ib~ Nw Age, Howard Kee observes tha t /I.·lark shared with apocalyptic
wri tings, such as the book of Daniel. "a ~t of convictions and expectations." He
mentions several convictions held in common:
1. Rroeiatio" of rbl Divil1' SteTCI. Knowledge of Gocl's purpose for the world, and
especially (or his people, has been revealed to them t hrough visions and insights
of his chosen agent.
1. J'vI<lfi),rdQIII jr. Ibe Face (If OPPo,j"g Evil POl/XTS . The fa ithful must be willing to
accept suffering or e....en death, in the face of ~erce opposition from the religious
and political powers that are pr~ntly in control.
3. The Ap(I("aiyplic DawII oJ a Nw Age. Beyond the presen t tim e of testing and
martyrdom lies a new age, in which God 's purpose in and tor the creation will be
achieved, and his people will be fun y and etemally vindicated. 13
Also the letters of Paul, which come from approximately th e middle of the ~rst
century. are heaVily inAue nced by apocalyptic thinking. H
To underscore the future vindica tion of the faithful, early C hrislian inter-
preters. particularly Paul, employed the apocalyptic theme of resurrection from
the dead ( I Corinthians IS). As we have seen earlier.':> in apocalyptic prophecies
resurrection is an end·time eve nt, which makes it possible for faithful martyrs,
who have predeceased the arrival of God's dominion, to take part in the fina l
consummation.
Contir.uity ad Di,mllt/r.ui!)'
At the begi nning of our srudy, we found that the rdation between the testaments ,
the Old and th e Ne\<,·. is one of continuity and discontinuity.'6 The relationship is
not a simple continuity, as though the ~tream of JeWish tradition ilowed smoothly
iOlo the New Testament, Jewish trad ition actually flows past the New Testamen t
iOlo the Talmud and rabb inical Judaism. Nor was there a sharp discontinuity, as
though the stream issued in a waterfall that plunged to make a radically ne\,r begin.
ning, as advoca ted by Marcion. who held that the Old Testament is non· Christian
scriptu r~ {a view still shared by many today}. Rather. the rdationship is a dialec·
tic of continuity ami discontinuity. Both dimensions must be taken into accouOl, as
11. See Part 11 of \l:'right's book ,:Fortress Pre~" 1995) .
11. Probabl)' wrinen in ,he "'te 60s of th .... li m ccnruf)·.
\.3 . Howard C. Kee. Co"'.. w~;1y Dj It. 1\1"" Ag,' Stwd." i" ,\11rk, Go,/><i
We-;tmin~ter. 1977\ 11.
14. Thi' i, demonstratcd by J. Chris<iaa" Beker in P~~J!bt A""lIr' Tb< T" .",ph 4 GoJ
~ht (Minrleapolis, Fomes, P1"C'is. 1980).
15 . Sce above. chapter H .
16. ~ above. chapter 1.
The Apocalyptic Triumph 01 Jesus Chri,t 331
we have seen when conside ri ng such matters as the ancestral promise of land or
the ethical demands of the Holiness Code. 17
In the usual apoca lyptic sce nario there is sharp discontinuity between the old
and the ne"". The old age m ust pass away, the new age will supervene . Paul seems
to be saying something like this when he speaks ot the dawning of God's new
creation,
If an~'one i, in Christ. [that person] is a new creation, everything old has passed
a','ay, see, evef)'th ing has become new!
- 1 Cor. 5,17
When one compares Jewis h and Ch risti an apocalyptic. however. one ~nds not
only striking similarities but also signifkant differe nces.
Apocalyptic Dimt1tsiotfs of the Christimt GDSpel
Consider three basic convictions that the Christian proclamation shares with
JeWish apocalyptic.
Tht Kingdom of 5alall vs. th.- Killgdom oJ God. like apocalypti C, the early Chris tian
gospel makes a radical distinction between the dominion of God and the nJle of
evil powers that aHempt to usurp control of God5 creation. [n this view th e prob.
lem of evil can not be reduced to sin. that is. betrayal of co....e nant relationship with
God, rather, people are victims of oppressive powe rs that are at work in human
history, and even in the cosmos. Indeed , there is a kind o f dualism--a conflict
between the ki ngdom of God and the ki ngdom of the evil one (Satan ), though one
should add that this is a postcreation conflict, not one rooted in th e creation itself.
As in the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, faithful people pray to be delivered from
the sinister power of the evil one (Matt. 5: 13}.
Tht Pmrt1t A9' ar.d Ih.- Agt to CO"". In the New Testament, as in apocalyptic literature,
these two spheres of sovereignty (ki ngdoms l are depicted as twO ages; "the present
age ." in which God's sovereignty is hidden exce pt 10 eyes of faith, and "the age to
come," in which the glory of God will be revealed for all to see. The present evil
order, corrupted by sin and violence, stands under God's judgment and must pass
away in order tha t the new creation may appear (see fig . 7).
Therefore, as Paul advises jn correspondence to the church at Corinth,
Christians should sit loosely to the present world:
The appointed tim~ ha, grown shon, from now on, let eyen those who h~"e wives
be: as thoug h they had non e, and those ",ho mourn as though Ihey were not mourn·
ing, and those who r~joice as thoogh Ihey were not rejoicing, and those who buy
{ Phil~ddphia,
~s thoogh thcv had no po5se-;sions, .lnd those who deal \"ilh the world as thoogh
they h~d no dealing-; with it. For ,he p1"C'ient IOffil of this world is passing aw~y.
,r.l.if, ~"J - I Cor. 7,29·31
17. On the form~r ' '"'' above. chapter 11; on the lalter. chapter 15.

FIGURE 7. "Thf Twc Agrl
END
OF THIS
SYSlRi
TI-lE PRESENT AGE THE AGE TO COME
The JU5uranu oJ God, U/!imait' TrillJlfpb. As in apocalYPlic, [~Chris[ian gospel amic.
ipales [~coming lriumph of God ovo:, rh o: powo:~ of o:vil and lho: imminent corn.
~ng. of an ago: in whicMh ther~ will be jus[ice, wdl-being, harmony--n-erything
19n1fied by the word peace t Hebrew 5"'110'", Gro:ek 6rtm ). As Paul writes in I
Corinthians 15, a chapler heavily inAuenced b~' an apocalyptic perspective,
Then cam~ tne end, ,,·hen he [Christ ) h~nds aver the Kingdom 10 Cod the Father
aher ne has <k<1fl),ed C\~ ru ler and ~ry authoritv and poo....e1". ' of Christ as King , the last Sunday of the seaso n o f Trin ity, is an occasion for co:le-
- I Cor. 1EH
Reimerpro:ting the domin ion God has given "tho: son of man" (human bein~ )
according to Ps. 8:6, Paul goes on to say that Ch rist must reign unlil he has put all
"his enemio:s" undo:r h is feo:[, those enemies being the demonic powers of o:vil that
dominate the present age. induding ~the last enemy." Deuh. Apocalyptic
pro~h~, as we have secn. o:nvisioned a great esc:hatological banquet, cdo:brating
Gods v,ctory ovo:r powers of violence . o ppression. and chaos. when death will be-
"swallowed up· 'or~·er ((sa. 14,6- lOa)."
Th NrQn:css of Gods Do,.ini{m. A.. in apoealYPlic, the Christian gos pel announces
Ihat Cods eschatologicaltriumph is near. The kingdom of God is not that ~one far.
~ff divin: even! [oward which t he wh ole creation moves" (Tennyson ); rather, it is
at hand. Accord ing to the Cos~1 of Mark , Jesus said to his listeners,
The Apocalyptic Trium ph of J~s Christ 333
Truly I lell you. there are some standin8 htre ""h.:> ""ill not totSlt <k.uh until dlC)' ~
that tOt kingdom of Cod h ~~ corn", with powe r.
- Mark 9:1
In view of the nearness of Cod's kingdom, the faithful know that the preso:m crisis
is urgent and they wa it and pray in intense hope.'9
Christial1 Tmllsfonnnliotl of Apocalyptic
The Christian gospel , however, has transformed the apoca lyp tiC view h«:a1lSC" of
[he anno uncement that Cod has done something totally and radically new
through the life , death, and resurrection of Jesus Chrisl. A "new cro:ation" has
begun to appear ( I Cor. 5:7). This "Ol'll"- has changed people's whole outlook (2
Cor. 5: 16), even the way they hea r propheaes found in Jew ish ScriPIUro:. NOlico:
some 01 the new accents of Christian apocaly ptic .
115 Aggmsor <lg"i" ~! 5111n" ~ Kingdom . Jesus is no t po rtrayed merely as an apoca-
)(3 115
lypt ic visional)' \vho announces the mystery of God's kingdom 10 a select few;
rathe r, he h imself is the sign of God's kingdom in the present historical age when
evil powers are at work. making people \·ictims of structures of oppression or
thro:a tening health and wholeness with invasive evil spirits. In t he Gospel of Mark,
for instance. Jesus is portrayed as Cod's age nt ....,ho. as the Divine \X/arrio r, goes out
to fight against Satan·s kingdom, which o""t:rpowers people and ;nAicts suffering
and bondago: on them. Jesus' exorCIsms are understood to be tM Messiah's "Warfare
against Satan's kingdom for the purpose of freeing people from the power of evil
(or the evil one). lesus' crucifixion. crowned with re surrection, signifies to
Christian failh that Jesus is th", victor in the long struggle with evil. The Festival
brating his royal triumph, although the ...Iorshiping community knows that his
c rown, his th rone, and his dominion are not like tha t of the rolers of this world.
Martin luther's famous hym n of the Reformation, M A M ighty Fortress Is Our
Cod," uses this mythopoeciC language, th ough one fears that it may be excised
from so me future hymnals owing to "the war on mo:taphors. "lO
A..J rbco;l b rbi. a'<lrIJ. ""ilh Jm1s fiild
.oo.iJ Ibrtall1l to ",.Jp Ql,
Ii'( rili II(JI -,"wr. }r c;.,J barh <;;IlkJ
bi", t",1b 10 tn-" .pb rbrowgb ".
The p" ",,( <I} o.,tbr~f gri ...,
r....blt "01 fo. bill!,
[Of
h;~ c"9r .""""" rnJ"tr,
jor 10. bi5 Joo", il 5>" t ,
0 >1( lirJ, Il'IJTJ .),.,11jtiJ ~''''.
19. s.:., N. T. Wril!'h~ , "\l(~1 1I""" 1~ 10 ' In JI!" 'Il~.J IN \/.rury of GoJ. 4-67- 72.
lOo R~f",ninR ~R~ ,n ~o K ,l Ihl« n N oniss ~y In n. (loi.tn" WaL!., ~ ~~ . ch~ptff 21.
 334 c.".,1OII1"I of Old TtSt.I""'" Tbrology
That · word above: all e arthly powers: according to Lut her's hymn. must be
spoken by -,hI:: man of God's ow n choosing,"' for "he must ..... in ,he batt1e.
w
(;t"fs lliwni"9 Nro lV"tlJ. The Christian gospel annou nces that the period of wait-
ing (Advent) is over, for the king has come and the dominion of God has already
been inaugurated . In other words, th e C hris tia n gospel ha s broken the lime
scheme of apocalypt ic . with its sharp sepa ration of -th e present [("viI] age" from
"the age to come.~ No longer are these rv."0 ages [ik(" circles that touch each othe r
o nly tangentially {see fig. 7), so that the old must pass away before the new can
co me i rather, the n.·o a~ are like overlapping circles isee fig. 8). for already Cod
has introduced the new age through Jesus Christ eve n while the old age persists.
Thus people of faith find themsel \"es living in the zone \vhere the circles over·
lap. "tasting the po\<"er of the age to come" [Heb. 6:5). even while the temptati ons
and influence of the present .... orld exert the ir po ...:er. The et hical problems of th e
Christian com mun i£)" arise from this double involvement: one foot in the present
evil age, 50 to speak, and the other in the ne w age tha t has already da .... ned
through Jesus Ch rist. l l
(b ri5ls Rt"Surrutior.. In the C hris tian reinte rpre tation of apocalypt ic, the supreme
sign of the IlCW age is the resurrection of Christ from th e dead. As Paul argues
• effcctively in I Corinthians IS , this end-time evenl has alread)' occurred in the
FIGURE 8 GcJ5 Dllllmil'9 Ntw World
T HE PRESENT ACE THE ACE TO COt\-I..E
11 . 5« lhe- ~In·.. nt discussion by J. Paul Sotmplcy, W~lI:; ..... b<t ...", IIx r.-...
R.~=irrg (Mmne-.. poIis, Fomns Press, 199 1).
The ApocalYpI"ic Triumph of Jesus Christ 335
midst of the presen t age. Christ's resurrection, Paul decla res, is "the first frui ts~ ( 1
Cor. 15:20) that gi\'es promise of the 'harvest~ that will come in the cnd, when
there will be a general resurrect ion of the predeceased to share the victory ce1 e~
bration of God's kingdom.
So near and certai n is God's a pocal}'plic trium ph that Paul can go so far as to
~y that not everyone will die. but for all there: will be a metamorphosis, as there
was in the case of Jesus, so th at th e presen t form of the self (body ) will be trans-
formed. In Handel's Alrssiab, the apocalyptic scena rio is portrayed in the solo, "The
Trumpet Shall Sound."
Listen, 1 win Ie-II you I m~lery! W", win nOl all die, bUI ""e will all Ix changed, in
J moment, in Ihe [\o','inkling of an eye, al Ihe la5t lIumpcl. For Ih" lrumpet will
sound. and the dead ""ill be- "'ised impcrishable. and wc ""ill b" changed. Fer this
perishable body must pm on imperishability, Ind Ihls morta l body must put on
IITl mortali[)"_
To be sure, the Christian community lives in th e tension 01 Ralready· and ~not
yet.~ Using the sym boli c limguage of apocalyptic. the trumpet signalizing God's
final tri umph ha s nO t yel sounded. There is still a period of waiting for the fi nal
consummation . the coming of Cods kingdom fully on earth as it is in heaven or,
in christological terms. the appeara nce {~'£lU51-a i of Jesus Christ in glory. But th is
wai ting is not the C'xpectation of coun tin g the da}'s o r speculating on an apoca·
Iyptic timetable. For alread}' God's triumph has been manifest in the resu rrection
, of Christ, the end-time event tha t g ives a foretaste of th(" final consummation. T his
fo retast.,. of God"s kingdom is a summons to responsibililY: "Be steadfast, immov·
able, always excellin g in the work of t he lord. because you know tha t in the Lord
your labor is not in vain" ( 1 Co r. 15 :58).:21
i'vlort Than C""I/"rroN. Finally. a pocal)'p tic has given to the early C hristian comm u'
nity a profound grasp of the mean ing of God's triu mph in Jesus Ch rist. In one
d imension, God's victory is libera tion from the power of sin through d ivine for·
giveness displayed in the vicarious and atoning death o f Jesus. The apocalypt ic
perspective. ho wever, pmhcs Christian interpreters to go beyond th is prophetic
message of sin and forgi\'eness and 10 proclaim Cod's tri ump h over all the powers
of darkness. chaos, evil. and death. Paul lists some 01 those powers in his great vie·
, tory proclamation at the end of Romans 8. where he dcc lares that th rough Christ
wc are "marc than conquerors."
'IX!},o will sep~r.l le us from the love of Chris!i 'Will hardship, or d,stress, o r p"rse·
cUlion. or hmint.". or nakedness, or peril. or \word; ... No, in all these thi ng<; we
ue more than conquerOl"'i th rough him ...·ho loved us. For I am convinc"d Ihat nei -
ther dealh. nor li fe, nor angels. 001" rulers, nOl" things present. oor things to come,
P~~!! ,\lor~!
22. Rcc~1l Irn, di~ssion of 1 Cor. 1S ~bo\'e. CNop ler 34
 nor PO\o,'CtS. I'IOT hcighl, nor dcpth, nor anything eke in all c:.-eatioo, \o,'ill Ix, able to
scp.. rate us from the lo~ of Cod in Christ Jesu~ our Lord.
- Rom. 8,35·39
Christian liturgy ought to take this proclamation more seriously. Our usual
liturgy has bttn heavily inMuenced by the prop hetic and priestly message of sin
and fOTgiveoe<;s. Toward the beginning of the service, .... orshipers uwally engage
in a ge ne~ 1 confession of sin, which is followed by an annou ncement of God's for_
giveness. to which the con~..rega tion responds wi th the Gloria PaIn. The celebralion
of Cod's victory, hO ....·(v('l". is incomplete unless the liturgy g~s beyond the for-
giveness of sins inlo the wider dimension of Christian apocalyptic; COO's victor)'
over all powers of darkness. (\',1, and death that oppress people.
Chris tian communities are called to be "'beach heads of God's d a....'ning new
world: as J. C. Beker has nicely put it.ll Cod has introduced the new creation in
Ch rist! its powers are already at work in the world. The Ch ristian community is
w mmoned to be part of God's healing and saving work. nOI in some secure place
of refuge in the desert or nOt JUSt in the privacy o f one's personallile, but in this
world that is tOrn apa rt by conAic!. Viole nce, and war. To be "in Ch rist,~ tha t is, in
the comm unity that is his body. is-to quote the great pra yer of Francis 01 Assisi-
to be ~a n instn.J me nt of Cod's peace. M "fulfi lled:' o r better, Uvalida ted : by God's new CO\'enanl ins tituted th rough Jesus
Lord. /!IlIke Ill' illstnmmlls of Thy Pta".
W'bm thm is 001,(,1, Id liS sew 1",~,
u,hm tbm is injury. /Ul rJOIl,
whm th~rr is dOllbl. fililh ,
wbtrt Ibm is drs(!a;r. ho/lf!
whrr~ tbm is ddrb!rs~ light.
lI,htrr Ibtu is sadutS>_ joy.
o Dirril:~ l\Lul«. granl tbat wr /!lay IIor !O 1IIIIcb ';u~
UI bot COfISOW. lIS 10 ro,,;ol..-,
10 bot IIl1drrstooJ. liS UI u!!dmtard;
10 bot l000i. lIS 10 1011f;
For it i5 ;11 gitJir,g tbat ~ rn::ritJt,
it is ill ~arJOIlmg 1001 wr <lrt padorn!'J,
aM it is In dyill9 Ibat Ult' art born to rtm:allifr 14
1~.&I:er. P".! IbI A"",uk 3 13.
14 I h ~"e d~PI"~d ,his, by c:hnging ~1n8UI ~r pronouns 10 pluml, so Ih311h .. Ch ri<t;3n <;om.
munity spe~I:s.
36. JESUS CHRIST AS PROPHET ,
PRIEST , AND KING
In the light of Cod'~ · apocalyptic triumph~ in Jesus C h rist , the C hristian com-
munity rereads the Scriptures of Isr.llcl· the TOr.llh. the Prophets, and the W ritings.
The~ Scriptures gwere .... ritten down 10 instn.Jct us," Paul .... rote to the Christia n
community at Corinth. ~on whom the ends of the ages have come" ( 1 Cor. 10: 1 1).
, New Testament writers tTequen ti y d te the Old Testament . usually in the G reek.
version (SepiUagi nt ), find ing new meani ng in the scriptural heri tage:. Whi le the
Old Testame nt can stand by itself, speaking with its own independent voices. the
New Test ament is "inco mprehe nsible apart from the Old." as Brevard Childs
rightly obse rves. I
Gods COVnrl1l1!s with Israel Endorsed
Earl y Christian interpreters affirmed that God's covena nts ....,i th Is rael have been
Christ. To speak o f the "full1l1ment" of Cod's covenant promises is perhaps inade-
quate, for t he verb "fulfilr means to carry out o r realize something promised or
expected. In one sense, God's new revelation did nOI realize the promises o f the
covenants wi th Israel but introduced a deep discontinuity wi th Israel's tradi tio ns,
as we have seen. In another sense these Ir.lIditions were rece ived and transfonn ed .
enriching the content of the C h ristian gQspel.
The rel a{ion~ hi p betwee n the o ld and the new is not a dicho romy--a division
mto 1\0'0 mutually exclU'iive pans--bul a dialectic of continuity and discontinuity.
In th is relationsh ip o f continuiry/ discom inuity, God's covenan ts Wi th ls~d were
nOI abrogated or superseded, r.lI ther. they ....ere trans fonned and endorsed. by
C hrist. In him they recei~'ed their ·Yea and Amen" (2 Cor. 1:20).
Tnt COVl'Jtallts of Promist
Christian inlerpreter5 p referred the promissory covenants associated with
Abr.llh am and David----the "co\'enantS of promise- as they are tenned in Eph. 2: 12.
The t<.-I osaic covenant of obliga tion was suspec t in some circles (especially
M
Pauline l, for it w as fC<lred t hat the emp hasis on obed ience to th e Rlaw might put
one's relat io nsh ip wit h Cod on a basis o f merit r.lIt her th an free ly offered grace.
Acco rdi ngly. Paul traced God's promises of grace back before the giving 01 the law
at Sinai to Abra ham, who heard "the ~ospcl beforehand" (Gal. 3: 8 ) and who pot
his faith in Go d's promises (cf. Ccn. 1:5:1 -5 ).
L2
338 (,",Iown 0/ OU T"ta.",1 Thtology
Som~ y~ars ago J. C. Rylaa rsdam, a scholar at th~ University of Chicago, wrot~
an illuminating ~ssay, "Jewish -Christian R~lationships: Th ~ Two Covenan~ and
the Dilemmas of Christology,"l H e provided an excdlent discussio n of two of the
symbolic trajectories t hat we have considered: the Mosaic pattern of symboliza-
tion that moves in the hOrizontal dimension of history, from promise to fulflllment;
and the Davidic symbolization that moves in the venical dimension of the cosmic
and the mundane. heaven and eanh. H e main tained, on the one hand, tha t the
Jewish community gives priority to the conditional /I.·losaic covenant of obligation,
with its demand for obedience under the sanctions of the blessing and the curse,
and subord inates the Davidic CO"enant with its cosmo logkal symbolism o f temple
and king_ On the other hand, the ChriStian community gives priority to the
unconditional royal covenant in which the king is perceived to be the Son of
God, who represents God's cosmic rule on earth and in which the ~'l osaic
covenant of law is subordinate. Rylaarsclam proposed to understand the coexis-
tence of the Jewish and Christian commu nities by considering these (Wo cove·
nantS, the Davidic and the Mosaic, which b.:long logether d ialectically in the
economy of Cod's pul"pOSC_
This was a bold and provocative attempt 10 understand theologically the sep-
arateness of these two communities and their essential partnership in God's pur-
pose. The theSiS, however, is challenged by the witness of both testaments. The
two patterns of symbolization are pre'>Cnt, and interact, in both testa ments: it is
not a matter of one or the other. In the New Testament, for instance, Jesus is per·
ceived to be a prophet li ke Moses as well as a king like David. In the fina l analy·
sis, all the co\'enan ~ of grace-Mosaic, Abrahamic. Oavidic-are necessary for
e)(pressing the preo;cnce of the holy God in our midst.
Old ustammt Traditiotl5 ana th~ Shapillg of 'he Gospel
Careful study of the Synoptic Co<;pels discloses that Israel's major trad itions have
had a great influence in t he literary e)(pression of the Christian gospel. This is the
conclusion of Willard M. Swanley, who, in a fascinating study. shows that major
Old Testament streams of tradition have helped to shape the coment and suucrure
of the three Gospels, Manhe,,', Mark, and Luke.! The traditions of exodus, torah-
teaching (Sinai), " ' Cl)" in the wilderness-in other words, what we have called the
Mosaic covenant trajeCtOT)'- were influential in shaping the account of Jesus'
C alilean miniStry. Funher, Israel's tradi tions of temple and kingship (i.e., the royal
covenant trajectory) have helped 10 shape narratives about Jesus in Jerusalem and
vicinity.· It is note ....orthy. howe\'(T, that in the Synoptic Gospels what we have
2. J Coen Rylumi3m, "JC'oo'ish·Ch ri s",,-n Rcla.iomhips: The T,,'o CO\'eOlln l~ ~nd the
I)ilemm;os of Chri n ology," i fS 9 , no, 2 (19n) 249-7U, di$CUS$ed above, chapter H .
3. Wil1~rd />.'1. S"'.anley, J~",rl So-ip talf TmJ,~ ad dot S~, c.,1~1 SIO<r} Sb.lp:r.g Srory
(Peabo<iy, Mu!'.: Hendrickson, t994 ).
4, ~ chap. 7 in ibid. for.a <yntM;s of hi< stud,'.
Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest, and KinS 339
designa ted as the Priestly trajectory is subordinated. To be sure, the temple ngures
prominently in them, but lacking arc typically Priestly concerns: sacrince, priest-
, hood, the tabemacling presence, and the life of ho[iness.1
One of the imponant aspect~ of Swanley's study is that he emphasizes the
dimensions of continuity and discontinuity {or "transformat ion") in the appropri-
ation of Old Testame nt traditions. For instance, Jesus is portrayed as the Divine
Warrior• as in t-'Iosaic tradition (e_g _, Exod. 15: 1· IS). but he liberates people from
bondage to the oppressive kingdom of evil; moreover, the savi ng benefits are not
limited to ~God's own peo ple" but are extended to the poor, (;cntiles, women, and
others ·outside the boundaries."6 Funher, Jesus is ponrayed in the colors of royal
,
tradition. but his humble and ..'Ulnerable kingship, which is not 1,ke the nations:
is freed from all na tionalistic interp re tation.'
God with Us
To echo the opening theme of our exposition o f Old Testament theology: the
Bible, from beginning to end, bea~ witness to the incredible and startling good
news that the holy God, who is comple tely beyond our world of experience and
beyond the reach of our conceprualizatiOn, has come into this ,,'orld supremely
th roug h Jesus Christ. To pomay the meaning of the coming of Jesus, rdigious
imagination soars beyond the prosaic realities of histOry and employs imagery o r
patterns of symbolization that we have found in the O ld Testament. In the New
Testament Jesus is portrayed in the symbolic "istas o f at least three major images,
all de rived from the Old TeStament. H e is a prophet like Moses. though o ne
greater than Moses; he is a priestly mediator of an everlasting covenant, though
not standing in the succession of Israel's priests, and he is a kin g of the Davidic
line. but his royalty is not like that of worldly rukrs.
As we noticed previously, in the Qumran cove na", community these three
roles were represented in thc expectation of three d ifferent messiahs (prophetic.
royal, priestly), whereas in t he New Testament Jesus, the Messiah, performs all
three.
A Prcpbd Dirt AloIn
Jesus Christ is, first , the eschatological prophet whom, according to the witness of
Deuteronomy 18, God would raise up to speak C od's words to the people. In the
book of Acts, onc of Peter's sermons pOrtrays Jesus as the prophet like M~
whom God would raise up at last (Acts 3: 12·16). Indeed, he specifically quotes the
key passage from Deuteronomy:
5. Ibid., 266----68. He o~r"e'S ( p , 192) that the SynOptiC lraditior'l 'did not ur'lden,ke ~ the<:>·
IogiGl iI<~!.Il1ent of prieoidy Ihmtogy as did the- book of Hcb~'s:
6. Ibid., J63-<i4 .
7. Ibid .• 268-69

Moses s.. id, ""The lord your God will l<Iise up lor you from ~·our ow n prople a
prophet like me"
- Acts 3,22; {Deut. 18,1; }
Here, however. the verb "raise UpN is a double entendre, re/erring also to Jesus'
being raised from the dead (v. 26). Despite this discontinuity. the sermon ponrays
Jesus as standing in a succession of prophets, ocginning with l\loses and including
Samuel (v. 14}---and we could .. dd. Elijah, who appeared with Moses on the
Mount of Transfiguration (\I.·lark 9: 1-8 ).
Significantly. some people of the t ime supposed that Jesus migh t have been
anoth er Jeremiah ()\·latt. 16:14). As we have seen earl ie r,S Jeremiah also was
regarded as a prophet like 1\·loses, only with th is difference , the prophet who
speaks God's words to the people suffers in perfonning his task. Th is view of a ~suf­
fe ring prophet."' not found in rhe original Mosaic tradit ion, was something new in
Jeremiah's time. The view probably intluenced the ponrayal o f the suffering ser-
vant of Isaiah, and it certainly influe nced the pro phetic image of Jesus in rhe New
Testament . In the Story of the walk to Emmaus, for instance, J~us is ponrayed as
"a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all th e peop le~ who "must ruf.
fer" before "enh'~ring into his glory~ (Luke 1 4: 19-17). In th is view. Jesus is t he suf-
fering se rvant who perfonns the twofold role o f covenant mediator: speaking
God's words to the people ,m d representing them before God. He is a prophet like
Moses, yet much greater.
A1MiatoT of all fVfflasli"g CavtII<1II1
The priestly imagery of the temple and God'~ tabemacl ing presence among the
people have had a greal influence on the me~sage of the New Testament. As we
have ~een , in the Synoptic Gospels th e royal imagery o f temple and throne was
influentia l in the narrat ion of Jesus' J udean ministry. But Priestly theulogy. wh ich
dominates the Pentateuch in its ii na! fonn , comes 10 expression above all in the
Epistle 10 the Hebrews, which draws on the ancient mythology o f the relin ion
bet,"een macrocosm and microcosm. celestial and terrestria l. 9 There Jesus is por·
trayed as the great high priest, o f the order of .~·Ielch izedek (Ps. 110:4) . who per-
forms his sacrifice not in an earth ly temple bur in its heavenly protot ype . and
whose s.acri fi ce is ~once for all." not sub;ect 10 cyclical repetition. In th is view,
whic h draws d.ee ply on the Priestl y theology of Exodus and lcviticus, )esus is th e
mediator of an "everlasting CO\'enant" (H eb . 13:10) tha t reconc iles people to God
and. e nables th em to live in the prese nce of the holy God.
1"u5 (hri,t as Kill!)
Finally. Jesus Christ is king , the ··son of God'· of royal messianic tradition. In rhe
Gospel of Luke. an angd tells 1\·\ary t hat rhe child 10 be bom to hcr will be called.
the Son of God.
8. Abo,·e . chapl.·r 21_
9. 0 " this he~ven · eart h corr~pondence . 5<..... abo'·e. chapter 13.
Jesus Christ as Prophet, Pri~t, and King 341
He will be great. and will be ca lled the Son of the Mo<;t H igh, and the lord God
will gi ve to him the throne of his ance,lOr Da,·id.
- Luke 1:32
joseph Fi tzmyer points out (hat almost the same language is used in one of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, indicati ng that "such titles were not th e product of the hell-
e nization o f Ihe Christian gospel as it was carried by early missionaries from
Palestine into the Greco·Roman world," but belongs finnly in JeWish lTaclition. 1O
The Matthean version of Pete r's confession at Casaerea Philippi: "You are the
Ch rist, the Son of God.,'· echoes th e Davidic covenant, which portrays the king in
, these terms : "I will be a lathe r to h im, and he shall be son to me" (1 Sam. 7:14)_ At
first glance. Peter·s (esrimony see ms to go beyond the functional meaning of
H ebrew malbillb (anointed one), a teffi1 used o f one anointed for a tas k. "Messiah"
(Greek ,hristos ) is basically a term of agency or function, not of ontological rela -
,
tionship with God. In this instance. the telTI1 'Son of God" seems to echo exalted.
language used in ancient Israel of th e king . In roya l psalms the anointed one is
declared to be God's son Nthis day," originally the day of coronation (Ps. 1:7); he
is portrayed as seated at the right hand of God, sharing the di vine rule ( 110: I )i and
in one instance, if we follow ··the diffi cult read ing" of the received text rather than
sidestepping it (as in ~ome modern translatiOns ), the king is addressed as divine:
rowr Ibror.(. 0 GoJ, ""J"'(l fom'fr "" J " 'fT.
-Ps. 45:6
Most scholars understand th is poetic language as the hyperbole of Eastern
H
"coun slyle. The king was extolled. in extravagant terms. especially on festival
occasions (enthronement, royal \"edd ing ). [n (he Old Testament there was no
serious departure from the vi ew tha t the king was God's agen t. anointed for a task.
This is und.oubtedly true in the well-k no\"n messianic passage in Isaia h 9 ("unto us
a child is bom, a son is given"). wh ere th e coming king is given the most glorious
throne titles, '·Wonderful Cou nsdor, " ·Iighty God. Eve rlasting Father, Prince of
Peac e" (lSil. 9;6 ). The king , eve n th e one who was 10 come, was not regarded as
di vine, ···consubstantiar with the Deity.
The theolog ian Elizabe th johnson is righ t in saying that ·Jewish scriptural
symbols: such as "messiah" and "son of God: do not "connote divinity." A signif-
icant step, she adds, " 'as made when interpreteT'i used wisdom categories (e.g.,
Pro\,. 8:11 -3 1) to explore the messiah's ~on to l ogica[ relationsh ip with God" and the
cosmic status of the mess iah, who is act ive with God in the creation. "
It was not in the Old Testament but in the Kew tha ( a mom entous th eological
sh ift took place: from a fu nctional Christolo&'Y inherent in the word NmessiahHor
~Ch rist" to an omo[ogical Christo)ogy concerned wi th the being of Christ in
t 0_ Fitzmyer. ""The De~d Sea Sc roll 5: in /iap,.,.CaliiMs Bib!. Dirtio",,!)', ed. Paul Achtemeier et
31. (rev_ ed.; San Fr.mc;o;.co Harpe&nFrancio;.co, 1996 :', 987. He Cil~ and translate, 4Q246
11- 2,1.
11. Eli zabe th Johnson. S~ 1Vi" k Tb< ,\1)";1'1)· oJ W i. F"",ni,' n,,,,I,,g,c,,1DiS'""", (N""" York:
Crossroad. 1 99 ~ i. 98 _O n the ",isdom ca tegorics 5<..... the discussion above, chapter 30.
•
342 u",lmIrs of QY Tr')"''''''' Thro!..;y
rdation to God. This shift is ~vident when one moves from the symbolic world of
the Synoptic Gospels, deeply rooted In Israd's covenant traditions, to the quite
differen t symbolic world o f [~Foun:h Gospel, I.thic:h is introduced b), ide nt ifyi ng
ChriSt with the Logos (Word) tha t in the besinning ,,'as ' with God" and Mwas
Cod: This shift to ontology is also evident in post-Paul,ne writings such as the
Epistle to the Co1ossians, which declares that Cod created the world in Christ
(Col. 1:15-17) and tha t in him "all the fullness of God/deity- dwells ( I: 19, 2:9).
Statements like these have no real parallels in the Old Testament but move in th e
direction of the trinltanan discussions of t he early Christian church.
In COllclllsion
To sum up, just as in the O ld Testament the \'arious covenants. interacting with
one another. present parrerns of symbolization tha t express CoOs relation to the
people and the presence of the holy Cod in their midst, so in th e Ne",' Testament
these covenant ~rslX'ct i ~'es are employed to confess our fa ith in Jesus, the C hrist,
whose life, dea th, and resurrectio n signify that "God is wit h us." Jesus stands in the
succession of the prophets, eSlX'c ially those in the j\'\osaic tlddition (Hosea and
Jeremiah ), ye t he is more than a prophet. Jesus has a pTiesdy role, like the priests
who ministe red in the Jerusalem temple, yet his priestly minimy is unique. And
Jesus is king, a ruler like David who is called the Son of God and ,,,ho bears dlC
throne name Im manue1. yet a king whose domin ion is u nl ike thilt of David.
from the SIilndpoint of biblical theology, th en. it is appropriate tha t in the
church's theolOgical rraditions, espe<iall), the Reformed tldditiOn, I} the wo rk of
Christ is portrayed as a threefold ollke ( nUlliUS Inpb) prophet. priCSt, and king. '3
12. John Golvln, f".trtw. DJ dot Omr'~1I RrI'9-'C'I . cd. John T "1cN~,n. tr:Ins. Ford Le>..'is Banles,
libr.lIIy of ChnSl, .. n C1~5<;iCS 20 {Philadelp/'ua We<;tmirn,ler, 1960), -t94--503. CNoptcr 1S: 'To
Kno'" the PurpOS<: to r ~'hic h Chri~\ "'as Srnt b~· th~ Father, and Wh~t H~ Conkrred upon Us,
W~ Must Look abo"t All at Thre~ Thon8i in Him· Th~ Proph~tic Ofi;(C'. Kinlj'ship. and
Priesthood: On th~ thf~ fold oflke. ! « funher Ge.::>ffrey Wainwright, For 0., S<tIo~II".:l~, r"",
A/lprDachfs ~ d,'! w.,~ pJ Chn',t (Crand Ra pids, E~rdm~ns. 1997/, th~ s~cond ,et olleclUres,
11. On the t hf~cfold ofli(~ S« Ceof~r \/I?a,n",rishl, For o..r 5..1''<1r,,,... r"", Ap/>fMch.s Co thf
Wor~ oJ Oml (Gr3 lld Ropids, E~fdmans . 1997{ P~rt 2. He displays an edll ed "cnion of ls.~c
\'(Iall~' hymn . "Join All .he Clorious Kamn" ( 1709). .... hich cdebratC'S in t hlff succes~h'e v~rsc:s
( p 98) the Ihlff role<; 01 Christ, "gfC'at prephet of God,' "gf~a. high p1ic'M : lnd 'our conqueror
and ii"i.~
APPENDIX 1
I
BIBLICAL THEOLOG Y OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
A C O URSE PRECIS·
I
The title oJ this stady (echoing earlier formulations in the hiStOry of the disci-
, pline) intends to emphasize that "O ld Testament theology" belongs within the
larger framework of biblkal theology. This, o f course, is a Christian fo rm ulation,
JUSt as ~Old Testamen{ is Christian language for th e Scriptum of Israe l. Yet within
the Christian Bible the Old Testament has ils own intcgrily in relation to the Ncw.
, Various approaches to O ld Testament theology have been use d: Hrik!ltsCbi,brc
(in the sense of Oscar C ul1man nl, ~cross-scctio na l" srudy of the covenantal struc-
ture of Israel's faith (Eichrodt ), h,story of traditions (HriiJgtsChichu in the sense of
Gerhard von Rad ). thcmatic. dOCtrinal, and so on. The approach used in th is work
is different from all. though inA ue nced somewha t by von Rad and Eichrodt. The
work begins with an exposition of Israel's experience of the holy (the m>daliOll of
the Holy Onc), not jllst as impersonal power but as personal power of concern and
ethical demand, that is, the "root ex~riences~ <Emil Fackenheim ) of exodus and
Sinai. This fundamental ex~rience , wh ich (omes to expression in the symbolism
of language and cultic practice, is seen against the background of, and in the con-
text of, the: rc:1igions of the: ancient Near East.
;
lsraels experience of ~the Holy Onc in our midst" is expressed in and refracted
through major p~tt erns of covenant symbolization, associated ""ith Abraham.
,,"'loses , and David. rcspc:ctivc:1y. Each attempts to bring to expression the funda-
men tal con!cssion that Yahweh (the personal name of the Deily ) i5 t he Holy One
""ho has entered into the human world and is present in the midst of Israel. Each
covenant symbolization is related to panicular sociological circumstanCes in
which the o riginal formulation was socially meaningful (e.g., Mosaic covenant
tocology in the social setting o f t he triba l confederacy. Da~'idic covenant theology
in the time of the rise of the monarchy), but the power of the symbolization OUt-
lasted lhe: social setting and formed a major ~trajcctory· that became mean ingful in
, other social settings and persisted into the New Testament.
These: covenil nt symbolizatio ns ("theologies" is tOO abstract a term ), however.
did nOt do full justice to th e "dialcctical contlddictions· in the root experiences of
the Holy God in the midst of a pcopleand in the world. These polarities (e.g .• uni-
\'ersalism and panicularism, dh'i ne sovereignty and human freedom , divine tran-
scendence and immanence), treated differently in each of the covenant symbol-
izatio ns, exploded the various co"enant fo nnulations. especially under the impact
of the gldvity and enormity of the problem of evil as ex~rienced at the fall of the
'Prncnttd Apn l2 1982 at Princcton lheoloHic~1 Stmina,)'
,. ,
3 44 CO~/O~fS of OU T"I</",,,,/ Tkolo!lY
nation and the exik of the people. Various anempts were made to synthesize
cov .... nant theologies (e.g., in the Deuteronomistic history. Se cond Isaiah, the
Chronicler's history). In general the postexilic period was dominate d by two move.
ments: one lorah and Wisdom, the other apocalyptic (~prophecy in a new kev").
The course ends by considering how these two major lines, torahiwisdo~ and
I TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
prophecyiapocalyptic, lead into the New Testament , and how the covenant "the _
ologies" associa ted with Abraharn , Moses, and David are picked up in the New
Testame nt fonnulations of the gospel that centers in Jesus. the Christ (JI..iessiah).
The re lation betwee n the testaments is conside red to be a dialectical continuityi
discontinuity.
• Testament theology is to consider the rdation of this discipline to so-called bibli-
•
ApPENDIX 2
THE RELEVANCE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
A TRI B UTE T O GEORGE ERN ES T WRIGHT
Olli way to sharpen our understanding of the task and method of Old
cal archaeology.
At onc lime the two disciplines. biblical archaeology and biblical theology,
we re hd d to be C5sentiall r rdated. Back in the 195(}s and 196Ck , the days of the
biblical theology movement, they were united in onc person, Ceorge Ernest
\'ihight, to whom this book is dedica ted_ Wright was a unique figure in the history
of t\.\'entieth.century scholarship: he was both a leading archaeologist and a rec-
ognized biblical theologia n. I
In the latter part of the century, however, this union dissolved, to be super-
seded by a nonbiblical enterprise, broadly called Srro-Pa!cstinian archaeology.
Indeed, "biblical archaeology" has been pronounced dead. although perhaps, as in
(he case of !\'iark T,,'ain, the deat h notice may have been exaggerated. The inter-
C'it in biblical archaeology still survives, for instance. in the Biblical Archaeology
Society founded by Hershel Shanks." Today. however, the two d isc iplines-
Palestinian archaeology and Old Testament lheolog)'-are absolutely separate.
The most rece nt book on Old Testament theology, the magnum opus by Waiter
Brueggemann, "brackets out" all historical issue~, a far cry from the heyday of the
biblical theology moveme nt. l
I am neither an archaeologist nor the ~son« of an arc haeologist (i.e. , member
of the Albright school), but rather a disciple of James Muilenburg, a gifted scholar
wbo d isplayed a deep interest in the historical situation of ancient Israel and eve n
was involved in the archaeolob'Y of the Israelite center at Cilgal. but who, under
the inAue nce of He nnan n Cunkel , moved more toward the poetic, stylistic Criti-
cism now called rhetorical criticism . In the e arly part of my caree r, however, I
was infl uenced by Wrig ht's work, beginning with his lilll . . book Tb( CbaJ/rng( of
fSfads Faith (1944),- then in t he 1950s I joined with him in directing the Drew·
I. th~ ~<s~y by Onc o f his s",dents. W'ill iam G. [)e..'~r. ··Biblical Theolog)' and Biblical
5=
Archa~ology, An Appreciation of G . Ern<:'S. W'nght; · HTR 73, nos 1- 1 ( 1980) 1- 15, al"" his his·
w ry ~nd erillqll~ of bib licll ~reh3eo l ogy in 7J" Ha.rnt, lliNt <lnJ Its MoJ..... Inltf/ln:lm, cd. D. A
Knight ~nd G. 1>.\. Tueker (Ch ieo . Ca.lif.. 5<;hola,s I'ress. 1985 L 3 ( - /4.
2. This css;ly is substantially a kClUIe gi'-cn under the ~m picC'S of the Biblic~1 Archaeology
Soc iety. O rlando. Fla. Nove-mb . r (998.
c
3. Waitc-r llrueggemann, Th.!o;ogy vi the Ol~· Tt,)",,,,,,/ Tr;I;,.""y, Di<r>-;r-. AJt:'OCacy {1I.\inneapol i"
Fonr~s Prc>S. (997/; 'c~ th~ long footnote. 1(8----20 .
346 C""Ic~rs of OIJ TtsI"1tO(rI1Thol~y
McCormicl.: reexcavat ion of the bibliCilI city Shcchem. 4 In those summers "on the
dig," \"hile bearing -th e burden and heat of the day" as a trench supe r.lisor, I began
to reflect o n archaeolog ical method. and the relevance o f archaeology to biblical
theolo6>'Y. That Que5tion has haunted me down through the years. In this essay I
continue th ose reflections, speal.:ing pri marily as a biblical theologian.
Biblical Thtology alld Historicity
First. it is dear to me that biblical archaeology forces upon t~ biblical theologian
willy-nilly the problem of historicity. that is, the rootage of biblical tex ts in the
historical expe riences of ancient Israel. From the \-ery " I'>t. Israel was inescapa bly
in~'oh'ed in world politics. Sig nificantly. t~ earl iest rdeJence to this people is
found outside the Bible, in a stde set up by Pharaoh Memeptah in about 1107B.c..
celebrating his victories in S)'ria and Unaan. including deleat of the PWPk Israel.'
That inscription anchors the Israelite Story fi rm ly in his tory. To be sure. Israel's wit-
ness to the prese nce and activity of God in the world is written in such a manner
as to appeal to our poetic sense and religious imagination; but the Isra elite Story is
nOt a poetic construct or fic titiouS account_ In many down-to-earth ways, archae·
ology has demonstrated that, as William Dever says in a helpful discussion.
The Bible is aboUl real, flesh -and·blood people. in a particular time and pbce,
whose ictual hisrorical experience kd them iTTe~"fX~blv to a ~ision of the human
condition ,""nd promisc thal lr.1n'iC~ndcd anything yet conceived in antiquity.'
This inescapable poi nt. howe'o·er. only raises t ~ Que5tion of the relation of the
Israciite story to hislOry in th~ modern se nse. The d is ti nguished America n orien-
talist, \'(!i1liam F. Albright. who dominated biblical studies in the mid· twentieth
century. pa rticularly in the United States, maintained that b iblical archaeology and
biblical history go hand in hand. Against skep tics who maintai ned that the bibli-
caltradit ions are late and of liule value histori cally, he insisted tha t archaeology
and the study of the ancien t I\.·ear East demonstrate "the Bible's substantial his·
toricity.wHe was a conservative-not a Bible-believing fundamentalist, to be sure,
but nevertheleu a conSClVative-who defended the substan tial accuracy of the
biblical h istory agai nst sl.:eptical liberals (i.c.. the so-called J ulius Wel1hauscn
school of higher criticism).'
'Xfhile Albrigh t emphasized the value of archaeology for biblical studies, it
remained for onc of his brillia nt students, Gearge Errte'it \'(-'righ t. to work OUt the
-I. 5e'C Ccorge Ern... , Wri8hL, 5/,...;-h- Tht Ili.:l;r~rh)' cf" lliJ,lic"l Or)" ( f'~ ..... York: McG"'..... · H, 11,
1%4 ).
5. 5« ANET. 376-78. Th~ 'r~nslator obsel"\' ~ {ha! in this Q;)"plian tnl th~ word "'srael' is
I~ only on~ wnl(~n with (h~ d~si~ nition for people rlther (h~n land
6. William C. o.--·~r. Rrr",r An;/),;~ic~i OiK"''''''f)""j llibll<"~! R("5(~T(d ( Sc~ltk· University 01
Washington r~lS. 1990;. 32 .
7. See th~ cmical e-.-aluation by Wilham C Dcvc-r, 'Whu Rem.".\,; of thc HOU5C Thll
Albright Built;"" BA 56 (1993. :25~35 .
Biblical Aro:;hacology and Biblical Thrology 347
relation betv.·een biblkal archaeo logy and biblical theology. This he did in his
famous monograph. GoJ 11'bo Acts,' in which ~ maintained that the Bible bears wit-
ness to t ~ ~might)' acts of Cod" on behalf of Israel and t hat "h istorical recita l--not:
abstract "ideas of Cod~ o r "doctrines abou t Cod"--<:onstirutes the basis o f biblical
theology. Accordingly, he spenl much e.\:cgetical ti me and space . 10 say nothing of
archaeological worl.:, defending the substantial historiCity of the biblical story; the
ances tors of ls-raci , the exodus and Sinai covenant. the conquest of Canaan, and so
on. It is doubtful wh ether Wrig ht ever in tended to say that archaeological research
prcvtS the Bible to Ix true (as a good Presbyterian he I.:new that faith is not based on
proof or any other · worI.:sW). But he would surdy say that those wh o stand within
the believing artd worshiping community, hearing and celebrating the "o ld, old
story; are urged by faith to seel.: understand ing of t~ "historical recital" with the
help of archaeology and studies of the ancien t Near East. In this way, biblical the-
ology is "faith seeking understand ing: to allude to Anselm's fonnula.
Archaeology, however, proved to be a ve ry fra il reed for the theologian to lean
on. H ere we need no t rehearse the we aknesses o f the biblical theolob'Y movement,
which took as one of itS premises the revela tio n o f God in h iStory.9 Biblical archae-
ology it~1f proved to be the problem, for 100 often it faikd \0 substantiate the b ib -
lical record. in fact at tim es it contradicted it . The pa rade exa mple is the account
of the fall of Jericho in Joshua 6. Ka thleen Kenyon's careful excavation of the city
showcd no evidenc e of a. viole nt atlack in the thirteenlh cenru'Y when . according
to the well·known biblical story, "the ...·alls came rumblin' down."ro \Xle have been
forced to conclude tha t this is a cultic story, com~d imaginatl\'ely to celebrate
th e ~-ictories of Yahw~h. the Lord of hosts (or D ivine Warrior). It probably has no
more h istorical value than the account o f the symmetrical arrangement of the
tribes wh ile on the march or encamped around the tabernacle (Num . 1 ;1-31;
10, 11-33 ). ,,,"Iany schola rs who take h istorical method and archaeological research
se ri ously have expressed radica l skCpticism abou t "the Bible's subs tantial historic-
ity." As Hershd Shanks ob~rve~ in a perceptive disc ussion. "these biblical mini-
malists have attempted to expunge ancie nt Israel's past." ll
Other things have contributed to this skepticism . There can be no doubt that
the Old Tes tam~nt. in ma ny and diverse ways, test ifies to the presence and activ-
ity of Cod in human history, and particularly the hiStory of Israel, the people of
God. Todav. howeve r, God's action in the \,iorl d is nOI just "a strange work" (lsa_
B. (.n,rg~ Ernest W"righl. G.,J 1I'l.;. /kt., Bi!t!",~i Th'!o;!r~' R..:.'w. SBT IIS (Chic.lgao Regner,',
1952 1.
9. n", <h~o log inl assumptions of biblkal lhc-o!08Y champ,on~d by W'ri~hl we.-.e challenged
bv Bn.."vard Ch,lds in /lib!i(,,! n",.'Oi/Y i. CI Lsil ( Philaddphi~ ; \V..stminSl~r, 1970). ~ luming poin t
i~ !Wenti~lh - ccmury bib linl theolQgy
10. The conllic\ bo:'wccn Story ~nd cxcav¥ ion i< ..... ident ~ I so in I~ ca~ of Ai (JoshUol 8). ~
the re-pon: of th~ ~xca,·alOr. 1. A. Calla"·~y. "&cavlling a: Ai i Et-Tell ). 196 I 1972." BA 39 ( 1976)
18-30.
11 . Hc,.,;hd Shank.. "'The Biblic~l !<linimalisls, Expunging Anci ..m I ~el"s Pau: BR ... 13. no
3 ( 1997) 31 - 39 50--51.
 348 Co~t""Jl of Old TtsI.llftlllt Thtolo§y
18:21 ) -il is unbelievable in a centul)' wh~n p~opk hav~ experienced the threat
of chaos. in the face of the most horrible acts o f " iolence and o f impending eco-
logical disaster. The optimistic view of the:: Enlightenment, based on faith in reason
and inevitable progress, has been shattered, prepilring the ....'ay for the philosophy
and henneneulic of postmodernism _11
It is understandable then that, in t h~ face o f the ~collapse of hiswry~ as a the-
ological foundation,l j biblical theologians have tried 10 flee IOW the · ""fe havenw
of the text. and have di~'avowed attempts to go -behind the text" into the ~al his-
torical experiences that generated it, for example. the tall of Je rusalem in 587 8.C.
and th e exile. This approach. howe"er, goes too far. Admittedly. the biblical
account does not conform to our standards of historicity (its purpose was to con-
fess faith in God, not just to write hislOry ). ~'l oreover, th e evidence from archae-
ology is, at best, ambiguous and inconclusive. This only sho\<.'S that faith that is
based on the biblical witness is not subject to proof but is \lll nerable to doubt and
uncenainty. Nevenheless, biblical texts ar~ illuminated aga in and a)S:ain by the
h istorical concreteness and cultural context that archaeolob,)' proVides. Once \"e
surrender the notio n that arc haeology proves the "substa ntial historicit{ of the
biblical account, we are rree 10 "revis it" Ihe whole question of ITt he acts of Cod" in
history, H It would be a great irony if ill Ihis time, when some sciem ists are ~gin.
ning to consider whether God acts in Ihe physical wo rld." theologians were to
continue to -expel God from hiStory."16
Biblical Tbtology alld tbt History of lsrael's Rtligio/1
Second, biblical arc haeology. as I see it. forces on the biblical theo logian the prob-
lem of the relationship between biblical texIS, r~garded as aUlhoritativc (canonkal)
in the commun ity of faith . and the religion as actually practiced by the people .
The question of the relationship of Old Testament theology to the h iStory of reli-
gions. speCifically [he religion 01 Israel, has b«n a major subject of theological dis-
cussion for years. 17 Which should it bc: the religion of Israel. or the theology of
the Old Testament~ Or are both someh"",' interrelatedl
12. For a gcneral d iSCUSSion of lne, po'llmo •.km ag"'. SIT Slanley 1. G",nz. A p..;.u 1)1<
P""r..cJm, ,,. .. (Gnnd R.plds· Eerdmans. (996 ). n,.. und ....1yi ng p hi1CtSOj)hv K di'inl~~ in Allin
\I.gill, Prot>br.f of Ert't.li)', NItfzKht. H"J.JJP. fOUCo1~!I. Drmb (Berldey, Universi lY of Cahlomia
p~~, 1985).
, to grasp if at all possible _ .. the essential phenomenon, in its original context .Wt'J
13. See len ('~ Perdue, Ti)f CO!~,pst Dj HtS1.Jry (M inneapo!i, _ Fonr.-s~ Pr.-ss. (994).
14. Se<: Ihe e<!itoria l by I'alttck \1.IICI, 'R",visllinl'l In.: God \'(.'00 Ac,, : TToJ~)' :)4, no, 1
( 1'}97) 1-5.
15. John Polkinghomc, &'"f.'r. CoJ i.~" -'I;, of Sc;",,, (N ew !-\aYe n, Yale Unlv. !'rcs>, 1998l.
Ch~pler 3, 'Doc:i God Act m the PhySIcal World~'
16. Em,1 l. Fickcnheim. GoJi Pm...";,, H,s1.Jry· l",,;,h Affi,,"~ lic~s ""j Phila>Of>h.Cd! R,jkrlO"s
(1'\:"". York, New York Univ. Pr6i. 1970). 5. Note that this book w3, "' rill~n in the ,h;.do,,"' of
the HolocoJlJSl. the tNTibk evenl that k-.:.-m< to nq:atc God', presence a nd a~""il)' '" \ne, "·o,ld.
17 $eec, e,g" Ronald E Clement;, 'The Old Tc-sumem and the History of Religion: In OIJ
T",,,,.....,t Thc!~)' A Fmit A~p'1).1('b (Atlanta. John Kno~. I 978j, Ch;.pter 7.
Ribli"l Archaeology and Biblical Theology 349
The ~new archaeology," as it is called, is not interc:sted in con6nning the reli -
abi lity of biblical lexts_ Its limited task is to inves tigale the everyday life of the
people; the snucture of the ir buildings, the anifacls that they made. thei r eco-
nomk livelihood, the culrure they sha red. and so on. Wrinen texts may help us to
understa nd how people--alleast those educated enough to write-though t about
life o r ,.iev.-ed the world in mythical symbolism. But only fragments of Israelite
writing havc bttn discovered in Palestinian si tes, in cont rast to Ihe wealth of mate-
rial found elsewhere, especially in Babylonia and Egypt. The new archaeology
de als primarily with anifacts and other tangible evidence. W ith the help of anthro-
pology and sociology, it helps us to un derstand how the people lived and how
they pracliced religion.
\'('illiam Devc:r. a vigorous defender of the ne\<.' archaeology, proposes that
archaeology enables th e interpre ter to go behind the biblical texts and recapture
thei r original contexts. He points to a couple of inescapable issues. Fif'it, th~ bib-
lical texts are "elitist Win that they reflect the views of "the intelligentsia" who could
com pose and appreciate such great literature. whereas archaeology e nables us to
understand the rel igion of the masses, religion as pracliced outside:- the established
cemers of power (priesthood , royal coun, wisd om circles). Second , the biblical
texts are given to us in a literary context, perhaps that imposed by the final redac-
ters, whereas archaeology enables us to read these texts in their original social or
cultural context and thus to app reciate lol k religion and even hear the voices of the
coonterculture_ Seen in this pe rspective, the worship of Yahweh was not radically
different from Canaanite religion. The re is evidence that at the popula r level
Yahweh was invoked along with Asherah. the mother goddess of Canaanite reli-
gion. "possibly thought of as the conson of Yah,.... eh. the god of Israel."!i
Here we face a methodol ogical question. It is doubtful whet her a pilnicular
religious faith can be described or de6ned solely by srud)'lOg the pranic~s of the
people. or only by considering the vie ...·s of the majority, There must be wm~ cri -
terion for discrimination: a Iradit ion of the elders, guiding creedal statements, a
council d iscussion, canonical boundaries-\o' natever gives shape and identity to an
otherv.·ise amorphous ...·hole.
I agree that there is a fu ndamental difference between the two disciplines_
Dever puts it well; "Biblical the ology . .. TC)S:ards the Bible more as Scriprure
[sacred writings]: whereas archaeology ignores this canonical context and ·sceks
This statement, however. seems to establish an unnecessarily sharp division
betwee n the disciplines. In my judgment t he religion of Israel, as reconstructed by
archaeology. is the ~i nfra slrucrure: to use a current expressio n. which is indis-
pensable for interpreta tion . The study of the religion of Israel in its popular man-
ifestations helps us to understand the theo logical and social struggles that went on
in th~ community as the biblical texts were handed on and re interp reted_ Even in
18. D~ver. R.c",1 An:b."Q~i<dl o...."""in. 140-49.
19. Ibid . 115- 16.
 350 (""rmm- <! DU TI'I~1..nol 'T'b«.logy
the final form of Scripture, evide nces of these: slruggl~ (e.g., between the worship
of Yahweh and Baal, o r over the quest ion of who speaks fo r Cod) still survive.
These theologic al tensions and ~ma rginal voices" mUSt be taken into account in
biblical theology.
It is tru e, however, that biblical theology concentrates on biblical/exts in th ei r
various literary forms, on ·w hat is wri lten: tha t is, ScripWfe. In this se n~, it is
ba ~d on Hna 5Cr/phmr (sc riptu re alone). Therefore, biblical theology goes "hand in
hand" not wi th archaeology, to which we must turn for the reasons g i"'e n in th is
essay, but with hermeneutics, the "science" o f interp retation that enables us to read
and understand biblical te xts in their various litera ry forms.
Biblical Tkology and Hisfon'cal Crifici5m
So ""e come finally to the inescapable question: the role of historical Criticism in
biblical theolob,}'. In the so-called po5 tmodern age in which we now find our.
selves, literary Critics say, with a speCial aCCent, tha t the fu nc tion of religious lan~
guage. whether found in the Bible o r ot her great literature, is -to create worl ds"
that "'e may "inhab it" existentially. Paul Ri coeUt, a major philosoph ical advocate of
this hermeneutic o f language, maintai ns that the task of biblical interpretation is
not to penetrate the historica l situation of authors or to grasp the ir inten tio n, but
to hea r the poetic testimo ny of the text tha t projects ~a ~w world of being" dif.
ferent h om "the world of o rdinary experience." Poetic imagination enab les o ne to
"inhabif that new world and to tl nd "a new being" within ir. 2"
Historical criticism has been the ",'hipping boy of postmodern c ri tics because,
allegedly, it projects o n b iblical texts th e philosophy o f the Enlightenment, rooted
in the view of Renc Descartes ( 1596-1650) that a human being is a thin ker ",ho
cogitates an external world that may be rationall}, (ma thematically) measured and
scientifically explained. Cartesian philosophy, which underlies our scienti fic
worldview, IS said to be manifest in historical criticism th at subjects biblical texts
to rat ional anal ysis and historical ~'eri!kation .
There are al ready signs , however, even among those who appreciate a post ·
I benefits a nd, in some instances, presuppose its findings. This is evident in Waiter
mode rn hermeneutic, that hiS torical criticisnt may be evaluated more positively. As
J\'largaret OddI observes in her perceptive rev ie w essay, ~H iStory and M etaphor,~
the aim of historical Cri ticism was not to advocate a worldview. An im porlant
paragraph in her essay deserve<> quotation:
11 has never been the [ask of his(orical criticism to construct uniiorm ....orldview5.
If .lnything, historical critiCism is uniquely qualified to desuoy them. Ever si nce
lo~nzo Va lla asscned. On the basis of methods that would come to be aSSOCi ated
with historical criticism. that the Donation of Conslamine ....·as a forgery. historical
critici!>l11 has eXpOsed the problematic foundatio~ of the critics' own .... orldviews.
20. ~ aoo..·e, clw.pref 3, .... here I disaw; Paul R,coeur's comriootion. Thr« leading ~d-.'ocat«
, I!:t OIJod ,v.., T"", ..",,, (New York, Harper. 19381.
of ~~ understanding ate Michd FOU<:.louh, JICques Ikrrid... and Richud Rorty, ~ the
helpful introduction by SIJnley J G,n,nz, A Pn.c Or. Pom....lmci.. , ,..;peei,dly ch"f1ter6
Moreover, as she observes, deiinite gains h ave come horn h istoric"l criticism, as in
studies tha t have highlighted o\'erlooked or neglected roles of women in biblical
te:t:ts. In short, "histOrical criticism does no t COnS truct world\'iews; it helps us to
reconsider them.~ll
A major illustration 01 the cri tical role o f historical criticism is evident in the
case of the ovenhro...' o i the developmental (evolu tionary ) interpretation of the
Bible, popularized in H arry Emerson Fosd ick's GUli/r III till- Urtdmtn..air.g of I~ Biblt, a
book that was recom me nded 10 students bru shing up in preparation lor com pre ·
hensive exams when [ atte nded the Yale Graduate School in the early 19 40s. 22
This book, w hich eloQuendy sum mari zed a whole sc hoo l of biblic al scholarship,
purported to find in the Ilible a llnilinear evolution from the presumed low reli -
gious level of earl}' Israe l in the Mosaic period, to the so·called eth ical monOlhe-
ism of the great prophets, and on to the loft}' hCighlsof the Ne'" Testament gospel
o f the universal -fat herhood 01 God and the brotherhood of ma n: as it was put in
those days. \Xialt he r Eich rodt, the emir.ent O ld Tes tament theo]oi!ian, observed in
a trenchant critical rC"ie'" tha t Fosdick " ' rote ~the obItual)' of a whole scholarly
approach and method of investiga t ion, maki ng both their inhe rent merits and
their limi tations dear to the thoughtful reader."ll This judgmen t on ~cvo lutio nary
historicism ," however, was bao;ed not on a rival 5c ho]arl~' approach but on a "sci·
en tific" method that tested the subjective premises of the developmental approach
and found th em wanting, in the light of OUT increasing knowledge o f the rel igio ns
of the ancient Near East and of the early sources of Israelite traditio ns. It is signif-
icant that Eichrodt's review. dela)'ed in reaching t he U nited States because of
World War 11. was introduced wi t h an En glis h abstract b)' the distingu ished
.:1.merican archadogist, W. F. Albrighl. As w'e well kn ow. Albrig ht mainta ined, on
th e basis of histo ri cal and arc haeological study. that in th e ~1 idd l e Bronze period
(2000- 1500 B.C ) the religions of the ancie nt Near East had already attained a high
level o f sophistication and that Israel's religioJl in the Late Bronze Age ( 1500-1200
B c. ) was no exception to the gene ra l rule.
"The time cometh and now is." to lapse into Ki ng l am es English, when h istor-
ical criticism should receive more posi ti ve evaluation. Pos tmodem critics reap its
Brueggemann's postmodern theology, whi ch, though spu mi n!; histOrical c riticism
and bracketing out Questions of historicity. emp hasizes the importance o f the exo-
dus and the exile in Israel's religious testimony. As said earlier, even the question
of "the Cod who acts: the theological theme associated preeminently with
Ceorge Ernest \X' rig ht, deserves to be revisited and reconsidered . In (he
he rmeneu tical tumults of the ""'entieth cent ury, it has been impossible to esca ~
1 t. Ma rgar<et S. Oddi, ' Hiuory or Mc<aphor Comnbutions toOld Tesument Theology in
Ihe Work~ of Leo G. Percil.oe." Rt!SR..." 14, no. 3 ( 1998 ) 2 ~ 1-l5, quotation 2H .
12. H~rT)' Emerson Fm<!id:, A Cwi,u '" lbt Udt"""";;~-I of 11-0: Bib!r· n". Dn,.{"p.-r of fJu. • .,;u..,.
J 3. W"lthcr Eichrodt. review of A G.iJr ~ Ih. {I.,urs:..~.J"'i of rht &blt, (tl3tls. W. F. A1brighl),
JBL 65 ( 1946; 205--- 17.
352 C"":(IIII'I oj OU Testa",",1 Tbtology I
the fundamen tal historical dimension of ISr.J~rs faith---or the failh of the N~w INDEX OF SUBJECTS
Testament for that maller. H As long as this historical rootlNlness is recognized as
a fu ndamental th~ological cOllCern. biblical interpreters .... iII continue 10 debate
the relevanc~ of archaeology to biblical theology, and, I might add. biblical Ar'o:;. 156. 168, 101 ma§CtJhnil)'.70
archaeology will sur.... ive as a \'aluable asset for biblical theology. Sa.l. 69 pcrWnllily, 58
pol}·,h~l'im. 66
(lntinuity, 12 . 330, '139
Co"en.n' ~ , llt 33 , 75, 132, H2, 1SS 182 R.-d Sc~, 51
CTtII;"". 2 11, 169. 197 R.... d Se. , 5 ~
r ...... ~Tion_ 312, 330
1J<:u,~ronatnis'ic
H ",ory, 16; Wo·c1"'on, 13 53
d~an'inu,~', 9, 130, 339
nr.ariClI criltcism J4
0,,""" W;omoo, 173,177,178, 111 133, rilh,~~, 21!
300,333 fO')·.1,,,",,,,,,,nl. 195
•
Elohi m, 8-4 $.>bb.,h 107
e-'>'<:Ii",ling CO'-~M"', 9~ 95 $.>Cnrk~ <)--.«:m . 118
filth , 3, 199. 16, Scnptur<: 55
Form (rilldsm 11 ,...xu.'llily, 68
>ocialogy of \;na ,,·ledge. H
grlce, 153
,,-mpk. 163 , 196, 100, 340
H ~b~ ..... B,ble, 5 ,heod,q.', 2 ~ 3,
277, 301
hmi. 59 Torah 39, 81,106
Hi~lory 51 ,,,,dillon, 2 8
H oline« Code, I1 J Tradltion-h",Ot)', J I
Holincss, n,S8 , 61, I27129
hom~,"""lity, 126 vioIcnc:.:", 305
id~loi::iol, DO
immanlli,y 3 19

ludg"",n~ 60

10'>'''. 1~5

J.I 5c.T N. T Wnghl _ )"",.".J fi.t VIflOI)' Dj (;.,J (" ' inn~apoli'" Fon~s Prt'SS, 1996). <: .8 -.
60 61

---
 lodex of Authors 355

INDEX OF AUTHORS i(u<chner. Harold S. 143 Rlhnef. KIr1 31

Lu,o. AnIl' 205 Rlufill/. ~n 119
u Hry. Alice L T.! Rt,ch(-n~c k, Bruce R. n o
t.e--en>on . .10 11 D. 11 ..H . 87 . 11 7. I 39. I 40. I 48. Rcndtotfi. Roli 2S-
A1bnlllll, W F. 66 Dc:n'an. Robcn 16 156. 169. 195 1--1 0. 280 ~,her RcRmary Radiord n . 158. 212, 274
An""rson. Ikmhard \X', 4, 10. 11. 15. 17. 20, 11 . [X...." , ,,",',lI,. m G . 68. :'00. 3~6 349 Levl!1t. lbruch 1 [ 6 RicOWf. Piul H. 36 ; I, 53. no
~8 . 19 36. H . 4S 51.54. 6370.71 81 , 85. lind. \ \,II.rdC 173
Eic:hmd, Wal . her 18.46 48.58.76 III IS.f. Robe m J J M. 66
87. 89 91. 9 4 97. 99. 101. 103. 1().4 10S . u.h &nl:. Norbrn 90 Ro,cm, PiU! ; I
1IJ6. 11l 114 nl. 141 .1~.163 1 7S 178.
179. 199 100,2<1 1.210.211,1 15, 2J 6 215 .
'"
E" ...,ein, Alb..n 44 u.",·ell . .torn", Rus",n 162
Luthc,. Manin ~81
R.t"..c,,,z""Clg F~n: u 28
Rothschol d. F,;.: A 15
lH. 1SO 291.193.295.10 1, 301 306 312. Hadc. .\\m::ea ·n 65. 20 1. 11 6
En "",. IOChard 6 MKkkr. ..\.t,on L H Ru«ell. Iknntnd 183
1 1l. H S
An<k:'son V FJ d,,'2 no
he",,,. 'IX' il!iam J 5 . 7 Min&.n . C 12 1 R)'wT'idl m J C 211 . B8
A"" stron~. K..aren 195 Mi ",n Rn .~ 30.'i
FJCk .... h~ 'm. Em,l L 51. 58 77. Ill-!. 1.f8. 174, Sak~ lIlfld 60
McKib],.,lI. 8,11 90
B.bcock . Mil,bie D . 114 HI . HS Sahnfd d Ka, hinnc Doob 60
.\ qll , All. n n . 348 •
San!!"'" B)TOn C 9 3
Fa.::hc Cabnel 312 Sa:"tl pley J Paul 314
\1e""cnh~lI. Georgtc E. 141. 19 7
Sulh. C hn ..Qph 31. 3 n Fi<hb..ne , ~lich,•.,] 319 San<k1'<. Jlm~ 28
:-.ltglion , Doni.,] L ,
Bann. K~rl 16. 41 FnZITlC)·fi. Jo<cph A 329. 341 51 n<k ... JameiO A. 6
Fos<Iick. Harry EmclWn I 8 Miles. Jick )7
Bml<"i. Fo.-d l e.... is 71 Milgmm . JKOb 116. 1 19, 126, 127. 118 s. PP. S,~pnen 12 I
Ikker J Chrisli..." l H , 330. 336 Frrd""m , T~",oce E. ~5 ~roa, N3num 7
Milk r, Pmick D. 4. In. 138. 173 199. 348
Bdl~h. Rolx-n 96 Froehlich, Karl fricd,5 $chmid H. H 266
Moody, D.le 4 1
&'lIcr, PCle. L 12. 15 Funk, Roben W 31S $chwdlzcr Alben 42. 319
Mo",,,. W L. 145
iklT)',\\:.'e ndtll 176 C.bler, Johann Phillip 16 MO'"'1n<:kc1, S.gm und :} 14. 2 I 5 xllin , Ernst ~ I
Bird, Ph)"II;, 70 C.mmie . John G. ·n MuH~noorJ,l, J~mcs 14, 29, 29 1, 34 5 Sh an k! Hcrs nel H 7
Bishop , S'''',,,n 157, 18 3, 311 ee..e,Hmmul 10 .\1urphy. Cul"n Tl. 85 Shl"". Bem ard 36
., Bloom. H~ rold 57 GIe.d:. )arM"i 88 .\1urphy. Roland :'62. 16]. 27J Smith . Ml rk S 65
Blum<: m hal, DOl,i d R. 43 , 38 112 114 Goldcnga)·. John 78 Smuh. ~:lher C 11 I
8onho..tf"r. l),emch 108 N d wn, Ri<:hard D . II I
Go:n.-.kI. Normiln 25 So. K""Ong·iOn 147
Ba' 8 . MircuS 32 8 NC""mlln. :-.turray 112. 113
G",nz. STanley .L n . 348 Sp.- i~f. E. A 99
Brown Roben "'cA~e 147 No::hoI so n ES,'- 33. 75 . IW. 143 18 1. 218. 266
Gun~el. H C<mMn 5. 87 SWI1T1 Iey. \'('tllard M. 33B
BT1Jq./l<"m~nn \Vah" , 22. ll. -4 1 59 . 77. 103. Niduch . Str>..n , 0;
HJCnd.J ·n N~buJu-. H Ro::hard 153 Tenic n Samuel IS. 52 .73. 139, 201. 269
130, 14 1 I S4 . 1 97 .11 4. 1~1 . 351
Bubo., Mani n 48 H a""",. P"uI 16:}. 29 1. 298. 299 Nicbuhr. Rcinho!d 31 9 T,lhch. l'aul ~ 2 5 1
Bultm31V1. RudoI f 10 H.rllnd Goc-OOn 328 N om s. K,a,hlttn 179 . 333 TO'<I·ner. Sibley }OS
BU"8~ n K 147 Ham Kk. Adoll 9 N orth. Robe" 1 18 Tnble . PhyUrs 11 70. 137
H~n<horne. M. Holm", 100 !'ioth ~llJt'n 29, :H Troduch. Elm' ;2
u h-m, Joh n 141 I-Icbcr R"ai nald 179 0 '<:0.->,. K,,,,hlttn /1.1 270. 10} Tse-'il Ma", u ,h1,l I 1
Chapman. Aud~ R no Henlry. Willia:"tl Eme<' 281
Chark\..-onh. }a....... H 4 OD.y. c;.,ol R. n VlfChtr. Wijhd m 10
Hetbn-g. '\1"-.11 16 Oddi. M'TgJ.t<:' S. 34. 350 35 1
CMob . B~... rd S. 9. 11. 16. 29. 57 132. 327. Heichd. Ab",h. ml~ 4. 20. 44 .61, 12 4 VOCR.,],n. Eric 12. ~OO. l77
H 7. H 7 OIlmiluraer. Bcn C 17. 173. 20 I . 1 15
150. H6 '"011 C l mpcnhau",n. H l ns 39
Ch,yws:o:"tl.joim n O lson . Denru, T. 17
Holfmann .)on..nn C h , 17 ~on R14. Gcrhard 18 . 20 28. 67. 106 ,110. 1-40.
Cluk. Cordon R. 6() 0..-..·<:11, Georgtc 89
o.'riker, .~Ii<:ii Su,kin 7J 173.222,263 266,290. 315
Cl~r=na. Ronald E ~O. 74 75 "l01 205. 262 . .lcniOn. Ph,hp PetIT 16
Ono. Rudoli 42. 216 Vricun. Th. C. ~l
191. 192 . 148 Johnsott . Eliu],."h 273.. 341
Con~. J~ m ... 147 Johnsott . who Timot~· 318 Parl er. S'",on B. 68 . IH 'I):.'ain,,·';8h,. Ccolf"')' 342
Conrad . Edlla r 291 . 295 Jnnn..,n. P H7 ParTick . Dale 56. 57 'IX'alllce Mlrk 1.'2
Craigi~. Pe.fi 1 7~ Paul. G.rrc' E. 52 Wcin icl d. M<.»he 102. IH, 206
K.uinlann, U..~'1ilo 281
Cr~nlhaw. ja meiO L. 279 PK\;.. $cOlI M . 306 W hite Ly nn Jr. 9 1
K~e. HOWMd C HO
C roauo.l x\"crino 147 Pffie1'<en . Joh.nn .... 4Y W hyb",)', R. :-:. 26~
K"oy"n , K.,hkcn H7
Cro~i Fr~ nk ,\ \ J r 50. 8 1, 9~ . 110 11~ Pfidue.leo G. n . 52 , 272 , 2S1 Wilde, Am()S 8
KinK. Phlhp.L IS2
Cro.~n. Jo hn Donumc 328 Philo of Aln."dria. 7 lX'i liimo!'l. Wi lham H . n8
K"'~'imc RoIi p, 1,4
Cullmann. Oscar 17. 319 Pol o rny, Petr 10 1);',lson, Gcn Id H. 2 I0
Knohl, I,,,,ei 116
Pol l ing-home . John 348 'IX'riShl. Ccorgtc Er"",' 29. 56. 138
Dart. Kad-le'}'n f'llile"" 129 29 1 Ka<; h Klau< !O5
P01JI~o;en. ;-';ie\;.200 \'(Iria:"l. ~ , T. 319. l52
Dn·idson. Roben ~ 1 100 K~h1fi. Lud"'lg 41
PritcNrd. L B. 4, . 142. 265
0" V.... x. Rohnd 119 Koyarn.a. KO<'-ll.:c I ~O Z imm .... h ,,",'ahMf 41 , 56 . 13 1. 265

...
 Index of Ancknt Sourc~ 357

26, 14, 167 89-46 . 49, 245 Qohdcth . ll11

INDEX OF ANCIENT SOURCES 12,7. 199
90 184
14,1 -11, 266 28 ,13, 267
l ..i.h, 291
16-.13, 166 38, 4; 90 1· 2. 1·8 $
1_;9. 124
10, 14.12,266 38,1'}, 281 90'9- 10, 284
U6-li. 119
c..... 153. l il tc-,.oeu<. I to, 811'18, 151 23.5, 105 38,4. 7, J76
39_16-30, 267
90 14·13.185
9304,113
1,24·15, 178, 214
1_1 1. 8 1.87 I ~j.t l 41.6~ 1-6, 119 9 _~_ 101, 175
1 Kings 1,25 ·16.146
41.S. 18~ 93,3,67
!.l, 8; IH9·20. 178 ,, 4. 119 9~ - 5 153 1,1S liS
4-19-34, 260 \lti:3·S, 97
1026 67_90 16..10 n 1:9, n o 9-7 14 _ ISO 5,1.11 , 100 ",.Im, H·4. 105
101390 16..12 UI S-IO, 116 I(H, 156 96:IO. 1 U
6_2-6, lOO 1, IS I.J6! 1 ,1-4. 199.208, 103
1, 310 17:7, 243 101 -3111 I 10) 6· 18 I ~ ; 96:1 3. 125
8 1-i;6, 163-
,~,

1, I• • , H1 -1 1, 45
98·7·991 116
1,13 IU7 19-24, n i . 140. 1$3 16, I IiI 12 _1 -31 , 162 8,6·12, 1.'i7 1-4. 57 1, 11·17.115
40161>.49 19 :1·4. 1 ~ 9 16,2- J , Ill) n_l. 103 99·' 120 S 1.7, 1)9
8, IO- I I, n 1-6 7.104 Im06· tl .61
6,5.0. 9 1 19 4·6 . 144 1i_26. 121. n;. ns n _5 -7.163 8,11 - tl, 16 ] 2,7, 108 103.8·9,59
515·16, 128
6, 11·13, 91 19.5. n li-lt.1I 8 14 I. n 8,21-40 168 8.3·6.91 6. I 17
9.76 19 _5·6, 100 104.2 4 169
17,14 125 I, 14·20, l06 8,2]·>5, H I 'H.4 . H 6, 1·7.289
9_ H 7, 81 IIH:8·11 101
1 96 1 2~ 18,1 -4. 124 17 U ·20, l07 63. 110, 226
8,2 ~, 206 8 , ~ . 110
110, lOB ~

lL1·9.99 19 !1. H 18,1.41 IS H9 8,27- 30.1 64 14,1-1, 155 65. 215

12-1.7, 101 19 16-101 1, oil 110' 4, In
U"; · 18 115 18 11.313 8,-4(;· 53 . 169 18, ltJ 6 oSb.1 41
11, 1.3. U 11 4, 178
19.19. ~6
12 ,1 . )05
12_6. )04
20H7.
llH. 66
I" 18 _2 2. 125
18_29. 125
19. 117
18. 15-22 , 185
18.15, 319
18,1 8, 19, 31
B,~6 · 51 . 168
8,52 -5; , 24 1
9_3, 10 1
19, 158
22-l .161
H -7. to, 196
115,17, 311
11 63· 4 3 14
7 ,1.17, 231
7,14. 10-4
9. HI
13 _2·17,1 0-4 10:5, 6(, 11 6 ~ . 49
191,121 210 8, 111 12,16·30. 1 ~9 H ,i·8.157 9_2·7, 104. 2;5
14, 64 1168·9 . 314
10:7, 51 19_18,115 2(;,5 -10 11 18, 69 , 18 1 14,8. 171 9.6. 131
14-18·10,63 20,1 8· 11. ltl 11611· 13, 58, 102
10_1l,126 26,5·9, 146 19,10, 18 1 9-7.66. HI
15, lOO, 150 119. 156
22:18 · 20.1 6 1 1 1 6, 118 29,1-30 ,20, 15 1 1l,l9-21.289 19,1 0, 1 12, 11 ; 1t};-19130
15_1-6, 104 I 19,81 , B2. H6
24: 1. 11, 140 , 25 . 15- 9, 40, 117 3(U6·1 3 ,I H I Kg •. 17.02 Kg-; 10, 3;,9, 2 12 105·14 liB
15,6,1 00 119,97· 100, :!Si
24:1· 4, 32 16,H -45, 33 3(),I 9-10, 14 4 167 37cl7- 18.3IS 115·6, 47, 226
15, 7·)1,99 24 .1·1.9, 11. 11 3 130. 4. 263
,H -9,67 37,3,·38,3 15 I 4-I3·14, li9
17. n . 76, 99, ISO 24 .H .IS5 Num~" 1 Kings 130.5·6. 24~
3U6.M 41 ,1, 4, ,6 14-27, ]01
17,1.63, U l4 7. 150 1_10. In 16,5-9, 131 01, I S7
34-10 ·12 tl 2 -H. 145 HI·] 107
17,5·6, 15,16,105 1415·20, 128 2_1·2 . 1()9 17,1l· 15, 185 131: 11.11,207
-H-17·2 4, 246 16_ 19, 117
18,1,15, t04 B_3 1 11 6 3, 113 Jrn" 17,II -14, H O In 11. 24 1
45-6 . 204 . HI 27, 1.179, .01
llH6·H.l 00 H 8 107,117 4 18·20 . •• 1,9, 171 17,18, 177 132 tl, 195
~6 - 1 . 3 .1 16 18,16, 231
18,19, 105 H940 .1 17,201 6 24 -26. 115 24 n 67 n~23 , 162, 16.'i . 2,n 117 201
46_4- 7. H6 28 ,11 , liS . 229
18,21·31, 174, UO 23". 119 10'\1. 11.14,10.2 1, 172 1415,1 49 2}, 16 _17,167 1396.39
4;;,4-5 . 195. 103 3(H5131 . 214
19 . 126 26:3 1·35, 11 0 1O,l9- 3U In
}ud~_74 I Chmnid~ 46,7. 11 , 102 Proverbs 3H 4 li S
n.ss 1'9, 42 •.-6. 107 I1 I 10-15-36 157
2b--3,6,177 H ___ 17, 20 1 46010. 145. 2 31 1:7, 263 ~5~, 279-
12_1.18. Hl4 1'9:401 112 12 11 4
7-I_B , In 14-1-1. 100 H . 2 IS 1:20 .3).269 -ao, 1·l, 193
3121·n 10 1'9:46 I U 1330-31, 119
I,19. n.270 -'0_ 1 (is

."'"""
19, 116 16-40.211 48, I·j, 102
n ·28. II 3 1:11·17. 8~. 107 IS 11 -14, I H
17,1 6 .2 18 490 14-1S.1 l S H·6 16--1 40_5 110, 119
n.29, SO 3 1:16·17_ 84 3.1 1- 11.277 -W-8 193
lXu '~'. 138 H - 19, n1 49- 14.3 15
.'iQ I9. 10-4 3 1:16, 83 4_5 -9 110 j 19-20. 268 4&18 .25, 159
101 6·17.161 1),12· 13 12 1 49,16.3 IS
3 1-1 7. " 46 H 3 n-):; 164 -'0,26, 297
&od", D3·H.147 18 ,11 -19. 101 50_10. liS
~1 159 6 20. H
1-1 4, H O 4_6.2" n , lH,2 17 4 1!t, 26--t -40,27, 292
2,14, 137
n 11·1 4 280 411- 14 155 . 254
8, 11 18 1. 1% 1 Chron,des
n _5·6 . n 7 6 .6, 11.167 -1-0,3 1, 149
n » n In 8,11. 18. 173 6. 10 1 8,27t1 41 ,1 ____UA, 26
3.1 .11. 83 415 -10 151 73 -17, liS
12 32·B, 318 11) it 60 S. H , 211
3_1. 14 4 29-31. 167 73 ,1 ]·16 31 6 8:1·2 1 169- 41 ,8. 105
n :'·II.I09 20 11-1 7,60 B , l19 9: 10. 161 H,I6 ·17, 194
36_ B 4 31,138 74,11. 17.1 78
131 4 . 15,58 14 _6 196 14,4, 121 14 6 167 4 301 8- 19• . 194
3- 7·8, 174 4-35·36. U9 78, 176, 197
13.17_ U S, 46 28, EO 23 ,1 8,22 1 n 17-H 2l. 165 43,15, 70
3 )). 15.50 3_2·3. 154 78,;8, 121
33 .1 8· 19, 1l~ 25,4, 121 13 21 , 25, 26 1 H,I , I96
320. 41 5_6 -2 1. 155 2 S.mu<l 81,68
33: 19 60. 150 2801 7-18, 232 14 1 1, 26 1 45,13,1 8
4,10_ 146 ;, H-26. 13 ~ 5,6· to, 195 84,1·1, 196
33·10 110 30-16,221 15·2·j,261 4S,l a , 1'17
4,12 32 6:4. 5. 66 ;; , 107 30 _IS, II I 87.3, 195
34:5 ,9.58 15·21·12 265 4'.6, 105
4,14.16.59 6. 4. 1, 145 7 . 31.76. 1%, 107 , 145 88,10· 11, 112
3H·9.59 lH. 21 1 26,17 164 5U·1, 10 1
6 ,1·9, 102, 163 6,2 1-H_ 1--16 7+17.109 ~9, 31, 67 , 109.145.
34:(i·8. 101, 263 J9.4,261 5 109·11.17&
6 ,1·~ . 140 7,1 ·6,175 EV>.,218
61,],63 . 84
6CZ.63
346· 7.150
H 14. 66
7_1. 103
,1 1 ·1 3 153
7-1 1.16, 13
714 . 16, 106
7_1 4.24 1
Nd,<-mi. h. J 18
'"
89_ 5-8, 64
B9_8·11., 165
30:1·9. 175
>0· 18·19.267
SI ,9_IO, lOO
52,5 · 7,2 17
36 14, 11 0 8_8.15 4 3),]6.29.161 51 ,7 ,194
6 1~· 2 ~ , 111 r 15, 10 3 175 7_15.3 ~ 1 89-12. 119
40, 15,2 41 S3,121
1 ~ ,13. 1'7 J 7 8.1 46 9-12 " , 60 .lob, 277 89- 14, 2 H
4034 , :18, Ill! ECCb.i'lI<'I, 182 54,8.61
15, 1· 18 ~ 4 , 9. 146. 150 11.106 7,17. 19, 278 89, 18, 166
-KI.H , n,lll 3:11 183 54,9-11, 59
lH·8. 178 81-3 137 111 · 14.:x:.6
,, --' -' ..'
19,25.1 7. 314
~-.
&9_15, 1 14
89:J8·51. 133
1213 , 276 54,9·10, 96, 196
 .---~
r

358
5:U.195 ' 1·31, '109 2 ~IO{ut,.,~ 7-28. 87 11-26, 1-1
55 + 5,295 11. 1 · ~ . 318 1121i,H
~I'!lhn.· U3,ll1
SHO·!I,296 lLB, H
~J 181 3:1-Il, 329
,S6.66 198 11 12 1
57.15. 47 I 9 184 5: 17, 5. Jl 12 _20,26$
1 23. U5 5:11 ·26 , 161
65 :1 ; ·25. ~j 15 -I , 8
H_-I 2~ ':21·H_ 27, 12
6H7·19. 29$
H. ;. 1118 5-48. 117 I ConnchmlS 5: P '. HI
~''''''ilh. 1Sl. ,'5 6.6, 183. 26-1 9:!i. 18 ; 7:19 ,31. HI
1 9 . 55. 2«1 6. ' . liB 11,1i 183 10. 11. 8
2.4-8.186 8,\ , 183 16:14340 1125,IS 6
2.7-8.69 11 1-'1. 18 4 16:16106 1$ 334
28. 260 11 1. 32 21:1; 191 1524,H1
3-4.1. , 2 ~ l ,g·961I U 16-28 156 I$·$ I·H, H'
.. ' ·2. l~ 119b. 4 1 1$5 1_51, 311
M.,l. H;
.. 19. 2-46 11 n. 1S$
1+11 , 319
1$ . $ ~ '5S , 316, 3 17

4.23·16 190 13 4·8 18(; 1558. JH •

l H · I5. l 1]
7. 1-5 , 1~1 13.4 . SO
I IS , 319, ~;] GaI.. i.~3: 1 0_ ISI
i ; .-\ SI 13 14, 316
~II , 290 U8 127
84.; 189
JOtI, 105 8'27· 30, 12 $oO·I ~, !95
8.8, 160
831 , 3 8, I ~O 6:16 I~ 15
15: 1. 112 .~U,H 9_1 -8, 340 6 _17 17
15, I S, 280 3: 1· 2, IS ~ 11:18·1 3, 3IS
17,5.8 .255 U , 182 Eph~s!~ns 5:1 1·31, 26 2
12:30· ,1. 15S
IS: U ,260 3:7·11, 2~9 13:14, 17 14:61 ,6) ,309 Colo..i~ n. 1,15·]0,
22: 15'10, 143 ':1·3, 1 8~
13,J~, 289 14:1 4, 150 272
5d 5b, I82
26, 191 ':21·H,61 lul c 1:] 2, 340 I lim(>lh)'2 11,1; 10
l ~ , 191 j:n·H,181 Ln ·7 5 , 98
• 3 Ut ·B. 4.191 6: 1. 182 ~-16 · 21 , 254 2lifT)(>lh)' 3 16.8
n. 311 7 d ~ ·IS ,l t l 10:17 , 37,11 5
H~b,c....'" 140
u.n.n ..,;or>S I, I • 2-1-1 ! ,2, 182 I H · ',146 8,S. 11 7,lU I
14-19--17,340 11:7, 178
LI1.2H Joruh, ;O~ , 311 2~_26, 8 U :l0 , 96
,-n·2l.IH .f 2· ;' >Q.I :;~_-H , 7
tlcbd . 118 ' 'Iic:ah I·", 105 J.«nc-s 2:1 8-26,100
John 1:1 ·3, 172
l.1ab, 119 ~ 1 ·~ .:208
1: 4, HiS 1 P"''''' Ll5. 114
Id , 129 6 ,1·8,1 47
1-9, 14 2+5 100
8--1 1, 119 6 · ~ , 117
U 4 110,1I1 ]-9. 124
10. 32 68,60. 106 Id 3:8, 1!2
10·-\ 111
H~kkuk 1 1,25, 279 3:16, n "'<It. 1
16.5'9-60 1 H
1 2·3, N7 14.6, 105 R.,....,buOtl . 11:9, 10 1
166!. 111
1 11,2 48 15.8, 110
Ilt15·l9. Id. 2.. 7
18.30.113
18 31·n, n o. N? '"
2 :20, 202
~",j-n · 16
] :12 -23 , 155
339

B 17·20.243 H~~II.i 26:; 303 loll H9

loll.32 , no 4:11, 105
1621 b. 13 1 lee",,"ah, J05 7 _38, 106
3616.28. 112 S:16· 39, 295
M.I.chi ;,2, 1O~
37. IB, 3 ' 7 17.14, 96
3, 3 304
371·] 4.1 !1 23:6.8, 318
372-1.17,1 41 -':':',\.dom 01 Solomon,
Rom..n. 1-7, 11 4
17.25-27.113
38·1-39·29, ,0. ""
7' 2~·27, 273
U, 11 3 •
;9.15.29, ll0 -4 10 ·15_ 99
~O·4 8 116 Wi.oom "I Ben S!r.>Ch, 4 ,13 ,17]

Dan ...11. 308

n",
'"
Slroch 1:11·30.261
1, Ill· 11. 2 S3
4, 16. 25 __ 100
5 1) · 2 1, 154
lD l · H., 314
7·9· 10110 6:3 7 , 158 841 ·13 9)_ I ~S, '122
7.11·18 190 n 3,~ 2~S S31 · 19, 309
7·11·14 510 1410·12, 168 835 · 39 335
;-11. 1.10 14 H , 257 9-t ·5, n
11 17, 130